PETA Discourages Octo-Mom From Buying a Pet

[salm]

Ah, so it turns out that different organisations go for different target audiences. Who would have thought.

[General Zod]

Ah, so it turns out that different organisations go for different target audiences. Who would have thought.

Which doesn't actually address my key point. How many supporters outside of the hardcore PETA base are actually implementing their ideas?

[salm]

How should i know? How many supporters of other organisations, for example Humane Society, are actually implementing their ideas? How many supporters of organisations like Transfair never buy coffee which comes from an exploited farmer somewhere in Ecuador?
You don´t have to implement all ideas in order to be a supporter and it is really not unimaginable that a significant number of PETA supporters implement at least some ideas like not eating meat, not buying fur and so on. I doubt that many people who give away money to and organisation don´t take them seriously.
A lot of things are too inconvenient to implement. This doesn´t mean that you don´t support the ideal of implementing it. For example LCD screens support the Congolesian civil war and therefore you shouldn´t buy LCDs containing materials from that country. But try to find something like that.

[General Zod]

How should i know? How many supporters of other organisations, for example Humane Society, are actually implementing their ideas? How many supporters of organisations like Transfair never buy coffee which comes from an exploited farmer somewhere in Ecuador?
You don´t have to implement all ideas in order to be a supporter and it is really not unimaginable that a significant number of PETA supporters implement at least some ideas like not eating meat, not buying fur and so on. I doubt that many people who give away money to and organisation don´t take them seriously.
A lot of things are too inconvenient to implement. This doesn´t mean that you don´t support the ideal of implementing it. For example LCD screens support the Congolesian civil war and therefore you shouldn´t buy LCDs containing materials from that country. But try to find something like that.

If you can't measure how well their ideas are being implemented then how can you reasonably gauge whether or not they're being taken seriously without appealing to subjective criteria? Membership alone hardly seems like a good metric. By your logic people take the Onion seriously because they have a massive readership base.

[salm]

How should i know? How many supporters of other organisations, for example Humane Society, are actually implementing their ideas? How many supporters of organisations like Transfair never buy coffee which comes from an exploited farmer somewhere in Ecuador?
You don´t have to implement all ideas in order to be a supporter and it is really not unimaginable that a significant number of PETA supporters implement at least some ideas like not eating meat, not buying fur and so on. I doubt that many people who give away money to and organisation don´t take them seriously.
A lot of things are too inconvenient to implement. This doesn´t mean that you don´t support the ideal of implementing it. For example LCD screens support the Congolesian civil war and therefore you shouldn´t buy LCDs containing materials from that country. But try to find something like that.

If you can't measure how well their ideas are being implemented then how can you reasonably gauge whether or not they're being taken seriously without appealing to subjective criteria? Membership alone hardly seems like a good metric. By your logic people take the Onion seriously because they have a massive readership base.

You´re comparing apples with oranges.
There are different types of "taking something seriously". The meaning we´re using in this thread is obviously the one where you could replace "take their ideas seriously" with "to respect their ideas".
The other meaning you are using in the Onion example is that people would take the articles seriously meaning that they´d believe the articles were true.
However, if we use the same definition of "seriously" on the Onion as the one on PETA, then people actually do take the Onion seriously. They respect what the Onion is doing (good humor) and are therefore dedicating time to reading it.

[General Zod]

You´re comparing apples with oranges.
There are different types of "taking something seriously". The meaning we´re using in this thread is obviously the one where you could replace "take their ideas seriously" with "to respect their ideas".

They are the largest animals rights organisation world wide with the largest supporter base world wide. If that´s not proof for being taken seriously, then what is?

That's rather the point. You were arguing that having a large supporter base means they're being taken seriously. Which I don't feel is suitable criteria for organizations like PETA, whose goals involve getting people to change the way they do things. Goal-based organizations who don't accomplish their goals (getting people to implement their ideas) don't tend to get taken seriously in the grand scheme of things.

[salm]

You´re comparing apples with oranges.
There are different types of "taking something seriously". The meaning we´re using in this thread is obviously the one where you could replace "take their ideas seriously" with "to respect their ideas".

They are the largest animals rights organisation world wide with the largest supporter base world wide. If that´s not proof for being taken seriously, then what is?

That's rather the point. You were arguing that having a large supporter base means they're being taken seriously. Which I don't feel is suitable criteria for organizations like PETA, whose goals involve getting people to change the way they do things. Goal-based organizations who don't accomplish their goals (getting people to implement their ideas) don't tend to get taken seriously in the grand scheme of things.

We´re going round in circles. I adressed that two posts ago.

[General Zod]

We´re going round in circles. I adressed that two posts ago.

So basically your metric for whether or not they're taken seriously is entirely subjective?

[Isolder74]

Ok, i´ll repeat myself. That is simply not true. People do take them seriously. Many probably presicely because of their populist advertisments. They are the largest animals rights organisation world wide with the largest supporter base world wide. If that´s not proof for being taken seriously, then what is?

