NationStates Jolt Archive

PETA has set up a display in a commons area on my University campus.

Since I love exercising my right to make people mad, I think I shall grace PETA with my presense.

I am going to make a sandwich. Not just any sandwich, mind you, a "this could feed a North Korean village for a month" kind of sandwich. It shall be full of chicken, turkey, roast beef, and all forms of pork.

I shall go over to the PETA display, and listen to their schpel. Than, I shall remove the sandwich from my bag, and enjoy the delicious animal products.

It shall be good.

It never ceases to amaze me that despite the "War on Terror," the US government is allowing domestic terrorists to assemble and demonstrate on college campuses. And we get freaked out when we hear that Hamas is training kids.

It never ceases to amaze me that despite the "War on Terror," the US government is allowing domestic terrorists to assemble and demonstrate on college campuses. And we get freaked out when we hear that Hamas is training kids.
When's the last time a PETA "terrorist" blew himself up on a city bus? The only way they'd ever be responsible for any real terrorism would be if they released infected monkeys like on 28 days later.

Hunt ducks and geese. That's what I do.

Every year, some PETA people set up near where I hunt ducks and geese. They blow loud air horns, etc., trying to drive the ducks and geese away.

Then they come up to me and shout threats about how they're going to kill me if I kill any ducks.

I shoot my limit of ducks, the dog retrieves them, and I go home to duck dinner.

Usually, at the point where they see my dog bring back the first duck, most of them burst into tears.

When's the last time a PETA "terrorist" blew himself up on a city bus? The only way they'd ever be responsible for any real terrorism would be if they released infected monkeys like on 28 days later.

They've used arson as a tool before.

there was infected monkeys on 28 days later, man i missed that bit...

PETA has set up a display in a commons area on my University campus.

Since I love exercising my right to make people mad, I think I shall grace PETA with my presense.

I am going to make a sandwich. Not just any sandwich, mind you, a "this could feed a North Korean village for a month" kind of sandwich. It shall be full of chicken, turkey, roast beef, and all forms of pork.

I shall go over to the PETA display, and listen to their schpel. Than, I shall remove the sandwich from my bag, and enjoy the delicious animal products.

It shall be good.

Even better would be to take a small gas grill and start grilling fresh rabbit haunches while wearing bunny slippers made from real bunny fur (with ears).

Then tazer them with a cattle prod when they get too close.

there was infected monkeys on 28 days later, man i missed that bit...
Dude, that's the beginning of the movie. Some animal rights assholes break into a lab where chimps are being used to test a new virus and they end up releasing them. The Animal Rights Freaks and the scientist get infected and it spreads from there.

Dude, that's the beginning of the movie. Some animal rights assholes break into a lab where chimps are being used to test a new virus and they end up releasing them. The Animal Rights Freaks and the scientist get infected and it spreads from there.

Maybe the Dude was too busy talking with his friends to hear the movie.

They've used arson as a tool before.
Well I guess that counts. How many lab animals did they end up roasting?

PETA has set up a display in a commons area on my University campus.

Since I love exercising my right to make people mad, I think I shall grace PETA with my presense.

I am going to make a sandwich. Not just any sandwich, mind you, a "this could feed a North Korean village for a month" kind of sandwich. It shall be full of chicken, turkey, roast beef, and all forms of pork.

I shall go over to the PETA display, and listen to their schpel. Than, I shall remove the sandwich from my bag, and enjoy the delicious animal products.

It shall be good.
hehehe reminds me of this

The Voice: It is the Broodwich. Forged in darkness from wheat harvested in hell's half acre. Baked by Beelzebub. Slathered with mayonnaise beaten from the evil eggs of dark chicken force-fed to dogs by the hands of a one eyed mad man. Cheese boiled from the rancid teat of fanged cow. Layered with 666 separate meats from an animal, which has maggots for blood.

Well I guess that counts. How many lab animals did they end up roasting?

I believe that PETA has the same relationship with ALF and ELF that Sinn Fein has with the IRA.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Violent animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists now pose one of the most serious terrorism threats to the nation, top federal law enforcement officials say.

Senior officials from the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF) and Explosives told a Senate panel Wednesday of their growing concern over these groups.

Of particular concern are the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).

John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990. The FBI has 150 pending investigations associated with animal rights or eco-terrorist activities, and ATF officials say they have opened 58 investigations in the past six years related to violence attributed to the ELF and ALF.

In the same period violence from groups like the Ku Klux Klan and anti-abortion extremists have declined, Lewis said.

The ELF has been linked to fires set at sport utility vehicle dealerships and construction sites in various states, while the ALF has been blamed for arson and bombings against animal research labs and the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industry.

No deaths have been blamed on attacks by those groups so far, but the attacks have increased in frequency and size, said Lewis.

"Plainly, I think we're lucky. Once you set one of these fires they can go way out of control," Lewis said.

ATF Deputy Assistant Director Carson Carroll agreed with Lewis' assessment.

"The most worrisome trend to law enforcement and private industry alike has been the increase in willingness by these movements to resort to the use of incendiary and explosive devices," he said.

The FBI also identified a British-based group, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, as a U.S. terror threat. The group targets Britain's Huntingdon Life Sciences Laboratory, which has an American facility in East Millstone, New Jersey.

Last year a federal grand jury indicted seven people identified as members of the group on charges they vandalized company property and harassed lab employees and customers.
Inhofe alleges PETA link

Senate Environment Committee Chairman James Inhofe estimated the cost of damages from militant environmental and animal rights supporters at more than $110 million in the past decade.

"Just like al Qaeda or any other terrorist movement, ELF and ALF cannot accomplish their goals without money, membership and the media," the Republican senator from Oklahoma said.

Inhofe said there was "a growing network of support for extremists like ELF and ALF," and he singled out People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for giving money to members of both groups.

PETA claims more than 800,000 members. Its president, Ingrid Newkirk, declined to appear at the hearing, but general counsel Jeffrey Kerr denied Inhofe's allegation in a written statement.

"PETA has no involvement with alleged ALF or ELF actions. PETA does not support terrorism. PETA does not support violence," Kerr said.

"In fact PETA exists to fight the terrorism and violence inflicted on billions of animals annually in the meat, dairy, experimentation, tobacco, fur, leather, and circus industries."

*puts PETA shirt on*

http://www.prankplace.com/tshirts_peta.htm

mwhahahaha

They've used arson as a tool before.

not peta, the organization. they're a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) corporation.

and even if they had, arson ain't terrorism.

Dude, that's the beginning of the movie. Some animal rights assholes break into a lab where chimps are being used to test a new virus and they end up releasing them. The Animal Rights Freaks and the scientist get infected and it spreads from there.
oh yeah the weir... fellas that broke in, god why be so pushy with your views crazy mistake... that was a crap joke in the film, man walks into the bar with a giraffe and the bartender says cant leave that lyin there adn teh man says that aint a lion that a giraffe or simmilar either way it sucked! :D

PETA has set up a display in a commons area on my University campus.

Since I love exercising my right to make people mad, I think I shall grace PETA with my presense.

I am going to make a sandwich. Not just any sandwich, mind you, a "this could feed a North Korean village for a month" kind of sandwich. It shall be full of chicken, turkey, roast beef, and all forms of pork.

I shall go over to the PETA display, and listen to their schpel. Than, I shall remove the sandwich from my bag, and enjoy the delicious animal products.

It shall be good.

You've got style in your vegan baiting, I'll grant you that.

not peta, the organization. they're a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) corporation.

and even if they had, arson ain't terrorism.

PETA members threaten me with death every year during duck season.

PETA has been linked to ALF and ELF by the FBI - they give money to ALF and ELF - despite PETA's denials.

Well it's certainly not doing people favors when they have their businesses burnt down.

and even if they had, arson ain't terrorism.

Actually, terrorism is the use of force to achieve or affect political change. That's the most common definition. It doesn't neccessarily have to involve fatalities.

For example, if someone blew up the Washington monument or the Statue of Liberty when no one was around as a means to force people to act in a way that he wants, that makes him a terrorist by most definitions.

PETA, or their extensions, have been implicated in using illegal force to demand and affect change on both domestic and political concerns. Ergo, their terrorists.

not peta, the organization. they're a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) corporation.

and even if they had, arson ain't terrorism.

well neither is blowing up a bus then. what do you consider terrorism?

I might add that there have been several incidents over the past two decades where PETA members (acting on their own) have taken up arms and gone into the woods during deer season in Virginia. Some hunters have been killed.

We get the warning from the game warden every year that PETA members have threatened to do this - and some years, they do.

That's terrorism, if you ask me.

I might add that there have been several incidents over the past two decades where PETA members (acting on their own) have taken up arms and gone into the woods during deer season in Virginia. Some hunters have been killed.

We get the warning from the game warden every year that PETA members have threatened to do this - and some years, they do.

That's terrorism, if you ask me.


lmao anyone that cares about animals life so much that they will kill a human is just nuts

pure genious :)

well neither is blowing up a bus then. what do you consider terrorism?

It is

You need to get a nice chunk of beef, cook it, wrap it in saran wrap, put it on a leesh, and walk it like a pet. Then when you get by the PETArds, cut it open, start eating it while you keep saying "your such a gooood boy!"

It is

thats known as an act of sarcasm, read what i quote. then you will understand.

lmao anyone that cares about animals life so much that they will kill a human is just nuts

Out of curiosity, I've been to a PETA meeting (a small one in Pasadena, MD). There, at the house of a person who rescues birds, I heard a lecture on how human life was not worth as much as the life of a bird - or even a rat.

It's all I needed to hear. The game warden and I talked about this, and he said the next time the PETA people threaten me out at the duck hunt, if any of them show a weapon, I don't have to wait to see what they're going to do with it.

Out of curiosity, I've been to a PETA meeting (a small one in Pasadena, MD). There, at the house of a person who rescues birds, I heard a lecture on how human life was not worth as much as the life of a bird - or even a rat.

It's all I needed to hear. The game warden and I talked about this, and he said the next time the PETA people threaten me out at the duck hunt, if any of them show a weapon, I don't have to wait to see what they're going to do with it.

duck season can turn into peta season?

When's the last time a PETA "terrorist" blew himself up on a city bus? The only way they'd ever be responsible for any real terrorism would be if they released infected monkeys like on 28 days later.http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/
Inhofe alleges PETA link
Senate Environment Committee Chairman James Inhofe estimated the cost of damages from militant environmental and animal rights supporters at more than $110 million in the past decade.

"Just like al Qaeda or any other terrorist movement, ELF and ALF cannot accomplish their goals without money, membership and the media," the Republican senator from Oklahoma said.

Inhofe said there was "a growing network of support for extremists like ELF and ALF," and he singled out People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for giving money to members of both groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been financially linked to eco-terrorist groups[5] and has provided financial support to eco-terrorist organizations such as ALF and ELF. This connection has been largely in the form of financial help for both convicted activists and "daily activities", and also PETA using footage from ALF raids for their own legal purposes. In addition, several high ranking members of PETA have made statements advocating the use of property destruction. [6] [7].
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/ca_arson_terrorist(8-7-03).htm
In 1992, a firebomb destroyed a laboratory at Michigan State University. Rodney Coronado, a member of the Animal Liberation Front, (sister group to Earth Liberation Front), was eventually arrested, admitted guilt, was sentenced, spent nearly five years in jail and served three years on probation.
After his arrest, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a group that benefits from federal IRS non-profit status as a charity devoted to the public good, donated $45,200 to the Rodney Coronado Support Fund.[iii] It would have been difficult for PeTA to set up a Rodney Coronado Defense Fund, given that Coronado pled guilty well in advance of the trial and has always taken credit for the crimes he has committed.

According to the government's sentencing memorandum, federal investigators had traced the use of his calling card and determined that he was in the vicinity of virtually every ALF arson attack under investigation immediately before or after it occurred. The memorandum also points out that Coronado was in contact with PeTA before and after the MSU firebombing.[iv] Following the attack but while Coronado was still at large, PeTA gave his father a $25,000 loan that apparently still remains unpaid.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2530
A stunning development in the domestic war on terror unfolded this week, as seven hard-core militants from the violent animal rights group SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) were taken into federal custody on terrorism-related charges. In addition, SHAC itself (which, it turns out, is an honest-to-goodness corporation organized in Delaware), was named in a five-count federal indictment -- which outlined violations of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act as well as a conspiracy to stalk innocent victims across state lines. The indictment charges that SHAC's tactics include "assault including spraying cleaning fluid into one's eyes," "smashing the windows of one's house," firebombing cars, threatening to "kill or injure one's partner or children," and "arranging for an undertaker to call to collect one's body." The federal government also alleges that SHAC "listed the names and addresses" of various targeted Americans on its website. "In some instances, SHAC also listed home phone numbers; names of employees' spouses; the names, ages and birth dates of their children and where the children attended school; license plate numbers and churches attended by employees and their families." The seven accused animal-rights radicals each face between three and five years in prison. "This is not activism," said Christopher Christie, the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey. "This is a group of lawless thugs attacking innocent men, women and children."
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/article_detail.cfm?article=134
PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing recommendation, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime. And PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich told an animal rights convention in 2001 that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”

We had a story here, where animal rights activists, in protest of a guinea pig breeding farm, dug up the remains of a relative, and kidnapped the corpse.

full story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4238080.stm)

duck season can turn into peta season?

Only in Virginia, and only if the PETA member is armed with a weapon not suitable for duck hunting (i.e., a pistol).

Out of curiosity, I've been to a PETA meeting (a small one in Pasadena, MD). There, at the house of a person who rescues birds, I heard a lecture on how human life was not worth as much as the life of a bird - or even a rat.

wtf, are you serious?? i feel like slapping something...

wtf, are you serious?? i feel like slapping something...
Yes, they were serious.

why cant peta be like every other cult and drink some kool aid

We had a story here, where animal rights activists, in protest of a guinea pig breeding farm, dug up the remains of a relative, and kidnapped the corpse.

full story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4238080.stm)

Yeah, they still haven't found the remains. That really is a sick way to make their point.

