PETA wants military animal training stopped

Animal-rights activists want the United States to stop using animals as subjects to help train its military, calling the medical and trauma exercises cruel and a disservice to the troops.

[Say the Truth]

"Alternative methods to the use of animals must be considered "

Here's one; let the PETA wackos volunteer to take a bullet for the team. Let's see some committment.

[Animal Control]

PETA is one of the organizations responsible for the massive animal overpopulation problem in the U.S.

Millions of unwanted pets are killed EVERY YEAR.

No kill shelters should be outlawed and animal ovners should be fined for every litter their pets produce.

End animal overpopulation NOW!

[Van_Bowhunts]

WHY ANIMALS HAVE NO RIGHTS

"A right, properly understood, is a claim, or potential claim, that one party may exercise against another. The target against whom such a claim may be registered can be a single person, a group, a community, or (perhaps) all humankind. The content of rights claims also varies greatly: repayment of loans, nondiscrimination by employers, noninterference by the state, and so on.

To comprehend any genuine right fully, therefore, we must know who holds the right, against whom it is held, and to what it is a right.

The differing targets, contents, and sources of rights, and their inevitable conflict, together weave a tangled web. Notwithstanding all such complications, this much is clear about rights in general: they are in every case claims, or potential claims, within a community of moral agents.

Rights arise, and can be intelligibly defended, only among beings who actually do, or can, make moral claims against one another. Whatever else rights may be, therefore, they are necessarily human; their possessors are persons, human beings.

Animals (that is, nonhuman animals, the ordinary sense of that word) lack this capacity for free moral judgment. They are not beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral claims. Animals therefore have no rights, and they can have none. This is the core of the argument about the alleged rights of animals. The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked.

Humans have such moral capabilities. They are in this sense self-legislative, are members of communities governed by moral rules, and do possess rights. Animals do not have such moral capacities. They are not morally self-legislative, cannot possibly be members of a truly moral community, and therefore cannot possess rights. In conducting research on animal subjects, therefore, we do not violate their rights, because they have none to violate.

Genuinely moral acts have an internal as well as an external dimension. Thus, in law, an act can be criminal only when the guilty deed, the actus reus, is done with a guilty mind, mens rea. No animal can ever commit a crime; bringing animals to criminal trial is the mark of primitive ignorance. The claims of moral right are similarly inapplicable to them. Does a lion have a right to eat a baby zebra? Does a baby zebra have a right not to be eaten? Such questions, mistakenly invoking the concept of right where it does not belong, do not make good sense. Those who condemn biomedical research because it violates "animal rights" commit the same blunder.

TRUE STORY!
PUT EM' DOWN!

[Barnabas]

Say the Truth wrote:

"Alternative methods to the use of animals must be considered "
Here's one; let the PETA wackos volunteer to take a bullet for the team. Let's see some committment.

Hey there is an idea go team....

[Barnabas]

Animal Control wrote:

PETA is one of the organizations responsible for the massive animal overpopulation problem in the U.S.
Millions of unwanted pets are killed EVERY YEAR.
No kill shelters should be outlawed and animal ovners should be fined for every litter their pets produce.
End animal overpopulation NOW!

yup yup yup yup yup

[IMO]

PETA is primnarily an organization of whinny west coast queers who need to get a job, and then they won't have so much time and energy to worry about this stupid shit.,

[Barnabas]

IMO wrote:

PETA is primnarily an organization of whinny west coast queers who need to get a job, and then they won't have so much time and energy to worry about this stupid shit.,

AMEN!!!!!!!

[SERT]

IMO wrote:

PETA is primnarily an organization of whinny west coast queers who need to get a job, and then they won't have so much time and energy to worry about this stupid shit.,

PETA is out of Virginia, retard. Don't confuse your queers with ours.

[Casey]

Say the Truth wrote:

"Alternative methods to the use of animals must be considered "
Here's one; let the PETA wackos volunteer to take a bullet for the team. Let's see some committment.

haha..agreed.

what Peta dosen't understand is, hey if NO one eats animals, then eventually there gonna over populate and eat us.

[Birdzilla]

PETA is a bunch of brainless jerks hooked onto their own rediclous notion of animals and even while their using the word COMPASSION in their stuoud ads and protests they show absolutly no comassion for ill people or for the 95% of the animals they have adopted and killed and still manage to get a whole bunch of hollyweirdos like ALEC BALDWIN and PAMELA ANDERSON to do stupid ads for them

[Medicinebow]

PETA is asking the military to stop using animals?

That's odd coming from a group that kills thousands of animals every year.

