Slashdot Mirror
PETA Is Not Happy That Google Used a Camel To Get a Desert "StreetView"
First time accepted submitter flopwich writes Google used a camel-mounted camera to get a 'street view' of a stretch of desert in the United Arab Emirates. PETA's director Ingrid E. Newkirk is upset about it, saying they should have used jeeps. "These days, jeeps are in common use in the desert, as are light planes and even dune buggies, and satellite images could also easily have been taken instead," she said. "(Google) should leave camels out of its activites altogether."
It's Ingrid Newkirk. What did you expect?
If Google had used a dolphin, I would say that the PETA would have a point.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
PETA is never happy. Ever.
Then again, they are a bunch of hypocrites that kill healthy animals that need new homes because they'd rather see them dead than as pets.
So yeah....PETA can stuff it.
PETA don't like animals having any relationship with humans. They put down the vast majority of dogs they recieve rather than re-home them because they think that's more "humane" (and it's cheaper..)
They would rather you killed the camel and used a jeep to travel across the desert.
They are scum, and they won't be happy until there are no animals left on planet Earth except mankind.
PETA needs to focus on real issues. It's not like those cameras were tremendous burdens, or that the camels were abused.
Google feeds their employees dead cows and chickens on a regular basis. They should have used plants. These days, quinoa is in common use in foodservice, as are beans and eggplants, and lentils could also have been easily used instead. Google should leave beef out of its activities altogether.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
When did "News for nerds, stuff that matters" disappear from the Slashdot homepage?
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
I hope that everyone gets a good chuckle out of this story and then moves on. Just like the Westboro Baptist Church, PETA keeps pulling stunts designed to incense rational people and get free advertising (I know that the point of WBC is litigation rather than advertising, but I still see parallels). Remember how PETA protested the game "Super Meat Boy" with a "Super Tofu Boy" parody? Don't fall for the trap - keep your emotions in check - smile & keep scrolling.
So they prefer that Google use large vehicles that consume fossil fuel, emit greenhouse gases and may damage fragile desert ecosystem with their tires? Way to go PETA. I hope a few environmental groups take you on on this one.
It's not so much that they're scum, it's that they mistake "ethical" with "imaginary line-in-the-sand absolutist moral law based". Ethics are difficult and nuanced, and sometimes raise questions you don't have the answer to. Those sorts of things aren't especially convenient for large groups united for the sake of ad campaigns and political lobbying.
If you actually asked the question of "what does ethical corporate usage of beasts of burden look like?", you'd end up with a very complicated answer.
You'll see this symptom with every political group that's actually genuinely grassroots and purpose oriented.
if google had done that, they'd be criticized for not caring about carbon emissions
Aren't the PETA folks big environmentalists too?
In a word, no. PETA doesn't concern itself with topics of sustainability and preservation of the planet. It prides itself on a hyper-sensationalized message about how humans are evil and can literally do no right to animals.
It really is unfortunate. Where there is room for a decent, effective animal rights group to help solve problems of animal abuse and cruel treatment, PETA has decided to completely occupy the space with its lunatic and extreme ideals, berating or silencing anyone that dares oppose their just and righteous mission.
Wow, just wow. "Instead of doing minimal harm to a few pack animals that were specifically bred for this job, you should have used a vehicle that destroys the desert ecosystem because we have no idea how animals actually work."
There is nothing even that consistent with their thought process. They are closer to a terrorist group looking for reasons to justify violence. At least at the top.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Remember? Rule #1 of the internet? PETA wants attention, positive or negative. Just ignore them. Please.
Do you have ESP?
No, they're pretty consistent that they just don't want people to affect animals. Which is impossible. But they insist on it anyways.
And they're not terrorists. Stupid, yes. ALF-like-terrorism, no.
Please think of the bacteria!
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Animal Abuse - Sure a no brainier.
Fur Coats - I can see that we don't need Fur Coats anymore as there is a big selection of cheaper and effective other sources for coats. (Fur as in they need to kill the animal)
Food from babies - Veal and Lamb. Tasty but the animal is so cute I loose my appetite when I think of it that way.
Food meats - Sure people are happy being vegetarian. I tried it myself my body hated me for it. (I will need to add leather although it isn't food, but a product from the animal from the processing of the rest of the food)
Anything made from animal - Wool, Egg, Milk products come to mind. Now we are going to the crazy zone. These animals although are in sub-human conditions are still much better off then if they were out in the wild fending for themselves. Efforts should be towards improving their conditions not stopping their usefulness.
Pets and worker animals - These are like family to us, and are treated extremely well often much better then most people who care for them live. Pets like Dogs have evolved (threw breading) to really like being around humans and helping us out. To say the dogs should be wild is actually making go against their nature.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"they're pretty consistent that they just don't want people to affect animals" - I'd have to say outright killing +90% of the animals they take in for "adoption" is affecting those animals, wouldn't you? They're scum.
Sadly, they see that as consistent with their philosophy. In that putting those dogs in loving homes would be exposing the dogs to human contact for years versus a quick, one-time human contact that ensures that dog won't have to deal with humans ever again.
When people's beliefs get this twisted, there's no reasoning with them. Just back off slowly and keep a good distance from them.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I was skeptical about the claim that PETA euthanizes so many animals, but studies say it's true, and may even understate the situation.
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.
This is not ethical treatment of animals. There's no "nuance" here. Putting the vast majority of healthy pets to death rather than trying to find homes for them is cruel and highly unusual.
Of course, with $35 million in annual revenue, who can afford to take care of the animals, what with paying all the salaries for the people working for PETA to exploit them? PETA's job is to raise funds to pay PETA salaries. The animals are just raw material to be exploited, then tossed in a dumpster
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Shhhhh! Don't ruin the head-in-the-clouds holier-than-thou bubble that they try to live in! That's like trying to tell a vegan that anywhere from tens to thousands (depending on which study you look at) of animals are killed per hectare in the commercial production of vegetables! Not to mention the native species that go extinct due to native vegetation being felled to make room for their kale smoothie ingredients. Tillers aren't too kind to field mice, worms, or bugs they encounter. But PETA (and vegans) only really give a damn about animals they find "cute."
In the particular case of dogs, I'd argue that having contact with humans is their natural way of living. Over ten thousand years of contact with humans has shaped the species. There is no way you can consider any dog to be not exposed to humans: it's in their genes.
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation [huffingtonpost.com] found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.
Are you kidding me, Barbara???
Yow!!! As someone who still has nightmares about the two pets (dogs) I have had to have euthanized, one with Osteosarcoma at 17 years old in 2009, and the other with Cronic Renal Failure and Adrenal Gland Cancer at age 13 just last July, something like that makes me insane...
At the risk of getting flamed for "Godwin-ing", I just thought they were a way-over-the-top animal protection group; not the ones who had the "Final Solution" to animal cruelty...
They remind me of a certain person I know who, rather than give away a pair of cats she could no longer keep, had them euthanized. Her logic was along the lines of: No one could love them, or give them a better home than me, so they're better off dead.
In terms of what they do with their funding, i.e., pay out very nice salaries, PETA is no different from other charities. The biggest beneficiaries of most charities are the executives of that charity.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped