Slashdot Mirror

Cuttle.

'Cuddle fish' invokes this insane concept. And you don't want to go there.

Really, you don't.

and, "hustling to bring a more medicine-like morality to computer science".

Fucking lol!
I could go on all day with a list of links and reasons why that ethos is CUSTOMER/PUBLIC FACING ONLY and complete and utter bullshit.

We have no fucking chance if that is the direction they want to head; obfuscating the AI testing to the public with a fucking ethos.

Do they really use vegan sugar, though?

Yes, don't eat meat or fish.

Eating meat causes destruction to the environment due to the many bad effects of raising animals. Two of the many bad effects: 1) Misuse of antibiotics, and 2) Keeping animals extremely close to each other develops new viruses and bacterial diseases.

Eating fish is causing depopulation of the oceans, with many, many bad and unknown results.

Links:

Harmful Environmental Effects Of Livestock Production On The Planet 'Increasingly Serious,' Says Panel (Feb. 22, 2007)

The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production (Dec. 16, 2013) Quote: "Livestock production may have a bigger impact on the planet than anything else."

How does eating meat harm the environment? (No date.) One of the many interesting ideas: "Raising animals for food consumes more than half of all water used in the U.S. It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat but only 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat."

5 Ways Factory Farming is Killing the Environment (Sept. 16, 2017) The 5: 1) Air Pollution, 2) Deforestation, 3) Water Pollution, 4) Monocultures, 5) Fossil Fuels and Carbon Emissions.

11 Facts About Factory Farms and the Environment

I stopped eating meat and fish in 2008. Avoiding eating flesh seems to have contributed to my good health. It is, of course, complicated to make new adjustments to eating habits. Those adjustments were learned during childhood.

Not to mention all the insects killed by having vehicles crash into them. They're animals too!

Don't get PETA started on that too

sea kitten

Sure enough, they have National Hot Dog day, where they serve veggie hot dogs in Washington wearing bikinis.

PETA

There is currently no reason to believe that plants experience pain, devoid as they are of central nervous systems, nerve endings, and brains.

They do NOT need to take care of 30,000 animals year-round. Most adoption centers place their animals as quickly as possible. They use their networks of contacts, TV and radio, the internet, the newspapers, to place animals.

The local SPCA takes in 14,000 animals a year, and places 90% of them. They're not the only shelter in the area either. Now when you consider that PETA takes in just over that nation-wide, there's a problem.

So, the facts say otherwise. PETA is there for the benefit of PETA, first, last, whatever.

Well according to the source:

The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters). Most of the animals we house, rescue, find homes for, or put out of their misery come from miserable conditions, which often lead to successful prosecution and the banning of animal abusers from ever owning or abusing animals again.

So according to PETA the reason for their outsized euthanasia rate is their population of incoming animals is highly atypical.

Now you can assume they're lying and misleading, and the most extreme of the pro animal rights groups is also killing animals for fun, or you can consider the fact they're euthanizing those animals for a very good reason.

I don't understand why you're so convinced that these people who are so zealous they'll work for next to nothing are also killing animals for no cause.

More nuance than you might think?

I'll take this protest about as seriously as I would from any organization who proclaimed forevermore that all fish be called Sea Kittens . I shit you not.

Indeed.

Except fish are slimy, scaly and make weird mouth shapes when you pull them out of the water to look at them.

They're sea kittens!

OMG. That's stunning. That needs to be shared with friends . . .

Except fish are slimy, scaly and make weird mouth shapes when you pull them out of the water to look at them. They look pretty awkward.

Oh no you don't. Fish are cute!

Except fish are slimy, scaly and make weird mouth shapes when you pull them out of the water to look at them.

They're sea kittens!

Oh, and god forbid you go see animals on safari. That's exploitation as well.

Who says that?

There are always people who will be butt-hurt about any human interaction with animals. “The elephant-back safari industry is one of greedy and willing participants in a practice that allows elephants to be subjected to training that is wrong, cruel and exploitative. They pay no attention to the psychological and social needs of these highly intelligent creatures,”, etc, etc. Someone will *always* find a reason to complain about something.

Look at PETA's perspective on wildlife parks and zoos. Can you explain to me how you can support safaris and zoos while decrying cetacean captivity on ethical grounds?