[texasmiss2000]

Animal Control wrote:

No kill shelters should be outlawed and animal ovners should be fined for every litter their pets produce.
End animal overpopulation NOW!

I agree that animal owners should be fined for their litters.
However, i dont understand WHY you want to outlaw no kill shelters??
Animals on death row only have about 3days to live before they die. Here in El paso, our animal control facility is aweful!! There have been countless pets put to death for no reason. Many of these pets belong to people and the jerks never bothered to try contacting owners.

If you really want to control over pet population, starting coming down on back yard breeder, puppy mills,(that would be those jackass that put ads in the paper and internet) and put a stop to pet shops that sell puppies.

[Sarge]

One of PETA's latest tirades was against McDonalds Chicken McNuggets because of the treatment of the chickens they buy. Lets see there is a war in Irag, a war in Afghan, NK has threaten to lauch missles at SK and Japan, Iran is developing Nukes, the U.S. unemployment is at an all time high, our National Debt is the largest in history and getting ready to go higher, our economy is in the basement, we have the bird flu, the westnile virus, and the swine flu, and these ignorant moronic PETA people are worried about the treatment of CHICKENS!!!! Get a life you freakin PETA idiots.

[texasmiss2000]

Sarge wrote:

One of PETA's latest tirades was against McDonalds Chicken McNuggets because of the treatment of the chickens they buy. Lets see there is a war in Irag, a war in Afghan, NK has threaten to lauch missles at SK and Japan, Iran is developing Nukes, the U.S. unemployment is at an all time high, our National Debt is the largest in history and getting ready to go higher, our economy is in the basement, we have the bird flu, the westnile virus, and the swine flu, and these ignorant moronic PETA people are worried about the treatment of CHICKENS!!!! Get a life you freakin PETA idiots.

PETA figures, that all the problems you listed are due to the fact that we eat meat!

make a salad and all your problems will go away!!..lol

[Birdzilla]

PETA JERKS back in WORLD WAR I a pigeon named CHER AMI is predited with saving the lives of several hundred america dough boys even after he had been wounded and in WW II another pigeon named G.I. JOE is credited with saving these british solders so if you PETA jerks think all animals should be set free then you have been watching BORN FREE and FREE WILLIE too many times and PETA IS FOR IDIOTS

[WJM]

Where do these PETA people come from? I must say that it appears that they (PETA advocates/workers) are no more intelligent than any of the animals they want others to place over human lives.

[Heather]

Van_Bowhunts wrote:

WHY ANIMALS HAVE NO RIGHTS
...Animals (that is, nonhuman animals, the ordinary sense of that word) lack this capacity for free moral judgment. They are not beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral claims. Animals therefore have no rights, and they can have none. This is the core of the argument about the alleged rights of animals. The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked.
Humans have such moral capabilities. They are in this sense self-legislative, are members of communities governed by moral rules, and do possess rights. Animals do not have such moral capacities. They are not morally self-legislative, cannot possibly be members of a truly moral community, and therefore cannot possess rights. In conducting research on animal subjects, therefore, we do not violate their rights, because they have none to violate.
Genuinely moral acts have an internal as well as an external dimension. Thus, in law, an act can be criminal only when the guilty deed, the actus reus, is done with a guilty mind, mens rea. No animal can ever commit a crime; bringing animals to criminal trial is the mark of primitive ignorance. The claims of moral right are similarly inapplicable to them. Does a lion have a right to eat a baby zebra? Does a baby zebra have a right not to be eaten? Such questions, mistakenly invoking the concept of right where it does not belong, do not make good sense. Those who condemn biomedical research because it violates "animal rights" commit the same blunder.
TRUE STORY!
PUT EM' DOWN!

All you seem to have done is defined legality and presented it as an argument. People who are "animal rights" activists seek to change legislation to include the interests of animals - hence the battle for animals rights. So I don't think they need the present definitions pointing out to them.

If somebody is campaigning for something to be legally recognised, it's hardly an argument to say to the campaigner that what they're fighting for can never happen as that is not recognised by law.
Because that it precisely what they're fighting for!

"Does a lion have a right to eat a baby zebra?" is - as you say - treating the animal as if it has "moral capiabilities", but people who fight for animal rights are not fighting for them to be included in human right...these rights are different and involve re-definition of what it is to have basic rights!

Many would agree with you and would therefore assert that it should be 'animal welfare' that is at issue. Peta have differentiated between the two in their FAQs.
Either way, most people who are in defence of animals would argue that anything which puts an animal through suffering or distress for human ends should be criminal, regardless of rights.

[Birdzilla]

PETA are a bunch of stupid annoying hippy freaks not quite there and far out in the middle of town town stupid city they cant find their way out