PETA Advertisement... [Archive]

Panda Tse Tung

5th February 2011, 13:40

Peta is fuckin stupid. I think this would have been more suitable...

Btw....poor fucking fish...I hope those people have their assholes stiched closed and someone keeps feeding them, and feeding them, and feeding them.
No offense, but it is possible that this fish is dead, It seems to only react when touched in specific places. Which could be spasms.
Of course if the fish is really alive, thats fucking horrible and sick.

bailey_187

5th February 2011, 17:53

6fGOjZjM0xQ

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

looks good

Stand Your Ground

5th February 2011, 18:47

I'm a veggie (obv) and I hate PETA completely. They do make good propaganda posters though lol.

Os Cangaceiros

5th February 2011, 19:02

My grandfather used to go down to the river near our house and cut up salmon for bait. He'd hack off their heads while they were still alive, and their heads would still float around in the water and gasp for a while, as if they hadn't realized that the rest of their body was gone yet, and were still trying to swim. That always fascinated me in a really morbid sort of way.

That video kind of reminded me of that.

Fawkes

5th February 2011, 19:03

I live in a van down by the river!

Robocommie

5th February 2011, 19:27

Yeah, but let's make sure we're criticizing the organization's idiocy and not using the organization's idiocy to criticize animal liberation.

lawl Animal rights vanguardism, the liberation of the animal proletariat must be the work of the animals themselves.

(LOL)

Ele'ill

5th February 2011, 19:34

I'm not sure which is more stupid, PETA or the concept of "animal liberation".

I guess it's easier to quip here than in all of the threads on the topic in the main forum area that you've been absent from. V:mellow:V

Nothing Human Is Alien

5th February 2011, 20:09

I'm not sure which is more stupid, PETA or the concept of "animal liberation".

They're equal, because PETA is the logical conclusion of "animal liberation."

"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." - Ingrid Newkirk, PETA President.

Ele'ill

5th February 2011, 20:14

They're equal, because PETA is the logical conclusion of "animal liberation."

:rolleyes:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1966690&postcount=81

Political_Chucky

5th February 2011, 21:23

No offense, but it is possible that this fish is dead, It seems to only react when touched in specific places. Which could be spasms.
Of course if the fish is really alive, thats fucking horrible and sick.

Well its seems to be like a delicacy in china to eat things alive.

ZYUqfgfpjRw

Tablo

5th February 2011, 21:26

I would eat fish alive if only for the experience. Makes me feel a little sick thinking about it though.

Political_Chucky

5th February 2011, 21:31

I can't imagine it just breathing and crap...and its yelling at you like in the movie "The Fly," "Hellllpppp meeee"

Os Cangaceiros

5th February 2011, 21:35

There's a pretty funny scene in Oldboy when the main character eats an octopus alive.

Blackscare

5th February 2011, 21:40

This video makes me feel offended.
7vyuqheddyE

Well this just saved me a 14 dollar a month subscription.

Robocommie

5th February 2011, 22:13

Well its seems to be like a delicacy in china to eat things alive.

In an ideal world we'd eat living tigers and sharks and stuff, so every meal would be a contest. If you can eat your food before IT eats YOU, you win!

Apoi_Viitor

5th February 2011, 22:17

q2z2lTUR5Ao

Nothing Human Is Alien

5th February 2011, 22:37

There's a pretty funny scene in Oldboy when the main character eats an octopus alive.

It's not uncommon. Live baby octopus is eaten by a lot of people in Korea, and there are places you can get it here in New York too. The suction cups stick to the inside of your mouth and throat when you try to get them down.

Tablo

5th February 2011, 22:39

There's a pretty funny scene in Oldboy when the main character eats an octopus alive.
I love that movie. :thumbup1:

It's not uncommon. Live baby octopus is eaten by a lot of people in Korea, and there are places you can get it here in New York too.
Interesting. I'm going to ask my friend from Korea about it.

Nothing Human Is Alien

5th February 2011, 23:37

It's called 산낙지 (sannakji). It's not actually still alive when you eat it though. The nerve endings just keep the pieces moving after it's killed by the cook.

You can read about PETA members picketing a restaurant that sells it in NYC: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2010/05/04/2010-05-04_waiter_my_dinners_wiggling_octopus_twitches_but _not_still_alive.html

Pavlov's House Party

5th February 2011, 23:52

Well its seems to be like a delicacy in china to eat things alive.

