Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Is PeTA mouthpiece being intellectually honest? You decide.

A couple of posts ago, I discussed the case of Hiasl the chimpanzee, whom an Austrian court will decide is "human" or not. In a post yesterday, PeTA's blogger, someone named Jack, commented on it as well, on PeTA's official blog. In this post, Jack makes the claim that primatologist Volker Sommer says, and I am quoting the PeTA blogger and not Sommer here, "chimps are not just one of the homo genus". Except there is a problem with that: chimps are not one of the Homo genus at all! Chimps are part of the genus Pan, the full taxonomic name of the species being Pan troglodytes. The astute reader should notice that the PeTA blogger did not directly quote Sommer as saying that chimps are not just one of the homo genus. He merely claimed that Sommer said it. Why would that be? I find it difficult to believe that a primatologist would not know the correct taxonomic classification of the chimpanzee. Is PeTA being honest here? You decide. Given their track record, I know where I stand, but everyone can make their own call.

Notice also Ingrid Newkirk's "argument" (term used lightly) in response to those that are critical of this case, that appears at the end of the PeTA blog post. Her entire little screed is nothing but one big red herring! All she does is parrot the same old vapid AR talking points without actually addressing the issue of whether or not a chimp should, or should not, be legally, with a basis in rational scientific facts, considered human. And of course Jack, like some kind of sycophantic cheerleader, has nothing but praise for his boss's supposed prowess, claiming her response is "just perfect". Too funny.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Ingrid Newkirk talking about compassion is like Osama bin Laden saying he loves Americans. Oil and water.

Would a compassionate organization kill thousands of animals every year without making the effort to find them homes? Peta believes a pet is better off dead than with a human. Do tell how this is compassionate.

Newkirk and the peta-philes continually put animal life ahead of human life. I would ask again how that is compassionate? It would appear in Peta's view that compassion only applies to animals.

Peta is seldom if ever, intellectually honest. There is no rational basis for thinking an ape should have human rights.

This isn't a powerful story. Its the story of someone with a sick and twisted mind. The mind of an animal rightist.