We had a story here, where animal rights activists, in protest of a guinea pig breeding farm, dug up the remains of a relative, and kidnapped the corpse.

full story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4238080.stm)
Why cant extremists just understand they are hurting their cause

Yeah, they still haven't found the remains. That really is a sick way to make their point.

But digging up remains must be against the law! EVIL ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS!!!

HEY! we could use them for food, drug research, and pets.

PETA has set up a display in a commons area on my University campus.

Since I love exercising my right to make people mad, I think I shall grace PETA with my presense.

I am going to make a sandwich. Not just any sandwich, mind you, a "this could feed a North Korean village for a month" kind of sandwich. It shall be full of chicken, turkey, roast beef, and all forms of pork.

I shall go over to the PETA display, and listen to their schpel. Than, I shall remove the sandwich from my bag, and enjoy the delicious animal products.

It shall be good.

just take a few cans of paint and douse the PETA folks with said paint... give em some of their own medicine.

that is the sickest thing i have heard all day at least, ugh fu**ing as**oles digging up a grave, AS**OLES!!!!!!!!!!!

just take a few cans of paint and douse the PETA folks with said paint... give em some of their own medicine.

You have to start crying and shout, "MURDERERS!" while you do it.

But digging up remains must be against the law! EVIL ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS!!!

HEY! we could use them for food, drug research, and pets.
You know, if they volunteered for it then they would at least be showing some consistency...

And I would likely change my career field to Toxic Substance Researcher. (Stand here while I squirt this in your eyes...!) :D

PETA members threaten me with death every year during duck season.

then why don't you report them? is it because you don't find them to be credible threats?

PETA has been linked to ALF and ELF by the FBI - they give money to ALF and ELF - despite PETA's denials.

they have given money to the legal defenses of people, who are innocent as far as the law is concerned, accused of participating in an action claimed by alf or elf. so what? i heard this rumor that in an adversarial system, it is kind of supposed to be a good thing that people are allowed to defend themselves adequately.

then why don't you report them? is it because you don't find them to be credible threats?

We do report them. Some have been arrested, but plea bargain out. Or pay fines, as it is the first time they've been arrested.

"Very credible" will be when they make the threats and are holding a firearm. The game warden and the sheriff have said that it won't be a problem for me to immediately open fire if I see they have a weapon after they've made the threats.


they have given money to the legal defenses of people, who are innocent as far as the law is concerned, accused of participating in an action claimed by alf or elf. so what? i heard this rumor that in an adversarial system, it is kind of supposed to be a good thing that people are allowed to defend themselves adequately.

Yes, just like Sinn Fein pays the legal bills of IRA members. Same thing.

Actually, terrorism is the use of force to achieve or affect political change. That's the most common definition.

it's also a stupid definition, that brands pretty much everyone from the american revolutionaries to gandhi as terrorists.

We do report them. Some have been arrested, but plea bargain out. Or pay fines, as it is the first time they've been arrested.

"Very credible" will be when they make the threats and are holding a firearm. The game warden and the sheriff have said that it won't be a problem for me to immediately open fire if I see they have a weapon after they've made the threats.
I would also carry a high-capacity mp3 voice recorder and have it on as soon as you think you might encounter these types... or you might get "Vanged". (Vang was guilty as hell, but you get my point...)

At least once a year at my workplace, we are told to watch out and be careful of PETA members. They have a bad habit of attacking doctors and researchers - everything from throwing things at them to actuallly tackling/hitting them. Never had a major injury, but more than one minor one has occurred. Of course, they tend to leave our side of things alone, as they are much, much more interested in whining outside the primate facility.

I just wsh PETA members would stick to their guns. Refuse to take medical treatment. Don't use any type of pesticide or ever step on/swat at a bug. Don't use insect repellant. Don't eat anything that might have involved the killing/harming of an animal - which basically means don't eat anything, with a possible few exceptions, but if that's your bag....

it's also a stupid definition, that brands pretty much everyone from the american revolutionaries to gandhi as terrorists.

Gandhi never committed an act of violence as a means of coercion. Nor did he make threats to commit violence.

It's been nearly 10 years now - and every year, the PETA people are out at the pond threatening to kill me. In the most ugly terms imaginable.

it's also a stupid definition, that brands pretty much everyone from the american revolutionaries to gandhi as terrorists.

Funny, I alwasy read that Ghandi's thing was being sure not to use force....

it's also a stupid definition, that brands pretty much everyone from the american revolutionaries to gandhi as terrorists.


That's funny... I don't recall reports of Ghandi using force to affect his change. Interesting you would make that connection. :rolleyes:

Sierra, what general part of VA do you hail from?

PETA has set up a display in a commons area on my University campus.

Since I love exercising my right to make people mad, I think I shall grace PETA with my presense.

I am going to make a sandwich. Not just any sandwich, mind you, a "this could feed a North Korean village for a month" kind of sandwich. It shall be full of chicken, turkey, roast beef, and all forms of pork.

I shall go over to the PETA display, and listen to their schpel. Than, I shall remove the sandwich from my bag, and enjoy the delicious animal products.

It shall be good.go to a pet store and by a leash... slice off a bit of it and have it sticking out of your sandwich while you're eating it.

well in that vein - what is the difference between the American revolutionaries and the ones in Iraq, other than the American ones won their war and made a nation, while the iraqi ones are still fighting...

Gandhi never committed an act of violence as a means of coercion. Nor did he make threats to commit violence.

It's been nearly 10 years now - and every year, the PETA people are out at the pond threatening to kill me. In the most ugly terms imaginable.
Maybe there should be some counterprotests from hunters, meat eaters, and just ordinary people and if PETA wants to get violent they'll be outnumbered, outgunned, and just plain fucked.

It's been nearly 10 years now - and every year, the PETA people are out at the pond threatening to kill me. In the most ugly terms imaginable.

You should say to them, they're the ones hu eat plants, they're cutting down the rainforest, they're to blame for global warming! obviously not to sole cause, but hey, it's still a good come back.

<snip>I just wsh PETA members would stick to their guns. Refuse to take medical treatment. Don't use any type of pesticide or ever step on/swat at a bug. Don't use insect repellant. Don't eat anything that might have involved the killing/harming of an animal - which basically means don't eat anything, with a possible few exceptions, but if that's your bag....Yeah, then they would be readily visible and too weak to bother anyone.

Smelly, sickly, thin, hand-beaten-flax wearing skanks.

Oh wait, that just described all but the Hollywood members. Never mind.

well in that vein - what is the difference between the American revolutionaries and the ones in Iraq, other than the American ones won their war and made a nation, while the iraqi ones are still fighting...
Yep. Still fighting to destroy their nation. I had to say it, now I'm done. I'll avoid discussion of the Iraq war in this thread.

hehehe reminds me of this

The Broodwich is awesome, just don't eat the sun dried tomatoes! :)

Maybe there should be some counterprotests from hunters, meat eaters, and just ordinary people and if PETA wants to get violent they'll be outnumbered, outgunned, and just plain fucked.

The one I liked was in the mid-1990s, when they decided (in southern Virginia) to have two people dress up like a deer. The idea was, when they got shot, to have the hunter charged with murder.

Well, hunters were told by the game warden that no one would be charged if they mistook two people in a deer costume for a deer. Not even negligent homicide.

So hunters began intentionally looking for the PETA people in the costume. Seems they heard what the game warden had said, and decided that it wasn't worth dying for.

You have to start crying and shout, "MURDERERS!" while you do it.

yeah, "How DARE you kill those micro-organisms by BREATHING?! How DARE YOU BREATHE!"

Yep. Still fighting to destroy their nation. I had to say it, now I'm done. I'll avoid discussion of the Iraq war in this thread.


Don't worry. That quote was undeniably retarded and no one blames you for your response.

Yep. Still fighting to destroy their nation. I had to say it, now I'm done. I'll avoid discussion of the Iraq war in this thread.

yeah, Armacor, USians were fighting to get away from GB.

Insurgents are fighting to keep their stranglehold on [power in Iraq... they don't WANT Iraqis to be free.

So in this case the insurgents are the Brits who don't want to lose power.

The Kurds/Shi'a/peaceful Sunnis are like the colonial Americans -- fighting for freedom. And we're helping them.

well neither is blowing up a bus then.

of course it isn't. why would it be?

oh, you meant "blowing up a bus full of people". well in that case, it hardly seem that the 'bus' part is the defining feature - planes, trains, automobiles, buildings, parks, or any other physical space work just as well. nor is the 'blowing up' part - it would still be terrorism if they were gassed or shot or stabbed. so it must be the people. of course, it isn't just the killing of people - if they are killed in the course of a robbery or because the killer just happens to like killing people, then it's just regular old crime. motivation matters. and if the people happen to be military or other state forces, then it's an attack against the state, not terrorism.

we have this great word in english that describes attacks against infrastructure. sabotage. i suggest we use it instead of throwing around dumb uses of the term terrorism.

i saw a peta video once when it had pictures of the Jews being sent to the gas chamber next to a picture of some cows, and the slaves in boats sent to america next to a picture of some sheep in a truck and it was like :confused: they seem to think that atroicityes such as these are the same as a couple of cows dying.

of course it isn't. why would it be?

oh, you meant "blowing up a bus full of people". well in that case, it hardly seem that the 'bus' part is the defining feature - planes, trains, automobiles, buildings, parks, or any other physical space work just as well. nor is the 'blowing up' part - it would still be terrorism if they were gassed or shot or stabbed. so it must be the people. of course, it isn't just the killing of people - if they are killed in the course of a robbery or because the killer just happens to like killing people, then it's just regular old crime. motivation matters. and if the people happen to be military or other state forces, then it's an attack against the state, not terrorism.

we have this great word in english that describes attacks against infrastructure. sabotage. i suggest we use it instead of throwing around dumb uses of the term terrorism.


Shooting at hunters is illegal. Some have been killed over the years. It's terrorism.

not peta, the organization. they're a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) corporation.

and even if they had, arson ain't terrorism.

So if they set you on fire, that's not terrorism?

And if they set every car at a car dealership on fire, that's not...???

Only bombs and guns count? And who made those rules?

Funny, I alwasy read that Ghandi's thing was being sure not to use force....

nonviolence, not 'force'. if 'force' is being used to describe elf and alf actions, then gandhi used force all the time in the protests he organized.

i saw a peta video once when it had pictures of the Jews being sent to the gas chamber next to a picture of some cows, and the slaves in boats sent to america next to a picture of some sheep in a truck and it was like :confused: they seem to think that atroicityes such as these are the same as a couple of cows dying.
To them it is the same thing.

"PETA exists to fight the terrorism and violence inflicted on billions of animals annually in the meat, dairy, experimentation, tobacco, fur, leather, and circus industries."

Loons.

nonviolence, not 'force'. if 'force' is being used to describe elf and alf actions, then gandhi used force all the time in the protests he organized.

Shooting a hunter dead is the use of violent force.

Shooting at hunters is illegal. Some have been killed over the years. It's terrorism.

who did the shooting? got any particular cases in mind?

So if they set you on fire, that's not terrorism?

And if they set every car at a car dealership on fire, that's not...???

Only bombs and guns count? And who made those rules?

ok, you are aware of the term 'arson', right? how do you distinguish between 'arson' and 'terrorism'?

also, the hummer dealership action wasn't related to peta. but it was awesome.

who did the shooting? got any particular cases in mind?
PETA members have been convicted of it over the years in Virginia, especially in the Roanoke area.

It's so prevalent, and so common, that the game wardens routinely warn hunters during hunter safety classes.

1. PETA members have been known to stalk and shoot hunters.
2. PETA members have been known to dress as deer in an attempt to have hunters framed for murder.

Every year, the same instruction. You're going to tell me the game warden is full of it? In every county?

ter·ror·ism [ térrə rìzzəm ]
noun
Definitions:
political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes

ar·son [ rss'n ]
noun
Definitions:
crime of burning property: the burning of a building or other property for a criminal or malicious reason

Arson depending on what it's used for can most definately be terrorism. Black Panthers, The Weathermen and other groups attempted to firebomb police precients during the 70s. Those are arson related events but also domestic terrorism.

If you are familiar with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), then you are aware of the fact they will do almost anything to protect animals. PETA’s efforts to save Ohio’s deer from this year’s annual statewide gun season has backfired.

An Ohio safety law requires hunters to display at least 400 square inches of hunter’s blaze orange on their person when in the woods. Capitalizing on the fact that hunters do not usually shoot orange because of its identification with hunter’s garb, PETA recently bulk purchased blaze orange vests and have been affixing them to live-trapped deer in Youngstown suburbs.

According to PETA spokesperson Katie Reese, a total of 405 vests were successfully put into circulation on deer by mid-December, and the anti-hunting group was still catching and vesting more deer.

Youngtown entrepreneur Guy Lockey, of Guy’s Outdoors came up with an idea that spits in the face of PETA by offering rewards for returned vests. Hunters who successfully bagged a vested deer could register for a drawing for random and biggest animal awards. Some 308 of the vests were recorded as bagged, based on returns by most of the hunter’s registering for Mr. Lockey’s drawing.

“It’s so easy, you can see them coming a mile away” said one first year hunter after checking in his first spike buck.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources officials were worried that the poorly thought-out plan by PETA might get somebody shot instead of saving the deer. “Hunters have turned PETA’s plan upside down, so we’re just hoping that nobody gets hurt and are hoping that none of the vested animals get tangled in brush,” said an unnamed ODNR official. “PETA has really outdone itself this time.”

ok, you are aware of the term 'arson', right? how do you distinguish between 'arson' and 'terrorism'?

also, the hummer dealership action wasn't related to peta. but it was awesome.


A guys business is destroyed, his livelyhood is gone and thats awesome? Tell me where do your parents work so that I can take their job away from them, lets see how awesome that is to you. Families get affected by the actions of these extremists.

Timothy McVeigh chooses as his last meal two pints of mint chocolate chip ice cream. (Not Vegan since it contained dairy, but Vegetarian, technically.) In an interview with the Financial Times that appears two days later, PETA Coordinator Bruce Friedrich says "Mr. McVeigh's decision to go vegetarian groups him with some of the world's greatest visionaries, including Albert Schweitzer, Mohandas Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy and Albert Einstein, all of whom advocated vegetarianism as an extension of humanitarianism." (This is an exact duplicate of a statement in a letter sent to McVeigh's warden asking his remaining meals be made Vegetarian.)