ZYUqfgfpjRw

Those horrid Orientals! :rolleyes:

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th February 2011, 00:35

it's certainly a sign of freshness

Vanguard1917

6th February 2011, 16:58

Yeah, but let's make sure we're criticizing the organization's idiocy and not using the organization's idiocy to criticize animal liberation.

Actually, if "animal liberation" has anything coming close to a redeeming feature, it's videos like this. As we've heard, it's saved Blackscare $14 a month.

RedStarOverChina

6th February 2011, 18:53

I guess it's easier to quip here than in all of the threads on the topic in the main forum area that you've been absent from. V:mellow:V
Well, you did mention it first.

I was present in several of these debates but usually grew tired of the same unsubstantiated bullshit fast.

No one has yet given me a bill of rights for the animals, and no one has ever stated what "rights" animals supposedly have, not to mention defend his position. I can't argue against airy-fairy, abstract ideals like that.

Instead, these discussions always end up with a degrading comparison of animals with women or other disadvanged groups.

"If women have rights, why not animals?"

*Facepalm*

Ele'ill

6th February 2011, 19:17

No one has yet given me a bill of rights for the animals,.

No, we refuted your position here outright and declared it a strawman.

Instead, these discussions always end up with a degrading comparison of animals with women or other disadvanged groups.

No, this is a point raised by some people during the discussions- this does not refute the idea of animal liberation.

RedStarOverChina

6th February 2011, 19:35

No, we refuted your position here outright and declared it a strawman.

What does that even mean? Are you telling me what you stand for or not? If not, how am I supposed to debate with you?

Widerstand

6th February 2011, 19:54

They're equal, because PETA is the logical conclusion of "animal liberation.".

Just like Attac is the logical conclusion of the Anti-Globalization movement, Greenpeace is the logical conclusion of Environmentalism, and Social Democracy is the logical conclusion of Communism, I assume?

An archist

6th February 2011, 20:24

Just like Attac is the logical conclusion of the Anti-Globalization movement, Greenpeace is the logical conclusion of Environmentalism, and Social Democracy is the logical conclusion of Communism, I assume?

Shwing!

Nothing Human Is Alien

7th February 2011, 04:31

Actually, yes (if by the last one you mean official "Communism"). :cool:

Nothing Human Is Alien

7th February 2011, 04:34

Shwing!

You mean zing?

I think shwing was a sound made by Wayne and Garth to express sexual arousal in the early 90's.

Political_Chucky

7th February 2011, 06:25

You mean zing?

I think shwing was a sound made by Wayne and Garth to express sexual arousal in the early 90's.

Lol thats exactly what I thought when I read "Shwing"

Ele'ill

7th February 2011, 08:05

What does that even mean? Are you telling me what you stand for or not? If not, how am I supposed to debate with you?

"Here" as in the position you were taking in your post that I quoted and responded to.

ZeroNowhere

7th February 2011, 10:48

and Social Democracy is the logical conclusion of Communism, I assume?
Wait, so PETA aren't for animal liberation?

Shwing!Clearly PETA's PR strategy is working on some people. You can stop watching the videos now, mate.

Widerstand

7th February 2011, 14:40

Wait, so PETA aren't for animal liberation?

I'm not sure where you are trying to go there...

RedStarOverChina

7th February 2011, 16:11

"Here" as in the position you were taking in your post that I quoted and responded to.
How did you manage to refute me when there isn't even a topic of debate?

:confused:

I have no idea what "animal rights" or "animal liberation" stands for, and no one has so far given me a coherent definition to these.

Catmatic Leftist

7th February 2011, 19:16

That made me think of this:

1wnE4vF9CQ4

Thanks for making me more mentally disturbed than I already am. -_-

Lord Testicles

7th February 2011, 19:41

I'm not sure where you are trying to go there...

Social democracy isn't "for" communism, he's picking holes in your analogy.

Widerstand

7th February 2011, 19:56

Social democracy isn't "for" communism, he's picking holes in your analogy.

So you're saying that Social Democracy didn't develop out of communist ideas (Marxism)?

Nothing Human Is Alien

7th February 2011, 21:38

Widerstand

7th February 2011, 21:59

I don't think it did. I think it grew out of representatives of the ruling class trying to drape themselves in those ideas, colors, flags, etc., while at the same time pursuing their own interests.

But his point was clearly that while PETA is for "animal liberation," Social Democracy is not for "communism" (ie. the elimination of private property, classes, etc.). In other words, PETA represents the logical conclusion of "animal liberation" while Social Democracy is based on the contradiction and abandonment of "communism" (as described above).

No, that's bullshit. PETA is not "the logical conclusion of animal liberation". PETA is the petty-bourgeois/capitalism-compatible/"its all about consumption" version of Animal Liberation, just like Greenpeace is of environmentalism and Social Democracy is (to an extent) of Communism (and Fairtrade/Attac of Anti-Globalization, and and and).

Jazzratt

7th February 2011, 22:08

PETA's flavour of condescension, fanaticism and naivety is exactly the logical conclusion though. It could be argued that they're just some bourgeois aberration of the ideology if it weren't for the fact that the closest thing to "working class" representatives of the ideology were the fucking ALF who are just as inclined toward lunatic behaviour and idiot positions, if not more so.

gorillafuck

7th February 2011, 22:14

So you're saying that Social Democracy didn't develop out of communist ideas (Marxism)?
Modern social democracy didn't grow out of Marxism, no.

Edit: Also, is it true that ELF/ALF are opposed to certain medicine since they like it when people die because then those people can't harm the environment?

Widerstand

7th February 2011, 22:49

Modern social democracy didn't grow out of Marxism, no.

Modern Social Democracy grew out of old Social Democracy which grew out of Marxism, yes.

Edit: Also, is it true that ELF/ALF are opposed to certain medicine since they like it when people die because then those people can't harm the environment?

These are the guidelines of the ELF:

#To inflict maximum economic damage on those profiting from the destruction and exploitation of the environment (biophysical).
#To reveal to, and to educate the public about the atrocities committed against the earth and all species that populate it.
#To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal - human and non-human.

And these are the guidelines of the ALF:

#To inflict economic damage on those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals.
#To liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur farms etc., and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering.
#To reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors, by performing nonviolent direct actions and liberations
#To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.
#Any group of people who are vegetarians or vegans and who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF

(emph. added in both cases)

Ele'ill

7th February 2011, 23:21

How did you manage to refute me

The position you are taking in opposition to animal liberation has been discussed heavily in nearly every thread on the topic.

when there isn't even a topic of debate?

I'm not sure which is more stupid, PETA or the concept of "animal liberation".

I have no idea what "animal rights" or "animal liberation" stands for

:rolleyes:

and no one has so far given me a coherent definition to these.

It has much less to do with defining the idea of animal liberation and more to do with being really tired of discussing the topic so frequently.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/meat-workers-counter-t146743/index.html?t=146743&highlight=meat+workers

RedStarOverChina

8th February 2011, 00:25

The position you are taking in opposition to animal liberation has been discussed heavily in nearly every thread on the topic.
So has yours. Also, you said I have been refuted "here", even though all I've done was asking for is a definition of "animal liberation" and "animal rights"---which is still deprived of me.

It has much less to do with defining the idea of animal liberation and more to do with being really tired of discussing the topic so frequently. I think we're all with you on the being tired part.

Because without settling on an adquent definition of the term "animal liberation", all discussions will run around forever like a carousel.

I need to know what exactly I'm arguing about, since I'm not that enthusiastic about senseless squabbling.

Ele'ill

8th February 2011, 00:56

Also, you said I have been refuted "here", even though all I've done was asking for is a definition of "animal liberation" and "animal rights"---which is still deprived of me.

"here" refers to your 'position here' as in the post of yours that I quoted. Mainly regarding PETA and animal liberation.

Because without settling on an adquent definition of the term "animal liberation", all discussions will run around forever like a carousel.
I need to know what exactly I'm arguing about, since I'm not that enthusiastic about senseless squabbling.

"Please explain what I'm arguing against" :rolleyes:

You had some pretty strong feelings on the topic having no 'adequate definition of the term animal liberation'. I have very little desire to engage in another discussion on the topic right now- in the chitchat section no less. Perhaps if this thread was on the main board area I would engage in discussion. The link in my post to you should help you understand the leftist non-liberal position on animal liberation- definitions included.

I'm not sure which is more stupid, PETA or the concept of "animal liberation".

I have no idea what "animal rights" or "animal liberation" stands for

The reason I'm not going to discuss real issues in chit chat is because stuff like this is 'ok' and not considered bait.

Catmatic Leftist

8th February 2011, 00:58

Wow, this ad is disgusting.