While still holding the view that cetaceans shouldn't be kept in captivity for little more than entertainment purposes? Pretty well, actually.

Your basic cow has been domesticated for centuries. Living on a farm in a herd and getting turned into burgers is what a cow is these days. It's not like they're highly intelligent or highly social animals. Release a cow into the wild, and it wouldn't have the capacity to understand that it was anywhere other than on a bigger farm.

Awesome, so you would be fine with this if we managed to breed stupid dolphins incapable of surviving in the wild? I think there are a few genetic sequences that can be inserted that reliably cause diminished intellect/cortical underdevelopment. I guess we can sell dolphin burgers too, if that makes it more ethical in your mind.

Furthermore, I presume you are aware, of course, that the rejoinder to your argument in favor of exploiting cows is that you are enabling their exploitation by buying the products resulting from their suffering. If no one bought pizza, shoe leather, etc, then there would be no demand and no one would cause the cows to be exploited.

I like pizza. I eat it without guilt. I am going to swim with dolphins without guilt, too. I'm logically consistent like that.

Oh, and god forbid you go see animals on safari. That's exploitation as well.

Who says that?

There are always people who will be butt-hurt about any human interaction with animals. “The elephant-back safari industry is one of greedy and willing participants in a practice that allows elephants to be subjected to training that is wrong, cruel and exploitative. They pay no attention to the psychological and social needs of these highly intelligent creatures,”, etc, etc. Someone will *always* find a reason to complain about something.

Look at PETA's perspective on wildlife parks and zoos. Can you explain to me how you can support safaris and zoos while decrying cetacean captivity on ethical grounds?

While still holding the view that cetaceans shouldn't be kept in captivity for little more than entertainment purposes? Pretty well, actually.

Your basic cow has been domesticated for centuries. Living on a farm in a herd and getting turned into burgers is what a cow is these days. It's not like they're highly intelligent or highly social animals. Release a cow into the wild, and it wouldn't have the capacity to understand that it was anywhere other than on a bigger farm.

Awesome, so you would be fine with this if we managed to breed stupid dolphins incapable of surviving in the wild? I think there are a few genetic sequences that can be inserted that reliably cause diminished intellect/cortical underdevelopment. I guess we can sell dolphin burgers too, if that makes it more ethical in your mind.

Furthermore, I presume you are aware, of course, that the rejoinder to your argument in favor of exploiting cows is that you are enabling their exploitation by buying the products resulting from their suffering. If no one bought pizza, shoe leather, etc, then there would be no demand and no one would cause the cows to be exploited.

I like pizza. I eat it without guilt. I am going to swim with dolphins without guilt, too. I'm logically consistent like that.

Indeed. Truth is stranger than fiction.

No, otherwise they wouldn't go on massive slaughter-fests. An animal PETA gets its hands on has an 84% chance of getting murdered within 24 hours.

To be fair to them they don't like it and only do it so that they can accept animals rejected by other shelters. I have mixed feelings on this, on one hand I think they should turn more away - but on the other hand if the alternative is the animals being dumped by the roadside or worse then maybe accepting and euthenising is best

PETA takes the stance that people are animals too

Preliminary investigation suggests me that it isn't so. In the sense that no literate person can contradict the fact that humans are animals, because humans really are. But they don't seem to insist at all to use the word "animal" where they include humans. E.g. blog is a bit more explicit in the difference, but various other places in PETA website don't use the word animal in the way you suggest.

While scientifically incorrect, the word animal still excludes humans in colloquial discourse - even PETA's. So them taking any stance on human abortion doesn't make any sense at all.

Could have something to do with PETA killing more animals than just about any so called "animal shelter" out there.

I could find confirmation that PETA does euthanize, but it sounds like they do not portray themselves as a regular animal shelter but as a shelter of last resort.

This is what PETA had to say about the situation. Seems reasonable to me.
http://www.peta.org/blog/euthanize/

PETA's reasoning is that they want to end the ownership of animals as pets, and euthanasia is preferred over adoption.

That in particular seems like a gross mis-characterization of their philosophy.
From the above link:

The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters).
...
As long as animals are still purposely bred and people arenâ(TM)t spaying and neutering their companions, open-admission animal shelters and organizations like PETA must do society's dirty work. Euthanasia is not a solution to overpopulation but rather a tragic necessity given the present crisis.

Also the way they put down huge numbers of animals, which on its own might be defensible, but then kinda-sorta argue that there's a moral equivalence between humans and animals.

Michael Clarke Duncan was a Vegetarian and he died at 54.

http://www.peta.org/features/Michael-Clarke-Duncan.aspx

From whales to sea kittens, eating stuff from the ocean is now completely absurd. I'm sticking with cows.. yummy, yummy dead cow. Surely no one could object to eating a cow! - HEX

You mean the poor, adorably corpulent grass kitten? That's just as bad as eating the poultry kittens that lay eggs!

From whales to sea kittens, eating stuff from the ocean is now completely absurd. I'm sticking with cows.. yummy, yummy dead cow. Surely no one could object to eating a cow! - HEX

I'm okay with PETA. Yes, they are mildly annoying, but they more than make up for it in sheer amusement and very compelling PSA pictures.

I see. So the plan is to make 99% of people exposed to their campaign think they're absolutely nuts

If you only go by what Forbes says, yes. If you actually read what they say, no.

No one writes articles saying, say, that McDonalds encourages children to steal with the Hamburglar mascot. Yet they want to say a cartoon campaign by Peta is absolutely serious and literal. Anyway, Peta can handle it either way.

http://www.peta.org/about/faq/Why-does-PETA-use-controversial-tactics.aspx PETAâ(TM)s mission is to get the animal rights message out to as many people as possible. Unlike our oppositionâ"which is mostly composed of wealthy industries and corporationsâ"PETA must rely largely on free "advertising" through media coverage. We will do extraordinary things to get the word out about animal cruelty because we have learned from experience that the media, sadly, do not consider the terrible facts about animal suffering alone interesting enough to cover. It is sometimes necessary to shake people up in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and, of course, action. Thus, we try to make our actions colorful and controversial, thereby grabbing headlines around the world and spreading the message of kindness to animals to thousandsâ"sometimes millionsâ"of people. This approach has proved amazingly successful: In the two decades since PETA was founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the country, with more than 3 million members and supporters worldwide. We have also had major groundbreaking successes, such as bringing about the first-ever cruelty conviction against an animal experimenter in the case of the now-famous Silver Spring Monkeys; orchestrating the first-ever raid on an agricultural facility (a factory farm in upstate New York that raised ducks for foie gras under horribly cruel conditions); and convincing more than 200 cosmetics companies to permanently abandon animal tests.

I personally don't agree with their ultimate aims (don't use any animals for anything), but they're right in pointing out a lot of unnecessary cruelty in agriculture.

No, this is sufficient.

Here, start at the beginning. Then go bleach your brain to get rid of the images.

...is going to have a field day...

Are they though? I mean, sure, they want people to treat animals well (by PETA standards) while they're alive, and they definitely don't like it when people turn live animals into dead animals, but doing weird stuff with an animal carcass that was already dead when the guy got it? I'm not sure it fits in with their general focus...

ADDENDUM: Okay, after typing that, I had the idea to google for "peta position on eating roadkill". Yes, they actually have one. I'm thinking the catcopter may actually be okay by PETA standards....

Which leads to what I fear, that people like those in PETA will start a "machine rights" movement, where it may be illegal for me to shut off a machine I built myself!

You're afraid of these people? I spend more time lying awake worrying about my Furby.

So the internet is now leaking cats into the red sea?

It's a strange world in which we live.

Oh but they will be replaced by an anti-synthetics group.

At least it will be a different ringing in the ears.

Not to worry. PETA will always be a PITA.

Now it's Sea Kittens. (Otherwise known as fish).

You can't make this stuff up! Or at least I can't.

Enoy Sea Kittens

People for the Ethical Treatment of Imaginary Animals. I guess you could argue that real/imaginary isn't specified so PETA includes both, but umm.. yeah..

What about the Frog Suit?

Interesting Link: http://features.peta.org/mario-kills-tanooki/

As I noted in my submission yesterday, this stems from their anger at Chinese fur farms that often have tanuki. At first it seems like this directed at Mario and Nintendo however I think they're merely using the popularity of Mario to get this message out about the cruelty of Chinese fur farms.

