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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.