Magón

8th February 2011, 02:38

When that chick in the white bikini's shoving radishes in her mouth, she has the most depressed look I've ever seen a chick shoving radishes in her mouth, before. It made me laugh. :laugh:

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 02:50

Modern Social Democracy grew out of old Social Democracy which grew out of Marxism, yes.Modern social democracy grew out of an acceptance of capitalism.

Stand Your Ground

8th February 2011, 05:18

So has yours. Also, you said I have been refuted "here", even though all I've done was asking for is a definition of "animal liberation" and "animal rights"---which is still deprived of me.
I hear this so much on here it's sickening. I put it in my sig so maybe people will get it.

Widerstand

8th February 2011, 12:02

Modern social democracy grew out of an acceptance of capitalism.

Your fucking point, I don't see it. If we look at, for example, the SPD in Germany, we can clearly trace their roots back to Marxism and we can see plenty of Marxists who were Social Democrats (Luxemburg for example).

ZeroNowhere

8th February 2011, 13:30

PETA is the petty-bourgeois/capitalism-compatible/"its all about consumption" version of Animal Liberation, just like Greenpeace is of environmentalism and Social Democracy is (to an extent) of Communism (and Fairtrade/Attac of Anti-Globalization, and and and).But modern social democracy is not communist, but rather the most reactionary form of capitalism, whereas PETA are for animal liberation.

Edit: Actually, this thread is starting to go in a direction which it probably shouldn't, considering that this is Chit-Chat and hence lots of people look at it.

Widerstand

8th February 2011, 13:32

But modern social democracy is not communist, but rather the most reactionary form of capitalism, whereas PETA are for animal liberation.

So would you also agree that Greenpeace is the logical conclusion of Environmentalism and Attac that of Anti-Globalization?

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 13:43

Your fucking point, I don't see it. If we look at, for example, the SPD in Germany, we can clearly trace their roots back to Marxism and we can see plenty of Marxists who were Social Democrats (Luxemburg for example).Yes, but their current ideology didn't grow out of the former ideology, it grew out of them rejecting their former ideology. There's a pretty clear difference.

That's like saying neo-conservativism grew out of trotskyism because some trotskyists became neo-cons.

And I don't know anything about greenpeace or attac.

ZeroNowhere

8th February 2011, 13:49

So would you also agree that Greenpeace is the logical conclusion of Environmentalism and Attac that of Anti-Globalization?I'm not defending the original proposition, rather just disputing the analogy. I'm not sure what it would mean to say that Greenpeace is the logical conclusion of environmentalism, as, although I think that there could be some truth to it in a sense, it's really rather vague about what aspects of Greenpeace we are talking about. I am blissfully unaware of the anti-globalization movement.

Widerstand

8th February 2011, 14:03

Yes, but their current ideology didn't grow out of the former ideology, it grew out of them rejecting their former ideology. There's a pretty clear difference.

That's like saying neo-conservativism grew out of trotskyism because some trotskyists became neo-cons.

Or like saying the obviously reactionary attitudes of PETA grew out of Animal Liberation or have anything to do with the ALF or other nowadays' Animal Liberation groups (which often are Anarchist / or Anarchist-affine at least). To say that PETA is the logical conclusion of Animal Liberation isn't so much different from saying that Neo-Conservatism is the logical conclusion of Trotskyism.

The ALF predates PETA by 4 years.

I'm not defending the original proposition, rather just disputing the analogy.

Fair enough, but I think you miss the point I'm making. PETA is just as little the logical conclusion of Animal Liberation as Greenpeace is of Environmentalism, or Attac of Anti-Globalization, or Social Democracy of Communism.

I'm not sure what it would mean to say that Greenpeace is the logical conclusion of environmentalism, as, although I think that there could be some truth to it in a sense, it's really rather vague about what aspects of Greenpeace we are talking about. I am blissfully unaware of the anti-globalization movement.

I think what it means is pretty clear, it means that all forms of Environmentalism ultimately turn out like and in some way are like Greenpeace, which is a gross misrepresentation of environmental struggles, especially those in the Third World, where environmentalism often has a very definite class character (which Greenpeace lacks).

ÑóẊîöŉ

8th February 2011, 19:24

I hear this so much on here it's sickening. I put it in my sig so maybe people will get it.

So this is it?

Freedom (for humans & non-humans alike): exemption from external control; personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery; the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint.

The problem is, we encroach on animal "liberty" simply by living. We take up land and resources that other animals could have used. Taken to its logical conclusion, this is the basis for an extremely misanthropic philosophy that at its extreme calls for the extermination of the human race so that other animals' liberty is not threatened. Greater good and all that.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Stand Your Ground

8th February 2011, 21:02

So this is it?

The problem is, we encroach on animal "liberty" simply by living. We take up land and resources that other animals could have used. Taken to its logical conclusion, this is the basis for an extremely misanthropic philosophy that at its extreme calls for the extermination of the human race so that other animals' liberty is not threatened. Greater good and all that.

Fuck. That. Shit.
That's going to the extreme. I never said anything like that. Lives interfere with each other, it happens. Humans destroy animal homes yes, but some animals can also destroy human homes. The only animal liberation that is necessary is the abolishment of fur & leather, factory farms & animal testing facilities. Living beings do not deserve cages and slavery, human or not.

Lord Testicles

8th February 2011, 21:36

The only animal liberation that is necessary is the abolishment of fur & leather,

Because getting something that lasts longer than one meal out of your meat is such a terrible sin.

factory farms

How do you propose that we allow everyone to have access to meat?

animal testing facilities.

Yeah man, people can live without things like insulin and other frivolous inventions.

Widerstand

8th February 2011, 21:41

How do you propose that we allow everyone to have access to meat?

I propose we don't throw away (often more than) 90% of our food while people are starving.

Lord Testicles

8th February 2011, 21:45

I propose we don't throw away (often more than) 90% of our food while people are starving.

If you are talking about the way industry is paid to destroy food in an effort to keep the price high, then fair enough, but I would also point out that that excess comes from factory farms.

Widerstand

8th February 2011, 21:50

If you are talking about the way industry is paid to destroy food in an effort to keep the price high, then fair enough, but I would also point out that that excess comes from factory farms.

No, I'm talking about basic biology. Any living being consumes roughly 10 times the energy it produces as food (eg you have to feed an animal around 10 times the calories of meat it produces, with certain types of meat it's even worse).

Lord Testicles

8th February 2011, 21:54

No, I'm talking about basic biology. Any living being consumes roughly 10 times the energy it produces as food (eg you have to feed an animal around 10 times the calories of meat it produces, with certain types of meat it's even worse).

So when you say wasting food, your talking about all of the food we feed animals before we slaughter them?

In which case you haven't really answered the question of "How do we allow everyone access to meat?"

Widerstand

8th February 2011, 21:59

So when you say wasting food, your talking about all of the food we feed animals before we slaughter them?

In which case you haven't really answered the question of "How do we allow everyone access to meat?"

I have, we don't. The mass and way in which meat is currently produced is highly unsustainable, if we were to increase meat production to bring everyone to European or American standards, that'd be a fucking disaster.

Ele'ill

8th February 2011, 22:04

This thread should be moved to Science and Environment because apparently some sore losers want a round 9999999999999.

Edit- I missed a 9. Fixed.

Lord Testicles

8th February 2011, 22:13

I have, we don't. The mass and way in which meat is currently produced is highly unsustainable, if we were to increase meat production to bring everyone to European or American standards, that'd be a fucking disaster.

Why would it be a disaster? Can you prove that it would be a disaster?

Frankly if we have a revolution and you stop me eating meat, I'm going to eat you.

Widerstand

8th February 2011, 22:21

Why would it be a disaster? Can you prove that it would be a disaster?

Because the top meat consuming countries' average meat consumption is around 250 pounds per year per capita, while the bottom's is around 10 pounds per year per capita. If we want to level the whole planets meat consumption to, say, 200 pounds per year per capita, we'd need a lot more agricultural space (somehow all this new meat needs to be fed, after all).

Not to mention the logistic and environmental difficulties this increased meat production would bring with it. How do you keep so much cattle in one place without intensified risk of illness (which is already bad)? How do you deal with all the waste without poisoning the whole planet (which is already happening to a certain extent)?

Os Cangaceiros

8th February 2011, 22:22

73Pbs8hKCEc

Bright Banana Beard

8th February 2011, 22:30

Vegetables doesn't work in winter/ heat desert. Ice people depends on meat.

Lord Testicles

8th February 2011, 22:43

Because the top meat consuming countries' average meat consumption is around 250 pounds per year per capita, while the bottom's is around 10 pounds per year per capita. If we want to level the whole planets meat consumption to, say, 200 pounds per year per capita, we'd need a lot more agricultural space (somehow all this new meat needs to be fed, after all).

Two words: Vertical farming.

Or alternately we could bulldoze the Amazon forest, I mean most of that is still forests not cultivated land at the moment.