IIRC, they also believe that having pets is "enslaving" them. They run shelters that kill pets on grand scale to "free" them.

Then they go and picket outside of animal shelters berating them for killing animals. They also harass the appointed head of the LA Animal Control Department. When you are preaching a message it helps to appear to live by your principles.

Ok, i´ll repeat myself. That is simply not true. People do take them seriously. Many probably presicely because of their populist advertisments. They are the largest animals rights organisation world wide with the largest supporter base world wide. If that´s not proof for being taken seriously, then what is?

PETA isn't the largest animal organization. BOTH the Humane Society and the ASPCA have larger memberships. Both of the following are actually of putting a stop to animal cruelly by going out and SAVING abused animals.

[Superman]

Isn't telling octomom to avoid getting a pet sort of like telling someone who has terminal cancer, Lou Gehrig's Disease, schizophrenia, rabies, measles, diabetes, AIDS, and leprosy to avoid eating an extra donut because it isn't healthy? The woman is clearly insane, and those poor kids don't have much of a chance. Shouldn't there be an activist group somewhere willing to try and somehow save those kids?

I'm an animal lover myself, but shit, I think groups like PETA might need to reexamine their priorities.

[salm]

We´re going round in circles. I adressed that two posts ago.

So basically your metric for whether or not they're taken seriously is entirely subjective?

Care to explain how you´re reading that into my argument?

[General Zod]

Care to explain how you´re reading that into my argument?

Unless I missed it somewhere the only criteria you seem to have for whether an organization is taken seriously is by their number of supporters. I don't see how that's a very good metric of anything beyond appealing to popularity.

[Samuel]

Care to explain how you´re reading that into my argument?

Unless I missed it somewhere the only criteria you seem to have for whether an organization is taken seriously is by their number of supporters. I don't see how that's a very good metric of anything beyond appealing to popularity.

Appeal to popularity applies to logical arguments. Arguing that a movement is taken seriously because a large number of people support it is not an example of the fallacy because membership is normally associated with support.

[salm]

Care to explain how you´re reading that into my argument?

Unless I missed it somewhere the only criteria you seem to have for whether an organization is taken seriously is by their number of supporters. I don't see how that's a very good metric of anything beyond appealing to popularity.

See Samuels post.

Also, could you back up your claim that a significant number of PETAs members do not implement a reasonable amount of PETAs ideas.

[General Zod]

Appeal to popularity applies to logical arguments. Arguing that a movement is taken seriously because a large number of people support it is not an example of the fallacy because membership is normally associated with support.

If someone claims to support something, then not practicing what they preach is generally not a very good sign that they take it seriously.

[General Zod]

See Samuels post.

Also, could you back up your claim that a significant number of PETAs members do not implement a reasonable amount of PETAs ideas.

Because that's totally not shifting the burden of proof at all.

[salm]

See Samuels post.

Also, could you back up your claim that a significant number of PETAs members do not implement a reasonable amount of PETAs ideas.

Because that's totally not shifting the burden of proof at all.

You´re the one shifting the burden of proof. You´re the one who claimed that PETA members do not implement PETA ideas.

[General Zod]

You´re the one shifting the burden of proof. You´re the one who claimed that PETA members do not implement PETA ideas.

Liar. I asked you to show that PETA's ideas were being successfully implemented, which is not the same thing. But hey, I'll do your work for you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... rters.html

But now Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - is itself on the receiving end of angry words over its own treatment of animals after it emerged that the organisation put down 96 per cent of the animals handed into its American headquarters. Of 2,216 animals taken to its premises in Norfolk, Virginia, last year, 2,124 were put to sleep - almost six per day. Homes were found for just seven.

[salm]

You´re the one shifting the burden of proof. You´re the one who claimed that PETA members do not implement PETA ideas.

Liar. I asked you to show that PETA's ideas were being successfully implemented, which is not the same thing. But hey, I'll do your work for you.

So? I answered that question. I told you that there´s no data available to prove this to a hundered percent. After that you stated that they do not implement the ideas. That´s a classic argument from ignorance.
Now since being a member doesn´t convince you that the member actually implements PETAs ideas, what would convince you?

I also explained how by your logic we have to assume that almost no members of any organisations implement the organisations ideas because there´s no data showing that they explicitly do. I gave you examples above. Keywords: Humane Society and Transfair.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... rters.html

But now Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - is itself on the receiving end of angry words over its own treatment of animals after it emerged that the organisation put down 96 per cent of the animals handed into its American headquarters. Of 2,216 animals taken to its premises in Norfolk, Virginia, last year, 2,124 were put to sleep - almost six per day. Homes were found for just seven.

So, what´s that supposed to prove? Just because the headquarters kill pets they think they can´t find anybody to care for doesn´t mean that a signifcant number of the 2 Million PETA members doesn´t support and implement PETAs ideas. As mentioned before, you don´t have to support ALL ideas of an organisation to support an organisation in general.

Also, i don´t know enough about particular PETA action in the article but it looks like this could be a one of those cases i´ve been talking about for which PETA could and should be critisized.

