Is Swatting a Fly a Political Statement?

[JaredJames]

Would we be singing the praises of the President's reflexes if instead of a fly, there was a fuzzy little baby chick running about the place, cheeping all the time and disrupting the interview, and after an aide repeatedly fails to catch the pesky bird, Obama pulls out a gun and blows its head off (then makes a joke about taking care of dinner)?

I think that is an extreme example with no justification. Why there would be a chick running around and why you need to be so extremist in your example makes me think you are one of them.

Yes, humane treatment for animals, but No, animals don't have rights as with rights comes a degree of responsibility, you must acknowledge those rights and use them correctly. If you want to say they have rights, then that fly did prove hostile to the very important president and he took action to protect himself. (Anyone going to argue that, remember how many diseases flies carry). See link here for list of diseases: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/insects/fly/Houseflyprintout.shtml .

Like the president carries a gun anyway! That's what the secret service is for.

 

[Moonbear]

Would we be singing the praises of the President's reflexes if instead of a fly, there was a fuzzy little baby chick running about the place, cheeping all the time and disrupting the interview, and after an aide repeatedly fails to catch the pesky bird, Obama pulls out a gun and blows its head off (then makes a joke about taking care of dinner)?

Well, no, that makes no sense. It's better to let the chick grow up a bit so it's worth having for dinner. Are you seriously defending PETAs position here with these unrelated arguments?

If you have any doubt about PETA's position, ask them. This isn't something new, and we shouldn't have to prove it based on just some current news articles. Their own website is full of information about their positions. I'm just not linking to it, because I don't personally want to give them any web traffic.

 

[humanino]

PETA leader will:
http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html

f. That my liver be vacuum-packed and shipped, in whole or in part, to France, to there be used in a public appeal to persuade shoppers not to support the vile practice of force-feeding geese and ducks for foie gras;

We will cook ze liver !

 

[Gokul43201]

Are you seriously defending PETAs position here with these unrelated arguments?

1. My argument is not unrelated to PETA's specific, and is in fact restricted to no more than those quoted words. Most of the posts objecting to this position, however, seem to be unrelated to the actual position expressed.

2. It is not that I care particularly to defend a specific position by PETA rather than to point out that no one here has yet actually objected to the actual position, and instead are attacking imagined or related positions. It's the logic (or lack of it) behind the responses that I'm addressing.

This would likewise be true if PETA said we should go about raping each other and people here objected that PETA was condoning murder. I'm not defending the position; I'm rejecting the response.

If you have any doubt about PETA's position, ask them. This isn't something new, and we shouldn't have to prove it based on just some current news articles. Their own website is full of information about their positions. I'm just not linking to it, because I don't personally want to give them any web traffic.

If everybody (except me) already knew that PETA objects to killing flies, which is a stronger position than has been quoted so far in this thread, then there really isn't anything new in here (other than the circumstance leading to a predictable outcome). So I guess I'll drop the argument on that note.

 

[Gokul43201]

Oops, missed this post.

I think that is an extreme example with no justification. Why there would be a chick running around and why you need to be so extremist in your example makes me think you are one of them.

It is a simple logical extension. If a philosophical position does not survive its logical extensions, then it has arbitrary limits imposed on it. What makes killing a fly a thing to be proud of but killing a bird an extremist position?

Yes, humane treatment for animals, but No, animals don't have rights

This makes no sense to me. Do animals have the right

If you want to say they have rights, then that fly did prove hostile to the very important president and he took action to protect himself. (Anyone going to argue that, remember how many diseases flies carry). See link here for list of diseases: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/insects/fly/Houseflyprintout.shtml

This is a valid argument if there is a significant rate of occurrence of house-fly-related typhoid, cholera, dysentery or anthrax in the US in recent years, and hence a significant danger from contact with the fly.

Okay, now I really will drop it.

 

[Cyrus]

I see it, and and still don't see how that means they object to killing flies.

That statement is an objection to killing flies.

 

[math_04]

It is a simple logical extension. If a philosophical position does not survive its logical extensions, then it has arbitrary limits imposed on it. What makes killing a fly a thing to be proud of but killing a bird an extremist position?

If every decision, action etc was based purely on logic, nothing would ever get done in the world. That is why common sense, street smart attitude to life is also useful.

 

[GeorginaS]

If every decision, action etc was based purely on logic, nothing would ever get done in the world. That is why common sense, street smart attitude to life is also useful.