You know...if you already do all the hard work and essentially make it profitable. But hey, a million is a million: http://www.peta.org/features/In-Vitro-Meat-Contest.aspx

They don't eat the cute animals, but fishes aren't cute.

Well PETA would disagree with you.

It gets better: rennet, the enzyme used to make cheese, is extracted from these slaughtered calves' stomachs. So if you're against the production of milk due to it causing the slaughter of newborn bovine then stop eating cheese, too. I'll assume that if you're the type to do this, though, that you've already avoided veal on principle.

As for me, I drink milk, I eat cheese, and I avoid veal only because it costs too much. I'm fine with "exploiting" cows for their milk, and insemination to encourage lactation is good animal husbandry. Good tasting meat and well cultured cheese being a byproduct is a benefit in my opinion, not a fault. As long as the animals aren't treated cruelly during life I don't have an ethical or moral objection to the practice. Feel free to join PETA if you disagree, just don't be surprised if I stand with the farmers when you come to "liberate" their livestock.

selectright-clickgooglefor...

OMFG, you're not kidding, are you...?

"Batshit insane" just got a new definition.

But where else will I find such entertaining web games? :D

But won't someone think of the sea kittens!

Welcome to the Internet. There is no reason to remain curious about these questions. Just go find out the answer.

The sun expanding would make the earth hotter too. actually, the anthropogenic global warming crowd occasionally brings up that livestock farming is hands-down the biggest cause of global warming. Because of the emissions from the animals, mind you.

I remember when they told us it was driving cars...

The sun expanding would make the earth hotter too. actually, the anthropogenic global warming crowd occasionally brings up that livestock farming is hands-down the biggest cause of global warming. Because of the emissions from the animals, mind you.

I remember when they told us it was driving cars...

Reading comments like these, generously dissing PETA, you'd think the organization was actually set up by people who hate animals and whose only aim is to get them tortured and killed. Seriously, you guys are way off.

Everytime there's a news item related in some way to PETA, anywhere on the web, you can be sure there's a delegation of haters who are going to make these preposterous posts that get more and more implausible as you read: first PETA is described as inefficient idiots, then as liars inclined to cruelty until they are no more than a bunch of sadists and extremists. You would have people believe they eat pups meat or whatnot.

I find this totally bewildering. It's misinformation at its best; they can't just be disliked or disregarded, lies have to be spread about them in a propaganda fashion. Clearly, none of you know what PETA does for animals. All you have is this deep-rooted prejudice made of hate and ignorance, fueled by things you've read here and there online from other people who knew no better and had a grudge against them. It's just a long chain of slanders without actual knowledge of the facts or the people involved. For starters, PETA is certainly NOT against adoptions. Straight from the mouth of their president, Ingrid Newkirk (source):

"If anyone has a good home, love, and respect to offer, we beg them: Go to a shelter and take one or two animals home. The problem is that few people do that, choosing instead to go to a breeder or a pet shop and not "fixing" their dogs and cats, which contributes to the high euthanasia rate that animal shelters face."

Yes, they have to make tough decisions like euthanizing animals, because there's overpopulation, they explain it. They also explain that no-kill shelters, that someone mentioned, simply don't work (in short, they reject animals they don't find suitable for adoption or store them in cage until further notice; the lucky ones are sent to normal shelters that do perform euthanasia).

Dogs, cats and others pets are sexually mature within a year, have short gestation periods and easily half a dozen babies in one litter. Do you realize how many animals can be born in a few months time? What do you do with them? Release them all in the wild? That's why PETA has many campaigns to raise awareness on the importance of neutering and spaying, among other things.

I know some people who work for PETA. They're brave and kind, have to deal with a lot of foul-mouthed idiots on a daily basis. The only thing you could blame PETA for is to like animals too much. But this is a hardly a fault in their line of work.

As for the way they spend their funds, think of it this way: they have enough money to do both all the stupid things you complained about (ads, parody games, etc) AND all the other important things, for the animals. How did they get so much money ? Through donations and endorsement. How did they get so much support? By being talked about and known by everyone. How did they achieve that? By doing all the stupid things you complained about. Circle closed.