[General Zod]

So? I answered that question. I told you that there´s no data available to prove this to a hundered percent. After that you stated that they do not implement the ideas. That´s a classic argument from ignorance.

Please, keep lying. I never said they did not implement the ideas and I never said it had to be proven 100%. Did you even bother Googling to see if statistics regarding PETA's goals existed?

Now since being a member doesn´t convince you that the member actually implements PETAs ideas, what would convince you?

If you want to be taken seriously as an organization you have to have audit trails. That means some way of showing you're practicing what you preach. Surely it can't be that hard to find.

I also explained how by your logic we have to assume that almost no members of any organisations implement the organisations ideas because there´s no data showing that they explicitly do. I gave you examples above. Keywords: Humane Society and Transfair.

What kind of organization doesn't bother keeping track of their goals for each quarter? Oh yeah, failed ones.

So, what´s that supposed to prove? Just because the headquarters kill pets they think they can´t find anybody to care for doesn´t mean that a signifcant number of the 2 Million PETA members doesn´t support and implement PETAs ideas. As mentioned before, you don´t have to support ALL ideas of an organisation to support an organisation in general.

They couldn't find owners for more than 7 pets? Really? I have a hard time swallowing that, and if anything it shows that PETA doesn't exactly practice what it preaches. Which is, you know, one of the key components of being taken seriously.

Also, i don´t know enough about particular PETA action in the article but it looks like this could be a one of those cases i´ve been talking about for which PETA could and should be critisized.

Yet I've repeatedly stated that the article in the OP wasn't newsworthy. So what's the problem?

[salm]

So? I answered that question. I told you that there´s no data available to prove this to a hundered percent. After that you stated that they do not implement the ideas. That´s a classic argument from ignorance.

Please, keep lying. I never said they did not implement the ideas and I never said it had to be proven 100%. Did you even bother Googling to see if statistics regarding PETA's goals existed?

Projecting eh? It´s clear that you´re the liar:

If someone claims to support something, then not practicing what they preach is generally not a very good sign that they take it seriously.

As for the 100%. I never said that you said it had to be proven 100%. I introduced that to avoid somebody bringing up an incident in which PETA member didn´t follow all PETA ideas.

Now since being a member doesn´t convince you that the member actually implements PETAs ideas, what would convince you?

If you want to be taken seriously as an organization you have to have audit trails. That means some way of showing you're practicing what you preach. Surely it can't be that hard to find.

Audit trails of people giving up meat? Not buying animal products from animals living in bad conditions? Not buying fur? How would you monitor that?

I also explained how by your logic we have to assume that almost no members of any organisations implement the organisations ideas because there´s no data showing that they explicitly do. I gave you examples above. Keywords: Humane Society and Transfair.

What kind of organization doesn't bother keeping track of their goals for each quarter? Oh yeah, failed ones.

What kind of organization keeps track of how their members personally behave? You see, a lot of PETAs ideas involve personal behavior like the ones mentioned above.

So, what´s that supposed to prove? Just because the headquarters kill pets they think they can´t find anybody to care for doesn´t mean that a signifcant number of the 2 Million PETA members doesn´t support and implement PETAs ideas. As mentioned before, you don´t have to support ALL ideas of an organisation to support an organisation in general.

They couldn't find owners for more than 7 pets? Really? I have a hard time swallowing that, and if anything it shows that PETA doesn't exactly practice what it preaches. Which is, you know, one of the key components of being taken seriously.

Still doesn´t have anything to do with our argument. Our current argument is about people taking PETA seriously not about PETA being good or bad or their managment being good examples.

Also, i don´t know enough about particular PETA action in the article but it looks like this could be a one of those cases i´ve been talking about for which PETA could and should be critisized.

Yet I've repeatedly stated that the article in the OP wasn't newsworthy. So what's the problem?

See above.

[General Zod]

Projecting eh? It´s clear that you´re the liar:

Then point out where I lied instead of throwing out vague accusations.

As for the 100%. I never said that you said it had to be proven 100%. I introduced that to avoid somebody bringing up an incident in which PETA member didn´t follow all PETA ideas.

Because my post was asking to show that they followed all of them and. . .oh wait. No it didn't.

Audit trails of people giving up meat? Not buying animal products from animals living in bad conditions? Not buying fur? How would you monitor that?

Tracking consumption? If consumerism of the products PETA is against has gone down and people who would normally buy these things have reduced their spending on them, then taking polls to monitor this is one such method. This isn't exactly a difficult task, politicians do it all the time. If they can't measure how successful their social programs are then they're utterly worthless.

What kind of organization keeps track of how their members personally behave? You see, a lot of PETAs ideas involve personal behavior like the ones mentioned above.

Are their members incapable of volunteering to record their behavioral data? Or do you think statistics involving social trends are completely made up?

Still doesn´t have anything to do with our argument. Our current argument is about people taking PETA seriously not about PETA being good or bad or their managment being good examples.

Then my point completely sailed over your head.