Hacker News Reader

Comment by b112 | Hacker News Reader

Yes, like decades ago, when the Senior VP of PETA thought all animal testing was wrong, unless of course it was to help her, because who else would fight to stop animal testing?

https://www.consumerfreedom.com/2004/08/2628-hyperbolic-hypo...

PETA Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland on her use of insulin, which was tested on animals:

    “I’m an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products — and I have no qualms about it … I’m not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don’t see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.”

    —Glamour, January 1990

Such people, generally people on the extreme side of any debate, are often not rational. Not always of course, but.. often.

View on HN

I am not sure that I understand your argument here: are you saying a person who is against animal testing shouldn't consume products that were tested on animals during their development? If that's the case I think that would be an unattainable standard of morality. Everything we are as a society and as individuals are in part thanks to our use of animals, and I don't think any PETA member denies this fact.

Even if this person abandoned all her belongings and moved to the middle of nowhere, all her knowledge is still the direct product of societies that have been using animals for (at least) the past 10,000 years.

> are you saying a person who is against animal testing shouldn't consume products that were tested on animals during their development?

In 1990 insulin production was derived from animals.

I've never been a member or otherwise supported PETA, and I don't know how much good they accomplish, but I don't think this is a valid criticism.

Similarly, I'm not all that obsessed with stopping climate change, but I don't think there is a substantive criticism when people talk about Al Gore or whoever flying to climate conferences.

The fundamental reason I think purported hypocrisy is irrelevant, is that generally organizations and people who are trying to change the world are not part of a religion that is imposing a standard of personal morality.

There is always going to be human and animal suffering, and there's always going to be something made of hydrocarbons burning somewhere. The goals people have involve reducing the amount.

I mean I am vegan but I wear leather boots. I absolutely do not want leather boots but I work at a farm and do need boots. I found its very hard to find vegan boots and when you search for them you find boutique high fashion not work boots. I also drive an automobile which releases CO2 that is killing animals all over the planet through climate change.

I still think mass animal farming is grotesque and that we should end all factory farming immediately and seriously question our assumptions about animals as legal property.

Are you saying that in a world where life saving medicine requires animal products that those who use such a medicine cannot legitimately criticize the use of animals in science? It seems to me actually those with little choice in the matter have the most to make noise about. They need help from the rest of society to change the way the medicine is produced. They cannot do that themselves.

As a vegan I can completely understand why someone who believes in animal rights would compromise for life saving medicine. I also do not think you or anyone else has to be vegan, but I do think it’s important to talk about.

Honestly your comment reminds me of Mr Gotcha: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatme...

You cannot oppose all animal testing, say it is morally wrong under all circumstances, then ... because you're fighting to end it, say in your special little case -- it is OK.

PETA representatives have often said that killing animals, is not worth saving one human life.

Such broken logic indicates that this person thinks that they are special. They aren't, they could die tomorrow, and some other pro-PETA person could become VP. They are, quite literally, saying it is OK for countless humans to die, due to a lack of animal testing, but that for them?

Special little them?

It's OK.

It feels perfectly consistent to say that we ultimately need to end animal testing but it is okay to use animal products for your literal survival in the meantime. Perhaps they don’t have such a position. But it feels pretty wrong headed to me to mock PETA because a diabetic uses insulin rather than take heed to their very real and very important message about the abuse of animals in our society. It feels like you’re purposefully redirecting the conversation away from yourself because you do not want to discuss animal abuse.

> It feels perfectly consistent to say that we ultimately need to end animal testing but it is okay to use animal products for your literal survival in the meantime.

Out of purely academic interest, how are you not bothered by the clear contradictions in that logic?

I genuinely don’t see a contradiction? Let’s work hard to eliminate animal testing, even if that means developing new technology to solve the problems we’re currently trying to solve with animal testing. In the meantime this position would advocate to rapidly end all non-survival related animal products like cheeseburgers, while allowing some nuance for life saving medicine. Seems perfectly reasonable?

There's a difference between,

> we ultimately need to end animal testing

and,

> work hard to eliminate animal testing

One is known as a universal; animal testing shouldn't be done regardless of the consequence. The other is a much weaker standpoint. You've taken the extreme condition of "cheeseburger" where most people would say there doesn't exist anyone who can't reasonably switch to a non-animal product - but what about cosmetic products which people use to help their self-confidence (acne treatments and what not), can those be tested on animals?

By what metric do you choose what's necessary and what's not in the meantime? Your own example of leather boots isn't directly survival related i.e. you don't die if you don't have them.

The final problem is that it's not an unreasonable hypothesis that there will be products which will always be needed to be tested on animals (such as medicines) - is it morally correct in your worldview that we continue to pursue such products?

I don't see the contradiction, it is similar to say "we ultimately need to stop burning fossil fuels" while using Internet and living in a city.

That's not what PETA says, though. They say, animal testing is NEVER EVER EVER OK. Ever.

They have further stated that using animal tested products is 100% morally wrong. Except, of course, for Special People which are 'in the fight'.

This is far different from saying "We need to work to end animal testing".

I agree about the life saving medicine aspect - my wife was dying in the hospital and accepted medicine that we knew contained lactose (we're vegan). But I don't see leather boots as life saving — are you buying them second hand?

It’s a fair question. I wish people weren’t so downvote heavy for asking legitimate questions like this.

No, the boots aren’t life saving. I bought them the first year that I became vegan, when I was focused on adjusting to a vegan diet. I got a new job and looked around but couldn’t find any suitable work boots that were vegan. I actually still have not been able to find them. I will say that I was experiencing some ankle problems including an incident where my ankle gave out on stairs, so it was important for me to get good supportive boots.

Two years in and the boots are still working well, but it is super frustrating that I can’t find work boots made from canvas or whatever. I am very happy with my vegan diet but I know I have more work to do rooting animal products out of my life.

Edit:

That said my problem may have been looking for “vegan boots” or “canvas boots” rather than “vegan work boots”, which seems to return some helpful results, including this nice page from PETA: https://www.peta.org/living/personal-care-fashion/vegan-work...

Since you bought them during a time of transition, I'd say that's not so bad. If you bought them new now I think it'd be more of a problem. And I am not a vegan that thinks you should just throw them away all of sudden - it's difficult to explain to people since they might see your leather boots and think you're a hypocrite, but better to keep them and wear them since you have them.

Thanks. I definitely don’t want to buy any more leather. Vegans might think I am a hypocrite but non vegans (so most people) probably wouldn’t ever notice that my shoes are non vegan.

I'm pretty sure there wasn't any "synthetically manufactured" insulin in 1990.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com