A guys business is destroyed, his livelyhood is gone and thats awesome? Tell me where do your parents work so that I can take their job away from them, lets see how awesome that is to you. Families get affected by the actions of these extremists.

People get killed and injured in fires. Especially firemen.

I have a plan for you. show them Maddox's answer to Peta's letter, that will show them..., don't assault them, and have a massive barbacue on the same day. No tofu allowed. No rolls either so hamburgers would be served between two pieces of steak, dressed with steak sauce if you like it, maybe throw in some hot dogs if you like it, a couple of slices of bacon won't hurt... and that is how you make a pure meat sandwitch

Now on the shooting hunters thing, wouldn't that make PETA kill an animal, and infact make themselves hypocrits (God, Jibea can't spell)?

On the robbing the corspe, not a good thing ist (the reverse order of tis to me, is+it=ist, also the German word for is)? They probably won't return the corpse, and if they do then the people should double their Guinea Pig breeding production.

I have a plan for you. show them Maddox's answer to Peta's letter, that will show them..., don't assault them, and have a massive barbacue on the same day. No tofu allowed. No rolls either so hamburgers would be served between two pieces of steak, dressed with steak sauce if you like it, maybe throw in some hot dogs if you like it, a couple of slices of bacon won't hurt... and that is how you make a pure meat sandwitch

Now on the shooting hunters thing, wouldn't that make PETA kill an animal, and infact make themselves hypocrits (God, Jibea can't spell)?

On the robbing the corspe, not a good thing ist (the reverse order of tis to me, is+it=ist, also the German word for is)? They probably won't return the corpse, and if they do then the people should double their Guinea Pig breeding production.

PETA has always defined people as separate, and less valuable, than animals.

BTW, for those who don't believe that PETA is constantly out there doing stupid things in the woods:

Currently, legislators in 35 states have passed "hunter harassment" laws that provide penalties for such activities as protesting on hunting grounds, making loud noises or spreading repellents to scare away game, and interposing oneself between a hunter and an animal.

It happens OFTEN. And it's stupid.

I just get me a nice picnic basket, I put some nicemeat, like hamburgers, fried chicken or even steak if I really want a steak. Then I will find some peta people, a group with chicks, and set up, ask them if they'd like to join. And lets not for get, I flirt witht he ladies till my balls can take no more.

P.S. Peta chicks are mean vile beast, but they are much worse when you offer them chicken.

Usually animal rights terrorism only occurs as a result of governmental weakness. In the past, criminal organisations far more dangerous than the ALF (Along with their front group PETA) and the ELF have been crushed when the authorities have been able to act. For example, the Black Panthers were destroyed when the FBI used a dirty tricks campaign with stuff like black propaganda, planting evidence, ect. The extremely dangerous Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany was also crushed using force alone. So if these organisations can be destroyed I don't see what makes the animal rights terrorists so special. All that's needed is the power to act.

When's the last time a PETA "terrorist" blew himself up on a city bus? The only way they'd ever be responsible for any real terrorism would be if they released infected monkeys like on 28 days later.
You seem to have a pretty narrow definition of terrorism, if you think that the concept is limited strictly to people who blow themselves up on busses. Bottom line, PETA gives "loans" to at least one prominent--and more importanty--confessed arsonist. This amounts to funding terrorism as far as I'm concerned, since terrorism is the use of force to damage property or life in order to acheive a politically motivated end. Whether you bomb a Michigan State testing lab or a bus in Israel makes little difference to me.

PETA supports the ALF and anyone with two neurons to rub together for warmth knows it. PETA is a textbook definition of a terrorist organization, or at the very least, terrorist sympathizers even if they don't light the fires themselves.

not peta, the organization. they're a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) corporation.

and even if they had, arson ain't terrorism.

you did not actualy say that did you?

There have been several 501c3 charities shut down becuase they were just a way for terrorist groups to earn money.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
I believe that destroying businesses, neighborhoods and the like qualifies as terrorism.

JMayo

you did not actualy say that did you?

There have been several 501c3 charities shut down becuase they were just a way for terrorist groups to earn money.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
I believe that destroying businesses, neighborhoods and the like qualifies as terrorism.

JMayo
I've been down this road with him. You're wasting your time.

In short, it's not terrorism if it endorses a cause he agrees with. Since he doesn't seem to beleive in property rights [or, apparently, life itself], its destruction is justified if it's a means to a certain end.

There have been several 501c3 charities shut down becuase they were just a way for terrorist groups to earn money.

and peta is not one of those in the eyes of the irs or any other federal investigators - their status was upheld during another investigation earlier this year.

and peta is not one of those in the eyes of the irs or any other federal investigators - their status was upheld during another investigation earlier this year.

Their tax exempt status yes.

Their connection to the ALF and ELF, no. According to the FBI and ATF this year, PETA is an official sponsor of those organizations, and shares members in common.

In short, it's not terrorism if it endorses a cause he agrees with.

or perhaps when the term 'terrorism' would become utterly meaningless if applied to the action in question, especially when we have other words that fully describe it much more clearly. words such as 'sabotage', 'property destruction', and 'annoying ad campaign'.

and peta is not one of those in the eyes of the irs or any other federal investigators - their status was upheld during another investigation earlier this year.
Yes, and we all know how thorough and pristine government investigations are. They always get the job done don't they? After all, people who work in the Government seem to be immune to making bad decisions, to hear you crazies in the left tell it.

I have a plan for you. show them Maddox's answer to Peta's letter, that will show them..., don't assault them, and have a massive barbacue on the same day. No tofu allowed. No rolls either so hamburgers would be served between two pieces of steak, dressed with steak sauce if you like it, maybe throw in some hot dogs if you like it, a couple of slices of bacon won't hurt... and that is how you make a pure meat sandwitch
Yeah, the guy who wrote that letter from PETA died last year, look his name up on Google. What I would do to piss PETA off is kill an animal in front of them, or bring the bodies of all the animals I have killed and show them, like the chickadee (my state bird) that I blew away with a 12 ga shotgun :)

or perhaps when the term 'terrorism' would become utterly meaningless if applied to the action in question, especially when we have other words that fully describe it much more clearly. words such as 'sabotage', 'property destruction', and 'annoying ad campaign'.
Killing hunters.

or perhaps when the term 'terrorism' would become utterly meaningless if applied to the action in question, especially when we have other words that fully describe it much more clearly. words such as 'sabotage', 'property destruction', and 'annoying ad campaign'.
Sophistry.

Lets run over this again. What is terrorism? Terrorism is the sabotage [and quite frequently the destruction] of life or property to acheive a certain politically motivated end. This could mean blowing up a cafe in the Middle East to protest the GREAT SATAN of the US, or it could mean shoowing out windows on the highway with an air rifle to advocate a ban on, say, vending machines. This includes arson and various other things which the ALF is known to do on a regular basis.

Also, your definition of firebombing a lab as an "annoying ad campaign" is a sickening evasion of reality that I will not tolerate. Ads don't fucking jump out of your tv and set fire to your house; they're not physically destructive [unless youre advertising a monster truck rally] and above all else ads don't threaten your life if you happen to be in the vicinity of one. Advertisements--print advertisements--put food on my family's table for 20 years. I'm not going to stand for this shit.

Their tax exempt status yes.

Their connection to the ALF and ELF, no. According to the FBI and ATF this year, PETA is an official sponsor of those organizations, and shares members in common.

funds defense campaigns and their press offices. legal activities.

and the fibies have no clue about membership in the alf and elf - there isn't any organization to infiltrate or spy on. the only time they even find out anything is when somebody slips (fer gods' sake, mask up people) - but that isn't informative about anything more than one particular affinity group's/individual's actions.

Lets run over this again. What is terrorism? Terrorism is the sabotage [and quite frequently the destruction] of life or property to acheive a certain politically motivated end.

is all war is terrorism? are all resistence movements terrorist? are striking workers who sabotage the machines (perhaps using wooden shoes) terrorists?

Killing hunters.

did you provide any names and cases for me that i missed? in these cases, where these people linked in any real way to anything else? if so, why weren't those groups gone after under the laws that exist for that very purpose? or at least through some sort of civil suit?

Also, your definition of firebombing a lab as an "annoying ad campaign" is a sickening evasion of reality that I will not tolerate.

pardon me, i thought in this particular part of chain of conversation we were talking specifically about peta, and not other groups. was peta the organization behind a firebombing that i didn't hear about? or do they mostly stick to disrupting fashion shows, minor property destruction, yelling at people, and making kind of annoying ads?

Hunt ducks and geese. That's what I do.

Every year, some PETA people set up near where I hunt ducks and geese. They blow loud air horns, etc., trying to drive the ducks and geese away.

Then they come up to me and shout threats about how they're going to kill me if I kill any ducks.

I shoot my limit of ducks, the dog retrieves them, and I go home to duck dinner.

Usually, at the point where they see my dog bring back the first duck, most of them burst into tears.

Heck, when they threaten to kill you if you kill any ducks, just remind them it is incredibly stupid to threaten to kill a man who is carrying a gun.

~ Lexington-Fayette.

did you provide any names and cases for me that i missed? in these cases, where these people linked in any real way to anything else? if so, why weren't those groups gone after under the laws that exist for that very purpose? or at least through some sort of civil suit?

The people who harass me every year are arrested. And they are all members of PETA. And they admit to it. And they threaten to kill me.

Other than being arrested, charged, and in some cases, paying fines and being detained for up to 30 days, there isn't much I can do.

Do you think that I, with my financial resources, could honestly pursue a civil case against PETA, with their financial resources?

And they have killed hunters in Virginia. The game wardens warn us about it every year.

And I posted the other stupid hunter harassments they do - where people could get killed.

is all war is terrorism?
Yep, more or less. See below.

are all resistence movements terrorist?
Strictly speaking, yes. Hopefully, though, a resistance movement is a reaction of the application of force to human [!] life. Terrorism by definition is the initiation of this force.

Likewise, armed conflict when one's country is attacked is not so much 'terrorism' as it is rational resistance and self-protection. PETA isn't protecting [i]itself by firebombing testing labs, which is why its oft-used analogy to the WW2 resistance movements are bullshit.

are striking workers who sabotage the machines (perhaps using wooden shoes) terrorists?
Oh fuck yes.

pardon me, i thought in this particular part of chain of conversation we were talking specifically about peta, and not other groups. was peta the organization behind a firebombing that i didn't hear about?
Yes. Several. I'm sure you know who Rodney Coronado is.

or do they mostly stick to disrupting fashion shows, minor property destruction, yelling at people, and making kind of annoying ads?
They do it all, baby.

Yes, and we all know how thorough and pristine government investigations are. They always get the job done don't they? After all, people who work in the Government seem to be immune to making bad decisions, to hear you crazies in the left tell it.

no, the state is almost always a monumental fuckup - i know it gets confusing around here, but i'm one of the anarchists.

but in terms of terrorism, they err exclusively on the side of declaring things that clearly aren't terrorist to be so*. so when they say that peta isn't, i'm going to need some sort of a reason for thinking that in this one case they are actually covering for a real terrorist organization, while in every other case they make patently false claims the other way, even when it's stupid and counter-productive to do so.

*except, of course, for stuff of their own making

Rodney Coronado

Rodney Adam Coronado is a long-time ringleader of the Animal Liberation Front, a criminal enterprise that the FBI classifies as America’s most dangerous domestic terrorism threat. He was sentenced in 1995 to 57 months in federal prison, for the 1992 arson of a Michigan State University research laboratory. In a November 30, 2002 speech, Coronado openly confessed to at least six other arsons, all of them part of a crime spree known as “Operation Bite Back.” While the FBI was most intensely investigating Coronado, PETA gave him over $70,000 in “grants” from its tax-exempt coffers.

Coronado has been associated with criminal animal-rights organizations since at least 1984, when he joined the Sea Shepard Conservation Society. In November 1986, Coronado and David Hewitt sabotaged a whaling station and sunk two whaling ships in Reykjavik, Iceland. Since that time, Coronado has shown a tendency to flee jurisdictions where warrants were issued for his arrest. He fled Vancouver in 1987, later jumped bail following another arrest in Canada, and went on the run in 1993, hiding on an Indian reservation while the FBI searched for him for nearly two years.

Despite his self-description as a “former” Animal Liberation Front activist, Coronado remains active in the animal rights criminal culture, currently fronting for a special-interest ALF subset known as “SHAC.” In a classroom on the campus of DC’s American University in January 2003, Coronado demonstrated for a crowd of college radicals the “correct” way to build a firebomb out of household materials.

Do you think that I, with my financial resources, could honestly pursue a civil case against PETA, with their financial resources?

if it's as widespread as you allege, i'd recommend class action, my friend. you might wind up owning their name, like happened to the aryan nations.

no, the state is almost always a monumental fuckup - i know it gets confusing around here, but i'm one of the anarchists.
I'm sorry. For you.

but in terms of terrorism, they err exclusively on the side of declaring things that clearly aren't terrorist to be so*. so when they say that peta isn't, i'm going to need some sort of a reason for thinking that in this one case they are actually covering for a real terrorist organization, while in every other case they make patently false claims the other way, even when it's stupid and counter-productive to do so.

*except, of course, for stuff of their own making
PETA isn't covering for "terrorist organizations" per se, in that I'm fairly certain ALF and other such groups know how to cover their tracks. The animal 'rights' movement is sort of like the insurance industry: it has the public face [PETA] and then it has the ugly bits inside that do things like cancel policies or increase premiums [or light matches and throw bombs].

In short, PETA and ALF, if they have any brains [which they do--Ingrid Newkirk is not a stupid woman] know that a 'ban all meat' and 'free all animals' platform will never gain any meaningful amount of legitimate steam in this country for obvious reasons. Instead, they've set themselves to 'fixing' what they see as the root of the problem, i.e. picketing animal testing labs, and doing other crazy things for media attention, whilst their brothers in arms [literally] are torching a facility downtown.

It's more or less a question of 'dual loyalty,' such as it is, among PETA members and ALF agents. While they may distance themselves on the surface, it makes no sense for either organization to utterly alienate the other in a functional capacity. Both organizations seem to be interested in doing what they say they want to do [as opposed to most of the money disappearing, as it does sometimes with "Non-Profit" organizations], so condemning your ideological dopplegangers isn't very productive.

Yes. Several. I'm sure you know who Rodney Coronado is.

of course. but i don't recall any of his actions being part of peta campaigns. sea shepards, alf, elf, etc., yeah. but not peta.

I found this one interesting: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm

I once did a persuasive speech the thesis of which was "PETA is a terrorist organization." I got C+.

I found this one interesting: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
I actually think This one: http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21 is more telling.

especially these links http://www.activistcash.com/organization_connections.cfm/oid/21
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21

Most ominously, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk was involved in the multi-million-dollar arson at Michigan State University that resulted in a 57-month prison term for Animal Liberation Front bomber Rodney Coronado. At Coronado’s sentencing hearing, U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer said that PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk arranged ahead of time to have Coronado send her a pair of FedEx packages from Michigan -- one on the day before he burned the lab down, and the other shortly afterward.

The first FedEx, according to the Sentencing Memorandum, was delivered to a woman named Maria Blanton, “a longtime PETA member who had agreed to accept the first Federal Express package from Coronado after being asked to do so by Ingrid Newkirk.” The FBI intercepted the second package, which had been sent to the same address. It contained documents that Coronado stole before lighting his firebombs, as well as “a videotape of the perpetrator of the MSU crime, disguised in a ski mask.” Since Coronado was convicted of the arson, we now know that he himself was that masked man. “Significantly,” wrote U.S. Attorney Dettmer, “Newkirk had arranged to have the package[s] delivered to her days before the MSU arson occurred.” (emphasis in the original)

Newkirk wrote a book called Free the Animals! The Untold Story of the U.S. Animal Liberation Front and Its Founder, ‘Valerie.’ In it she writes: “The ALF has, over the years, trusted People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to receive copies of the evidence of wrongdoing … I have also become somewhat used to jumping on a plane with copies of freshly purloined documents and hurriedly calling news conferences to discuss the ALF’s findings.” Indeed, PETA has held such press conferences just hours after ALF arsons and other break-ins.

PETA has published a leaflet called “Animal Liberation Front: the Army of the Kind.” In another pamphlet, “Activism and the Law,” PETA openly offers advice on “burning a laboratory building.”

“I will be the last person to condemn ALF,” says Newkirk. And in another interview: “I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.” In ALF’s publication Bite Back (yes, this terrorist group has a newsletter), Newkirk has said: “You can’t have all politeness and patience, all potlucks and epistles … Some people will never budge unless [they are] pushed to budge.”


Terrorists. Plain and simple.

nonviolence, not 'force'. if 'force' is being used to describe elf and alf actions, then gandhi used force all the time in the protests he organized.

Burning and blowing things up isn't violent? Throwing things at people isn't violent? Ripping people's clothes off = nonviolent? Attempting to set people on fire isn't violent?

If you are familiar with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), then you are aware of the fact they will do almost anything to protect animals.

Except for all of the pets they bring to their supposed "no-kill shelters" and euthenize, and the ones that they were killing inhumanely and dumping off in dumpsters, and the employees they sent into labs in order to film themselves beating animals, etc. of course.

The head of the organization didn't mind for years getting her insulin from the use of animals. Most of them probably have no problem with having the Orkin man come out to their house and spray for bugs.

Maybe it should be, "Cute and fuzzy animals that they don't have some reason to harm."

PETA members threaten me with death every year during duck season.

PETA has been linked to ALF and ELF by the FBI - they give money to ALF and ELF - despite PETA's denials.
QUACK! QUACK!

How many people who belong to the NRA do you think have used guns in a threatening way?
Are we to assume that we should blame the NRA for those instances?

How many people who belong to the NRA do you think have used guns in a threatening way?
Are we to assume that we should blame the NRA for those instances?

If the NRA started providing defense money to the people doing it, yes.

If most members of NRA were doing so and no announcement was made that they shouldn't, yes.

If the NRA was getting videos of people doing it to use as propoganda, yes.

The big question I have about PETA is in the name. What is unethical about eating and using animals for various purposes? Ethical treatment of animals really isn't defined anywhere, as (aside from Hindu and Buddhist teachings) there is no moral law against eating and killing animals.

"Vanged" :confused: ???


I would also carry a high-capacity mp3 voice recorder and have it on as soon as you think you might encounter these types... or you might get "Vanged". (Vang was guilty as hell, but you get my point...)

QUACK! QUACK!
Waddle Waddle... :p

duck hunting is the shit

If the NRA started providing defense money to the people doing it, yes.

If most members of NRA were doing so and no announcement was made that they shouldn't, yes.

If the NRA was getting videos of people doing it to use as propoganda, yes.
I've seen nothing by PETA that promoted any of those things. I'm not with PETA, though. I like steak. They just seem to be a non-violent organization with some loonies for members.

Forgive me my ignorance: What's the ALF?

Forgive me my ignorance: What's the ALF?
Alien Life Form from the planet Melmac.

"Vanged" :confused: ???
Last year in Wisconsin a "gentleman" of Laosian/Hmong descent tresspassed upon private lands while hunting. When approached by the rightful lessors of said land (who did act rudely) he proceeded to hunt down and kill (IIRC) six of them. He claimed "self defense", but the physical evidence of his actions, plus his experience in the military indicated otherwise so he was convicted.

Except for the evidence on the ground of his obvious track/chase/kill of the other hunters, it could have easily come down to he-said/she-said vis-a-vis "self Defense". The shooter usually looses in those cases.

Without the ground evidence, and with a recording device to provide evidence of threat, Vang might have gotten off.

As it stande, I believe he's looking at 6 consecutive life terms.

I've seen nothing by PETA that promoted any of those things. I'm not with PETA, though. I like steak. They just seem to be a non-violent organization with some loonies for members.
Look at the links I posted. They do precicely those things and specifically condone violence/sabotage to achieve their ends.

I've seen nothing by PETA that promoted any of those things. I'm not with PETA, though. I like steak. They just seem to be a non-violent organization with some loonies for members.

PETA provides defense money to people who have tried to burn or blow up labs.

The representatives of PETA have attacked doctors, models, and random people on the street, and PETA has not condemned - and in fact has often condoned such actions.

The page before this outlined a case in which the president of PETA was receiving a videotape of a man firebombing a lab, presumably for propoganda purposes.

Much like the "legal" arm of the IRA, PETA calls itself non-violent. Of course, even PETA workers themselves have brutally harmed animals - in order to try and frame another facility. They take in animals to a supposedly "no-kill" shelter, and then euthanize them. PETA workers were recently caught dumping bodies of animals that had not been humanely killed into public dumpsters.

Forgive me my ignorance: What's the ALF?
The Animal Liberation Front.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_Front

They advocate and perform acts of vandalisim, property destruction and violence in the cause of "Animal Liberation".

They have been declared a Domestic Terrorist organization by the US government for the damage they have caused.

Dude, PeTA is becoming a mouthpiece for radical animal rights loonies. The kind of people who would save a donkey before your child. They have some strange perception of reality. Probably because of some childhood trauma, IMO.

WTF???? Are they new words you invented ?

Armacor, USians

Someone should show those PETA people a video clip of a canivore hunting down, killing, and eating another animal. Just to show them that humans treat animals much better then animals treat animals.
(and there faces should look hilarious!!)

PETA has set up a display in a commons area on my University campus.

Since I love exercising my right to make people mad, I think I shall grace PETA with my presense.

I am going to make a sandwich. Not just any sandwich, mind you, a "this could feed a North Korean village for a month" kind of sandwich. It shall be full of chicken, turkey, roast beef, and all forms of pork.

I shall go over to the PETA display, and listen to their schpel. Than, I shall remove the sandwich from my bag, and enjoy the delicious animal products.

It shall be good.

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/5314/ultraburger5aw.jpg

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/1501/emotrock7ls.gif

Someone should show those PETA people a video clip of a canivore hunting down, killing, and eating another animal. Just to show them that humans treat animals much better then animals treat animals.
(and there faces should look hilarious!!)


My wife may have some footage of me eating-I'll ask her to dig it up!

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm

Check this out

it's also a stupid definition, that brands pretty much everyone from the american revolutionaries to gandhi as terrorists.


Yea the american revolutionaries were terrorits to the british same goes for ghandi it depends alot on point of view

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm

Check this out

PETA exists for two reasons

A. to give its members a tax write off

B. gives them a moral pedastal to stand on

My wife may have some footage of me eating-I'll ask her to dig it up!
I cant wait to see the faces of the animal lovers when they see a ten-foot croc chomp down on the head of a 110 lbs gazzelle and then drag it underwater and let it drown. Then viciously (sp?) devour the drowned animal with a gusto. (i feel evil)

Burning and blowing things up isn't violent?

no. or at least not directly. in, for example, criminal law there is a special category called violent crime. crimes are violent when they threaten or cause bodily harm or death. when actions such as blowing things up or burning them down is done without the intent or result of bodily harm, they aren't violent. "violence against property" is a stupid and conceptually cofused idea. violence happens to living beings, not windows, not fences, not bulldozers.

Throwing things at people isn't violent? Ripping people's clothes off = nonviolent? Attempting to set people on fire isn't violent?

that would depend on the things thrown, wouldn't it? and while ripping someone's shirt would probably count as assault, it's a relatively minor form of it.

who exactly attempted to set someone on fire?

PETA exists for two reasons

A. to give its members a tax write off

B. gives them a moral pedastal to stand on


I think you may be on to something.

Terrorism by definition is the initiation of this force.

so what matters in defining terrorism is who started it? that seems even sillier than the usual confused conceptions of the term.

PETA isn't protecting itself by firebombing testing labs, which is why its oft-used analogy to the WW2 resistance movements are bullshit.

so no 'defense of others' justifications for you then, yes?

and peta the organization never firebombed anything.

I applaud you The South Islands for your efforts, and that sandwich sounds damn good. These PETA guys fail to realize that if we didnt eat animals like cows and chickens...there would be no cows and chickens. Also, it is our responsibility to the ecosystem as the top of the food chain to hunt. That coupled with the fact that in most areas we have decimated the predator population make the hunting of the prey even more vital so as to keep the population from going out of control and destroying the local plant life and thus other species(which coincidentally is a big problem here in north Jersey, we have so many deer it's amazing, but citizens have taken it upon themselves to fulfill their duty to the environment now mainly with their cars). Another thing, I was wondering how PETA and Libs in general can care so much about a chicken and not at all about fetuses? Thats a little off topic but nonetheless a question that none of the Libs I know will answer.

I applaud you The South Islands for your efforts, and that sandwich sounds damn good. These PETA guys fail to realize that if we didnt eat animals like cows and chickens...there would be no cows and chickens. Also, it is our responsibility to the ecosystem as the top of the food chain to hunt. That coupled with the fact that in most areas we have decimated the predator population make the hunting of the prey even more vital so as to keep the population from going out of control and destroying the local plant life and thus other species(which coincidentally is a big problem here in north Jersey, we have so many deer it's amazing, but citizens have taken it upon themselves to fulfill their duty to the environment now mainly with their cars). Another thing, I was wondering how PETA and Libs in general can care so much about a chicken and not at all about fetuses? Thats a little off topic but nonetheless a question that none of the Libs I know will answer.
you are now my friend

you are now my friend

Sweet Action! :D

Someone should show those PETA people a video clip of a canivore hunting down, killing, and eating another animal. Just to show them that humans treat animals much better then animals treat animals.
(and there faces should look hilarious!!)

except for the horrifically confused, the standard response to 'but animals eat animals' is that humans are moral agents in a way that (most?) animals can't be, and therefore hold greater moral responsibilities - especially when options exist that can easily reduce the amount of suffering needed to live.

and have you ever seen a factory farm? it takes human ingenuity to invent the levels of cruelty in those things. i prefer that my hamburger at least have gotten the chance to hang out outside before it becomes dinner.

Sweet Action! :D
Quick! Let's run before the Libs can bash us with their lies! :D

except for the horrifically confused, the standard response to 'but animals eat animals' is that humans are moral agents in a way that (most?) animals can't be, and therefore hold greater moral responsibilities - especially when options exist that can easily reduce the amount of suffering needed to live.

and have you ever seen a factory farm? it takes human ingenuity to invent the levels of cruelty in those things. i prefer that my hamburger at least have gotten the chance to hang out outside before it becomes dinner.
excuses are like buttholes, everbody has them, and they all stink.

and also, how can u kill something nicely? It is still gonna die and be a hamburger, or hot dog, or deli meat.

except for the horrifically confused, the standard response to 'but animals eat animals' is that humans are moral agents in a way that (most?) animals can't be, and therefore hold greater moral responsibilities - especially when options exist that can easily reduce the amount of suffering needed to live.and these goals are achieved by, according to Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s “vegan campaign director” and third-in-command, (when he addressed the Animal Rights 2001 convention in Virginia,) “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” (is a great way) "to bring about animal liberation.”

How's that for "Moral Responsibility"? :rolleyes:

and have you ever seen a factory farm? it takes human ingenuity to invent the levels of cruelty in those things. i prefer that my hamburger at least have gotten the chance to hang out outside before it becomes dinner.Yes, I have, and I agree. That is why I vote with my dollars, not petrol bombs.

excuses are like buttholes, everbody has them, and they all stink.

yeah...

rational discussion isn't your strong point, is it?

Quick! Let's run before the Libs can bash us with their lies! :D

Eh...let the commies Ahem, ahem, Left Wingers, sorry, have their little website. Ill settle for the House, Senate, White House and soon to be Supreme Court.

Anyway, I love when the killing methods for ANIMALS get called inHUMANE...implying equality...hah...what about how HUMANE it is to take a pair of forceps and cut the limbs off an unborn HUMAN. I guess they just have more respect for animals than humans...thats kind of weird dont ya think?

who is any human being to say that they are better or superior to any kind of animals? the only difference is that we totally destroy the earth. im not in any orginization or shit like that. but if we didn't fuck things up in the first place, there wouldn't be too many deer,ducks..ect. and the whole cause is lost because it cant be fixed. and if you seriously believe you are better then you are very ignorant and full of yourself. PETA has done some horrible things, but they do alot of good things too. have you ever seen some of the movies they have showing people clubbing baby seals? or how the meat we eat is slaughtered? if you can honestly watch them and not feel bad and still think its your right, then you are sick in the head and should be shot.

and these goals are achieved by, according to Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s “vegan campaign director” and third-in-command, (when he addressed the Animal Rights 2001 convention in Virginia,) “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” (is a great way) "to bring about animal liberation.”

How's that for "Moral Responsibility"? :rolleyes:

well, if animal liberation is a moral responsibility (as has been consistently argued by these guys for decades), and "blowing stuff up and smashing windows" is the best way to bring that about, it seems like there is a strong argument to be made that doing so would be the morally responsible action to take.

the actual question revolves around what our moral responsibilities are and what tactics are morally appropriate to achieve those ends. so the same question as always, really. and unless you are going to take a strong pacifist stance, it isn't going to be as easy as saying property destruction or even actual violence are absolute no-nos

Yes, I have, and I agree. That is why I vote with my dollars, not petrol bombs.

different strokes for different folks, i guess.

I actually think This one: http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21 is more telling.

especially these links http://www.activistcash.com/organization_connections.cfm/oid/21
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21



Terrorists. Plain and simple.


I believe that shows a direct link between PeTA and Rodney Coronado and the ADL.

JMayo

yeah...rational discussion isn't your strong point, is it?Pot, kettle, black.

In the past, PETA has handled the press for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a violent, underground group of fanatics who plant firebombs in restaurants, destroy butcher shops, and torch research labs. The FBI considers ALF among America's most active and prolific terrorist groups, but PETA compares it to the Underground Railroad and the French Resistance. More than 20 years after its inception, PETA continues to hire convicted ALF militants and funds their legal defense. In at least one case, court records show that Ingrid Newkirk herself was involved in an ALF arson.

PETA has even begun to adopt the tactics of an ALF offshoot known as SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty). This group is notorious for taking protests outside the boardroom and into the living room, attacking their targets at their homes.

In 2001, three masked SHAC members brutally bludgeoned a medical researcher outside his home in England. The lead attacker was arrested and sentenced to three years in prison. A few months later, SHAC attacked another research industry employee on his doorstep with a chemical spray to his eyes, leaving him temporarily blinded and writhing in pain. The following year, Newkirk was asked her opinion of SHAC in the Boston Herald. Her response? "More power to SHAC if they can get someone's attention."

While valuing livestock over people may be an indefensible argument, it’s typical of PETA’s overall strategy: to stake out extreme, ridiculous, offensive, and often laughable positions, in order to constantly redefine the edge of what’s considered “acceptable” philosophy and protest activity. Ten years ago, throwing fake blood on a fur coat, agitating for vegan cafeteria food, or objecting to Biology-class dissection were unusual behaviors. Today, these are commonplace -- the radical line is now defined by firebombs, grand theft, stalking of scientists, and bloody physical assaults. For this, PETA deserves much of the blame; its habit of upping the ante of bad taste and shock value has redefined misanthropy and bad taste.

For instance, when PETA learned that the photographs of Holocaust victims displayed in its roving exhibit -- entitled “The Holocaust on Your Plate” -- included Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel as a young man at the Buchenwald concentration camp, it shrugged. “Six million people died in concentration camps,” laments Ingrid Newkirk, “but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.”

When a grisly killing spree in Vancouver left 15 women dead, PETA tried to purchase full-page ads in local papers suggesting that this carnage was no worse than the killing of animals for food.

PETA also has a child-themed website, and a kiddie-oriented magazine, called GRRR! Kids Bite Back. The name is significant, as it is intended to prep children to identify with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which has long-used the phrase "bite back" in its promotional materials. In fact, as early as 1991, convicted ALF arsonist and PETA grantee Rodney Coronado was calling his own crime spree "Operation Bite Back." PETA also sends "humane education lecturer" Gary Yourofsky into high schools -- and even middle schools -- to promote the "animal liberation" agenda. Yourofsky is a convicted ALF criminal who has said he would support burning down medical research labs even if humans were trapped in the flames.
--------------------
Are you sure you want to be associated with level of "morality"

Eh...let the commies Ahem, ahem, Left Wingers, sorry, have their little website. Ill settle for the House, Senate, White House and soon to be Supreme Court.

Anyway, I love when the killing methods for ANIMALS get called inHUMANE...implying equality...hah...what about how HUMANE it is to take a pair of forceps and cut the limbs off an unborn HUMAN. I guess they just have more respect for animals than humans...thats kind of weird dont ya think?

hmmmm...well yea, its completely legal to shoot deer and other animals because there are either too many of them OR they have done something bad to humans. But we cant of course do that to humans? im not saying just start a human hunting season, but i dont think killing a baby before its actually born is really a big deal. if i was faced with the descision im not sure what i would do, it would definitly take ALOT of thought, but i want to at least have the descision. And if a dog bites a human, it gets put down. Even if the human has hit the dog in the first place. And even if a person kills or tortures/rapes another human, people get so upset about the death penalty? The only thing i have against the death penalty is that too many innocent people die. but look at all the innocent animals who die? doesnt make sense...

And im assuming you are a supporter of Bush. I think just saying that speaks for itself. That debate is probably for another thread anyway.

who is any human being to say that they are better or superior to any kind of animals? the only difference is that we totally destroy the earth. im not in any orginization or shit like that. but if we didn't fuck things up in the first place, there wouldn't be too many deer,ducks..ect. and the whole cause is lost because it cant be fixed. and if you seriously believe you are better then you are very ignorant and full of yourself. PETA has done some horrible things, but they do alot of good things too. have you ever seen some of the movies they have showing people clubbing baby seals? or how the meat we eat is slaughtered? if you can honestly watch them and not feel bad and still think its your right, then you are sick in the head and should be shot.

No, the only differnce is that we are sentient beings that have been given the gift of autonomy. (free will) And by the way, I didnt decide we were superior...I believe nature did that. As for the problem not being fixable, you couldn't be more wrong, hunting and the re-introduction of predator species will easily fix the problem. And by the way, I don't see any animals in nature concerned with how they kill their prey. (I guess my cat deserves a bullet in the head fo rthe way he plays with the mice he catches. Damn, and I was just starting to like him.)

P.S. You may want to lay off the obscenities for awhile. It demeans you. Plus you can get reported and banned. You're new here so I wont report you this time but in the future I'd watch the language.

A friend of mine just found the actual quote by Ingrid:

PETA alleges the Center for Consumer Freedom has misquoted Newkirk and unfairly represented PETA’s views. According to Andrew Butler, a spokesman and campaign coordinator at PETA, Newkirk actually stated, “Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, of which there is no chance, we’d be against it.”



yeah, cuz that's MUCH better

You really want to piss them off. Ask them why the ordinary american needs to worry about the treatment of animals.

well, if animal liberation is a moral responsibility (as has been consistently argued by these guys for decades), and "blowing stuff up and smashing windows" is the best way to bring that about, it seems like there is a strong argument to be made that doing so would be the morally responsible action to take. Congratulations. You have just gone beyond "too ignorant to really pay attention to" and entered into the realm of "too stupid to speak". :rolleyes:
the actual question revolves around what our moral responsibilities are and what tactics are morally appropriate to achieve those ends. so the same question as always, really. and unless you are going to take a strong pacifist stance, it isn't going to be as easy as saying property destruction or even actual violence are absolute no-nos different strokes for different folks, i guess.
Say that again when someone decides to "smash your windows" and "blow up" your stuff because their "different strokes" make them feel morally superior and justified in doing so. You position is not only asinine, it is Ethically Bankrupt.

For once I might conceed that Cheddar Head really IS descriptive. :rolleyes:

i cant stand hard core animal rights activists, while I might have a slight qualm with hunting for the sake of hunting if you take home and eat what you shoot I dont see the problem, is just the same as keeping farm animals, arguably more humane because they live a free life instead of being bred to be killed and eaten. The one thing I really dont agree with is fox hunting, it just seems utterly barbaric to send a pack of visious dogs after a fox to rip it apart, shooting it ... fine but its just cruel to kill something that way.

who is any human being to say that they are better or superior to any kind of animals? the only difference is that we totally destroy the earth. im not in any orginization or shit like that. but if we didn't fuck things up in the first place, there wouldn't be too many deer,ducks..ect. and the whole cause is lost because it cant be fixed. and if you seriously believe you are better then you are very ignorant and full of yourself. PETA has done some horrible things, but they do alot of good things too. have you ever seen some of the movies they have showing people clubbing baby seals? or how the meat we eat is slaughtered? if you can honestly watch them and not feel bad and still think its your right, then you are sick in the head and should be shot.
Death threats are taken very seriously here Dunn. It's been a displeasure knowing you.

And im assuming you are a supporter of Bush. I think just saying that speaks for itself. That debate is probably for another thread anyway.

And I think you being a supporter of perhaps the most barbaric practice in human history (I am of course referring to partial birth abortion) while at the same time Insisting that animals are equal or better (they apparently don't deserve that treatment), in other words, your hypocracy, speaks for itself.

As for being off-topic, first of all, pointing out hypocracy on the left concerning the issue of the debate is hardly off-topic. Plus, once you've been here awhile you'll see that threads rarely stay on one topic, much less the one it was intended for, for long.

And just for the record I am a baby saving, meat loving, hard working, honest conservative and I admit that freely. I am a strong supporter of President Bush and our troops abroad (a real supporter, not the kind that claims to be behind them then damns the cause that most of them believe in strongly). But that's neither here nor there.

So, the bastards at Al-quaeda have muslims that support them,
The nuts at IRA have nationalists that support them...
And people at ELF and ALF, well, i support them wholeheartedly.
While not as intelligent as humans, animals are as sensitive to pain as us.
You can't directly compare factory farming to the holocaust, but in terms of pure suffering, factory farms are worse.
It's sad when somebody's mom/kid/fiancee/best friend dies in a burning laboratory, but it's not the eco-terrorists fault, it's the fault of those who decided to hire them to do such horrid work.
And face it, if they didn't torch stuff down and throw threats, would any of you give a damn about them?
Would handing out flowers persuade somebody to lay off the cruelty?

And face it, if they didn't torch stuff down and throw threats, would any of you give a damn about them?
Would handing out flowers persuade somebody to lay off the cruelty?

Wait a minute...Wait a minute... are you defending the use of violence and scare tactics to bring up a political point? ...cause I could be mistaken but I believe thats called TERRORISM.

And believe it or not, arson is not the best way to get your point across. You Libs idealize Ghandi and MLK as everyone should, but have you learned nothing from them?

So, the bastards at Al-quaeda have muslims that support them,
The nuts at IRA have nationalists that support them...
And people at ELF and ALF, well, i support them wholeheartedly.
While not as intelligent as humans, animals are as sensitive to pain as us.
You can't directly compare factory farming to the holocaust, but in terms of pure suffering, factory farms are worse.
It's sad when somebody's mom/kid/fiancee/best friend dies in a burning laboratory, but it's not the eco-terrorists fault, it's the fault of those who decided to hire them to do such horrid work.
And face it, if they didn't torch stuff down and throw threats, would any of you give a damn about them?
Would handing out flowers persuade somebody to lay off the cruelty?
Ah, the "I think you're bad, so I can be worse" rationalization. Good to know it's not just right-wing nutters that espouse that.

So, the bastards at Al-quaeda have muslims that support them,
The nuts at IRA have nationalists that support them...
And people at ELF and ALF, well, i support them wholeheartedly.
While not as intelligent as humans, animals are as sensitive to pain as us.
You can't directly compare factory farming to the holocaust, but in terms of pure suffering, factory farms are worse.
It's sad when somebody's mom/kid/fiancee/best friend dies in a burning laboratory, but it's not the eco-terrorists fault, it's the fault of those who decided to hire them to do such horrid work.
And face it, if they didn't torch stuff down and throw threats, would any of you give a damn about them?
Would handing out flowers persuade somebody to lay off the cruelty?

I seem to be the exact opposite of this view point. Screw the animals and if a eco terrorist does something to a labratory/farm/etc that ends up having fatalities occur either give them the chair or stick them in jail for life. Yes animals feel pain but their our source of food. When a lion chomps down on your throat and kills you it doesn't rationalize if you feel pain. When a snake injects a neurotoxin into its prey it doesnt wonder about the effects of the poison. Screw the animals and bring me my damn burger.

Congratulations. You have just gone beyond "too ignorant to really pay attention to" and entered into the realm of "too stupid to speak". :rolleyes:

it was a perfectly valid argument. i'm sorry that it confused you. how about a different example to help clear things up?

let us assume that there is a moral argument that cocnludes that slavery is unjust, and that we have a moral responsibility to abolish slavery. let us also assume that there are arguments and evidence that suggest that the best way to go about that abolition is to actually use some form of direct action to free slaves - breaking in to places where slaves are kept and freeing them, destroying the property used to exploit slave labor and property which is the result of it, harrassing slave owners, etc. would you honestly hold that this doesn't constitute an argument in favor of doing those things - that refraining from doing them would be more morally responsible than engaging in them?

Say that again when someone decides to "smash your windows" and "blow up" your stuff because their "different strokes" make them feel morally superior and justified in doing so. You position is not only asinine, it is Ethically Bankrupt.

For once I might conceed that Cheddar Head really IS descriptive. :rolleyes:

so tell me again whether it is ever right for anyone to use force against anyone else. because if yes, then you don't hold an absolutist view on the use of force. and if that is the case, then our disagreement is about what conditions must be met to justify that force, not over the use of force in the abstract.

Seriously, Coldwood, youre joking or something right? Just saying because you are pretty consistantly finding the world's shallowest arguments. I mean scare tactics and arson are justified when used for political purposes(defending the same mentality shared by most terror cells)? And pretending that we arent higher on the food chain then animals and intended by nature to hunt and kill as all predators do, without remorse (even though in general we do have remorse)...i mean c'mon. Saying i should be shotin the head? Seriously, we, or I anyway, like to have serious conversations here.