Reading comments like these, generously dissing PETA, you'd think the organization was actually set up by people who hate animals and whose only aim is to get them tortured and killed. Seriously, you guys are way off.

Everytime there's a news item related in some way to PETA, anywhere on the web, you can be sure there's a delegation of haters who are going to make these preposterous posts that get more and more implausible as you read: first PETA is described as inefficient idiots, then as liars inclined to cruelty until they are no more than a bunch of sadists and extremists. You would have people believe they eat pups meat or whatnot.

I find this totally bewildering. It's misinformation at its best; they can't just be disliked or disregarded, lies have to be spread about them in a propaganda fashion. Clearly, none of you know what PETA does for animals. All you have is this deep-rooted prejudice made of hate and ignorance, fueled by things you've read here and there online from other people who knew no better and had a grudge against them. It's just a long chain of slanders without actual knowledge of the facts or the people involved. For starters, PETA is certainly NOT against adoptions. Straight from the mouth of their president, Ingrid Newkirk (source):

"If anyone has a good home, love, and respect to offer, we beg them: Go to a shelter and take one or two animals home. The problem is that few people do that, choosing instead to go to a breeder or a pet shop and not "fixing" their dogs and cats, which contributes to the high euthanasia rate that animal shelters face."

Yes, they have to make tough decisions like euthanizing animals, because there's overpopulation, they explain it. They also explain that no-kill shelters, that someone mentioned, simply don't work (in short, they reject animals they don't find suitable for adoption or store them in cage until further notice; the lucky ones are sent to normal shelters that do perform euthanasia).

Dogs, cats and others pets are sexually mature within a year, have short gestation periods and easily half a dozen babies in one litter. Do you realize how many animals can be born in a few months time? What do you do with them? Release them all in the wild? That's why PETA has many campaigns to raise awareness on the importance of neutering and spaying, among other things.

I know some people who work for PETA. They're brave and kind, have to deal with a lot of foul-mouthed idiots on a daily basis. The only thing you could blame PETA for is to like animals too much. But this is a hardly a fault in their line of work.

As for the way they spend their funds, think of it this way: they have enough money to do both all the stupid things you complained about (ads, parody games, etc) AND all the other important things, for the animals. How did they get so much money ? Through donations and endorsement. How did they get so much support? By being talked about and known by everyone. How did they achieve that? By doing all the stupid things you complained about. Circle closed.

From the 'meet the characters' page:
http://features.peta.org/super-meat-boy-parody/meet.aspx

"Meat Boy is a vengeful, bloody cube of rotting animal flesh. And he smells. After a short-lived fling with Bandage Girl (sympathy dates, really), he became enraged when he was dumped for the tasty and satisfying Tofu Boy. Once Bandage Girl slept with Tofu Boy and saw all that he had to offer, it was bye-bye beef, hello bean curd. Enraged by his loss and lack of ability to compete with the badass that is Tofu Boy, Meat Boy snapped and kidnapped Bandage Girl—because if he can't have her, no one will."

Does anyone else think it's a bit wrong if it's aimed at children?

I don't think they're as sophisticated as humans, but having similar albeit basic human emotions isn't really a stretch. Those very driving forces keep them alive. It's not about that though. The problem with deciding that things don't have the same level of understanding or emotions, and therefore it's okay to do whatever we want to them, is that that would also apply to anything that lacks capacity, including children, and that doesn't make sense.

Forcing animals to mate is for a reason that isn't as selfish as having sex with them though.

I do however think it's insane when people attribute human emotions to boiled or microwaved lobsters though. The crusade against eating lobsters makes peta look like a bunch of radical pansies.

"marine biologists ... do agree that there really is no humane way to kill these sensitive and unusual animals." "The best way to help put an end to this cruelty is to switch to a vegetarian diet." --peta

I have a 2yr old and he thinks Train set is Sentient. So I don't really think this is any kind of breakthrough.

I remember feeling guilt about picking an unblemished apple over a bruised one. I must have developed my empathy skills fairly quickly though; only a few months later I was already trying to create a new species of flightless insects.

It seems that the membership of certain organisations are still in the infantile stages though.