We're a stable and progressive society who doesn't need fur and can afford to treat animals humanely. There's nothing wrong with protesting and asking them to do so. I don't like most of what PETA does but saying they're priorities are wrong because they're not shooting videos of starving Africans is just a bad argument. You could apply that same argument to every organization doing good just because it's not "enough good." "I mean come on, people want to clothe the homeless? There's starving children out there! Why don't they have their get their priorities straight?" You don't think that's a stupid thing to say?

Ok, my bad. Yes, there is, but I thought we were still talking about humans here. You seemed to be making it out that there's some cutoff where I think humans should be killed off if they're below it. Except for strange circumstances, all humans are capable of complex emotions like love and hatred.

Animals, whose IQs are so far below functioning handicapped people that it isn't even funny, cannot feel complex emotions like we can.

And in those strange circumstances? Your argument is way too circumstantial.

This thread is making me unhappy and I'm tired of arguing with people who think that certain belief systems make them 'idiots' so I'm going to go ride my new unicorn off into the distance. My new unicorn who I will treat with respect and not torture nor eat!

I target PETA specifically just because it's animals, and i can't relate.

I'm not going to argue against anyone against pollution, or deforestation. Something that serves the common good, and i know peta is involved partly in things like this.

But just look at Lucifer's example. Its literally that some of them value animal life OVER human, and that is what i can't understand.

It's also unfortunate that PETA seems to get a lot more celebrity and mass media promotion then those other organizations who are just "shooting videos of Africans"

OK. This is the part where I look most like a ****. Let's take Terry Schaivo (however you spell it). She was a vegetable, and doctors had determined she had next-to-no brain function. If all she's doing is making her family members' lives awkward and running up their medical bills, then I would be of the opinion that there would be nothing wrong with ending her life.

There is a bit of a grey area with cases like extremely dysfunctional handicapped people, where you're not sure what they feel. That would really be at the family's discretion.

PETA gets more attention in general because that's how our media works. When Oprah built her school it was all over the news and when PETA has Pamela Anderson going naked it gets press too. It's not something to look down on, it's just PETA being savvy.

Also Lucifer's example is fairly difficult to look at; at face value I'd say the woman is stupid but when you look at what the situation most likely was I can sort of understand where's she coming from (sort of.) There's a difference between blowing up a dog and a religious fanatic who thinks what he's doing is going to cause him to go to the heaven of seventy-two virgins. But that's not the point anyway. I'd say yes valuing a human life over an animal's life is stupid. If I see a baby about to die and a puppy about to die who am I going to save? The baby but if I can save both then why not?

Yeah but a dog has more brain function than someone who's brain dead.

In my mind, still not enough functionality to qualify as "important", in the sense we're talking about.

So then what's the point when something becomes "important" enough for you and how is that an objective point of importance?

Something's life is of value when it loves and can be loved. Animals have got the latter going for them, but I don't believe they have the first. Mentally handicapped people (except perhaps the most extreme cases) have both.