Oh, just for the record, I actually have been on Nationstates for awhile, my old nation got deleted while I was on Vacation (eating a lot of meat to be sure)

http://www.brookesnews.com/052706peta.html-
Sabotage, Arson and now Felony

Unless the cows, chickens, and pigs start paying taxes, I don't see them as equal beings.

Fuck them and eat them. Although I do find the idea of 'hunting for sport' rather barbaric. If you are going to kill a duck, you better fucking eat it.

let us assume that there is a moral argument that cocnludes that slavery is unjust, and that we have a moral responsibility to abolish slavery. let us also assume that there are arguments and evidence that suggest that the best way to go about that abolition is to actually use some form of direct action to free slaves - breaking in to places where slaves are kept and freeing them, destroying the property used to exploit slave labor and property which is the result of it, harrassing slave owners, etc. would you honestly hold that this doesn't constitute an argument in favor of doing those things - that refraining from doing them would be more morally responsible than engaging in them?


Did you know that some scientists are actually coming out and saying that animals...ready for this...are different than people.

Comparing us taking our rightful place at the top of the food chain to slavery is not only completely rediculous in its pure construction but one of the most devious and underhanded suggestions I've heard as of late (Likening in a way PETA to the abolitionist movement and people who share my beliefs to slave owners)

Plus, the liberal left wingers who support PETA are, in general the biggest non-violence activists (hypocracy anyone)

it was a perfectly valid argument. i'm sorry that it confused you. how about a different example to help clear things up?

let us assume that there is a moral argument that cocnludes that slavery is unjust, and that we have a moral responsibility to abolish slavery.An attempt to coorelate animal husbandry to slavery is foolish as they are not at all equitable... let us also assume that there are arguments and evidence that suggest that the best way to go about that abolition is to actually use some form of direct action to free slaves - breaking in to places where slaves are kept and freeing them, destroying the property used to exploit slave labor and property which is the result of it, harrassing slave owners, etc. Since that "direct action" of the type you describe has shown to NOT be the best way to abolish slavery (or anything, really) your point is moot. would you honestly hold that this doesn't constitute an argument in favor of doing those things - that refraining from doing them would be more morally responsible than engaging in them?No. Because in a Free Society there are other ways of doing it that do not involve agressive violence.
so tell me again whether it is ever right for anyone to use force against anyone else. because if yes, then you don't hold an absolutist view on the use of force. and if that is the case, then our disagreement is about what conditions must be met to justify that force, not over the use of force in the abstract.The use of force is justified only to the limited extent necessary to prevent immediate harm to oneself. That use of force does NOT extend to infrastructure, as infrastructure cannot be attacking me.

Actions taken against infrastructure are, by definition, military actions, and as such place "activists" into the camp of military agressors/terrorists.

I realise that what i'm saying is backing up terrorism.
I just believe that even terrorism is acceptable when it comes to factory farms and lab animals.
When it comes to hunting, the hunters aren't causing much more pain than
a lion or a wolf would cause, so using violence against them is bad in my opinion.

As for seeing them as equals or betters to humans, well...
Kids and old people don't pay taxes and they are still citizens.
Mentally handicapped people might not be able to speak or write, yet
we still treat them as equals.
Having an IQ of 20 does not make a person a viable target for hunting or eating.
And it's mostly the low IQ and lack of emotional development that separates us from animals, nothing more.

And i'm not even a vegetarian... I would be content if i knew the meat i eat came from a chicken that grazed in a field and was killed in a painless way, nothing more.

Honestly when I came into this thread I expected the Libs to shy away and avoid talking about PETA's borderline Terroristic activities, but they're actually defending it. This makes no sense to me (I was under the impression that Liberals were non-violent) Plus, making the argument using abolitionists is about as unrelated to the topic at hand as it would be by me pointing out that it was the Democrats who wanted to keep the slaves in bondage in the first place and it was they who started the Civil War and a conservative who finished it. But once again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point, I was merely expressing a frustration while at the same time perhaps giving insight into the off-topic passive attack at conservatives.

I realise that what i'm saying is backing up terrorism.
I just believe that even terrorism is acceptable when it comes to factory farms and lab animals.
If you justify it for one thing your opening the door for the justification of more terrorist acts.
When it comes to hunting, the hunters aren't causing much more pain than
a lion or a wolf would cause, so using violence against them is bad in my opinion.
Really so how many people would prefer to be killed by a bullet or have a wolf or lion kill them?

As for seeing them as equals or betters to humans, well...
Kids and old people don't pay taxes and they are still citizens.
Mentally handicapped people might not be able to speak or write, yet
we still treat them as equals.
Having an IQ of 20 does not make a person a viable target for hunting or eating.
And it's mostly the low IQ and lack of emotional development that separates us from animals, nothing more.
True kids can't read or write but they can be taught and eventually will learn to. Animals with a few exceptions won't

And i'm not even a vegetarian... I would be content if i knew the meat i eat came from a chicken that grazed in a field and was killed in a painless way, nothing more.[/QUOTE]

I realise that what i'm saying is backing up terrorism.
I just believe that even terrorism is acceptable when it comes to factory farms and lab animals.


Then I'm afraid I have nothing more to say to you than SHAME on you. I thought we had learned so much about the effectivness of non-violent demonstration, but perhaps I was wrong. (In general, burning things does nothing but invalidate your argument)

Also, in regards to your comment on metally handicapped inviduals, what are you even thinking about? Comparing a person with down syndrome or various other conditions to an animal is not only disgusting, but also carries no weight in the conversation as they represent only a small part of the population and are a result of genetic malformations, not evolutionary natural selection that would qualify such a person to be not human. When you show me a sentient cow with free will is the day I consider protesting hunting. Until then, you can go around shooting handicaps and get arrested all you want.

I realise that what i'm saying is backing up terrorism.
I just believe that even terrorism is acceptable when it comes to factory farms and lab animals.Where a coward can do damage and often get away clean...
When it comes to hunting, the hunters aren't causing much more pain than
a lion or a wolf would cause, so using violence against them is bad in my opinion.That and a hunter tends to be armed and quite willing and able to defend him/herself from the few skanky, skinny little terrorist thugs with the balls to go up against a target that can fight back.
As for seeing them as equals or betters to humans, well...
Kids and old people don't pay taxes and they are still citizens.Kids will, and Seniors have. what's your point?
Mentally handicapped people might not be able to speak or write, yet
we still treat them as equals. Having an IQ of 20 does not make a person a viable target for hunting or eating.Doesn't stop you from posting though...Saying that you approve of terrorisim certainly speaks to your IQ...And it's mostly the low IQ and lack of emotional development that separates us from animals, nothing more.And opposable thumbs, and tens of thousands of years of selective breeding (making said animals unfit fr release into the wild... oops...)
And i'm not even a vegetarian... I would be content if i knew the meat i eat came from a chicken that grazed in a field and was killed in a painless way, nothing more.You can buy "free range" chicken, and beef, and pork, and, and, and... That's entirely up to you. But supporting criminals is, in itself, a criminal act.

Well said...Well said.

If animals didn't want to be eaten then they should have fought harder to get to the top of the food chain.

Eat em all and let nature sort em out.

Jesus, is abortion all right wingers think about? I think we should try to lessen the number( I'm not for abortion on demand) but C'MON there are other issues that require our attention. Poverty, social security, ring any bells?

And unborn is the key word there. If it's a mother's life against a fetus's I'd have to say I'd go with the mother.

And it doesn't seem to have occurred to a lot of people that making abortion illegal would only INCREASE the s. People would get em, just not in a hospital.

The people who harass me every year are arrested. And they are all members of PETA. And they admit to it. And they threaten to kill me.

Other than being arrested, charged, and in some cases, paying fines and being detained for up to 30 days, there isn't much I can do.

Do you think that I, with my financial resources, could honestly pursue a civil case against PETA, with their financial resources?

And they have killed hunters in Virginia. The game wardens warn us about it every year.

And I posted the other stupid hunter harassments they do - where people could get killed.


You need to take a trip to Florida and make sure that a bunch of PETA people follow, the law down there is that you can shoot anyone if they make a death threat against you. They don't even need to have a weapon out. Free kills.

I think we should eat PETA, yes that would be nice. An oven-roasted PETA platter with blue cheese and ranch dressing, oh and onions too.

I have only one suggestion for our thread-starter: Your plan is cool, though you could don a fur coat before pulling out the sandwich.

Though both are gonna get u friggin' hazed man. I suggest packing pepper spray as well. For when things turn ugly.

I bow to your creative skills. You truelly are one crazy and cooky guy!!

I wouldn't waste a fur coat on the likes of PETA. Just get a T-Shirt that they will find offensive. See if you can't get a delivery order from some place. Maybe a meat-lovers pizza for the PETA nuts would work well, though the pizza guy may not find it as enjoyable a situation ;)

I really wish something like that would happen on my campus, seeing how conservative most of us are :)

Though both are gonna get u friggin' hazed man. I suggest packing pepper spray as well. For when things turn ugly.

Wait, I thought the liberals were non-combatants...pepper spray might not be enough, cover yourself in meat, they wont touch you. Just make sure you don't wear anything particularly flammable (we all know PETA's past)

Only in Virginia, and only if the PETA member is armed with a weapon not suitable for duck hunting (i.e., a pistol).

See, this is why I love Virginia. We had some peta guy run up and try and stop our foxhunt. Well, he had the ingenious foresight to smear the blood of a fox on himself and scream 'This is the blood of the animals you kill!' and got trampled by a hundred ornery hounds.

But the Irish have the best way of dealing with it... Some PETA guy ran up and pulled children off their horses. One of the whips pulled a gun and shot one of his kneecaps out. The cops arrested the PETA guy for assault, and ignored how he came by the bulletwound.

I really wish something like that would happen on my campus, seeing how conservative most of us are :)

If you don't mind my asking, where do you go to college? It sounds like my kind of place.

Damn, this thread really took off.

BTW, I made my sandwich. Bacon, BBQed pork, chicken, turkey, roast beef, and all the trimmings.

Luckily, there are also some people protesting PETA, and they're pretty buff, so I should'nt have any problem with violence comming from the PETAites.

I'll tell ya'll what happened tomarrow.

Stand near their stall, with loads of American flags, handing out leaflets accusing them of terrorism.

Cheap dirty trick, but in the US, pointing and screaming Communist! really worked. This is just the method updated.

Best plan ever! Although I suggest you hand out free meat to people, as well. :)

Damn, this thread really took off.

BTW, I made my sandwich. Bacon, BBQed pork, chicken, turkey, roast beef, and all the trimmings.

Luckily, there are also some people protesting PETA, and they're pretty buff, so I shouldent have any problem with violence comming from the PETAites.

I'll tell ya'll what happened tomarrow.

May I make a suggestion...

http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff.11155403

really anything from there would serve you well.

And may I wish you the best of luck. If I lived anywhere near you I assure you I would be standing alongside you tomorrow, perhaps sporting a jacket made of meat.

no. or at least not directly. in, for example, criminal law there is a special category called violent crime. crimes are violent when they threaten or cause bodily harm or death. when actions such as blowing things up or burning them down is done without the intent or result of bodily harm, they aren't violent. "violence against property" is a stupid and conceptually cofused idea. violence happens to living beings, not windows, not fences, not bulldozers.

Manslaughter, a violent crime, states that, if a reasonable person would think that someone might get hurt through the actions taken, a person killed from that action has been murdered (albeit 3rd-degree). Any reasonable person would know that blowing up or burning a building would likely cause harm to a human being. Most buildings are not empty at night. There are security personel, custodial staff, even a researcher or two most likely.

No reasonable person can argue that blowing up a lab does not have the intent to cause bodily harm to a human being.

that would depend on the things thrown, wouldn't it?

Not really. I I wanted to, I could cause harm with just about anything I chose to throw. In this case, we're talking about paint - which can cause quite a bit of harm if it, for instance, gets in your eyes. We are talking about rocks. We are talking about whatever the person may have in their hands - which usually is something that will hurt.

and while ripping someone's shirt would probably count as assault, it's a relatively minor form of it.

It is still violent - and is an action taken in order to cause fear in that person.

who exactly attempted to set someone on fire?

Animal rights activists have been known to assault women in fur coats by dousing them with gasoline and then beginning to light a match. Luckily, in all the cases I have thus far heard of, they were stopped before actually starting a fire.

http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff.8994176
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff.10966847

Ah...even better

I love the Freedom of Speach, don't you?

I realise that what i'm saying is backing up terrorism.

Then you can get no respect from reasonable people.

I just believe that even terrorism is acceptable when it comes to factory farms and lab animals.

Then don't eat meat from such farms - free range meat is certainly available if you do want meat, or you could be a vegetarian and only be party to killing the animals caught in normal farm equipment. And don't take any type of medical treatment whatsoever.

Don't go blow people up because you think that you have some sort of moral right to do so.

When it comes to hunting, the hunters aren't causing much more pain than a lion or a wolf would cause, so using violence against them is bad in my opinion.

I've got news for you my dear: Most lab animals (with the possible, but not definite exception of insects) live a better life and go through less pain than most pets. They are well-fed and watered. They are kept on a strict light/dark cycle that cannot be broken unless absolutely necessary. Any procedure that might possibly cause pain requires anesthetic, or a damn good explanation as to why it is not being given. Once you move past rodents, any animal which does not have to be sacrificed within the experiment must be provided for for the rest of its natural life - and cannot be used for anything else.

And i'm not even a vegetarian... I would be content if i knew the meat i eat came from a chicken that grazed in a field and was killed in a painless way, nothing more.

Then eat free range meat.

I advise you to eat as much meat and animal products as you can- and go on a all meat diet- intell you get some serious medical problems- and some serious medical bills.

maybe that might teach you something.

I advise you to eat as much meat and animal products as you can- and go on a all meat diet- intell you get some serious medical problems- and some serious medical bills.

maybe that might teach you something.

Sir, are you a vegetarian/vegan?

An attempt to coorelate animal husbandry to slavery is foolish as they are not at all equitable...

perhaps i wasn't clear when i said "another example". i was refering to another example of an argument about moral responsibility, not an analogy about animal rights. i changed examples because you laughed off a valid argument without attempting to explain why, and i thought maybe a change of subject matter would clear things up.

No. Because in a Free Society there are other ways of doing it that do not involve agressive violence.

ah, but this society has slavery - so it isn't exactly a free society.

and for the purpose of the example, we are saying that it is the best (on whatever account we want to use for best). arguing that it isn't the best way actually surrenders a lot of ground that you probably don't want to, as then we aren't talking about the moral legitimacy of the action, but rather the details of practical efficiency.

The use of force is justified only to the limited extent necessary to prevent immediate harm to oneself. That use of force does NOT extend to infrastructure, as infrastructure cannot be attacking me.

thankfully, not even state legal systems - with their claim to a monopoly on the use of force - hold that to be the case. you surely would want to allow the defense of others. and you absolutely want to allow property destruction in the course of defending yourself or others.

I advise you to eat as much meat and animal products as you can- and go on a all meat diet- intell you get some serious medical problems- and some serious medical bills.

maybe that might teach you something.

You do of course realize that human beings have been eating meat ever since the beginning right? I can personally assure you that meat and animal products are perfectly safe and perfectly delectable. I do not think you truely have lived until you eat a nice big steak with some baked potatoes. And maybe a side order of more steak. Beats eggplant and tofu in my opinion.

mmmm....steak...damn now I'm hungry. I'm gonna go eat some meat now while I watch Lost, I'll be back later.

Sir, are you a vegetarian/vegan?


why yes i am.

I advise you to eat as much meat and animal products as you can- and go on a all meat diet- intell you get some serious medical problems- and some serious medical bills.

maybe that might teach you something.

lol I practically only eat meat and I'm doing just fine.

I advise you to eat as much meat and animal products as you can- and go on a all meat diet- intell you get some serious medical problems- and some serious medical bills.

maybe that might teach you something.

I advise you eat no meat or animal products and go on a vegan diet, and see your body degenerate till you look like a heroin addict because humans aren't supposed to eat purely meat OR no meat - they are supposed to eat both.

Whenever I see animal rights stalls I just say "Yeah, my dad would be dead right now if it weren't for animal testing" to my friends as I pass. Usually gets a guilty looking frown - I think a lot of people who get into animal rights don't really consider the whole issue.

why yes i am.

Ok.

Has there ever been a study over weather a Vegetarian/vegan diet improves quality or length of life?

Any evidence?

You do of course realize that human beings have been eating meat ever since the beginning right? I can personally assure you that meat and animal products are perfectly safe and perfectly delectable. I do not think you truely have lived until you eat a nice big steak with some baked potatoes. And maybe a side order of more steak. Beats eggplant and tofu in my opinion.

mmmm....steak...damn now I'm hungry. I'm gonna go eat some meat now while I watch Lost, I'll be back later.


Well enjoy buddy-- i have tried that allready.

ah, but this society has slavery - so it isn't exactly a free society.

thankfully, not even state legal systems - with their claim to a monopoly on the use of force - hold that to be the case. you surely would want to allow the defense of others. and you absolutely want to allow property destruction in the course of defending yourself or others.

We don't have slavery in this country, I'm not sure where youre living. And youre the one that advocated the destruction of property, not us. Oh, one more thing...Have you even heard of nonviolent resistance? It works.

Ok.

Has there ever been a study over weather a Vegetarian/vegan diet improves quality or length of life?

Any evidence?
ok most of you need to get your facts straight - on animal research and just about everthing.

anyway you need to understand that we live in a corporate police state- usa or close enougth--

but you see big corporate companies -like meat companys are in the goverments procedures- througth lobbying and they arent going to have peaple think meat is bad for them when they are making and giving billions and millions of bucks. it big buisness folks.

Eating meat came from when humans where in hard times and didnt have the resources to farm enough other food. And slaughter an animal is a relativly easier way- faster way of getting food then planting or finding a source of non meat. once again its for the poor.

usa - is a different story because meat is so avaliable.


anyways- yes the world health organization recognizes that the vegan way of eating is the healthest and thus the better way of eating. along with countless other of organizations- who are in it to actually give you the truefull data.

Lost of peaple in foreign countries are vegans- it is manly the rich or nonpoor this is just a general statement.- its the poor who are not - because they can only afford meat- which is the cheapest food source in many countries.

humans are not omnivores albert einstein new that- newton - most famous figures who envented things and were important historical figures.

is just pure science of our insides- that show we are no omnivore.
we are pretty much idenical to a pigs insides.

the information is out there is just if you want it bad enough.
I personaly did it for my Health as 1 reason 2 enviroment 3 ethics. besides you will be surprised by how much better you feel inside and out- when you make the change.
go vegan- but before you do check out a health food store- and buy organic- its good stuff- good luck - i got to go.

I advise you eat no meat or animal products and go on a vegan diet, and see your body degenerate till you look like a heroin addict because humans aren't supposed to eat purely meat OR no meat - they are supposed to eat both.

Whenever I see animal rights stalls I just say "Yeah, my dad would be dead right now if it weren't for animal testing" to my friends as I pass. Usually gets a guilty looking frown - I think a lot of people who get into animal rights don't really consider the whole issue.


do you know a vegan that looks like what you described- i dont.

you need to read my large reply and get your FACTS straight buddy.

Vegans who eat properly dont need health insurances or doctors of any kind- doctors are for those who want to gamble with there lives - health.

Eating meat came from when humans where in hard times and didnt have the resources to farm enough other food.


Pardon? It wasn't hard times it was just we didn't know how to farm properly around the middle ages, which would be roughly the time you we're estimating. Alot of knowledge about greens had been lost in translation to Homo Sapiens Sapiens.


anyways- yes the world health organization recognizes that the vegan way of eating is the healthest and thus the better way of eating. along with countless other of organizations- who are in it to actually give you the truefull data.


Proof please.


humans are not omnivores


Not true.


is just pure science of our insides- that show we are no omnivore.
we are pretty much idenical to a pigs insides.


So your saying because pigs have the identical insides and eat vegetables or...what have you, we should too? Common fact if you actually payed attention in your science classes, Human bodies do not know how to use every nutrient a vegetable has. We also NEED protein which, is most commonly found in meat, if you care to give me a list of plants that contain protein, please do.



the information is out there is just if you want it bad enough.
I personaly did it for my Health as 1 reason 2 enviroment 3 ethics. besides you will be surprised by how much better you feel inside and out- when you make the change.


To feel better you must also be eating something "Vegan" that has been modified to contain proteins and nutrients your body needs that plants do not contain.

We don't have slavery in this country, I'm not sure where youre living. And youre the one that advocated the destruction of property, not us. Oh, one more thing...Have you even heard of nonviolent resistance? It works.

ok, you're confused. try reading the whole exchange again.

ok most of you need to get your facts straight - on animal research and just about everthing.

I think this might be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

but you see big corporate companies -like meat companys are in the goverments procedures- througth lobbying and they arent going to have peaple think meat is bad for them when they are making and giving billions and millions of bucks. it big buisness folks.

Too much meat is bad for you - and most people know it. Too much of just about anything is bad for you.

Eating meat came from when humans where in hard times and didnt have the resources to farm enough other food.

You are aware that most primitive societies were not agrarian? That agrarian societies are relatively new in history? That most primitive societies were, in fact, hunter-gatherers that ate what they could gather and what they could hunt? You are aware that others, before the agrarian societies, were herders - who also ate what they could gather, but kept herds of animals for their meat?

anyways- yes the world health organization recognizes that the vegan way of eating is the healthest and thus the better way of eating. along with countless other of organizations- who are in it to actually give you the truefull data.

Source? Proof?

Lost of peaple in foreign countries are vegans- it is manly the rich or nonpoor this is just a general statement.- its the poor who are not - because they can only afford meat- which is the cheapest food source in many countries.

Being vegan involves a lot more than not eating meat. How many poor people do you think don't ever eat eggs? Or dairy products?

is just pure science of our insides- that show we are no omnivore.
we are pretty much idenical to a pigs insides.

Yes, our biochemistry is very similar to that of pigs. And guess what? Pigs are omnivores! Go figure.

Pardon? It wasn't hard times it was just we didn't know how to farm properly around the middle ages, which would be roughly the time you we're estimating. Alot of knowledge about greens had been lost in translation to Homo Sapiens Sapiens.



Proof please.



Not true.



So your saying because pigs have the identical insides and eat vegetables or...what have you, we should too? Common fact if you actually payed attention in your science classes, Human bodies do not know how to use every nutrient a vegetable has. We also NEED protein which, is most commonly found in meat, if you care to give me a list of plants that contain protein, please do.

Ok no animal body including ourselves- digest everything from somthing it that passes through it.

And sorry buddy- but all fruits- vegetables contain amouts of protein. Lots of vegetables have a good amount of protein.

Nuts- Seeds are high in protein- all Grains are also high in protein- and some grains are complete proteins-Nuts and seeds by the way are mostly all types are complete proteins.

also Beans- leagumes- are high in protein- some also contain complete proteins. a vegan can get to much protein. its not protein you should be considerd about it other nutrients that are more important- as protein is so availible.

You can even get protein from tea-- will check back but i have to go for today.








To feel better you must also be eating something "Vegan" that has been modified to contain proteins and nutrients your body needs that plants do not contain.




hahaha-- no i dont eat anything like that you speak of.

it's also a stupid definition, that brands pretty much everyone from the american revolutionaries to gandhi as terrorists.

Gandhi didn't use force. So no. That wouldn't include him. American revolutionaries, well, yeah, they could have been classified as terrorists, or insurgents if you prefer. The only difference is that they managed to get a country, so they became freedom fighters.

For example, Thailand. Down south, there's a large hotbed of terrorist activity, bombs, execution of teachers, buddhist monks, etc, etc. They get called terrorists although what their stated goal is an independent southern state. If they manage to succeed, they would be labelled as freedom fighters. Right now, their called terrorists.

However, you could probably use the civilian factor as a defining difference between a guerilla unit and a terrorist unit, although that still is quite fuzzy. Basically, it would depend on who is primarily targetted by the unit operations, be they military or civilian targets. It gets trickier to identify in an occupied country, but since America isn't exactly occupied and their ALFs primary targets involve civilians, you could say they do classify as terrorists.

perhaps i wasn't clear when i said "another example". i was refering to another example of an argument about moral responsibility, not an analogy about animal rights. i changed examples because you laughed off a valid argument without attempting to explain why, and i thought maybe a change of subject matter would clear things up.The argument was not valid because if was based upon a false assumption - that some act of (agressive) violence (i.e. not taken in self defense) is valid.
ah, but this society has slavery - so it isn't exactly a free society. To which society are you referring? Define the slavery.
and for the purpose of the example, we are saying that it is the best (on whatever account we want to use for best). arguing that it isn't the best way actually surrenders a lot of ground that you probably don't want to, as then we aren't talking about the moral legitimacy of the action, but rather the details of practical efficiency.So what makes it morally legitimate? Morality is entirely subjective. Somthing that is moral to a Douban is not moral to a Westerner is not moral to an Amerind. If you want to argue Ethics, then that is a different matter, since Ethics devolves to the lowest order of abstraction. Ethics and Morals do not (necessairly) equate. As Ethics requires the lowest order of abstraction, we haveto look to those actions that equate across racial/species lines. With few exceptions, animals do not kill except to feed or defend, and use non-fatal violence only during dominance rituals (which may escalate to defense). Humans have taken that one step further in introducing war, sport and reality television. Ethical uses of violence therefore devolve to (a)Survival (sustenance & defense) and (b) limited Dominance Rituals (sport). The use of Animals - usually bread over generations for the purpose - for companionship/defense, Hunting, food, clothing or medical research fall into category (a) (companion mammals CHOOSE to stay unless you abuse them. Try abandoning your pet(s) sometime... Their offspring may be feral, but they will yearn for the human home they once had...). thankfully, not even state legal systems - with their claim to a monopoly on the use of force - hold that to be the case. you surely would want to allow the defense of others.Only to the extent that it can rationally understood that the party in question would want me to. If Gahndi were being beaten, I would abstain out of deference to his beliefs. Except in controlled circumstances, most people do not like being beaten, and would want to be defended. Domestic animals, however, have no conscious reality outside of the enviornment in which they are born. They cannot yearn for the "freedom of the wild" because they have never experienced it. So to say you are defending them from the only live they know is absurd. and you absolutely want to allow property destruction in the course of defending yourself or others.I do? Please explain. I've always taken great pains to not damage the furniture whenever I've been forced to rapidly introduce some violent lout to a wall.

If you are familiar with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), then you are aware of the fact they will do almost anything to protect animals. PETA’s efforts to save Ohio’s deer from this year’s annual statewide gun season has backfired.

An Ohio safety law requires hunters to display at least 400 square inches of hunter’s blaze orange on their person when in the woods. Capitalizing on the fact that hunters do not usually shoot orange because of its identification with hunter’s garb, PETA recently bulk purchased blaze orange vests and have been affixing them to live-trapped deer in Youngstown suburbs.

According to PETA spokesperson Katie Reese, a total of 405 vests were successfully put into circulation on deer by mid-December, and the anti-hunting group was still catching and vesting more deer.

Youngtown entrepreneur Guy Lockey, of Guy’s Outdoors came up with an idea that spits in the face of PETA by offering rewards for returned vests. Hunters who successfully bagged a vested deer could register for a drawing for random and biggest animal awards. Some 308 of the vests were recorded as bagged, based on returns by most of the hunter’s registering for Mr. Lockey’s drawing.

“It’s so easy, you can see them coming a mile away” said one first year hunter after checking in his first spike buck.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources officials were worried that the poorly thought-out plan by PETA might get somebody shot instead of saving the deer. “Hunters have turned PETA’s plan upside down, so we’re just hoping that nobody gets hurt and are hoping that none of the vested animals get tangled in brush,” said an unnamed ODNR official. “PETA has really outdone itself this time.”

OK, this one is bull shit. I live in Youngstown.

