PETA must be trolling us

Now I am convinced that PETA must be the most well-organized practical joke in the world. They are suing Sea World for violating the 13th Amendment. The theory? Keeping killer whales in captivity is slavery. (source)

If this files, I’m bringing a THIRD Amendment complaint against the U.S. Government. After all, they quarter troops in the homes of squirrels, bears, and owls every time they set up camp in the woods. Ordinances that tell worthless trash fuckheads that their dogs need to shut the fuck up? That there must be a violation of the dog’s First Amendment rights. PETA’s campaign to spay and neuter pets? If animals have constitutional rights, then that campaign starts sounding an awful lot like something that isn’t exactly popular. Of course, maybe the converse would be true — and if we can spay dogs and cats, we ought to be able to spay and neuter the non productive members of society — I’m cool with that.

You ever see those “protect your right to arm bears” bumper stickers? They aren’t just ironic, bears would have Second Amendment rights — and so would monkeys!

H/T: Venkat

Disclaimer, I do not support monkeys having weapons. Despite what Popehat has said (libelously I might add) about me — that I represent both sides in the great ape war — I am firmly with my human brethren.

3 Responses to PETA must be trolling us

  1. Charles Platt says:

    Animal rights have been placed ahead of human rights in many regulatory areas for years, now. This is why a single kangaroo rat can stop you from building a house. An interesting unintended consequence of laws to protect allegedly endangered species is that in the rural area where I live, anyone who finds anything that looks possibly endangered will feel strongly motivated to kill it and get rid of the evidence. It’s either that or face being deprived of the use of your land. If the law were turned around to reward people for taking care of endangered species, the species would have a better chance of survival. PETA would not approve, however, because it is a basic principle that “wild” species must never be domesticated. Thou shalt not feed a bald eagle.

    Seems to me, the whole area of “species law” is overdue for a makeover.

  2. moritheil says:

    When I was in college, a guy on my floor joined PETA, because in his words, they cared about suffering in the world. Intrigued, I asked him why he joined PETA instead of Save Darfur or any of the other groups focusing on human suffering. He tried several times to answer me, but no answer that he gave me ever amounted to more than the fact that he felt emotionally compelled to help animals but just did not feel any pressing desire to help other human beings. Human suffering was always Someone Else’s Problem.

    I’m sure this one example doesn’t speak for all people in PETA . . . but statistics like their abnormally high animal kill count in Virginia have since made me incapable of taking their public pronouncements seriously. They’ve probably been trolling for a long time now.

    • the other rob says:

      PETA’s preference for “catch and kill” is well known. I found this out when I started opposing a proposed animal control ordinance in our city (which, inter alia, also authorizes warrantless searches, dispenses with the nuisance of due process and a host of other shockers).

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: