NationStates Jolt Archive

PETA's Dirty Secret (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm)

Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret.

PETA kills animals. By the thousands.

From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.

Year Received† Adopted Killed Transferred % Killed % Adopted
2003 2,224 312 1,911 1 85.9 14.0
2002 2,680 382 2,298 2 85.7 14.3
2001 2,685 703 1,944 14 72.4 26.2
2000 2,684 624 2,029 28 75.6 23.2
1999 1,805 386 1,328 91 73.6 21.4
* 1998 943 133 685 125 72.6 14.1
Total 13,021 2540 10,195 261 78.3 19.5

* figures represent the second half of 1998 only
† other than spay/neuter animals
» skeptical? click here to see the proof (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf)


On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don't eat meat or dairy foods. So far, the group hasn't confirmed the obvious -- that it's using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.

In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA's Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. "We could become a no-kill shelter immediately," she admitted.

PETA kills animals. Because it has other financial priorities.

PETA raked in nearly $29 million last year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.

PETA claims it engages in outrageous media-seeking stunts "for the animals." But which animals? Carping about the value of future two-piece dinners while administering lethal injections to puppies and kittens isn't ethical. It's hypocritical -- with a death toll that PETA would protest if it weren't their own doing.

PETA kills animals. And its leaders dare lecture the rest of us.

PETA's Dirty Secret (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm)

Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret.

PETA kills animals. By the thousands.

From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.

Year Received† Adopted Killed Transferred % Killed % Adopted
2003 2,224 312 1,911 1 85.9 14.0
2002 2,680 382 2,298 2 85.7 14.3
2001 2,685 703 1,944 14 72.4 26.2
2000 2,684 624 2,029 28 75.6 23.2
1999 1,805 386 1,328 91 73.6 21.4
* 1998 943 133 685 125 72.6 14.1
Total 13,021 2540 10,195 261 78.3 19.5

* figures represent the second half of 1998 only
† other than spay/neuter animals
» skeptical? click here to see the proof (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf)


On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don't eat meat or dairy foods. So far, the group hasn't confirmed the obvious -- that it's using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.

In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA's Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. "We could become a no-kill shelter immediately," she admitted.

PETA kills animals. Because it has other financial priorities.

PETA raked in nearly $29 million last year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.

PETA claims it engages in outrageous media-seeking stunts "for the animals." But which animals? Carping about the value of future two-piece dinners while administering lethal injections to puppies and kittens isn't ethical. It's hypocritical -- with a death toll that PETA would protest if it weren't their own doing.

PETA kills animals. And its leaders dare lecture the rest of us.

Being from Virginia Beach, I've known this for some time.

They also will steal pets from loving homes, peoples backyards, and take them in to be "put down" in their "shelter".

The entire organization should be put to an end. It's administrators should be jailed, and its supporters should be treated like the terrorists they are.

Being from Virginia Beach, I've known this for some time.

They also will steal pets from loving homes, peoples backyards, and take them in to be "put down" in their "shelter".

The entire organization should be put to an end. It's administrators should be jailed, and its supporters should be treated like the terrorists they are.
Yeah PETA went from having something at least borderline relevant to say, to insane hypocritical eco-terrorists. Worse than Green Peace.

I love when they assault people wearing fur with paint and slash furs with razors. I guess no one will listen to them till they resort to violence and intimidation.

How about we just lock up PETA in their own shelters along a with a few hungry lions for company? :)

This sounds like typical conservative smear propaganda.

This sounds like typical conservative smear propaganda.
Liberal/Conservative has nothing to do with this, PETA is just batshit insane.

Are there any non-affiliated sites that can confirm this? (not that I like PETA, I'm just curious as to how true this is)

This sounds like typical conservative smear propaganda.


It must be. We all know that cockeyed facist liberal shrikes would never do anything like this.

This sounds like typical conservative smear propaganda.
Then research it before baldly claiming BS. The PDFs in the "evidence" link might have been created by Karl Rove to confuse Dan Rather, but I doubt it.

PETA have used every low underhand trick possible to try to promote their ideology. Their aim seems to be to offend as many groups as possible. Way to "liberate" animals.

EDIT: I think that PETA are bang out of order, and I'm pretty dang liberal. It's not a conservative/liberal thing. It's a PETA-are-nuttier-than-a-bloody-fruitcake-and-need-to-get-their-heads-out-their-arses thing.

A link you folks may enjoy.

Click (http://www.peta-sucks.com)

Liberal/Conservative has nothing to do with this, PETA is just batshit insane.

Indeed. While I agree that animals are mistreated (and harmed unnecessarily) in many industries - killing for meat, for instance, could be much more humane - all they do is spread misconceptions about medical research.

I've never liked PETA, since a video of anthropomorphized animals tried to convince me that farms were evil. It was aimed at kids, and was posted on nationstates by an idiot with terrible spelling.

I have often found PETA to have questionable practices. Like throwing paint on Paegant girls & such because the 8 yrs old is wearing fur is horrid.

This is just the icing on the cake if it is true.

I've never liked PETA, since a video of anthropomorphized animals tried to convince me that farms were evil. It was aimed at kids, and was posted on nationstates by an idiot with terrible spelling.

....sounds about right

The intersexed community was not amused by PETAs april fools day "joke" either.

My favorite piece by PETA would be "Colonel Corn: Going to Texas to assault the Meaties!" Made in webcomic style, with photographs, I found it incredibly amusing.

The intersexed community was not amused by PETAs april fools day "joke" either.

I'm not familiar with this - what did they do?

I'm not familiar with this - what did they do?

Spoof article linking hunters with micropenis with inadquate sexual function with homicidal tendancies. They made up an imaginary condition with a website called "diminuitive male genetalia disorder" or something. I'll dig around and see if I can find the links again.

EDIT: gottem.
Research Center Concludes That Hunters ‘Compensate’ for Diminutive Genitalia by Acting Out Domination Fantasies (http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=6168)
"Diminuitive Male Genetalia Disorder" Website (http://dmgd.org/)
"Lead story" reads "New Research Finds Long-Suspected Link Between Hunting and Small Penis Size". "Diminuitive Male Genetalia Disorder" isn't a real condition, micropenis is.
Intersex support group Bodies Like Ours were not amused (http://www.bodieslikeours.org/recent-news/peta.html).

Are there any non-affiliated sites that can confirm this? (not that I like PETA, I'm just curious as to how true this is)

Actually you can find alot of this stuff in the Hampton Road's local newpaper (Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and Suffolk's local news paper) The Virginia Pilot and Ledger Star (http://www.hamptonroads.com/pilotonline/)... The archives require you to register, and pay. But can provide archives all the way back to 1900.

In May 9th, 2002 PETA was pressed with a lawsuit in Norfolk for attacks on the Humane Society.

August 2000 report made by Virginia Pilot reporter Kerry Dougherty, had PETA being sued for stealing and killing more than 1300 pets in the Norfolk area over the last year.

PETA has their headquarters here.... We know them better than the people reading their ad campaigns elsewhere.... That's not even to include some of the horrible things the President of the Organization has said.

Spoof article linking hunters with micropenis with inadquate sexual function with homicidal tendancies. They made up an imaginary condition with a website called "diminuitive male genetalia disorder" or something. I'll dig around and see if I can find the links again.

The irony is that PETA members are the ones who probably have mental disorders.

Here are some qoutes from thier upper echelon....

Quotes from animal rights activists

"We feel that animals have the same rights as retarded children."

-Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA, New York Times, January 14, 1989.

"The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration."

-Michael W. Fox, Vice President, The Human Society of the United States, The Inhumane Society, New York, 1990.

"Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans."

-Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd edition, 1990.

Regan when asked which he would save, a dog or a baby, if a boat capsized in the ocean: "If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog."

-Tom Regan, Q&A session following a speech, University of Wisconsin-Madison, October 27, 1989.
Animal Experimentation

"To those people who say, `My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say `Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off."

- Bill Maher, PETA celebrity spokesman

"If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me."

-Chris De Rose, Director, Last Chance for Animals

"An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable."

-Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd. edition, 1990.

"If abandoning animal research means that there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it ... We have no basic right ... not to be harmed by those natural diseases we are heir to."

-Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, 1983
Meat

"Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, The Washington Post, November 13, 1983.
Pets

"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive."

-PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?

"I don’t use the word "pet." I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance."

-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership."

-Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the first step ... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'"

-New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog! February 1991, p.20

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles -- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it."

-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic, PETA, 1982, p.15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear..... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist."

-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic, PETA 1982, p.15.

"As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves."

-PETA's Statement on Companion Animals

"The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats ... If people want toys they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship they should seek it with their own kind."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, "Animals," May/June 1993

"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.

"Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Washingtonian, August 1986
Terrorism

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."

-Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA

"Andrew Cunanan, because he got Versace to stop doing fur."

-PETA's David Mathews reply when to Genre request for "Men We Love"

"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997

"Get arrested. Destroy the property of those who torture animals. Liberate those animals interned in the hellholes our society tolerates."

-Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League, Internet post to AR Views list, June 21, 1996

"We have found that civil disobedience and direction action has been powerful in generating massive attention in our communities ... and has been very effective in traumatizing our targets."

-J.P. Goodwin, Committee to Abolish the Fur Trade, National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997.

"In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It's a war, and there's no other way you can stop vivisectors."

-Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front Leader

"If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong."

-Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Aren't any of you familiar with Penn and Teller's show Bullshit? They had a episode about exactly this and even showed the freezer that you're all talking about. I guess not many people watch that show.

Aren't any of you familiar with Penn and Teller's show Bullshit? They had a episode about exactly this and even showed the freezer that you're all talking about. I guess not many people watch that show.
I own 3 DVDs of the series. I don't remember that episode, but I will look again.

But it all comes down to what I like to call "The Basic Radical Abolitionalist Hypocrisy" i.e. "Because we are smarter/better/whiter/whatever than you are We can do/own something that we forbid you to do/own."

You know, Gun Control types who own guns or hire armed bodyguards, Animal Rights Activists who kill more pets than my local "no kill" shelter, Congress Critters who have their own special private investment accounts and don't have to participate in Social Insecurity, etc.

Eh... sure, PETA goes overboard, and, yes, their tactics are underhanded. Very underhanded.


<rant>My experience with PETA is very limited, thank God (yes, I am a Christian. Yes, some might consider me one of those annoying Fundamentalists. I don't really speak up here because nobody really wants to hear what I have say, and I respect that- on this forum, anyway...). However, I do have one thing to gripe about, to an extent.

You see, I live in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. We have a very large concerntration of Amish and Mennonite people, which means we have a decent tourism industry :rolleyes: . Additionally, Pres. James Buchanan's estate is located in Lancaster, and we have several historic towns.

NOW, there are some objectionable things that PETA finds in this. Last year, they decided to put up a nice, big billboard that says, "Welcome to Lancaster County- Home to Thousands of Puppy Mills". Now, I'm probably as much irritated by puppy mills as the next guy, but, there's one thing that PETA overlooked. The previously mentioned Amish have a different view on animals than most people, therefore, puppy mills are okay in their sight. Wouldn't you just love to be some tourist and see that sign on your way to, say, Litiz (a very nice town with a large historic district, for the 99.9% of those who are clueless to the area)? It's not like they have to advertise the wrongs of a specific demographic (but, PETA is full of puppy-killing hypocrites, anyway, so, they don't really care), do they?</rant>

Yeah, most of them have some weird perceptions on life. I remember watching some interview while channel surfing and seeing the PETA spokeswoman have to answer "If a dog and a person were drowning who would you save?"...and she kept trying to dodge the question.

They are as a group bat-shiat crazy. I for one would like to see a meat lovers group that would exist solely to terrorize these terrorists.

It all boils down to the "leave my group alone, and fuck the others".

The same idea that brings you

"let me keep my gun, but you can't be gay"

"let me have an abortion, but you can't own a gun"

"we can have muslims pray in school in groups, but you need to get rid of that Christmas music"

"We're all for free speech, but those violent video games have to be banned"

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals :eek:

They are as a group bat-shiat crazy. I for one would like to see a meat lovers group that would exist solely to terrorize these terrorists.

Some of us in research labs have fun when there are protesters around. It's fun to walk by them and just start asking questions. "Are those leather shoes!?" "Have your children been vaccinated?" "Have you ever taken aspirin?"...

