PETA and the Groundhog

[Debbie Meier]

I like this one in regards to ALF...right of PETA.org's facts page. Isn't justifying the illegal actions an off handed way of supporting them?

 

“How can you justify the millions of dollars of property damage caused by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?”

 

Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are examples of movements in which people broke the law in order to answer to a higher morality. The ALF, which is simply the name adopted by people who act illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. ALF members burn empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF “raids” have given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have otherwise been discovered or believed and have resulted in criminal charges’ being filed against laboratories for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. Often, ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs, and some abusive laboratories have been permanently shut down as a result.

[Mark Billadeau]

Here's a test for everyone on the power of the media.

 

How often do you believe the media when they say a recent study said _______ has been shown to cause disease _______ ? Do you believe the headline?

 

 

Now go read: Epidemiology and pay particular attention to the 3rd paragraph.

[Eileen Stein]

Not sure where people have been, but PETA supports ALF, ELF, among others.

 

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21

 

PETA says they don't support ALF. I'm not surprised you don't believe their unsupported word -- I wouldn't either -- but then why believe this unsupported piece published by the Center for Consumer Freedom, which was formed by the food and restaurant industries to oppose PETA and other advocates of vegetarianism? Wouldn't you be more likely to get accurate information from a neutral source?

 

True, no public support for the group, only financial support for individuals within the group helping them cover legal fees incurred while defending themselves for their terrorist activities. In other words, PETA financially supports individual AR terrorists but not AR terrorists groups.

The ALF is considered a terrorist group, whose purpose is to bring about social and political change through the use of force and violence.

 

Source: Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI

 

Interesting that in this very comprehensive discussion of ALF, ELF and other extremist "eco-terrorist" organizations there is no mention of PETA -- not even as providing support to them.

[Guest echoica]

Here's a test for everyone on the power of the media.

 

How often do you believe the media when they say a recent study said _______ has been shown to cause disease _______ ? Do you believe the headline?

Now go read: Epidemiology and pay particular attention to the 3rd paragraph.

 

it's a bit unfair to expect otherwise from the general public (i mean, seriously, where are they going to get this info?)...not everyone has access to journals nor the ability to decifer stats or understand the way in which science is written in these publications. unless of course people only read abstracts but i doubt anyone truly science-minded would agree that is any better either - wouldn't we love if everyone could read published work page for page and form their own critical analysis/opinion of how sound the science really is? but in reality a great # of people just don't have the level of education...i'm sorry if that sounds harsh...but statistically it is true. what i'm saying is it's not just ignorance...it's ability. and we must do our best to educate...

[Mark Billadeau]

I do not doubt that peta does not supply money to the organization; however, peta even states they have supplied money to members of some of these terrorist organizations for legal defense against charges stemming from their terrorist activities. While not illegal or truly supporting terrorist activities it is certainly walking on the line.

 

example: Support of ALF Activist

[Mark Billadeau]

it's a bit unfair to expect otherwise from the general public (i mean, seriously, where are they going to get this info?)...not everyone has access to journals nor the ability to decifer stats or understand the way in which science is written in these publications. unless of course people only read abstracts but i doubt anyone truly science-minded would agree that is any better either - wouldn't we love if everyone could read published work page for page and form their own critical analysis/opinion of how sound the science really is? but in reality a great # of people just don't have the level of education...i'm sorry if that sounds harsh...but statistically it is true. what i'm saying is it's not just ignorance...it's ability. and we must do our best to educate...

How hard is it for:

1. the media to state "Epidemiological studies can never prove causation"

2. the general public to understand "Epidemiological studies can never prove causation"

 

Both groups have had this information provided to them at least once. Unfortunately, it's human nature to retain catchy or sensational short statements. An entire industry thrives on this fact and news outlets successfully use it to their benefit.

[Tommy Coyote]

ok...i can't help myself

 

so those animals should have been left there to rot and suffer...neglected without required medical and behavioral interventions?...no loving homes to go to...some living in deplorable shelter conditions who are ill-equipped to handle the intake #s...or on route to a shelter...living chained up outside and neglected by their owners with no medical care for illness and no resources to even provide for a humane escape from their tortured existence...or be gassed! *gasp*

 

no-kill is a wonderful idea - but not feasible until PET populations are under control. someone has to do the "dirty work". and something to think about: in the SAME year that the 2000+ UNWANTED, NEGLECTED animals were euthanized (which is far less than what is euthanized DAILY at shelters in NA without PETAs assistance), over 10,000 were spayed and neutered through PETAs no-cost or low-cost clinics. preventing 100,000+ more unwanted animals...

Actually, we have at least 2 no kill shelters in my area that do wonderful things. One is in Parkville. They have huge public support and most of the really wealthy people in Parkville support the shelter bigtime - have all kinds of benefits to raise money for it. Lots of people in Parkville volunteer at the shelter.

 

There is another one over the Kansas line but in the Kansas City metro area. And they do great things there too. They are also supported by private money. They find foster homes and have spay and neuter clinics. One of my clients is very active active with that group. She always has fosters in her house. And she gives big bucks to help support the clinic and keep it open.

 

I would never support doing what PETA did. To lie and tell the shelter they were taking the animals to another shelter and then to euthanize them before they even made it out of the parking lot. And then just throw the bodies into a nearby gargage bin. For God's sake.

 

And this is probably pretty petty. But then there is Pam Anderson - bigtime spokesperson for PETA - at the grocery store buying a huge bag of Beneful for her own dogs. Does she know so little about animal care that she feeds her own dogs one of the worst foods on the market? It's not like she can't afford something better.

[Guest echoica]

How hard is it for:

1. the media to state "Epidemiological studies can never prove causation"

2. the general public to understand "Epidemiological studies can never prove causation"

 

Both groups have had this information provided to them at least once. Unfortunately, it's human nature to retain catchy or sensational short statements. An entire industry thrives on this fact and news outlets successfully use it to their benefit.

 

again, i would argue that anyone without a university education is going to have a hard time understanding. this is the kind of stuff discussed in research methods/statistics courses. without that kind of background...i'm sorry...i just don't think it is that simple for people to get...especially when a good % of people don't even know what the word means let alone the true implications of causation (vs. correlation for example)! (that is, putting aside the people that really even care)

[Guest echoica]

...They have huge public support and most of the really wealthy people in Parkville support the shelter bigtime...

 

There is another one over the Kansas line but in the Kansas City metro area. And they do great things there too. They are also supported by private money...

 

I wish they all were this lucky

 

And this is probably pretty petty. But then there is Pam Anderson - bigtime spokesperson for PETA - at the grocery store buying a huge bag of Beneful for her own dogs. Does she know so little about animal care that she feeds her own dogs one of the worst foods on the market? It's not like she can't afford something better.

 

you're right ...that is pretty petty :D

[Eileen Stein]

I'm not saying it wasn't a good thing. I guess I wasn't clear that I was using the point to illustrate that human nature is to look for the easy answer or the most obvious cause-effect relationship, when in fact most cause-effect relationships aren't quite so clear cut.

 

Well, yes, I realize that was your point. But my point was that the anecdote you reported cuts against a blanket condemnation of media treatment of science questions. This guy made an insightful point, which might reach people and make them think, and if that does happen, it will be because they saw a little TV piece on the autism-vaccine controversy.

 

 

Yes, the editorial board of the Lancet is at least partially at fault for not speaking up sooner to caution that the published study shouldn't be taken as gospel, but I also think the fault lies with our collective social desire for easy answers to medical issues. I have not kept a close watch on autism research, but ISTM that there have been at least a few voices in the wilderness crying "wait!" all along. It's just that a good number of people chose not to listen to those voices. And I think while it may be true that few accepted it as certainty (I don't know where that statistic could from anyway), I think enough people believed there may be a connection that they avoided vaccines that perhaps they shouldn't have.

 

True, but I just can't see that as a fault of media coverage of science. The fact is that science proceeds through uncertainty. There will be periods during which a new theory is posited but not yet satisfactorily proven, and is resisted and debunked by the scientific establishment. It may come to be confirmed and widely accepted (see, e.g., Barry Marshall and the bacterial cause of ulcers), or it may come to be disproved and rejected (see, e.g., Andrew Wakefield and the vaccination "cause" of autism). In the meantime, people have to make decisions in a climate of uncertainty. I can see where parents might decide that the risk of their kids' getting mumps and measles if they don't vaccinate is preferable to the possible, unquantifiable risk of getting autism if they do vaccinate. I don't really understand why the media are to blame for this state of affairs.

 

Just personal experience among friends who are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from me. Average folks who do take the ads at face value. I'm not claiming that the ads swayed anyone, but rather that the folks who were already on a particular side would just parrot what they heard in the ads, never bothering to look any deeper to find how true (or not) they were. This happens for supporters of both political parties and speaks to my point that people will take what's fed to them in an easy sound bite and repeat that as fact without ever actually *looking* to see if it is true. That is, that many people seem to lack a healthy dose of skepticism and just want information fed to them.

 

Well, I totally agree that people readily adopt an ad or sound bite that confirms their existing beliefs. That is certainly an observable phenomenon, but I don't think it's the same as believing the ad. A good example would be the ads that said Michelle Obama ordered lobster and caviar at a certain hotel on a certain date. People pointed to this as a reason why the Obamas were elitist and shouldn't be trusted, etc. When it was categorically disproved, the same people went on to cite other arguments without missing a beat. (I could probably point to examples from the other side of the political spectrum, but this one sticks in my mind.) It isn't that they believed the account, really -- it was just ammunition in a cause they were already committed to. But to point this out is just railing against human nature, it seems to me. It doesn't convince me that it's bad for the media to try to present facts -- including scientific findings -- in a balanced if limited way. And I think that is generally what they do.

[Mark Billadeau]

again, i would argue that anyone without a university education is going to have a hard time understanding.

So if I told you that statistics show personal computer ownership and autism both increased at the same time therefore there is a link between fetus exposure to pc power emissions and autism you would believe that autism was caused by pcs?

[Eileen Stein]

How hard is it for:

1. the media to state "Epidemiological studies can never prove causation"

2. the general public to understand "Epidemiological studies can never prove causation"

 

Hey, not hard at all. The tobacco industry stated this for many, many, many, many years, and the media often quoted them. Whether people benefited from those statements is debatable.

[Mark Billadeau]

It seems to me that many people want to believe sensational stories and make no effort to question what they are told by the media. It's is print or on the TV; therefore, it must be true.

 

 

BTW, many of us have taken this thread WAAAAY off topic; myself included. This is my last post here.

[Guest echoica]

So if I told you that statistics show personal computer ownership and autism both increased at the same time therefore there is a link between fetus exposure to pc power emissions and autism you would believe that autism was caused by pcs?

 

i have a university education and that sentence was even too convoluted for me...i had to read it a few times to see what you were even getting at! hehe