PETA: People Embodying the Asinine

I recently watched a protest video against Kentucky Friend Chicken, hosted by Pamela Anderson of PETA. (Yes, it’s the same Pam Anderson.) Besides being absolutely hilarious, I found the video phenomenally ironic and shallow. But then again, I guess I can’t expect too much from they Baywatch star.

She, (or PETA through her), made many absurd claims; here is a sampling:

“KFC treats these chickens like meat machines, not animals.”

What is the difference? Animals are raised for me. Did the animals ever protest their treatment? Did they ever call PETA and ask for help? Did they form a union and protest their conditions? Of course not, because they are ANIMALS. Besides, the chickens are going to die soon anyway.

“[The chickens] never feel sunlight on their backs, nor earth beneath their feet.”

The chickens never requested sunlight or earth. How does PETA know that the chickens want sunlight and earth? It seems that PETA is imposing its environmental utopia on the chickens without asking the chickens first.

“The chickens are forced to live in feces filled sheds.”

PETA should teach the chickens how to flush the toilet. I’m sure if the chickens would keep a tidy stall, they wouldn’t have to live in such a dirty environment.

“Chickens are inquisitive, gentle animals. Chickens form friendships with each other. They are as intelligent as dogs or cats. They love their young.”

This statement is my personal favorite. Read that first line again, “Chickens are inquisitive, gentle animals.” PETA uses the word inquisitive to describe a chicken. This mix of sophistication and dinner food is completely absurd.

When was the last time a chicken played fetch, or came on command, or was used as a service animal for the blind. When Pam Anderson can show us a seeing-eye chicken, I’ll buy into “chicken intelligence.”

Chickens love their young so much they EAT THEM. My family used to own over 20 chickens. We kept them for eggs. The chickens will peck their own eggs if a human being does not remove the egg. Perhaps chickens like scrambled eggs.

I'll post more about PETA; but consider the following quotations by PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk:

“There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation. [emphasis added]”
— “Animal Rights 2002” convention, 6/30/02

“I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.”
— "National Animal Rights Convention", 6/27/97

“There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.”
— Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86

Infinity

Does infinity exist?

During a game of Pictionary, one of my teammates was challenged to demonstrate the concept of infinity. Naturally she drew the horizontal 8, the symbol for infinity. Two things occurred: first, we argued as to whether it was legal for her to draw a symbol, but the argument was unimportant; the second, a friend noted that the infinity symbol is actually a number. It is a symbol for a number that does not exist. This innocent remark sparked the thought, "What defines the existence of a number?"

Infinity does not exist in reality, yet, does any number exist outside of our mind? Obviously the concept of infinity is far beyond the understanding of this author. Mathmaticians have struggled with this concept for centuries. However, even a simple understanding begs the question: if numbers exist by human definition, does not infinity exist due to the human postulation creating infinity? Perhaps this argument is purely ontological. However, I propose that the concept exists prior to human recognition rather than because of human labeling.

While one cannot "quantify" infinity, for quantification would defy the very concept of infinity, it must exist if humans can conceive of it. The logic of this argument is also used in the ontological argument for God, which I will not delve into at this point (refer to the link, it is quite clear.)

So at the end of this postulation, consider the question: does exterior reality determine the existence of certain concepts, or is it our discovery of concepts, and then human labeling that bring them into existence? The difference is finite, but it does exist; at least it does in my mind.

Happy Holy Days

As Christmas quickly approaches, businesses and schools rush to become politically correct and inclusive of all holiday celebrations. But by being "inclusive," politically correct gurus end up alienating the majority of Americans.

John Stewart on The Daily Show, mocked the movement to preserve Christmas noting that, "because we have two holidays within a small period of time, the word 'holiday' becomes plural, which, in the English language, necessitates an 's'. Hence the use of 'happy holidays'."

This plural is obviously true. And if one prefers saying "happy holidays", then so be it. However, stores and schools are not simply encouraging the use of "happy holidays," they directly prohibit the words "Merry Christmas." Instead, they promote a commercialized day, full of self-gratification.

Ironically enough, even the word holiday comes from the middle english "holy day." So "happy holidays" entails religious meaning. Perhaps someone should notify the ACLU.