I find myself watching Animal Planet on cable sometimes. They have a show about the Humane Society police going into projects and taking away starving dogs, abused and maimed dogs living in their own filth.
Where is PETA? How come they arent there too? Why is it just one or two guys-underfunded and under equipped answering these calls? How come PETA isnt supporting the Humane Society efforts with their vast resources?

PETA's Dirty Secret (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm)

Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret.

PETA kills animals. By the thousands.

Old news, I'm afraid. Penn & Teller covered this nicely on their episode of Bullshit! on PETA last season.

One of their leaders is also diabetic, and has been taking insulin for most of her life. This means that she was taking it before there was artificial insulin. So she was taking insulin for some time that was manufactured in pigs. For shame! Using animals that way to prolong your own life...

Some of us in research labs have fun when there are protesters around. It's fun to walk by them and just start asking questions. "Are those leather shoes!?" "Have your children been vaccinated?" "Have you ever taken aspirin?"...
Y'all have got to read "Fallen Angels" by Niven, Pournell and Flynn (Get it FREE from the publisher here) (http://www.webscription.net/free/)

a fun snippet: . "So, Michael. You were on your way from Las Vegas to L.A. for a, what, a demonstration?"
"Yeah, outside the premiere," the tall boy said. "Anyone wearing fur, she'll at least know what we think of her! The rest of us went on in the other car, but Barb and I thought we'd better report what we saw Jeez, you can smell it, the filth they're putting in the air-—"
"Kid," said the male Earth First cop, "have you noticed it's getting chilly lately?"
"Sure, the Ice is coming." The boy named Michael looked elaborately around him at the heat of the desert. "Okay, I've seen them on TV, the glaciers, but they don't affect the principle, they don't affect the blood spilled. Wearing fur was murder when the goddam scientists were still whimpering about global warming, and it's still murder today!"
"I don't question that, but it seems to me," Glen said to the speaker, "that all of your targets are women. Isn't that sexist? I mean, men wear fur, too, not often, but-—"
An Earth First policewoman said, "He has a point, kid. Sexism is politically incorrect, too. I think you need to target an equal number of fur-wearing males."
Now Barb was glaring at Michael. The boy said, "Uh . . ."
"And why just fur?" said Glen. "Leather is the skin of a dead animal, too!"
Earth First glanced down at their boots. So did both of the kids. Sherrine hadn't had to say anything at all. Glen let them argue-—fur versus leather, wild free beasts versus beasts held prisoner until their deaths, hide and meat versus fur alone. The teens' respect for uniforms was fading. The cops were getting angry.
Glen said, "What we could do is, we should station teams outside biker bars and throw dye on leather-clad men as they come out."
The jet motor roared in a sudden silence.
"That would be more correct," the girl called Barb bellowed. "We'd include men as well as women. And it would show that we care as deeply about homely cows and other leather-producing animals as we care about cute, furry rabbits and minks."
Michael said, "Barb-—"
Oh, that would be fun, Sherrine thought. Glen was right: the attacks on fur-bearing upper-class women were sexist. Let's see what leather-clad bikers do when Michael and Barb spit on their jackets. Sherrine was trying to swallow a grin . . . and Earth First turned to face Hudson and Hartwell with evident relief.

I find myself watching Animal Planet on cable sometimes. They have a show about the Humane Society police going into projects and taking away starving dogs, abused and maimed dogs living in their own filth.
Where is PETA? How come they arent there too? Why is it just one or two guys-underfunded and under equipped answering these calls? How come PETA isnt supporting the Humane Society efforts with their vast resources?

PETA tried to get the Norfolk Chapter of the Humane Society shut down three years ago.....

How they did it was interesting. They had two of their own members (of PETA) get hired into the Humane Society.... While in there, they videotaped themselves assaulting and harming animals... The two then quit, and turned the tape over to PETA. Who then used it to press charges against the Human Society for animal cruelty.

In the initial court case, evidence came out showing the two were employees of PETA, before, DURING and after the taping.

The result is, PETA is now pending several lawsuits (CRIMINAL SUITS) for falsifying evidence and perjury before the District Court (the entire organization).

I personally can't wait till Police storm their headquarters one day, and lock em all up in our wonderful state prison systems. If they are lucky, they may even get put into some of our wonder state work-camps, were they can spend several years cutting down trees beside roadways in counties all over the state.

Or better yet, at one of the many state farm camps, like Bland or Powhatan, helping to raise beef-cattle while in our wonderful DOC.

snip

Tekania, do you have a newspaper source for that? If so I would like to have it, I know of some good places to post that.

On another note...

Did you know peta owns shares in Outback Steakhouse?

From the horce's mouth (http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=6311)

And Ingrid Newkirk's will

click (http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/)

Just a few more cases of hypocrazy and madness that comes from that org.

Wow, gotta love the misonformed like Hammolopolis. Go back to your Fox news. But serisouly, PETA are Eco-terrorists. They attacked a vet clinic because they were putting down animals. It's old news that PETA went from people with a message to.. insane

Tekania, do you have a newspaper source for that? If so I would like to have it, I know of some good places to post that.

On another note...

Did you know peta owns shares in Outback Steakhouse?

From the horce's mouth (http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=6311)

And Ingrid Newkirk's will

click (http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/)

Just a few more cases of hypocrazy and madness that comes from that org.

The article was in May 9th 2002 edition of the Virginia Pilot. (Newpaper out of PETA's "hometown" Norfolk, and which coveres the entire hampton roads area). Unfortuneately, the archives require a registration fee, so there is no way I can post the information on there direct from source.

PETA isn't the only group of nutcases out there...the Sierra Club isn't far behind.

Where PETA funds ALF and ELF, the Sierra Club funds Earth First. The Sierra Club just happens to be smarter about hiding it's nuts. ;)

Being from Virginia Beach, I've known this for some time.

They also will steal pets from loving homes, peoples backyards, and take them in to be "put down" in their "shelter".

The entire organization should be put to an end. It's administrators should be jailed, and its supporters should be treated like the terrorists they are.
Wow i never would have guessed at looking at it that way!
*Gets out M-60*-keep away Hippies-Wait i was like that before hmmmmmmmm............ . . . . BAh

PETA isn't the only group of nutcases out there...the Sierra Club isn't far behind.

Where PETA funds ALF and ELF, the Sierra Club funds Earth First. The Sierra Club just happens to be smarter about hiding it's nuts. ;)

You're better off putting your money with Ducks Unlimited or the Izaac Walton League.

They've preserved more land, wetlands, and other natural resources than the Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy combined.

The article was in May 9th 2002 edition of the Virginia Pilot. (Newpaper out of PETA's "hometown" Norfolk, and which coveres the entire hampton roads area). Unfortuneately, the archives require a registration fee, so there is no way I can post the information on there direct from source.

Ok.

Oh, for those interested in how peta treats kids in thier org...


These forums is where kids go after being introduced to peta.

http://streetteam.peta2.com/public/folder_view.cfm?pageid=341&option=view_topics&actionid=531

They are brainwashed on these forums, any opposing views posted there are immediately deleted. When they join they are promised points for every action they do. Eg, harassing CEO's of company's targeted by peta, protesting outside of fast food restaraunts, posting peta stickers everywhere, etc. There is also a few who praise direct action (breaking into and destroying labs, releasing animals) and tries to stir the kids up.

Here are excerts:

harassing a VP (http://streetteam.peta2.com/public/folder_view.cfm?pageid=341&option=view_thread&postid=1038527&folderid=727)

Helping a terrorist org (http://streetteam.peta2.com/public/folder_view.cfm?pageid=341&option=view_thread&postid=1146547&folderid=725)

Bribing kids into doing thier work (http://streetteam.peta2.com/public/folder_view.cfm?pageid=341&option=view_thread&postid=1160318&folderid=727)

A link you folks may enjoy.

Click (http://www.peta-sucks.com)



I find the hate mail quite funny :p Its like watching the WoW forums :p

I can't stand PETA, and I spent a lot of time on that PETA sucks website. I wouldn't be surprised if they were secretly killing animals.

I love when they assault people wearing fur with paint and slash furs with razors. I guess no one will listen to them till they resort to violence and intimidation.

they learned it from our govt.

As a guy who is often at protests for better animal treatment, I say PETA should shut the fuck up and stop making us look like crazy fanatics zoofiles.

they learned it from our govt.
I remember in the late 1990s when I was outside the Neiman-Marcus in Bethesda, Maryland, and some PETA girls threw paint on a woman who was wearing a fur coat.

The woman pulled out a can of pepper spray and fogged them down. Instant screaming - you would have thought she threw acid in their faces.

And then she asked me politely if I would stay and be a witness for her when the police arrived. I said, "yes, I will."

snip

:D

Wow

As a guy who is often at protests for better animal treatment, I say PETA should shut the fuck up and stop making us look like crazy fanatics zoofiles.
I'm a vegetarian and feel the same way.

I'm a vegetarian and feel the same way.
Ah, so you know how I feel when someone does something stupid and terrible with a gun.

That one person destroys the reputation of tens of millions of Americans in a single instant.

There are plenty of reasons - valid and sane reasons - to not eat meat, or to be nice to animals - but extremism isn't the answer.

There are, IMHO, plenty of valid and sane reasons to own a gun - but shooting people for the hell of it doesn't help.

Well, really, the only (legitimate) reason to own a gun in my books is for hunting. If you're not going out to kill something for food with your gun then there's no point in having it.

Well, really, the only (legitimate) reason to own a gun in my books is for hunting. If you're not going out to kill something for food with your gun then there's no point in having it.
I've changed many a bad situation into a good one with a gun, and not by killing or hurting anyone.

I didn't even have to say anything. Or shoot.

PETA tried to get the Norfolk Chapter of the Humane Society shut down three years ago.....

How they did it was interesting. They had two of their own members (of PETA) get hired into the Humane Society.... While in there, they videotaped themselves assaulting and harming animals... The two then quit, and turned the tape over to PETA. Who then used it to press charges against the Human Society for animal cruelty.

In the initial court case, evidence came out showing the two were employees of PETA, before, DURING and after the taping.

The result is, PETA is now pending several lawsuits (CRIMINAL SUITS) for falsifying evidence and perjury before the District Court (the entire organization).

The question becomes, why are they so anti-Human Society? How could they possibly justify it?

The question becomes, why are they so anti-Human Society? How could they possibly justify it?

You're asking the wrong person.

I think animals can make great companions. And sometimes they are even tasty to eat.

Well, really, the only (legitimate) reason to own a gun in my books is for hunting. If you're not going out to kill something for food with your gun then there's no point in having it.
Except to try to win an Olympic gold medal... :sniper:
(since I don't want this to get totally OT, I will ignore my standard self defense argument(s) for the moment)

IMO Fanaticisim is evil. Whether it be from a Fanatic: Vegan, or Moslem, or Gun Nut/Survivalist, or Christian or Enviornmentalist, or Prohibitionist, or Feminist, or Flamer/Dyke, or Redneck, or Ivory Tower Elitest or whatever, the absurd desire to do and say outrageous and dangerous things to "support" a cause is probably why so many people find that "cause" objectionable.

And because of it, rational people of all stripes suffer and lose their freedom(s) to do/be who they are. :(

PETA is quality comedy.

The question becomes, why are they so anti-Human Society? How could they possibly justify it?
Two Easy Reasons.

#1: $$$, your local Humane Society gets local donations that Peta and the HSUS want. The HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) is the marginally less radical child of the Animal Rights movement. However, they regularly hire PETA employees. (not too smart because of ...)

#2: $$$, According to the Comparative Financial Operations Report for 2003, the HSUS has $116,205,882.00 in total liability and net assets. Over $5,000,000 of that is in cash and cash equivalents, and another nearly five and a half million in receivables. They also have nearly $93,000,000 in market value investments. Not too bad.

In 2003, in revenue, additions and transfers, HSUS made $76,923,670. Of that
amount, sheltering programs received $10,551,527 and it was shared with
animal habitat and wildlife programs. Now, assuming it was an even split,
sheltering programs received $3,517,175.66

Now that's a lot of money, but not when you consider a good sized shelter
can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to run, three million is
really a drop in the bucket. They spent $21,145,769.00 in fundraising and
membership development. Six times what they put into their shelter programs,
which is what most people I talked to think HSUS does with the money donated to them.

If PETA employees make a Humane Society (either type) operation look bad, they stand to rake in some of the donation/fundraising dough because they have "Ethical" in their name and movie stars in their pockets.