Yes and Gokul43201 is pure logic combined with pure smart attitude.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

1. My argument is not unrelated to PETA's specific, and is in fact restricted to no more than those quoted words. Most of the posts objecting to this position, however, seem to be unrelated to the actual position expressed.

Ah, in that case I will refine my statement to say that it is pathetic that they would even comment on the matter; not to mention referring to Buddha. I thought this was an animal rights group, not a religion.

However, if not an objection, then paradoxical. Apparently they have knowledge of how an enlightened person would act without actually being enlightened - they too are mere humans. So if we are going to nitpick, were they claiming to be enlightened, or just that they know enlightenment when they see it, without actually being enlightened?

 

[Chi Meson]

We are operating under the fallacy of "false dichotomy." Can't we all agree that:

Gokul is logically correct

AND

PETA is nuts

 

[JaredJames]

Oops, missed this post.
It is a simple logical extension. If a philosophical position does not survive its logical extensions, then it has arbitrary limits imposed on it. What makes killing a fly a thing to be proud of but killing a bird an extremist position?

Of course there are limits on it. That's like saying "you feel it's ok to slaughter a cow for meat, therefore you feel it's ok to kill a human for the same reason". BS. By expanding the argument to a chick you bring in an extreme example. However, if the chick has a disease (I'm not sure if they actually carry anything), then yes, it should be put down. If it means shooting it so it no longer endangers a person (president or not) then by all means do it. As long as it is quick and humane. (See how they cull animals for foot and mouth - bolt through head from gun, quick and effective). To put it simply, killing a fly and killing a bird are different, killing a bird in the scenario presented (presidents speech) is an extreme example (especially when you yourself say 'the president pulls out a gun'). This is a completely absurd and unreal situation.

This makes no sense to me. Do animals have the right

Please look at my whole comment, but it does make sense. I believe animals should be treated humanely, but I do not believe they should have rights. It is up to us to treat them fairly and to not subject them to cruelty (and before anyone comes at me with the animal testing lark, I would rather see a product tested on a mouse before a humam, for obvious reasons). By giving an animal (say a cow) the right to live (as many rights groups want) you then prevent access to cows meat, except for that which dies naturally (economically unsound way of doing things). Now I don't know how everyone else feels, but humans are not herbivores, we have the ability to eat meat, we have eaten meat for thousands of years, why should we all suddenly become vegetarian? What justification is there for such a move.

This is a valid argument if there is a significant rate of occurrence of house-fly-related typhoid, cholera, dysentery or anthrax in the US in recent years, and hence a significant danger from contact with the fly.

That is not something you can guage, dysentery for example can be caused by a number of factors from a fly landing on your meal before/as you eat it, to the meat being undercooked. The fact is they DO cause the spread of illness all over the world and it is why restaurants have the blue bug zapper lights in the kitchens.

 

[OAQfirst]

When the media approaches PETA and asks their opinion, the expected reply is going to be obvious. I think I would be mightily annoyed if someone asked for my opinion, knew what I was going to say, heard what I said, then criticized me over and over for it.

I'm not with PETA on most of their positions, but I know better than to ask for something I know I won't agree with. And that in mind, I sure as 'ell know better than to pounce on them for what I knew I would get.

 

[BoomBoom]

They really believe that every animal, all the way down to insects, have equal rights and standing with humans.

Hmmm why should they stop at insects? If they really value life that much maybe they should be against killing of bacteria? They should stop bathing and washing their clothes etc. due to all the micro-organisms they kill.

I'd be willing to bet that some of these folks are pro-choice too...hypocrits!

 

[Nesrin]

PETA leader will:
http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html

"That the “meat” of my body, or a portion thereof, be used for a human barbecue, to remind the world that the meat of a corpse is all flesh, regardless of whether it comes from a human being or another animal, and that flesh foods are not needed."

This is one of the weirdest things I've ever read... and that's saying a lot.

 

[jobyts]

What makes killing a fly a thing to be proud of but killing a bird an extremist position?

I see it from an evolution point of view. (http://library.thinkquest.org/19012/treeolif.htm), in the evolution tree, the closer the other living being node to human node, the killing is less accepted. I remember in one of the Carl Sagan's cosmos videos on evolution, he talks about 3 layers of human brain - and the deepest part of the human brain is same as that of reptiles. Doesn't make me feel very proud though, but it could be that sisterly feeling that makes humans think killing a bird is unacceptable. See, how far that insect is in the tree?

 

[Huckleberry]

We are operating under the fallacy of "false dichotomy." Can't we all agree that:

Gokul is logically correct

AND

PETA is nuts

Probably not, but we can individually agree.