PETA is pissed at Google because of a camel

[Yoinkerman]

Eh, there's a big difference between medical testing of animals (though it can be a grey area to some degree) and Chanel testing to see if their new fragrance is toxic, or testing new pesticide concoctions for profit.  Needlessly killing and maiming animals because money is abhorrent.

 

The problem I got with them are that most of the things they do are harmful, not good. Just because you do some good deeds does not mean you are good. I got a perfect example but I'd rather not invoke Godwin.

Even if you ignore the really crazy people, the foundation of PETA is still crazy. Banning animal testing would be devastating. Sorry, but a rat is not as valuable as a human life, even though that's what PETA is trying to push. If my house was burning I'd go and save my nephew first, not my dogs even though I love them more than I love any other animals. By PETA standards, I should value them equally.

It's not some nice apple tree with a few bad apples on it. The entire tree is rotten to the core, with most of the fruits  on it being pure poison.

[LAwLz]

Eh, there's a big difference between medical testing of animals (though it can be a grey area to some degree) and Chanel testing to see if their new fragrance is toxic, or testing new pesticide concoctions for profit.  Needlessly killing and maiming animals because money is abhorrent.

I don't see how it's a gray area to test things like medicine on animals. Do you have any idea how many lives that have been saved because of medicines developed with the help of animals?

PETA don't separate between different kinds of animal testing. I am against animal cruelty as well, unless it can make the lives of us humans better. I would rather have a dozen rats suffer than thousands of humans. PETA would rather we do human testing.

[Yoinkerman]

Not every bit of medicine saves lives, or is anything more than a front for a drug company to make more zillions of dollars.  It's grey enough.  I would like to see less animal testing and more human testing simply because humans can consent.  Destroying the lives of other living creatures because they can't do anything about it isn't very good either.

 

Nowhere am I trying to say necessarily testing on animals is a bad thing, but the question of necessity is one that doesn't seem to be explored enough, due to ease, cost, availability, red tape, etc.

 

I don't see how it's a gray area to test things like medicine on animals. Do you have any idea how many lives that have been saved because of medicines developed with the help of animals?

PETA don't separate between different kinds of animal testing. I am against animal cruelty as well, unless it can make the lives of us humans better. I would rather have a dozen rats suffer than thousands of humans. PETA would rather we do human testing.

[LAwLz]

Not every bit of medicine saves lives, or is anything more than a front for a drug company to make more zillions of dollars.  It's grey enough.  I would like to see less animal testing and more human testing simply because humans can consent.  Destroying the lives of other living creatures because they can't do anything about it isn't very good either.

 

Nowhere am I trying to say necessarily testing on animals is a bad thing, but the question of necessity is one that doesn't seem to be explored enough, due to ease, cost, availability, red tape, etc.

I would never condone having experimental medicine tested on humans if we could test it on rats first. You are quite literally saying "we should kill humans instead of rats because at least the human agreed to it".

The only way someone would agree to having experiments done to them would be if they were extremely desperate and it was the only way. The only reason why it would be the only way would be if some law passed that we weren't allowed to use rats for testing.

Again, at the very least there is a 1:1 ratio of mice suffering and humans suffering when doing experiments like these. So would you rather a rat suffer or a human suffer? The question really is as simple as that. I would personally strangle 100 rats with my bare hands if it meant saving 1 human.

Whether you would do the same is only a question of how much you value the life of a human.

[juretrn]

The E and T in PETA obviously stand for Eco Terrorists.

[thewhitestig]

Well, PETA are fucking dimwits to start with, so everything they say to me is invalid.

You might want to rethink that statement. 

[bluepoodleguy]

As my uncle Ralph used to say "Want some cheese with that whine?".

[bamerx98]

Because a go pro on a camels back is going to affect it for the rest of its life and could possibly in danger the animal... Okay Peta chill like its a camal with a camera on it in its natural habitat

[Zarrith]

Listening to Penn Jillette rip into P.E.T.A. always made me happy.

[Nomelas]

Good on google for being eco-friendly

[ItsComrade]

okay, a while ago google decided to map the Abu Dahbi's Liwa Desert for street view, for that they mounted one of their backpacks cameras to a camel, emphasis on the part that its a backpack designed for humans originally, PETA's president think that this is abuse, even though he didn't used that word in his comment, that's pretty much the point he's trying to make

 

 

now he ain't wrong here, google could have used a jeep instead, but like i said earlier, that thing was made to be carried by humans, also the camel ain't going alone wandering in the desert, that day had good weather and lastly i bet the owners of that camel take care of him better that some people treat their own children, Raffi the camel its fine

 

source: jalopnik.com

 

my thoughts

 

Why don't they just go out and actually, just maybe, help some animals in danger rather than just complain about google using one for street view. I'm sure he's fine. It's just a PETA publicity stunt. They're just desperate for attention.

[Dr. Dino]

I think this is all a bit far-feched from PETA. This seems to me as more of a cry for attention than anything else.