I won't give a dime to anything associated with the HSUS. My local no-kill shelter gets my "save the kitties" money.

PETA is quality comedy.
No, but this is - http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html

http://img133.echo.cx/img133/3605/petacombine9nb.gif

I won't give a dime to anything associated with the HSUS. My local no-kill shelter gets my "save the kitties" money.

In GA, the only no-kill shelters are humane societies (I don't know if they are all related or just all use the name). There are even some that go by the name humane society that are not no-kill shelters - and I refuse to give them any funds. I will only adopt animals that I either find homeless or at shelters.

In GA, the only no-kill shelters are humane societies (I don't know if they are all related or just all use the name). There are even some that go by the name humane society that are not no-kill shelters - and I refuse to give them any funds. I will only adopt animals that I either find homeless or at shelters.
One of my local shelters is The Treehouse (http://www.treehouseanimals.org/), the other is called "Freids Cat Shelter".

As for your local Humane Society, Ask them - they will tell you. (You can find out anyway because as a NFP, their books have to be open.) In Spokane WA, the local Humane Society made a big deal of disassociating itself from the HSUS because of the crap the HSUS pulls.

Firstly, when the HSUS does fundraising, it does not sufficiently declare that it is the HSUS calling vs your local Humane Society. This REALLY torques the local Societies, who don't see a dime, but see their contributer base dry up.

Secondly, many (most) rural/western local Humane Societies understand the concept of animal husbandry and hunting. Their focus is on rescue from genuine cruelty - like starving horses, houses full of cat shit and other abused domestic animals. The anti hunting/husbandry stance of the HSUS makes the local societies look like jerks.

PETA's Dirty Secret (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm)



Well, this is the first I've heard of this, and if it's true, it's ridiculous,especially if the animals they are putting down are able to be rehabilitated and found good homes.

Now, second of all, I am a vegan and an animal activist, not affiliated with any group but my own personal sense of morality, and you're damn right I'll lecture your ass about resource abuse, condoning cruelty through your actions, putting your money into the perpetuation of the cruelty industry, and in general, being ignorant tosser.

Get off your high horse, just because you're the top of the food chain doesn't mean you have to act like a brute. That makes you look less evolved than the animals you continuously bad mouth for being nothing more than what they are; innocent dumb animals.

This thread is pathetic. It's like a bunch of high school kids went to the local grade school to tease the second graders. Grow the hell up. Start taking some responsibility for your planet. Stop pretending that your actions have no consequences.

You don't have to be part of any organization to be socially and environmentally responsible, and if some gay ass hypocritical organization is going to make you hate animals and all the people in the world who dedicate their lives to saving them, then you're worthless and have no place on this planet to begin with.

"Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans."

-Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd edition, 1990.

"An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable."

-Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd. edition, 1990.


I will agree that the rest of those quotes are nuts, but these two above are perfectly logical (the second depending on the severity of the brain damage and the animal in question, admittedly). And Peter Singer is hardly some sort of loony - he is an Oxford-educated philosopher and ethicist, if my memory serves me correctly.

Well, this is the first I've heard of this, and if it's true, it's ridiculous,especially if the animals they are putting down are able to be rehabilitated and found good homes. It's been long ago proven as true.
Now, second of all, I am a vegan and an animal activist, not affiliated with any group but my own personal sense of morality, and you're damn right I'll lecture your ass about resource abuse, condoning cruelty through your actions, putting your money into the perpetuation of the cruelty industry, and in general, being ignorant tosser.Well, that's your opinion. Since you don't know me, I'm not sure how you can hold those opinions, but whatever.

Get off your high horse, Pot. Kettle. Black. just because you're the top of the food chain doesn't mean you have to act like a brute. That makes you look less evolved than the animals you continuously bad mouth for being nothing more than what they are; innocent dumb animals.Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Basic abuse. I can address that. Please tell me when I bad-mouthed animals... especially "continuously"? I am bad mouthing an hypocritical organization and its leadership, not animals.

This thread is pathetic. It's like a bunch of high school kids went to the local grade school to tease the second graders. Grow the hell up. Start taking some responsibility for your planet. Stop pretending that your actions have no consequences.


As for actions having consequences, here where I live there is an enviornmentally unsupportable deer population. Animal rights loonies say that hunting them is wrong and that we should either (A) let "nature take its course" - i.e. let the poor blighters starve to death, or (B) shoot them with birth-control hormone darts, THEN let them starve to death. :rolleyes:

You don't have to be part of any organization to be socially and environmentally responsible, and if some gay ass hypocritical organization is going to make you hate animals and all the people in the world who dedicate their lives to saving them, then you're worthless and have no place on this planet to begin with.
See what I mean about Fanatics? Nowhere have I condoned animal cruelty. In fact, I have listed the no-kill shelters to which I send my meager disposable income. I spend more money than I should on what little meat I do consume because I refuse to buy it from "meat producers" whose methods and marketing I find objectionable. (I eat what I kill, and I (quickly & humanely) kill what meat I eat. No hormones for me.) :D

But to a Fanatic, any objection to any portion of their agenda or fellow organization(s) is "hate". :headbang:

Again: Pot, Kettle, Black. GB&F, you have some real disassociation and tranference issues. :(

Originally Posted by Mt-Tau
"Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans."

-Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd edition, 1990.

"An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable."

-Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd. edition, 1990.I will agree that the rest of those quotes are nuts, but these two above are perfectly logical (the second depending on the severity of the brain damage and the animal in question, admittedly). And Peter Singer is hardly some sort of loony - he is an Oxford-educated philosopher and ethicist, if my memory serves me correctly.
Please tell me you are kidding. :eek: This sort of attitude is what leads people to go into labs, destroy property, injure people and release non-native, lab-domesticated species into the wild to die of starvation/predation in the name of "liberation"

The ONLY way the first quote could apply is under the axiom "Some people just need killing", e.g. The life of my cat is more valuable than that of the housebreaker tryng to stomp her to death.

As for the second, Singer is denouncing medical testing on animals and saying it would be better to do involuntary tests on non-consenting humans.

Singer is a loon, Oxford degree or no. Just because he is a "philosopher" and "ethicist" makes him no more Ethical than having the workd Ethical in PETA makes them so.

Please tell me you are kidding. :eek: This sort of attitude is what leads people to go into labs, destroy property, injure people and release non-native, lab-domesticated species into the wild to die of starvation/predation in the name of "liberation"

The ONLY way the first quote could apply is under the axiom "Some people just need killing", e.g. The life of my cat is more valuable than that of the housebreaker tryng to stomp her to death.

As for the second, Singer is denouncing medical testing on animals and saying it would be better to do involuntary tests on non-consenting humans.

Singer is a loon, Oxford degree or no. Just because he is a "philosopher" and "ethicist" makes him no more Ethical than having the workd Ethical in PETA makes them so.
In the nicest possibe way, that is rubbish. The (mis)interpretation of these statements by certain fanatics and the deluded actions then taken by said people does not in any way affect the validity of the statements themselves. The first quote could quite easily be applied to valuing the life of a labrador, say, above that of a brain-dead human - which is perfectly sensible. A labrador possesses to a far higher degree the qualities that make humans "human" than a human vegetable does, and it seems bizarre to avoid saying so.

Please tell me you are kidding. :eek: This sort of attitude is what leads people to go into labs, destroy property, injure people and release non-native, lab-domesticated species into the wild to die of starvation/predation in the name of "liberation"

The ONLY way the first quote could apply is under the axiom "Some people just need killing", e.g. The life of my cat is more valuable than that of the housebreaker tryng to stomp her to death.

As for the second, Singer is denouncing medical testing on animals and saying it would be better to do involuntary tests on non-consenting humans.

Singer is a loon, Oxford degree or no. Just because he is a "philosopher" and "ethicist" makes him no more Ethical than having the workd Ethical in PETA makes them so.
And if you actually read the second quote, you would see that he is making a point about the comparative value of human and animal life, no more. It is not an assertion that brain-damaged humans should necessarily be used instead, but rather a statement that since animal lives are similar in value to said humans, and should not be sacrificed where we would not consider using those humans.

And my point about Singer is that he is an educated and intelligent man, and a prominent academic in his field. I am not arguing that this makes him right, merely that it would be arrogant indeed to dismiss him as a loon without properly examining his literature and arguments.

And if you actually read the second quote, you would see that he is making a point about the comparative value of human and animal life, no more. It is not an assertion that brain-damaged humans should necessarily be used instead, but rather a statement that since animal lives are similar in value to said humans, and should not be sacrificed where we would not consider using those humans.

And my point about Singer is that he is an educated and intelligent man, and a prominent academic in his field. I am not arguing that this makes him right, merely that it would be arrogant indeed to dismiss him as a loon without properly examining his literature and arguments.

Well, while I haven't read all of Singer, the fact that his work is as easily and wantonly "misinterpreted" as the Bible or Koran doesn't speak well of his ability to discuss his position in a rational scientific manner.

I would also strenuously argue against his devaluation of humans who are not somehow "perfect".

This is a nice little article addressing just that point.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~jpdasddc/ARTICLES/2000(2)/pp75-81SobseyEthics

I have often found PETA to have questionable practices. Like throwing paint on Paegant girls & such because the 8 yrs old is wearing fur is horrid.

This is just the icing on the cake if it is true.

Anyone can throw paint at little girls and women wearing fur, I will respect PETA when they throw paint at Hells Angels, Outlaws or another bikie gang in full leathers.
Actually no I won't, but I start taking them seriously (and laugh at the beating the person that does it recieves) :)

I have often found PETA to have questionable practices. Like throwing paint on Paegant girls & such because the 8 yrs old is wearing fur is horrid.

This is just the icing on the cake if it is true.
Actually I'm all for the paint throwing. Maybe I should go make a 8 year old paegant girl coat haha, hot stuff.

Now, second of all, I am a vegan and an animal activist, not affiliated with any group but my own personal sense of morality, and you're damn right I'll lecture your ass about resource abuse, condoning cruelty through your actions, putting your money into the perpetuation of the cruelty industry, and in general, being ignorant tosser. Please don't. No one cares, not even a little bit. When you lecture people on this type of thing it drives their interest into the realm of negative caring.

Get off your high horse, just because you're the top of the food chain doesn't mean you have to act like a brute. That makes you look less evolved than the animals you continuously bad mouth for being nothing more than what they are; innocent dumb animals.
The condescending vegan activist wants us to get off our high horses? Did you seriously think that through? We said PETA sucks, they are hypocritical and dangerous. Most people in this thread have said that they like animals, and still think PETA is full of crap.

This thread is pathetic. It's like a bunch of high school kids went to the local grade school to tease the second graders. Grow the hell up. Start taking some responsibility for your planet. Stop pretending that your actions have no consequences.
Oh grow the hell up. Quit pretending you're some high and mighty savior of mankind, leading us out of the pits of ignorance. Unless you plan on living in the woods, and foraging for every scrap of food you eat you're hurting the environment more than you possibly know. Care to guess how many tons of coal were burned to power your computer, or how many more tons of resources it took to construct? Your high and mighty enlightened path is nothing more than a masturbatory fantasy. You're hurting the environment just as much as we are, no matter how much you yell at us for doing it.

You don't have to be part of any organization to be socially and environmentally responsible, and if some gay ass hypocritical organization is going to make you hate animals and all the people in the world who dedicate their lives to saving them, then you're worthless and have no place on this planet to begin with.
The true sign of the compassionate person, huh? You don't conform to my ideals and there for are worthless to the world. This thread has been about PETA. Period. No one is saying cows should be killed with new and more cruel methods, or that you should drown the next kitten you see. PETA is crazy and thats all we have been saying.

Please don't. No one cares, not even a little bit. When you lecture people on this type of thing it drives their interest into the realm of negative caring.

The condescending vegan activist wants us to get off our high horses? Did you seriously think that through? We said PETA sucks, they are hypocritical and dangerous. Most people in this thread have said that they like animals, and still think PETA is full of crap.


Oh grow the hell up. Quit pretending you're some high and mighty savior of mankind, leading us out of the pits of ignorance. Unless you plan on living in the woods, and foraging for every scrap of food you eat you're hurting the environment more than you possibly know. Care to guess how many tons of coal were burned to power your computer, or how many more tons of resources it took to construct? Your high and mighty enlightened path is nothing more than a masturbatory fantasy. You're hurting the environment just as much as we are, no matter how much you yell at us for doing it.


The true sign of the compassionate person, huh? You don't conform to my ideals and there for are worthless to the world. This thread has been about PETA. Period. No one is saying cows should be killed with new and more cruel methods, or that you should drown the next kitten you see. PETA is crazy and thats all we have been saying.
heh, I think GB&F just misunderstood what the thread was about.

Well, while I haven't read all of Singer, the fact that his work is as easily and wantonly "misinterpreted" as the Bible or Koran doesn't speak well of his ability to discuss his position in a rational scientific manner.

I would also strenuously argue against his devaluation of humans who are not somehow "perfect".

This is a nice little article addressing just that point.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~jpdasddc/ARTICLES/2000(2)/pp75-81SobseyEthics
Well, having read that article I cannot see any significant problem. I suppose the "inconsistency" between his views on poverty and those on animal rights might be true, but I think one would have to read the whole book to get an unbiased picture, and in any case this is irrelevent to the topic under discussion: the definition of personhood. It seems perfectly sensible to me to define personhood based on characteristics rather than species. I dimly remember one of his own scenarios, that of the hyper-intelligent duck.

This duck has all the characteristics that we would expect of a normal human - the same intelligence, self-awareness, desires, capacity for suffering; for extra emotive force, this duck can even, somehow, talk. The only difference between this duck and the average human being is its physical form - and it is a basic tenet of modern morality that we do not discriminate on physical form. We would say it was very wrong to in any way diminish the standing of a human if they were born as a thalidomide baby, for example, or with any other terrible disfugurement, or in any other way physically disabled. Do we deny this hypothetical duck personhood on the basis of a discrimination that we would otherwise decry, that of physical form? I think it is safe to say that we do not.

Now, we extend our hypothetical situation, to one where we are forced to make a choice between the life of an ordinary duck, and an ordinary human. Who do we save? The human, without doubt. But, what if the duck was our super-duck, and the human severly brain-damaged, with very little self-awareness and very little intelligence, et cetera. Who do we save? The human... why? What reason could there be? The super-duck is in every sense - except the superficial physical - more a person than the brain-damaged human; to choose the human over the duck would be no better than choosing to save the ordinary duck over an ordinary human. And so we see that it is not physical form - species - that matters at all, but characteristics: who one is rather than what one is. Of course, this means that the vast majority of humans are more important than the vast majority of animals - indeed, there must be very very few humans who have less "personhood", if you like, than even the most intelligent animals - but the principle is still important.

They've never gotten a dime of my money, and won't. :)

And they better not mess with my dog or new little kitten!

"If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong."

-Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

WTF?

That's disgusting.

"If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong."

-Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

WTF?

That's disgusting.
Mmm, yes, that is the gut reaction. Indeed, however much I think about it, it's still the only reaction I can manage. But is it actually wrong, if the animal enjoys it? And if it isn't wrong, who are we to condemn people who "love animals" - zoophiles, I believe they call themselves. There was quite a thought-provoking article on the subject in the university paper not long ago.

My theory is this: Anyone who would dare even consider harming my cat will get their fingers ripped off of their hands and chewed on until they can't possibly be reattatched. And then I'll get mean.

As for the bestiality thing, it's disgusting as hell, but it's not objectively immoral so long as the animal is provably willing, and mature (basically, male animals who'd hump your leg on their own anyways).

However, I still deleted someone from my contact list after she told me she wants to get a dog for such. Goddamn creepy. I wouldn't send someone to jail for it, but I sure as hell wouldn't talk to them again, either.

I noticed that the topic of guns was brought up several times here....
I came across this while surfing ( alot of stuff on that website is lame, I do NOT endorse the website in any way- just to clarify):

Why People Carry Concealed Handguns (http://www.collegehumor.com/?movie_id=81816)

[Its very possible the above video will offend some of you[/COLOR]

I will agree that the rest of those quotes are nuts, but these two above are perfectly logical (the second depending on the severity of the brain damage and the animal in question, admittedly). And Peter Singer is hardly some sort of loony - he is an Oxford-educated philosopher and ethicist, if my memory serves me correctly.

You do realize that taking a few courses and coming from a school for rich people doesn't mean BS about your own personal morals? Being an Oxford grad doesn't make you any smarter than being a community college of Arkansas graduate, and it definately has no effect on your sanity or moral ability.

make sure to watch the whole thing; the part at the end is the worst.

Oh, and a little more on-topic: Yes PETA are Insane.

PETA official press release:

It is true that our organization is sometimes forced to euthanize animals that are without legal status. Most of these animals were very very nasty and predominantly from Red States. Others have been detained at our facility at Guantanamo. In all cases, the animals in question were accorded representation by an impartial tribunal associate(Vicki, our receptionist). Appeals to the process were reviewed if the said animal requested it in writing. No animals were harmed during the tribunal process except for those actually killed. We hope this puts the matter to rest. Thank you and fur is murder.

Mmm, yes, that is the gut reaction. Indeed, however much I think about it, it's still the only reaction I can manage. But is it actually wrong, if the animal enjoys it? And if it isn't wrong, who are we to condemn people who "love animals" - zoophiles, I believe they call themselves. There was quite a thought-provoking article on the subject in the university paper not long ago.


I think it is wrong.. to the animal .. and period. I'm not even gonna try to debate that issue.

As the old saying goes.. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

This is why I don't get into political debates if I can help it...But after reading all of the posts I have to say SOMETHING,

First off I think synik...(sorry if I mispelled the name) Has got it pretty much downpath...Always remember that no matter how much you try to save the earth and be enviromental,You are taking more then your fair share...About the only people who aren't would be nations of the past (Native Americans tended to live VERY well without overpopulating at all) Or children that die near birth...(Apologize for the use of that term) But other then those people,Everyone is pretty much taking alot more from the enviroment then they are giving back,So just keep that in mind if anyone wants to argue how ANYONE is being high and mighty and greedy....

And for the love of God...Keep your mind open to new ideas,Soon as you are disagreed with,Don't go throwing insults out in ANY form,If you truly want someone to understand your reasons,You don't yell them...

Oh...And as far as the beastiality thing goes?...Unless you marry the animal,It's just for pleasure,And since no one marries they're animals (Sane people that is)...Well it's just kind of sick to me...Legal...But sick...

I'm now going to go make sure all of my cats are not becoming someones "better half",Vomit uncontrollably,and go to sleep...

You do realize that taking a few courses and coming from a school for rich people doesn't mean BS about your own personal morals? Being an Oxford grad doesn't make you any smarter than being a community college of Arkansas graduate, and it definately has no effect on your sanity or moral ability.
As I said, I am not arguing that it makes him infallible. What I am asserting is that he is a prominent academic, and that as such it is foolish to simply dismiss his views without at least properly studying them. And your assertion about "moral ability" is dubious: if you mean the ability to endorse a somewhat illogical position because it 'feels right', then yes, he is probably worse at it than the rest of us; if, conversely, you mean the ability to develop a logical position and support it, then I should think that having had his education, and a job where he can devote his whole time to thinking about these issues, would be somewhat of an advantage.

And Oxford is not a university for the rich. It is a university for the elite, unlike, I would assume, the community college of Arkansas - fine institution though it doubtless is.

I think it is wrong.. to the animal .. and period. I'm not even gonna try to debate that issue.

As the old saying goes.. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!
You could have been born to post on this forum!!

Mmm, yes, that is the gut reaction. Indeed, however much I think about it, it's still the only reaction I can manage. But is it actually wrong, if the animal enjoys it? And if it isn't wrong, who are we to condemn people who "love animals" - zoophiles, I believe they call themselves. There was quite a thought-provoking article on the subject in the university paper not long ago.

Is it wrong to have sex with an 8 year old, even if they say yes and have an orgasm?

Of course it is. An 8 year old is incapable of informed consent, as is a horse, dog, cat, etc.

As I said, I am not arguing that it makes him infallible. What I am asserting is that he is a prominent academic, and that as such it is foolish to simply dismiss his views without at least properly studying them. And your assertion about "moral ability" is dubious: if you mean the ability to endorse a somewhat illogical position because it 'feels right', then yes, he is probably worse at it than the rest of us; if, conversely, you mean the ability to develop a logical position and support it, then I should think that having had his education, and a job where he can devote his whole time to thinking about these issues, would be somewhat of an advantage.

And Oxford is not a university for the rich. It is a university for the elite, unlike, I would assume, the community college of Arkansas - fine institution though it doubtless is.

No it isn't.
Oxbridge may be a place which tends to have a high density of intelligent people, that deosnt mean they are 'the elite' which woudl imply they are the best - an extremely arrogant assertion. It's things like that which encouraged me to shun Oxbridge.

No it isn't.
Oxbridge may be a place which tends to have a high density of intelligent people, that deosnt mean they are 'the elite' which woudl imply they are the best - an extremely arrogant assertion. It's things like that which encouraged me to shun Oxbridge.
I was talking about Oxford, but I suppose Oxbridge will do as well. Oxbridge is elite. They are, generally, the academic best. I can't see the problem with this...

As for the bestiality thing, it's disgusting as hell, but it's not objectively immoral so long as the animal is provably willing, and mature (basically, male animals who'd hump your leg on their own anyways).

So it is ok to have sex with an 8 year old if they ask?

Provably willing would require a way to talk to the animal (and understand its responses) and ensure that it had the mental capacity to understand what was going on.

Is it wrong to have sex with an 8 year old, even if they say yes and have an orgasm?

Of course it is. An 8 year old is incapable of informed consent, as is a horse, dog, cat, etc.
Well, I suppose an eight year old is one day going to grow up to be someone revolted and disgusted and hurt at what has happened to them in the past. What sex means to a human changes over time, and the human will not be an eight year old forever. An animal, on the other hand, is never going to think any more about the act than it did at the time. Sex does not carry the same weight, the same stigma, the same depth of meaning, to an animal, or so I would suppose. A dog isn't going to care about all the complex things that mire our relationships. It has simpler desires, and if those desires extend to intercourse with humans, then so be it.

(I suppose I should say at this point that I have never, and will never, sleep with an animal...)

Well, I suppose an eight year old is one day going to grow up to be someone revolted and disgusted and hurt at what has happened to them in the past. What sex means to a human changes over time, and the human will not be an eight year old forever. An animal, on the other hand, is never going to think any more about the act than it did at the time. Sex does not carry the same weight, the same stigma, the same depth of meaning, to an animal, or so I would suppose. A dog isn't going to care about all the complex things that mire our relationships. It has simpler desires, and if those desires extend to intercourse with humans, then so be it.

(I suppose I should say at this point that I have never, and will never, sleep with an animal...)
:rolleyes:

It's all about consent. An 8 year old can't give informed consent. An animal can't give consent, reacting on instinct isn't consent. A dead person can't give consent. An unconscious person can't give consent. A person under the influence of some drugs can't give consent (date rape drugs et al.)

:rolleyes:

It's all about consent. An 8 year old can't give informed consent. An animal can't give consent, reacting on instinct isn't consent. A dead person can't give consent. An unconscious person can't give consent. A person under the influence of some drugs can't give consent (date rape drugs et al.)
But what do you mean by consent? Sex in human terms is very different to sex in animal terms. Animals are not little human beings. For humans, sex means much more than just the physical act, and that is mostly why the issue of consent arises. For the animal, there will be only the sensation of the act, the literal physical occurrence without the mental accompanyment. If there is no objection to the physical act, then that is probably that - you cannot ascribe too much emotional complexity to animals. If a woman's dog wishes to hump her, then, well, that is up to him.

And an interesting thought has just occurred to me: if animals cannot give consent, does that mean that it is wrong for them to have sex with each other?!

But what do you mean by consent? Sex in human terms is very different to sex in animal terms. Animals are not little human beings. For humans, sex means much more than just the physical act, and that is mostly why the issue of consent arises. For the animal, there will be only the sensation of the act, the literal physical occurrence without the mental accompanyment.

Wow. You can read animal minds?

I was talking about Oxford, but I suppose Oxbridge will do as well. Oxbridge is elite. They are, generally, the academic best. I can't see the problem with this...

Just because someone goes to Oxbridge doesn't make them better than someone who hasn't. Just because there are some intelligent people there doesn't mean that all intelligent people go to Oxbridge.
There are many people who don't apply to Oxbridge who would get in. Either because of social issues, practical issues, or because they dislike the pervading aura of snobbery which is inherent to the concept of the institution.
The fact that it is an exclusivist and elitest organisation doesn't mean it comprises the elite.

Just because someone goes to Oxbridge doesn't make them better than someone who hasn't. Just because there are some intelligent people there doesn't mean that all intelligent people go to Oxbridge.
There are many people who don't apply to Oxbridge who would get in. Either because of social issues, practical issues, or because they dislike the pervading aura of snobbery which is inherent to the concept of the institution.
The fact that it is an exclusivist and elitest organisation doesn't mean it comprises the elite.
I would not dare to claim that all intelligent people go to Oxbridge; the point is, that if you do go to Oxbridge you are most likely a very clever person. Also, I would not debate the nebulous term "better person"; however, they are probably better educated people, which again was the point.

And I would not say that Oxbridge was snobbish so much as a completely different world. Admittedly, it is supremely self-satisfied, but frankly it has every right to be.

I would not dare to claim that all intelligent people go to Oxbridge; the point is, that if you do go to Oxbridge you are most likely a very clever person. Also, I would not debate the nebulous term "better person"; however, they are probably better educated people, which again was the point.

And I would not say that Oxbridge was snobbish so much as a completely different world. Admittedly, it is supremely self-satisfied, but frankly it has every right to be.

I'm not really familiar with Oxbridge. I do know that well-known "good" schools tend to have insane amounts of grade inflation and are generally worse for the student than going to a lesser-known school.

Wow. You can read animal minds?
Are you saying, then, that the dog (for instance) is going to be feeling all the things that humans feel? That it has the same emotional range, or even a similar enough range that the mental meaning of sex to a human and to a dog can be compared?

And I note you avoid my question about animals having sex with each other.

Are you saying, then, that the dog (for instance) is going to be feeling all the things that humans feel? That it has the same emotional range, or even a similar enough range that the mental meaning of sex to a human and to a dog can be compared?

I am saying that we don't know what a dog (for instance) feels when having sex. We cannot ask it. Thus, for you to make presumptions is just plain silly.

And I note you avoid my question about animals having sex with each other.

That is because it is irrelevant. The morality we apply to humans is not applied to animals.

According to you, the only reason we shouldn't all have sex with three year olds is that they'll grow up and feel bad about it. Of course, pigs or dogs, which can have the mental capacity of a three year old are just fine, I presume because they are not going to "grow up." Does this mean that a mentally challenged three-year old, who would never get past that three-year old mentality, would be fair game?

I would not dare to claim that all intelligent people go to Oxbridge; the point is, that if you do go to Oxbridge you are most likely a very clever person. Also, I would not debate the nebulous term "better person"; however, they are probably better educated people, which again was the point.

And I would not say that Oxbridge was snobbish so much as a completely different world. Admittedly, it is supremely self-satisfied, but frankly it has every right to be.

The word elite implies "the select" or "the best". I was merely pointing out that in no way are people who go to Oxbridge necessarily the best.
It certainly is another world - a teaching establishment which puts more effort into research so it can make more money, where people are taught to such high standards (and for such high prices) by having less lecture time than anywhere else in the country.
I have good friends in both universities and i'm well aware that there are a lot of nice people who go there, but for me there's far too many who are quick to shove their degree down your throat, who think that they're better because of where they were taught, who think that being an Oxbridge graduate means anything about them as a person rather than just another exam they've passed.

That is because it is irrelevant. The morality we apply to humans is not applied to animals.
Finally!! This is the point I have been trying to make...

The word elite implies "the select" or "the best". I was merely pointing out that in no way are people who go to Oxbridge necessarily the best.
It certainly is another world - a teaching establishment which puts more effort into research so it can make more money, where people are taught to such high standards (and for such high prices) by having less lecture time than anywhere else in the country.
I have good friends in both universities and i'm well aware that there are a lot of nice people who go there, but for me there's far too many who are quick to shove their degree down your throat, who think that they're better because of where they were taught, who think that being an Oxbridge graduate means anything about them as a person rather than just another exam they've passed.
Gosh, I haven't had this much fun in a long time.

I would again contest your first point - Oxbridge undergrads generally are the best, or near to it. Certainly, I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect a much higher than average proportion of the best students in a given field to be at Oxbridge. Obviously not all of the best will be there, but a high proportion will be.

For such high prices? I though tuition fees were the same everywhere. And less lecture time is fine - I would gladly accept less lectures if I could have Oxbridge tutorials!! And Oxbridge spend quite a lot of money on their students, particulary subsidising their accomodation.

Finally!! This is the point I have been trying to make...

No, it isn't.

You have been saying that the morals we apply to humans only count if they are only dealing with humans.

The idea was never that the animal was doing something wrong, but that the human being was. The human is stepping outside of human morals.

No, it isn't.

You have been saying that the morals we apply to humans only count if they are only dealing with humans.

The idea was never that the animal was doing something wrong, but that the human being was. The human is stepping outside of human morals.
Ok, then, let us return to basics. Why is the human doing something wrong, stepping outside of these elusive "human morals"? The animal, if it wants to undertake the act, is going to experience the same as if it had had sex with another animal. From the point of view of the (for example) dog, the choice of partner doesn't make any difference. I am at a loss to see how the (willing) dog is being taken advantage of. It is consenting to one act as much as the other, and since the two acts are one and the same to it, its consent must surely be equally valid in both cases.

Ok, then, let us return to basics. Why is the human doing something wrong, stepping outside of these elusive "human morals"? The animal, if it wants to undertake the act, is going to experience the same as if it had had sex with another animal. From the point of view of the (for example) dog, the choice of partner doesn't make any difference. I am at a loss to see how the (willing) dog is being taken advantage of. It is consenting to one act as much as the other, and since the two acts are one and the same to it, its consent must surely be equally valid in both cases.

Human beings have decided that they cannot have sex with a being that cannot provide informed consent. Saying "Well, we can't have sex with humans who can't give consent, but it is ok if we do it with animals," is hypocritical.

If the dog is not being taken advantage of, neither is a three year old. They basically have the same mental capacities for understanding.

Again, I ask, if a child is mentally deficient and will never progress beyond the mental capacities of a three year old, is it then ok to have sex with them as long as they seem willing?

Human beings have decided that they cannot have sex with a being that cannot provide informed consent. Saying "Well, we can't have sex with humans who can't give consent, but it is ok if we do it with animals," is hypocritical.

If the dog is not being taken advantage of, neither is a three year old. They basically have the same mental capacities for understanding.

Again, I ask, if a child is mentally deficient and will never progress beyond the mental capacities of a three year old, is it then ok to have sex with them as long as they seem willing?
The three year old is not a sexual being; the dog is. To have sex with a three-year old would be an entirely one-way venture, surely not comparable to, oh, a woman being ...serviced... by her dog, which must be proactively willing to take part.

The three year old is not a sexual being;

Really? So three year olds never play with themselves? Three year olds don't experiment with what feels good? Three year olds never have erections?

TTo have sex with a three-year old would be an entirely one-way venture,

No more one-way than a man screwing his dog.

Gosh, I haven't had this much fun in a long time.

I would again contest your first point - Oxbridge undergrads generally are the best, or near to it. Certainly, I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect a much higher than average proportion of the best students in a given field to be at Oxbridge. Obviously not all of the best will be there, but a high proportion will be.

For such high prices? I though tuition fees were the same everywhere. And less lecture time is fine - I would gladly accept less lectures if I could have Oxbridge tutorials!! And Oxbridge spend quite a lot of money on their students, particulary subsidising their accomodation.

Ok, let's randomly pick an indicator of 'elite' abillity. The Nobel prize seems to be a good one to me, you don't get much more elite than that. Of the winners of the nobel prize for literature, 7 have been from Oxbridge (and at least one of those was only an honorary fellow), out of 100. While that is an impressive amount it's hardly 'a high proportion', nor even a majority.
That was just the first thing i thought of, it's not intended to be a comprihensive proof but it's a good example. Ultimately we can argue this all day and not get anywhere, but i stand by my assertion that Oxbridge by no means comprises the best, nor even a high proportion (perhaps higher than other Universities 1:1 but not when compared against other universities as a whole).

Really? So three year olds never play with themselves? Three year olds don't experiment with what feels good? Three year olds never have erections?



No more one-way than a man screwing his dog.
To the best of my knowledge... no? Erections yes, but they have no idea what it means. A three-year old certainly doesn't think about screwing someone.

Not if the dog wants too... I only gave the example the other way around because it never seems to occur to people that the animal might be the active participant, as it were. If the dog being screwed were, I don't know, a large alsation, do you really think it would put up with it if it didn't like it?

Anyway, enjoyable though this has been - and I really do mean that, I love to argue - it is not in any way helping me to pass my exams, so we shall have to agree to disagree and leave it there. This is not a petty attempt to get the last word; this is a polite goodbye and explanation of my future lack of responsiveness. It has been a pleasure debating with you.

Ok, let's randomly pick an indicator of 'elite' abillity. The Nobel prize seems to be a good one to me, you don't get much more elite than that. Of the winners of the nobel prize for literature, 7 have been from Oxbridge (and at least one of those was only an honorary fellow), out of 100. While that is an impressive amount it's hardly 'a high proportion', nor even a majority.
That was just the first thing i thought of, it's not intended to be a comprihensive proof but it's a good example. Ultimately we can argue this all day and not get anywhere, but i stand by my assertion that Oxbridge by no means comprises the best, nor even a high proportion (perhaps higher than other Universities 1:1 but not when compared against other universities as a whole).
Well, yes, but "other universities as a whole" encompasses every other university in the world; "Oxbridge" encompasses precisely two. Seven is quite an impressive proportion given that.

To the best of my knowledge... no?

You are incorrect. Young children do play with themselves. They are beginning to discover that certain things feel good.

TErections yes, but they have no idea what it means. A three-year old certainly doesn't think about screwing someone.

So now you can not only read dogs' minds, but childrens' as well?

Not if the dog wants too...

How do you know that the dog wants to? How do you know that "humping your leg" is a sign that it wants to have sex with you? Maybe it really just wants to hump your leg. Until such a time as you can say "Hey, Fluffy, when you licked my crotch just then, did it mean you want to give me oral sex?" and have Fluffy reply "Why yes, it did," you have no point. You are making assumptions about intent that may or may not be there.

The thing that annoys me about PETA is that they fund terrorist organisations like the ALF. Those who fund organisations like that should be thrown in prison.

The thing that annoys me about PETA is that they fund terrorist organisations like the ALF. Those who fund organisations like that should be thrown in prison.
Or at least have all their assets frozen, just like any other terrorist funding organization.

Well, having read that article I cannot see any significant problem. I suppose the "inconsistency" between his views on poverty and those on animal rights might be true, but I think one would have to read the whole book to get an unbiased picture, and in any case this is irrelevent to the topic under discussion: the definition of personhood. It seems perfectly sensible to me to define personhood based on characteristics rather than species. I dimly remember one of his own scenarios, that of the hyper-intelligent duck.

This duck has all the characteristics that we would expect of a normal human - the same intelligence, self-awareness, desires, capacity for suffering; for extra emotive force, this duck can even, somehow, talk. The only difference between this duck and the average human being is its physical form - and it is a basic tenet of modern morality that we do not discriminate on physical form. We would say it was very wrong to in any way diminish the standing of a human if they were born as a thalidomide baby, for example, or with any other terrible disfugurement, or in any other way physically disabled. Do we deny this hypothetical duck personhood on the basis of a discrimination that we would otherwise decry, that of physical form? I think it is safe to say that we do not.

Now, we extend our hypothetical situation, to one where we are forced to make a choice between the life of an ordinary duck, and an ordinary human. Who do we save? The human, without doubt. But, what if the duck was our super-duck, and the human severly brain-damaged, with very little self-awareness and very little intelligence, et cetera. Who do we save? The human... why? What reason could there be? The super-duck is in every sense - except the superficial physical - more a person than the brain-damaged human; to choose the human over the duck would be no better than choosing to save the ordinary duck over an ordinary human. And so we see that it is not physical form - species - that matters at all, but characteristics: who one is rather than what one is. Of course, this means that the vast majority of humans are more important than the vast majority of animals - indeed, there must be very very few humans who have less "personhood", if you like, than even the most intelligent animals - but the principle is still important.
Umm, hate to tell you this, but unless humans somehow engineered a "super duck" this situation will never occur, so your hypothetical situation bears no relevance whatsoever. And had someone engineered a super duck, due to the resources required to do such a thing, they probably would value its life more than many humans, even perfectly normal ones.

If the best you can do is argue unrealistic scenarioes to prove your point, you don't have a point to begin with, and all the education and intelligence in the world doesn't change that.

This sounds like typical conservative smear propaganda.

I'm conservative and i support animal rights, the environment and business can work together.

As I said, I am not arguing that it makes him infallible. What I am asserting is that he is a prominent academic, and that as such it is foolish to simply dismiss his views without at least properly studying them. And your assertion about "moral ability" is dubious: if you mean the ability to endorse a somewhat illogical position because it 'feels right', then yes, he is probably worse at it than the rest of us; if, conversely, you mean the ability to develop a logical position and support it, then I should think that having had his education, and a job where he can devote his whole time to thinking about these issues, would be somewhat of an advantage.

And Oxford is not a university for the rich. It is a university for the elite, unlike, I would assume, the community college of Arkansas - fine institution though it doubtless is.

Oxford, like any other school, gives favors for funders. If you don't understand that, you don't deserve to be in higher education. You need to go back to high school and read some basic economics and politics and history.

The closest thing to truth you've stated is that those non-rich people who can manage to get in to schools of that nature are impressive, because their scores outdid dollars.

But then again, I had a friend who had the highest SAT scores in the state some years back. He went to college, under nuclear physics or somesuch. Ended up working at McDonalds.

It's amazing how little grades actually prove...

Is it wrong to have sex with an 8 year old, even if they say yes and have an orgasm?

Of course it is. An 8 year old is incapable of informed consent, as is a horse, dog, cat, etc.

Is it wrong to have sex with a dildo? It can't consent.

The only issue in morality is whether something causes harm.

Honestly, if there's proof that there is no possible harm in having sex with kids, I don't care. However, we have gads of proof that it IS harmful, thus, a no-no.

I have seen no studies suggesting that Bowser gets a complex after he's screwed his owner, aside from maybe being dangerous to anyone in a skirt who happens to trip.

I'm conservative and i support animal rights, the environment and business can work together.

Agreed.

In the US, one group of conservatives are one of the biggest supporters of the environment: Hunters.

Is it wrong to have sex with a dildo? It can't consent.

Strawman. A dildo is not a living, thinking being.

The only issue in morality is whether something causes harm.

Exploitation isn't harm now?

Agreed.

In the US, one group of conservatives are one of the biggest supporters of the environment: Hunters.

You mean like the ones that leave their dogs on the side of the road to starve after training them in such a way that they won't let anyone near them or eat anything they catch?

The same hunters who show up in droves to protest at any mention that they might have to register and tag said dogs so that they can be punished for doing so?

Yeah, real animal lovers there.

Strawman. A dildo is not a living, thinking being.


...If dog thinking is advanced enough to matter, then they can figure out whether they want to consent, neh?


Exploitation isn't harm now?

If something has absolutely no provable negative whatsoever on an entity, saying it was harmed is bull.

We know that children are harmed, provably, by sexual contact. We know that ADULTS are harmed, provably, by sexual contact, in many cases.

I have not heard of a study, or even an anectdote, showing that a dog humping an ass instead of a leg or a dog ass causes it any form of harm whatsoever.

If someone makes a joke about me behind my back, but it does not, in any way, harm me, I have been exploited. But I have not been harmed.

Mind you, I wouldn't associate with anyone who screwed animals, but I don't see it as being nearly as traumatic as, say, taking them to the vet. I imagine, if dogs didn't like it, they'd tend to bite.

You mean like the ones that leave their dogs on the side of the road to starve after training them in such a way that they won't let anyone near them or eat anything they catch?


....What the fuck are you talking about?

Hunting dogs are trained to handle birds so gently that they don't leave marks.

Now, some of them are BRED to be fairly aggressive. Chesapeake Bays are extremely inbred, so they tend to be cranky. I don't support inbreeding. The dog I grew up with was half black lab, half pit bull. Had fangs as long as my pinky, looked like a sausage with legs, was the sweetest animal on earth, even when my little sister would sit on his back and drop dirt on his face, and warred on skunks. The way that old bugger danced around for his venison in his last years just made you smile and tear up.


The same hunters who show up in droves to protest at any mention that they might have to register and tag said dogs so that they can be punished for doing so?


I've never even heard of this. This is mostly a fighting dog owner thing.


Yeah, real animal lovers there.

You, sir, are either insane, or living in Crapton.

No, it isn't.

You have been saying that the morals we apply to humans only count if they are only dealing with humans.

The idea was never that the animal was doing something wrong, but that the human being was. The human is stepping outside of human morals.

I swear to God I'm saving this argument. I've never laughed this hard in all my life.

....What the fuck are you talking about?

In the area I grew up, there is a hunting range. Practically in my backyard, no less. Every single year around hunting season I see dogs left for dead on the side of the roadway. They are so timid of people other than their owner, they run away if you attempt to even get near them. They slowly waste away until they die.

Hunting dogs are trained to handle birds so gently that they don't leave marks.

I've never even heard of this. This is mostly a fighting dog owner thing.

Happens in GA just about every year.

...If dog thinking is advanced enough to matter, then they can figure out whether they want to consent, neh?

About as advanced as a three year old. Guess they can figure out if they want to consent, neh?

If something has absolutely no provable negative whatsoever on an entity, saying it was harmed is bull.

So you don't believe exploitation is harm. That is your opinion. Most would disagree.

I swear to God I'm saving this argument. I've never laughed this hard in all my life.

That isn't an isolated argument, of course. But if you would like to pretend that it was, have fun.

That isn't an isolated argument, of course. But if you would like to pretend that it was, have fun.

No, I mean the whole thing. I copying it into a document and sharing it with my friends. Both sides. Seriously, how do we request a thread get stickied?

Oxford, like any other school, gives favors for funders. If you don't understand that, you don't deserve to be in higher education. You need to go back to high school and read some basic economics and politics and history.

The closest thing to truth you've stated is that those non-rich people who can manage to get in to schools of that nature are impressive, because their scores outdid dollars.

But then again, I had a friend who had the highest SAT scores in the state some years back. He went to college, under nuclear physics or somesuch. Ended up working at McDonalds.

It's amazing how little grades actually prove...
Left this place to do some work I may have, but I cannot let this slide...

Dollars? Pounds, urely, this being the UK. And no, it does not work like that over here. The liberal press and the Labour government are rabid about equal opportunity - the slightest hint of admissions on anything other than academic prowess (unless of course it is the governments "equal representation policies", but we'll ignore those) would ignite a massive scandal. And if you were to bother backing up your argument by looking at, say, Oxford's admissions figures, you would see that although Oxford does take a far higher proportion of privately-educated pupils than one might expect - about 50% of its intake - that is because about 50% of its applications come from such pupils. If you look at the actual success rate of applications to acceptances, state school pupils have almost exactly the same chance of getting in...

Umm, hate to tell you this, but unless humans somehow engineered a "super duck" this situation will never occur, so your hypothetical situation bears no relevance whatsoever. And had someone engineered a super duck, due to the resources required to do such a thing, they probably would value its life more than many humans, even perfectly normal ones.

If the best you can do is argue unrealistic scenarioes to prove your point, you don't have a point to begin with, and all the education and intelligence in the world doesn't change that.
Oh dear... I believe it is fairly standard to construct hypothetical situations - they help us see where our thinking is going. For example, the American feminist Judith Jarvis Thomson constructs some very bizarre and utterly unfeasible but at the same time truly ingenious analogies to make her points about abortion. Dismissing such arguments for being too fanciful instead of actually responding to them is lazy and unimaginative.

Oh dear... I believe it is fairly standard to construct hypothetical situations - they help us see where our thinking is going. For example, the American feminist Judith Jarvis Thomson constructs some very bizarre and utterly unfeasible but at the same time truly ingenious analogies to make her points about abortion. Dismissing such arguments for being too fanciful instead of actually responding to them is lazy and unimaginative.
Hypothetical situations are one thing, hypothetical situations that have no basis in reality whatsoever are another.

It's like saying, so let's say tomorrow, you wake up a slug, would your wife freaking out and squishing you as you crawl across her face still count as murder? Why bother answering such a question when there's no possible way you're ever going to suddenly find yourself transforming into a slug?

It's not being lazy and unimaginative, it's saying, please come up with a valid and relevant arguement if you want to prove your point.

Hypothetical situations are one thing, hypothetical situations that have no basis in reality whatsoever are another.

It's like saying, so let's say tomorrow, you wake up a slug, would your wife freaking out and squishing you as you crawl across her face still count as murder? Why bother answering such a question when there's no possible way you're ever going to suddenly find yourself transforming into a slug?

It's not being lazy and unimaginative, it's saying, please come up with a valid and relevant arguement if you want to prove your point.
Well, I would agree, that is a stupid and pointless question - because it is completely out of context. The situation with the duck is very relevent: its purpose is to highlight and question the assumption that it is the characteristic of being human that makes people people; a nice, clear, easy to understand way to do that is to construct a hypothetical situation where we have a creature that is clearly a person, but yet, not human. The fact that such a creature is vastly implausible doesn't matter in the slightest: the existence or not of the hypothetical creature is irrelevent to the argument. It is a tool to let us examine the characteristic of personhood and the requirements for it, no more.

Well, I would agree, that is a stupid and pointless question - because it is completely out of context. The situation with the duck is very relevent: its purpose is to highlight and question the assumption that it is the characteristic of being human that makes people people; a nice, clear, easy to understand way to do that is to construct a hypothetical situation where we have a creature that is clearly a person, but yet, not human. The fact that such a creature is vastly implausible doesn't matter in the slightest: the existence or not of the hypothetical creature is irrelevent to the argument. It is a tool to let us examine the characteristic of personhood and the requirements for it, no more.
It's as stupid and pointless as the situation with the duck. You were once human, but now you're a slug, should that make you any less human? This supposed duck was never human, but displays human characteristics, should that make it any more human? Either way, if you cannot come up with a plausable scenario, your argument is inheriently weak and unfounded, because you have to resort to making up fictional circumstances to make it relevant.

It's as stupid and pointless as the situation with the duck. You were once human, but now you're a slug, should that make you any less human? This supposed duck was never human, but displays human characteristics, should that make it any more human? Either way, if you cannot come up with a plausable scenario, your argument is inheriently weak and unfounded, because you have to resort to making up fictional circumstances to make it relevant.
I know of no "rules of argument" insisting on "plausible scenarios". Indeed, much argument revolves around precisely the opposite; look at the classic school "balloon debate", for instance: a completely implausible situation, but one that allows for the examination of a wide range of values. Implausible situations are often the only way to properly examine one's opinions.

(And further to this, the duck is not supposed to be human! It is supposed to be a person but not a human, which is the point of the whole damned thing!! Not that that was the thrust of your argument, hence the brackets, but it is a critical point to clarify.)

And if that still isn't good enough, then, ok, look, ignore everything I have written above, it... doesn't.... have.... to... be... a... bloody... duck! What it is is not important! It is anything, anything at all that you like, that can be used to display personhood without biological humanity. It could be an alien - not impossible! - or some sort of android, a la Data from Startrek - not possible at the moment, but in the future, who knows? There you are: at least a semi-plausible situation, possibly very plausible depending on the future development of AI.

It's as stupid and pointless as the situation with the duck. You were once human, but now you're a slug, should that make you any less human? This supposed duck was never human, but displays human characteristics, should that make it any more human? Either way, if you cannot come up with a plausable scenario, your argument is inheriently weak and unfounded, because you have to resort to making up fictional circumstances to make it relevant.

So what non-human with human characteristics will you accept in order for him to explore the idea of humanity with you?

Exploitation isn't harm now?

As far as I'm aware it never has been. It's often associated with harm, but that doesn't make it the same thing.

In the area I grew up, there is a hunting range. Practically in my backyard, no less. Every single year around hunting season I see dogs left for dead on the side of the roadway. They are so timid of people other than their owner, they run away if you attempt to even get near them. They slowly waste away until they die.

Hunting dogs are trained to handle birds so gently that they don't leave marks.

Happens in GA just about every year.

Then you DO live in Crapton.

That's even worse than Texas hunting style.

Sounds like the kind of people who wouldn't bother getting hunting tags to begin with, since animal abuse tends to be against the law.

Don't judge hunters by their example. You just happen to be surrounded by hicks.

My grandfather, a lifelong hunter, has a whole kennel full of dogs who he doesn't leave dying in the streets, even though he doesn't hut much anymore.

And if that still isn't good enough, then, ok, look, ignore everything I have written above, it... doesn't.... have.... to... be... a... bloody... duck! What it is is not important! It is anything, anything at all that you like, that can be used to display personhood without biological humanity. It could be an alien - not impossible! - or some sort of android, a la Data from Startrek - not possible at the moment, but in the future, who knows? There you are: at least a semi-plausible situation, possibly very plausible depending on the future development of AI.
No, it doesn't have to be a duck, but it does have to be some sort of naturally occuring animal besides a human considering the scenario is being used to argue that certain animals deserve more rights than certain humans... Whether or not this super intelligent duck deserves more rights than certain humans does nothing to further the argument that certain animals that really do exist deserve more rights than certain humans because they do not nor will they ever possess the traits of this hypothetical duck. Using AI or aliens or even genetically engineered animals instead does in fact make the scenario more plausable, but it also no longer supports the argument for which the scenario was devised in the first place, that natural, free roaming animals should be given equal status to that of a human being.

In otherwords, if you cannot argue that animals deserve equal rights to humans without first personifying animals, your argument has no basis in reality and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously by anyone other than another fanatic who already agrees with you.

About as advanced as a three year old. Guess they can figure out if they want to consent, neh?


By your logic, no animal on the planet aside from mature, normally-intelligent human beings can have sex. And yes, an animal can figure out of it wants to. If it doesn't, it tends to BITE. There aren't any repercussions it has to know about. Children do not share the exact same life issues as a dog. Dogs eat their own fesces, for crying out loud, you don't see it ruining their lives.


So you don't believe exploitation is harm. That is your opinion. Most would disagree.

Exploitation is not a synonym of harm, it does not require harm.

And 'most' are idiots.

Left this place to do some work I may have, but I cannot let this slide...

Dollars? Pounds, urely, this being the UK. And no, it does not work like that over here. The liberal press and the Labour government are rabid about equal opportunity - the slightest hint of admissions on anything other than academic prowess (unless of course it is the governments "equal representation policies", but we'll ignore those) would ignite a massive scandal. And if you were to bother backing up your argument by looking at, say, Oxford's admissions figures, you would see that although Oxford does take a far higher proportion of privately-educated pupils than one might expect - about 50% of its intake - that is because about 50% of its applications come from such pupils. If you look at the actual success rate of applications to acceptances, state school pupils have almost exactly the same chance of getting in...

1) That says nothing about who graduates.

2) That says nothing about economic level, unless it's some twisted requirement for everyone in the UK who is rich to also be privately educated. I'm upper middle class, have been my whole life, I haven't done private education since kindergarten.

3) That doesn't say for what they get in.

4) Still doesn't make them magically intelligent.

I'm reminded of a well-written dissing Mark Twain made of an Oxford academic leader... something about the person being too stupid to notice that one of the books they were applauding included things like someone shooting two bullets in to the same exact spot, from across a football field, and everyone (even normal people, not just the super-character), being able to SEE this.

Judge individuals on an individual basis. Their background is meaningless.

No, it doesn't have to be a duck, but it does have to be some sort of naturally occuring animal besides a human considering the scenario is being used to argue that certain animals deserve more rights than certain humans... Whether or not this super intelligent duck deserves more rights than certain humans does nothing to further the argument that certain animals that really do exist deserve more rights than certain humans because they do not nor will they ever possess the traits of this hypothetical duck. Using AI or aliens or even genetically engineered animals instead does in fact make the scenario more plausable, but it also no longer supports the argument for which the scenario was devised in the first place, that natural, free roaming animals should be given equal status to that of a human being.

In otherwords, if you cannot argue that animals deserve equal rights to humans without first personifying animals, your argument has no basis in reality and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously by anyone other than another fanatic who already agrees with you.
Oh, for the love of God, you are beyond belief!

1.) I am not a fanatic; I am a quiet and respectable (if slightly odd) undergraduate chemist! I am in no way associated with any animal rights group. My only prior knowledge of this whole issure was the small amount of Singer I read whilst researching an essay on the sanctity of life three years ago. If that makes me a fanatic, then God help the world!

2.) If you think I am arguing that animals should enjoy the same rights as humans, or are equal, or anything of that ilk then.... why?!?! I have at no point said any of those things! This debate is all about personhood, and how some animals may possess more of this characteristic than some humans; in fact, the duck analogy is only about non-human personhood - it doesn't touch on the latter point at all.

3.) When you say " it does have to be some sort of naturally occuring animal besides a human considering the scenario is being used to argue that certain animals deserve more rights than certain humans" you are showing your complete lack of understanding of everything I have been trying to explain, so I shall try again, one last time. If you are trying to interpret the argument as "oh, look, this animal is a person, therefore all animals are people - but that doesn't work because this animal cannot exist, therefore this argument is balls" then you have missed the point by a mile! The duck, or indeed whatever else, animal or non-animal, is used to demostrate the nature of personhood. What we learn from this hypothetical, imaginary scenario is then applied back to reality in the argument over the rights of certain animals and certain humans. Whether our duck is in fact a duck or a paronoid android called Marvin or indeed a tentacled monster from the planet Squiglump is irrelevant. It makes no difference. What it is has no bearing: all that is important is that it is a non-human person - and having established the possibility of non-human personhood, we apply this back to reality. I am certainly not attempting to say that because I can imagine a very clever duck, all animals are people; that would be bizarre, to say the least...

1) That says nothing about who graduates.

2) That says nothing about economic level, unless it's some twisted requirement for everyone in the UK who is rich to also be privately educated. I'm upper middle class, have been my whole life, I haven't done private education since kindergarten.

3) That doesn't say for what they get in.

4) Still doesn't make them magically intelligent.

I'm reminded of a well-written dissing Mark Twain made of an Oxford academic leader... something about the person being too stupid to notice that one of the books they were applauding included things like someone shooting two bullets in to the same exact spot, from across a football field, and everyone (even normal people, not just the super-character), being able to SEE this.

Judge individuals on an individual basis. Their background is meaningless.
1.) to 3.) Admission is on the basis of merit; they would be crazy to do anything else: there are admissions watchdogs who would rip them to shreds; taking dunces would ruin their reputation; and, the people who run the admissions process are the tutors, who have a very distinct vested interest in making sure that the people they are going to spend the next three or four years giving tutorials to are bright and stimulating. And it is a good indicator of economic level - at least, it is always used as such in the press when this debate ignites.

And aside from any of that, it would be impossible, usually, for them to admit on the basis of wealth, seeing as they don't generally know how much money you have when you apply. It doesn't go on the application form....unless they do stealthy background checks on all of their applicants, perhaps?

And as for who graduates... well, I suppose that is possible, but frankly I think that is a very large accusation to make without any evidence to back it up.

4.) I am not saying it makes them magically intelligent! I am asserting that one must be clever to get in, and that once there, one has the opportunity for a very good education; from this, I drew a simple deduction about Peter Singer. Not an infallible one, I will admit, but one that seems likely given the two points made in the previous sentence.

5.) It was not intended to spark this mammoth debate - all I hoped to do was stand up for the poor chap...

I've eaten two hot dogs while reading this topic.

And... I can't believe people are actually advocating beastiality. You sick fucks. Seriously, a dog isn't going to consent to sex with a human because a human is NOT A CANINE.

I've eaten two hot dogs while reading this topic.

And... I can't believe people are actually advocating beastiality. You sick fucks. Seriously, a dog isn't going to consent to sex with a human because a human is NOT A CANINE.
Glad to be keeping you entertained...

I am not advocating bestiality; I am merely contesting that if the animal is consenting and unharmed, there are few grounds on which to condemn it other than prudishness.

And you are categorically wrong: there are dogs who will "service" their mistresses, for example - an act a dog could hardly be forced to. After all, if a woman might find it desirable to have sex with a dog, why should a dog not feel the same about a woman, however bizarre it might seem to the rest of us?

I've eaten two hot dogs while reading this topic.

And... I can't believe people are actually advocating beastiality. You sick fucks. Seriously, a dog isn't going to consent to sex with a human because a human is NOT A CANINE.

They don't seem to mind humping people's legs.

In all seriousness, I try to avoid this topic, so I'll respond to the first post only:

PETA, as their name implies, tends to want to correct animal rights violations. It's not surprising if they do consider their anti-cruelty campaign in favor of farm animals a higher priority than domestic animals. After all, there are plenty of people out there that like to help the cute, cuddly little kittens and playful puppies.

PETA, on the other hand, tends to speak on behalf of livestock and other animals that most people don't empathize with, because they consider them objects as opposed to companions.

Just my two cents.

And you are categorically wrong: there are dogs who will "service" their mistresses, for example - an act a dog could hardly be forced to. After all, if a woman might find it desirable to have sex with a dog, why should a dog not feel the same about a woman, however bizarre it might seem to the rest of us?

A woman who finds it desirable to have sex with a dog needs psychiatric help in the first place. Dogs do not have the same complexity of feelings that humans do, and thus cannot "consent" on the level that a human does.

A woman who finds it desirable to have sex with a dog needs psychiatric help in the first place. Dogs do not have the same complexity of feelings that humans do, and thus cannot "consent" on the level that a human does.

Nah, but they can consent on their own level.

As for the psychiatric help thing.. Meh. Different strokes. People get turned on by all sorts of things.

5.) It was not intended to spark this mammoth debate - all I hoped to do was stand up for the poor chap...

The point is, graduating from a famous school means jackall.

It does not equate to "This person's opinion is good."

It only equates to "This person graduated from a famous school."

I'm perpetually on the deans list at a University, myself, in English. It doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about, only my actual ability can show this. The fact that I've gotten very little learning out of the university, since I knew most of the non-specific (character names, et cetera) ideas running around in the classes on my own, shows this. Indeed, I read Chaucer before I took the class on it, read Dante before it was assigned, and I'll be reading The Prince eventually, yet there's no sign of me ever reading that for class.

Graduating from Oxford means jack all.

I never really liked PETA because they were too vegetarian. Not wanting to eat meat is one thing, but condemning other people for doing so is quite another. I mean, what were our teeth made for? Humans are omnivorous and its only natural for us to eat meat in addition to plants.

A woman who finds it desirable to have sex with a dog needs psychiatric help in the first place. Dogs do not have the same complexity of feelings that humans do, and thus cannot "consent" on the level that a human does.
Tolerance is a virtue...and just think, not so long ago, people were saying "if a women want to have sex with another woman, she needs psychiatric help" or words to that effect.

A woman who finds it desirable to have sex with a dog needs psychiatric help in the first place. Dogs do not have the same complexity of feelings that humans do, and thus cannot "consent" on the level that a human does.

The average person cannot consent on the level that someone who's studied psychology their entire lives can. Chances are, you can't consent to the degree that I can, because I've studied a great deal of psychology, biology, and other factors. I also have access to very informed opinions, considering I tend to date people in the medical profession.

Does my existance mean you're not allowed to have sex?



However, I agree, generally, about the mental health issue. It's usually going to be a seriously bad background that leads people to that level of kink. The woman I knew online who mentioned dog-doing, for instance, had been absolutely unsuccessful in relationships and life in general. I tried, for a bloody year, to talk her in to getting some schooling in, or getting a job beyond watching her sister's kids. The most she ever did was go and live with some furry fans for awhile to get some, then went back to screwing a candle stick.

The point is, graduating from a famous school means jackall.

It does not equate to "This person's opinion is good."

It only equates to "This person graduated from a famous school."

I'm perpetually on the deans list at a University, myself, in English. It doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about, only my actual ability can show this. The fact that I've gotten very little learning out of the university, since I knew most of the non-specific (character names, et cetera) ideas running around in the classes on my own, shows this. Indeed, I read Chaucer before I took the class on it, read Dante before it was assigned, and I'll be reading The Prince eventually, yet there's no sign of me ever reading that for class.

Graduating from Oxford means jack all.
Rubbish. I know that it is one's own ability that it is important - the point is that being good enough to get into an elite institution such as Oxford is an indicator that that ability is likely to be there, which was all that I was trying to say. And graduating from Oxford does certainly not mean "jack all". Very good for the career, for one thing.

This is all most unfair, actually - they reject me, and now I find myself having to defend them!

