SORRY FOR THE HI-JACKING
Is that supposed to be an argument for horse-carriages? Sounds more like an argument against keeping animals in a city. Also, is there a difference between the amount of time these horses spend on the streets and pets that get taken to the park for a few hours a day?
How extreme does it get? How likely are horses to catch a heat-stroke? Are the horses properly protected from rain/snow?
Do they get properly taken care of? How well is the caretaking controlled? Are the punishments severe enough to deter abuse/negligence? Are the punishments actually prosecuted? Do horse-carriage drivers have the proper education to take care of a horse?
How often is it consequence? What are the alternatives? Are they good enough? Are horse-carriages necessary?
So do I. I don't think it's right to transfer suffering. Especially if the research is done for diseases that could have been prevented by a better diet/lifestyle. Is it justifiable to have animals suffer so a chronic smoker can be cured of the cancer he/she caused themselves? If I was in such a situation I might choose to have animals suffer for the sake of my cure, however that would be out of my personal weakness and I'd be terribly wrong. It'd be my disease, no one elses.
PETA sometimes seem like a bunch of nutcases. Some people say society's crazy people are shaped by society itself.
When you see that every animal is treated and sold as property/a product I perfectly understand that they're as extreme as they are. It's always "there are better ways" but every second countless animals suffer terribly and needlessly.
They don't exactly have the luxury of time. And how well are these "better ways" supported? Is something
really being done? Do you realistically see the problems getting significantly better? An aggressive approach seems like the proper response nowadays. I don't like it because a lot of people simply don't know better or are too weak to change their ways. But the same can be said about murderers and rapists. A nuanced, peaceful way of conduct is mostly just called for when it concerns animal suffering.
Is everything PETA does laughable? Do you actually know the organization well or are you just going by select articles and adverts?
You used the word fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary) the practise of following very strictly the basic rules and teachings of any religion. Do you mean that they're radicals? Definition of radical (that fits this context) 'in favour of thorough and complete political or social change'. If wiktionary isn't wrong it comes from the Latin word rādīcālis meaning 'of or pertaining to the root'. Our current treatment comes from a direct line starting in the Stone Age. Sure, it's diverged significantly in some ways but for the most part it's the same attitude applied. I don't see attacking the problem at the root as a negative thing. The animal industry needs a complete and thorough change. It needs to be burned to the ground and started anew. Figuratively of course... although sometimes literally
. That's why PETA is the way they are. They're extreme because the circumstances are extreme. It's never about just one thing, it's about everything, about all the animals, and the opposition you see at every turn. The only reason I don't like PETA is because they provoke the reaction you're currently demonstrating. Sometimes you need to bend to society's rules, sometimes society needs to be bent to your rules.
There's also the option of not testing. Or only testing on willing participants. Your word choice also clouds the discussion. It's not 'saving mice' it's 'not subjecting animals that have nothing to do with our suffering to pain so we don't have to feel it'. It's also rather easy to give the thumbs up for animal testing when you don't actually have to see it. It's ironic you bring up the Nazis because I'll be damned if animal labs don't conjure images of concentration camps and the work of Hitler's "doctors". Of course the end justifies the means if you're not the one being subjected to the means, you don't have to inflict the means and you don't have to see the means being inflicted. Pain, stress and the right to live and not be used aren't exclusive to humans.
