Worse Than Hitler
Print This Post
Greg Gutfeld of FOX News says:
With the exception of Pam Anderson — who, by the by, is not so much aging as she is rusting — most animal rights activists aren’t hot… or particularly social. Fact is, their connection to animals is usually based on their alienation from humans. [...] And if you disagree with [animal rights], then you sir are worse than Hitler.
Send your comments to: redeye@foxnews.com
(PS: despite rumors, Hitler was NOT a vegetarian.)
He repeated the same insights on Fox and Friends (which I believe is some sort of news-for-children show with a far right-wing slant).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YIhm6Yir7k
Anyway, all this is very bigoted and offensive but seeing these hominids passing around a bucket of KFC while discussing the very serious topic of animal cruelty likely sparked in many people the realization that the pro-exploitation crowd is really represented by the modern day knuckle-dragging descendants of neanderthals. I see this as another small win for PETA which seems to believe (and may be correct in this) that the only way to get attention for the cause of animal rights or animal welfare is to attract ridicule.
Wow, I didn’t see the segment until now. I just read his story. It’s even worse. He said the PETA protesters were “just models.” He’s not just anti-vegan, he’s sexist, too. He’s claiming that beautiful women can’t have brains and strong political or ethical beliefs. Ugh. What a jerk!
I sent the following email to Mr. Gutfeld. I await his response.
Mr. Gutfield,
In response to “PETA Stunts Mask Corrupt Bedrock of Animal Rights,” I wanted to correct one of your central premises: “PETA hopes that the press overlooks the corrupt bedrock of animal rights: That a human is worth no more than a rat…” That is inaccurate.
The philosophy of animal rights premises that in the capacity to suffer, all sentient beings are equal. From this premise, we derive the ethical principle of “equal consideration” as interests — in not suffering, e.g.– are intrinsically connected to the ethical concept of equality. However, this does not imply — and I’m certain you know this — “equal treatment.”
Nonhuman animals and human animals are not “equal,” in some descriptive manner; that’s foolish. As it would be if you argued that all humans are “equal” in this manner. We are making a prescriptive, ethical, statement: All sentient beings have the capacity to suffer, therefore, our refusal to consider the suffering of all animals, human and nonhuman alike, amounts to a kind of prejudice. A prejudice that rests on a foundation of biologism, which is logically parallel to racism and sexism. If you disagree with this then please articulate a defense. However, to assume things about our position and then argue from that assumption is not only dishonest but it’s just bad reasoning.
All animals are equal…in the capacity to suffer. Certain practices, then, follow. However, because humans have different capacities than a rat, for example, such as an interest in the future, a human is in fact “worth” (in interests) more than a rat.
Please correct your baseless accusation for honesty’s sake.
Best,
Alex Melonas
I sent this one:
Dear Greg Gutfeld,
RE: PETA demonstration at KFC
News flash: Women are more than “bimbos.” Yes, even if they’re wearing very little clothing, that doesn’t give you the right to call them names.
And chickens are more than dinner.
“A rat is a dog is a boy”: It’s an analogy, not an equation. I don’t want to give animals the right to vote. There are lots of things that humans deserve and require that I wouldn’t give to animals, but animals deserve the basic right to be left alone.
-Elaine
pissed off vegan