The average person cannot consent on the level that someone who's studied psychology their entire lives can. Chances are, you can't consent to the degree that I can, because I've studied a great deal of psychology, biology, and other factors. I also have access to very informed opinions, considering I tend to date people in the medical profession.

Does my existance mean you're not allowed to have sex?



However, I agree, generally, about the mental health issue. It's usually going to be a seriously bad background that leads people to that level of kink. The woman I knew online who mentioned dog-doing, for instance, had been absolutely unsuccessful in relationships and life in general. I tried, for a bloody year, to talk her in to getting some schooling in, or getting a job beyond watching her sister's kids. The most she ever did was go and live with some furry fans for awhile to get some, then went back to screwing a candle stick.

Perhaps your very informed opinions should inform you on the effects of judging an entire group based on one person. -v-

Rubbish. I know that it is one's own ability that it is important - the point is that being good enough to get into an elite institution such as Oxford is an indicator that that ability is likely to be there, which was all that I was trying to say. And graduating from Oxford does certainly not mean "jack all". Very good for the career, for one thing.

This is all most unfair, actually - they reject me, and now I find myself having to defend them!

It's an appeal to authority in an argument. So you're right. It actually weakens a stance.

And yes. It's good for the career. Clearly, that makes the arguments more valid.

Perhaps your very informed opinions should inform you on the effects of judging an entire group based on one person. -v-

Always nice seeing how people fail to comprehend the word 'usually'.

I've been involved with the 'furry fandom' for what's approaching a decade.

You learn a few things. Many of which you didn't really want to know.

Like how a dolphin's orgasm is strong enough to crush an infant's skull.

Always nice seeing how people fail to comprehend the word 'usually'.

I've been involved with the 'furry fandom' for what's approaching a decade.

You learn a few things. Many of which you didn't really want to know.

Like how a dolphin's orgasm is strong enough to crush an infant's skull.

Yes, well, I'm actually a furry. Red-Tailed Hawk for some years now.

Furthermore, I'm fairly sure that's a myth perpetuated by a ridiculous FAQ. I've seen a dolphin's orgasm, it looks to be nothing more violent than a supersoaker going off.

It's an appeal to authority in an argument. So you're right. It actually weakens a stance.

And yes. It's good for the career. Clearly, that makes the arguments more valid.
No, I have at no point appealed to the authority of the Oxford educated philosopher, et cetera et cetera, Peter Singer, to reinforce my views or to lend credence to an argument. It was only an assertion about him, and how it was unfair to simply dismiss him as a loon. Not a jot more than that!

The point about the career being that obviously an Oxford degree does not mean jack all: it must mean something, or else no employer would care. And given how much they do care, and how well set-up a good Oxbridge degree can make you, it would seem that it means a lot. That was my point.

Yes, well, I'm actually a furry. Red-Tailed Hawk for some years now.

Furthermore, I'm fairly sure that's a myth perpetuated by a ridiculous FAQ. I've seen a dolphin's orgasm, it looks to be nothing more violent than a supersoaker going off.

That would explain the defensiveness.

Eh, I'm not sure how true it is, I tend to lack interest in the orgasms of animals. The woman who mentioned it, however, wanted to have sex with dolphins, and, appearantly, did at least manage to 'play' with some horses.

Then there's all the side conversations and so forth...

In general, sexual 'perversion' is a result of some background issues, for better or worse. Personally, I don't -care- what someone does, so long as nothing is hurt beyond themselves.

But, still, generally, weird behavior is the result of, gasp, weirdness, whether minor or major, nature or nurture.

Heck, dogs like to hump non-dogs. They're weird little buggers too. No big whup.

Being from Virginia Beach, I've known this for some time.

They also will steal pets from loving homes, peoples backyards, and take them in to be "put down" in their "shelter".

The entire organization should be put to an end. It's administrators should be jailed, and its supporters should be treated like the terrorists they are.
I always thought PETA was on the extremist edge but i had no idea that they were practically doing the opposite of what they purport to stand for. Do they receive any public money? If so they should be cut off.

No, I have at no point appealed to the authority of the Oxford educated philosopher, et cetera et cetera, Peter Singer, to reinforce my views or to lend credence to an argument. It was only an assertion about him, and how it was unfair to simply dismiss him as a loon. Not a jot more than that!

The point about the career being that obviously an Oxford degree does not mean jack all: it must mean something, or else no employer would care. And given how much they do care, and how well set-up a good Oxbridge degree can make you, it would seem that it means a lot. That was my point.

And being from Columbine will also get you an interesting reaction. It does not neccissarily reflect on your worth of opinion.

The individual was dismissed as being a loon because, gasp, he showed that he was a loon.

There are some very intelligent idiots in the world.

Such as most Mensa members I've dealt with. (The one exception I know was a good buddy of mine in high school)

That would explain the defensiveness.

Eh, I'm not sure how true it is, I tend to lack interest in the orgasms of animals. The woman who mentioned it, however, wanted to have sex with dolphins, and, appearantly, did at least manage to 'play' with some horses.

Then there's all the side conversations and so forth...

In general, sexual 'perversion' is a result of some background issues, for better or worse. Personally, I don't -care- what someone does, so long as nothing is hurt beyond themselves.

But, still, generally, weird behavior is the result of, gasp, weirdness, whether minor or major, nature or nurture.

Heck, dogs like to hump non-dogs. They're weird little buggers too. No big whup.


I'm not being defensive, particularly. If I am, it's not because of that. It's cause of this:

Speaking as someone with quite a few little kinks, I can personally say I experienced.. something when I had run-ins with them when I was young, far too young to be developed sexually. I'll spare you the details, but my point is, that sexual.. peculiarities don't generally develop because of some happening, big, or small. They're just kind of.. there. Locked in your mind.

If you're thinking that the aforementioned experiences may have caused these interests, they didn't. I know at least one was on a rather popular TV show, and I doubt everyone that watched it came out as deviant as I.

There is a quote along the lines of "The only abnormal sexual behavior is to not have any."

Yes, well, I'm actually a furry. Red-Tailed Hawk for some years now.

Furthermore, I'm fairly sure that's a myth perpetuated by a ridiculous FAQ. I've seen a dolphin's orgasm, it looks to be nothing more violent than a supersoaker going off.


You learn a new thing every day....

Is an achingly normal upbringing classed as childhood trauma? Because it should be *shudders*

And being from Columbine will also get you an interesting reaction. It does not neccissarily reflect on your worth of opinion.

The individual was dismissed as being a loon because, gasp, he showed that he was a loon.

There are some very intelligent idiots in the world.

Such as most Mensa members I've dealt with. (The one exception I know was a good buddy of mine in high school)
Yes, being from Columbine will get you an interesting reaction, I presume because a load of people were shot there. And, indeed, no, it does not reflect on your worth of opinion. And being from Oxford will get an interesting reaction because it strongly implies (note the word implies, I am careful not to be too definite) that you are both highly intelligent and highly educated. Which does imply a certain worth of opinion. Columbine, I cannot help but feel, is quite irrelevent...

And once again, I am not saying that he is necessarily not a loon, just that, given his background (not just as Oxford graduate but also as well-known academic - the Oxford issue has frankly been blown far, far out of proportion), it might be a good idea to learn something about the context of those quotes before dismissing them. I would strongly contest that those quotes, taken on their own and with no understanding of his philosophy, are not a reliable basis for your labelling of him.

I'm not being defensive, particularly. If I am, it's not because of that. It's cause of this:


You supposed that my statement of 'usually' meant 'always.' That's a defensive reaction. Not a huge one, but suggests you have emotion tied up in the issue. Advice: Never let your emotions get involved in an argument, especially with me. I'm a cold-hearted bastard.


Speaking as someone with quite a few little kinks, I can personally say I experienced.. something when I had run-ins with them when I was young, far too young to be developed sexually. I'll spare you the details, but my point is, that sexual.. peculiarities don't generally develop because of some happening, big, or small. They're just kind of.. there. Locked in your mind.


I've known (and dated) people who get involved in sexuality way too young (10, 13, that I can recall). The one I know well keeps dating older and older guys, including people who are outright insane (Like the guy who thinks he has a demon in him...), screwy (ex-mormon control freak who was a virgin before her... and is 6 years older than her.. she's not even legal yet)... she has little 'characters' in her mind... and throw in her bipolarism and family issues... her military father who left the family... somehow I wasn't surprised that she liked to be choked and tied up and dominated. Just.. you know... somehow...

Still a sweet, wonderful, intelligent young woman. But there's a wee bit too much going on there for it to be a coincidence.


If you're thinking that the aforementioned experiences may have caused these interests, they didn't. I know at least one was on a rather popular TV show, and I doubt everyone that watched it came out as deviant as I.


Nature and nurture. Like I said, dogs hump legs without being emotionally traumatized. Susceptable natures plus screwy situations.


There is a quote along the lines of "The only abnormal sexual behavior is to not have any."

True. I'm not entirely 'normal' myself. I use my fangs.

You'll notice, I hope, I don't condemn anything here. Merely stating that, at least from what I can tell, an unusual present usually means an unusual background. Sometimes that background is, of course, genetic.

Yes, being from Columbine will get you an interesting reaction, I presume because a load of people were shot there. And, indeed, no, it does not reflect on your worth of opinion. And being from Oxford will get an interesting reaction because it strongly implies (note the word implies, I am careful not to be too definite) that you are both highly intelligent and highly educated. Which does imply a certain worth of opinion. Columbine, I cannot help but feel, is quite irrelevent...

And once again, I am not saying that he is necessarily not a loon, just that, given his background (not just as Oxford graduate but also as well-known academic - the Oxford issue has frankly been blown far, far out of proportion), it might be a good idea to learn something about the context of those quotes before dismissing them. I would strongly contest that those quotes, taken on their own and with no understanding of his philosophy, are not a reliable basis for your labelling of him.

I give everyone equal consideration based on their given value. I do not give one idiot special preference over another just because he had a better-known education.

I've a bloody senior at the university. I have some teachers who are -exceptional-. I have some who are -laughable-. Their schooling background has not shown to have an effect on which they are.

I do not give one idiot special preference over another just because he had a better-known education.
And I never said you should, merely that given this better known education and its implications, it might be wise to think before dismissing him. No more than that. Not that he was not an idiot, just that, given his background (of which his education was a small part that you have insisted in blowing out of proportion, his academic life after undergraduacy being very much more important) he might have more substance behind his words than the fanatics he had been grouped with. If you still disagree, then that is fine; this is petty, and tedious in the extreme, and I have no further interest in it.

Before the argument over authority of professorial opinions, where the hell was this discussion up to?? I'm uber-lost 0_o

A link you folks may enjoy.

Click (http://www.peta-sucks.com)


Now that is fricking funny as can be!!!


I would be interested to know how many of the posters on this thread have actually visited a poultry plant in operation? How many of you have seen the way in which the mass slaughter of chickens occurs? How many of you think that there is a more humane way than is currently employed to bring you the least expensive and healthiest form of delicious protein on the face of the Earth?

Until you go in with an open mind, see what is actually happening, and can come up with a better and yet still workable solution, then you need to close your yap.

Over the last 12 years, I have earned my living in the agricultural field. I myself have personally been involved in the deaths of over 419,328,000 chickens. Many millions I raised and sent to slaughter. Many millions I hung on the shackles with my own two hands. Many millions I personally had knife in hand and slit their throats. Many, many millions I help to cook into the tasty entres that you all know and apparently love.

PETA is a bunch of crackpots that have little or no knowledge of which to speak. Bea Arthur is the worse one of them all. "they never feel the sun on their tiny little faces." GIVE ME A BREAK!!! Without the farmers and everyone else involved... up to and including the diner... they would never have drawn a breath into non-existant lungs, either! They wouldn't because there would have been no need to produce them. Which is worse, to have lived a relatively short life with all the food and drink you could ever possibly want and then be killed with all of your friends, or to never have lived at all?

And another thing: How come PETA never talks about the thousands of animals each year that die in the blades of the combines that harvest the wheat and soy beans that are so intimately involved in the process of making that god-awful veggie burger? I guess those don't count, because if they did, everyone in PETA would starve. Fucking hypocrits!

Before the argument over authority of professorial opinions, where the hell was this discussion up to?? I'm uber-lost 0_o
Lol, me too. It wasn't really one discussion: there was one over animal consent, one that was less a discussion than a truly agonising attempt to explain the powers of analogy to someone with no noticeable imagination... and of course whatever the original point of the whole thing was, which I think has been rather lost...