How do you keep so much cattle in one place without intensified risk of illness (which is already bad)?

Illness for people or for the cattle because if it's the former then maybe that would be something people will need to think about but I'm sure it's not impossible to solve. If the latter, then I really couldn't care less.

How do you deal with all the waste without poisoning the whole planet (which is already happening to a certain extent)?

I'm sure there are ways of dealing with animal excrement, we've been dealing with it well enough since we started herding them, yes I understand there is going to be a hell of a lot more of it these days but I'm not really seeing an unsolvable problem here.

But if I'm really honest then yet again I don't really care, is there a monstrous pile of pig shit piling up somewhere in Norfolk? probably. Is it having an effect on my standard of living? Nope. Does Bacon still taste delicious? Yes it does.

Have you proved that there would be a disaster if we allowed everyone access to meat? No I don't think you have.

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th February 2011, 23:35

ice people

ÑóẊîöŉ

8th February 2011, 23:48

That's going to the extreme. I never said anything like that. Lives interfere with each other, it happens. Humans destroy animal homes yes, but some animals can also destroy human homes.

Considering our size (we're among the largest mammals) our population and our range, I'm pretty sure that far more animal homes are destroyed by our presence than human homes by theirs.

Also, how do you define "animal"? Biology tells me that ants, spiders and other arthropods are also animals. Should I try not to tread on ants? Would it be murder, in your eyes, for me to exterminate roaches if I found them in my kitchen? What about rats? After all, those creatures don't intend me any harm. They are only looking for a home, exercising their right to live where they please, are they not?

The only animal liberation that is necessary is the abolishment of fur & leather, factory farms & animal testing facilities. Living beings do not deserve cages and slavery, human or not.

Various animals are owned and kept in confinement, as well as made to work, in ways that would be considered institutionalised slavery if done to humans.

Unless you think it's acceptable for humans to be bred for specific purposes, kept as property, trained from birth for various tasks, and have their freedom of movement restricted.

You don't need to turn animals into meals, clothing or test subjects in order to do the above. You only need to keep pets.

So why isn't pet ownership on your list of activities that are verboten, eh? Even if the pet is healthy and happy to all measureable tests, that's still an abridgement of their rights is it not?

Bright Banana Beard

9th February 2011, 00:04

Eskimos have rarely eat vegetables in their lives and the meat they ate contains necessary vitamin. Wild animals is healthier than grain-fed factory animals.

Political_Chucky

9th February 2011, 00:19

Hey everyone, LOOK AT THIS!

hVkXszDfenc

Tablo

9th February 2011, 22:42

Hey everyone, LOOK AT THIS!

hVkXszDfenc
Weird...

Stand Your Ground

10th February 2011, 01:46

Considering our size (we're among the largest mammals) our population and our range, I'm pretty sure that far more animal homes are destroyed by our presence than human homes by theirs.

Also, how do you define "animal"? Biology tells me that ants, spiders and other arthropods are also animals. Should I try not to tread on ants? Would it be murder, in your eyes, for me to exterminate roaches if I found them in my kitchen? What about rats? After all, those creatures don't intend me any harm. They are only looking for a home, exercising their right to live where they please, are they not?

Various animals are owned and kept in confinement, as well as made to work, in ways that would be considered institutionalised slavery if done to humans.

Unless you think it's acceptable for humans to be bred for specific purposes, kept as property, trained from birth for various tasks, and have their freedom of movement restricted.

You don't need to turn animals into meals, clothing or test subjects in order to do the above. You only need to keep pets.

So why isn't pet ownership on your list of activities that are verboten, eh? Even if the pet is healthy and happy to all measureable tests, that's still an abridgement of their rights is it not?
Probably, I agree.

Any living being can be considered an animal. I would say you don't have to intentionally step on them if you're outside, but I wouldn't say you must stare at the ground when you walk either. Not at all, every living being has the right to protect their home from invaders, especially ones that have the potential to harm or spread disease etc.

I didn't think of that, but yes, that should be added as well. This could be a complicated argument as well, I mean, if the animal was not forced to stay with you, trained, beaten etc. I don't see why they couldn't stay with you if they chose to. For example, me & my girlfriend found a kitten not more than 4 weeks old under a dumpster, fearing for his life we took him home to care for him, and ever since he's gotten older we keep giving him chances to leave but he never does. We've taken in other cats that chose to leave but this one doesn't seem to want to.