If you think about it, PETA's arguments are self-defeating. Observe:
1. They claim that animals are just as good as humans.
2. Thy ignore bad, violent, painful things animals do to eachother because they don't know any better, humans have some sort of moral superiority that animals do not have, and must therefore act better than them blah blah blah.
3. Therefore, it extends that humans are better than animals, and are therefore more valuable, and have greater importance than animals.

Now this doesn't mean that animals don't have rights- we shouldn't kick our pet dog for the hell of it. But PETA does seem like hypocrites when they say they'd rather have a person die than a lab rat.

PETA has set up a display in a commons area on my University campus.

Since I love exercising my right to make people mad, I think I shall grace PETA with my presense.

I am going to make a sandwich. Not just any sandwich, mind you, a "this could feed a North Korean village for a month" kind of sandwich. It shall be full of chicken, turkey, roast beef, and all forms of pork.

I shall go over to the PETA display, and listen to their schpel. Than, I shall remove the sandwich from my bag, and enjoy the delicious animal products.

It shall be good.

Please, take pictures of the ensuing hilarity:D
Just for kicks, could you put this picture on a shirt and wear it too XD?
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/bigpot6.jpg

-snip-
Have fun with that.

I think that the original poster needs a hobby.

If you think about it, PETA's arguments are self-defeating. Observe:
1. They claim that animals are just as good as humans.No, we don't.
Observe, the rest of your arguements are irrelevant.

Gandhi didn't use force. So no.

gandhi engaged in at least several acts of political property destruction, which would have to qualify as 'force' under the definition of terms in the discussion at that point. if political property destruction is force, gandhi engaged in minor terrorism under your definition. if it isn't, then the alf and elf don't engage in terrorism.

However, you could probably use the civilian factor as a defining difference between a guerilla unit and a terrorist unit, although that still is quite fuzzy. Basically, it would depend on who is primarily targetted by the unit operations, be they military or civilian targets. It gets trickier to identify in an occupied country, but since America isn't exactly occupied and their ALFs primary targets involve civilians, you could say they do classify as terrorists.

civilian won't work because not all concievable 'legitimate' targets will be military - police forces, private mercenaries, paramilitaries, people providing shelter to 'legitimate' targets, civilian scientists engaged in war crimes, spies, etc.

the alf and elf target the infrastructure of institutions involved in actions that harm the entities they aim to defend. which is as close to justified as anything else, as long as you accept the ethical claims their actions are based on. so i suppose that means we should actually argue about whether their ethical claims have any good arguments behind them then, yes?

If you think about it, PETA's arguments are self-defeating. Observe:
1. They claim that animals are just as good as humans.
2. Thy ignore bad, violent, painful things animals do to eachother because they don't know any better, humans have some sort of moral superiority that animals do not have, and must therefore act better than them blah blah blah.
3. Therefore, it extends that humans are better than animals, and are therefore more valuable, and have greater importance than animals.

Now this doesn't mean that animals don't have rights- we shouldn't kick our pet dog for the hell of it. But PETA does seem like hypocrites when they say they'd rather have a person die than a lab rat.
Snerk!

Have a Meat Cookie (Jerkey) with a glass of stolen Sister Lactation (milk) on me. I'll even hand it to you on a bunny-fur platter. That was excellent.

Just to chime in for a sec, Liberals and Animal Liberationists are not the same thing. One is a someone who posesses a certain political mindset. The other murders people for misguided reasons. Not everyone who opposes the right wing would save a llama over a person.

When's the last time a PETA "terrorist" blew himself up on a city bus? The only way they'd ever be responsible for any real terrorism would be if they released infected monkeys like on 28 days later.

Actually PETA has been behind several attacks on animal research facilities in the past decade.

We also NEED protein which, is most commonly found in meat, if you care to give me a list of plants that contain protein, please do.Alfalfa sprouts
Anise
Artichoke
Arugula
Asparagus
Aubergine
Avocado
Azuki beans
Bean sprouts
Black-eyed peas
Broad beans
Chickpeas
Pinto beans
Navy beans
Kidney beans
Black turtle beans
Borlotti beans
Green beans
Lentils
Lima bean
Mung beans
Runner beans
Soybeans
Sugar snap peas
Peanuts
Peas
Mangetout
Beets
Bok choy
Breadfruit
Broccoflower
Broccoli
Broccolini
Brussels sprouts
Cabbage
Calabrese
Cauliflower
Celery
Chard
Chaya
Chicory
Christoferine
Collard greens
Coriander
Corn salad
Eggplant
Endive
Fennel
Fiddlehead
Frisee
Garlic
Kai-lan
Kale
Kohlrabi
Lemon grass
Lettuce
Maize
Mushrooms
Mustard greens
Nettles
New Zealand spinach
Okra
Chives
Garlic
Leek Allium porrum
Onion
Ramps
Shallot
Spring onion
Parslane
Parsley
Peppers, Capsicum
Green pepper and Red pepper
Chile pepper
Jalapeño
Habanero
Paprika
Tabasco
Cayenne pepper
Radicchio
Rapini
Rhubarb
Root vegetables
Beetroot
mangel-wurzel
Carrot
Cassava (manioc)
Celeriac
Daikon
Fennel
Ginger
Parsnip
Radish
Swede
Turnip
Wasabi
White radish
Scallion = Green onions
Salsify (
Skirret
Spinach
Spring greens
Squashes
Acorn squash
Bitter melon
Butternut squash
Courgette
Cucumber
Gem squash
Marrow
Patty pans
Pumpkin
Spaghetti squash
Winter melon
Tat soi
Tomato
Tubers
Jicama
Jerusalem artichoke
Potato
Sweet potato
Taro
Yam
Turnip
Water chestnut
Watercress
Almonds
Chickpeas
Broad beans
Lentils
Peas
Peanuts
Phaseolus beans
Soybeans
Carob tree
Cereals, including
Barley
Maize
Oats
Rice
Rye
Sorghum
Spelt
Triticale
Teff
Wild rice
Wheat
Coconuts
Common Hazel
Coriander
Gingko
Monkey-puzzle
Pine nuts
Quinoa
Rambutan
Sunflower seeds.....
There's a short list for your reference, but fyi: ALL PLANTS CONTAIN PROTEIN


To feel better you must also be eating something "Vegan" that has been modified to contain proteins and nutrients your body needs that plants do not contain.All things in vegan food come from plants. That's the point.

One more thing. The vice president of PETA is diabetic. Care to guess what keeps her alive? Insulin. Where does that come from? It's harvested from pigs kept in research labs.

gandhi engaged in at least several acts of political property destruction, which would have to qualify as 'force' under the definition of terms in the discussion at that point. Cite please. if political property destruction is force, gandhi engaged in minor terrorism under your definition. if it isn't, then the alf and elf don't engage in terrorism.What did Gandhi destroy and how did he do it. Cite or silence.
civilian won't work because not all concievable 'legitimate' targets will be military - police forces, private mercenaries, paramilitaries, people providing shelter to 'legitimate' targets, civilian scientists engaged in war crimes, spies, etc.

the alf and elf target the infrastructure of institutions involved in actions that harm the entities they aim to defend. which is as close to justified as anything else, as long as you accept the ethical claims their actions are based on. so i suppose that means we should actually argue about whether their ethical claims have any good arguments behind them then, yes?No, I do not accept their claims to ethics. I accept their claim to a particular warped morality, but not ethics. Agressive violence is not justified in any circumstance except sustenance. Try looking into Harm Theory and Just War theory. Ethics is Ethics. Morality is subjective - and their morality calls for causing harm to others that are not causing them harm. They might as well put on a head scarf and dynamite belt.

The argument was not valid because if was based upon a false assumption - that some act of (agressive) violence (i.e. not taken in self defense) is valid.

valid merely means that if the premise were true, the conclusion would have to be true also.


So what makes it morally legitimate? Morality is entirely subjective.

i'm fairly certain that you really don't want to hold that position in this debate. it sort of undercuts your entire argument. or did you switch over to thinking what the elf does is perfectly acceptable because there isn't an objective standard to measure against? or i suppose you might hold a more sophisticated kind of subjectivism, but i can't see how that would be of help to your end of things.

If you want to argue Ethics, then that is a different matter, since Ethics devolves to the lowest order of abstraction. Ethics and Morals do not (necessairly) equate.

ethics is the philosophical study of morality. ethical things are moral things.

They cannot yearn for the "freedom of the wild" because they have never experienced it. So to say you are defending them from the only live they know is absurd.

you're not a supporter of liberal revolutions, i take it.

in any case, defense of others is an obviously necessary clause. and the only way to make it workable is to have it not be dependent on knowing the wishes of those others - otherwise we run into problems with rescuing masochists and the like from getting beaten up.

I do? Please explain. I've always taken great pains to not damage the furniture whenever I've been forced to rapidly introduce some violent lout to a wall.

yes, you do. otherwise you get in trouble when you bust down a door to save somebody, or knock over a bunch of shit during a struggle, or have to break into and steal a vehicle to save yourself or others.

Actually PETA has been behind several attacks on animal research facilities in the past decade.
Really? I haven't been keeping up with PETA news, but I thought that they only did the nonviolent, non-confrontational stuff like pouring buckets of blood on people, murdering hunters, holding naked rallies, comparing pigs to Jesus and to Holocaust victims, and distributing gory propaganda to elementary schoolers.

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/168/1394/200/PETA%20Comic%20Book.1.jpg

Cite please. What did Gandhi destroy and how did he do it.

he organized burnings of official documents in response to the asiatic registration act.

what a fucking terrorist.

Has there ever been a study over weather a Vegetarian/vegan diet improves quality or length of life?Yes.

Any evidence?Yep.
http://www.ivu.org/oxveg/Talks/veglongevity.html
http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?id=37478-vegetarians-live-longerhttp://www.whnrc.usda.gov/overall_pubs/2000_publications/00_2/00_2.html

PETA has set up a display in a commons area on my University campus.

Since I love exercising my right to make people mad, I think I shall grace PETA with my presense.

I am going to make a sandwich. Not just any sandwich, mind you, a "this could feed a North Korean village for a month" kind of sandwich. It shall be full of chicken, turkey, roast beef, and all forms of pork.

I shall go over to the PETA display, and listen to their schpel. Than, I shall remove the sandwich from my bag, and enjoy the delicious animal products.

It shall be good.

Not only the humor...

...but damn does that sound like a good sandwich....

I hate the animal rights movement with a passion. Maybe we conceited westerners can beging to discuss the death of a pig after we manage to help the people who are dying daily.

I have an ex-girlfriend who ended up in the hospital for nutrient deficiency because she had adopted a vegan diet. Don't claim it can be healthy without a great monetary and devotional cost.

Also, PETA and Greenpeace are against GM crops, the only things that could conceivably create a vegan society. Look up Golden Rice on the wiki.

I hate the animal rights movement with a passion. Maybe we conceited westerners can beging to discuss the death of a pig after we manage to help the people who are dying daily.

I have an ex-girlfriend who ended up in the hospital for nutrient deficiency because she had adopted a vegan diet. Don't claim it can be healthy without a great monetary and devotional cost.

Also, PETA and Greenpeace are against GM crops, the only things that could conceivably create a vegan society. Look up Golden Rice on the wiki.
while I dont agree with most animal rights movements

Just because we are solving one problem (people dying) while working on another (animal crulety) you know 200 million people should be able to multy task :rolleyes:

Intensive Agriculture helps to feed those dying people. As does research and genetic modification. PETA's misguided ideals lead to starvation and death of PEOPLE. What country was it that turned back GM aid?

valid merely means that if the premise were true, the conclusion would have to be true also. And since the premise was not true, the conclusion is not true, so of course I laughed it off. :rolleyes:
i'm fairly certain that you really don't want to hold that position in this debate. it sort of undercuts your entire argument.Not really. Non-Benthamite Utilitarianisim and the study of Ethics is sort of a hobby of mine... or did you switch over to thinking what the elf does is perfectly acceptable because there isn't an objective standard to measure against? or i suppose you might hold a more sophisticated kind of subjectivism, but i can't see how that would be of help to your end of things. ethics is the philosophical study of morality. ethical things are moral things.I'm going to combine these because they are interrelated. Morality cannot be studied without including Theology. All Moral Codes are based upon the application of certain tenets of dogma to basic humanistic/animalistic codes of interaction. Moral codes are simply too abstract to be considered categorical imperatives. Ethics, on the other hand, as the study of those low-order abstraction codes of interaction CAN be used to form a categorical imperative - begining with "do least harm" - an imperative that crosses species boundries. (Causing excess harm is wasteful of energy, exposes one to injury and is counterproductive to the ecosystem. In other words, don't kill somthing that you aren't going to eat or that isn't trying to eat you...)

I may accept that an individual sees their position as moral, but I neither have to accept the morality of the position, not infer its Justice from said morality.

Within certain Hindu circles, it is Moral for a woman to commit herself to her husband's funeral pyre. According to the same code, it is also Moral for relatives to throw her on if she balks. Most other religions, however declare both cases to be Immoral.

But is the above example Ethical? It is Ethical insomuch as the woman takes her own decision, and hurts no one but herself. However, it is Unethical in any case where others take action against the woman's will and causes her harm.

Now, in the case of violence against infrastructure: One cannot "defend" against infrastructure. As a matter of declared war infrastructure is destroyed justly ifand only if such infrastructure is material to an attacker's effectiveness. Thus, a defender may justly destroy bridges (between the attacker and defender) that allow the attacker to attack, but may NOT attack medical facilities, water, sewage, etc.

In the case of animal activists, they have NOT been attacked, and are NOT endangered in any way. The closest thing that can be coorelated would be unrequested military intervention on behalf of an unwilling beneficiary (no, I'm not keen on Iraq) The bunnies don't care about you, don't want you there and don't know what to do after you leave.

So, are you inferring that these groups have declared War on the US (who is bound by law to defend its citizens in the case of war...)?
you're not a supporter of liberal revolutions, i take it.I take it you are a supporter of unilateral military intervention?
in any case, defense of others is an obviously necessary clause. and the only way to make it workable is to have it not be dependent on knowing the wishes of those others - otherwise we run into problems with rescuing masochists and the like from getting beaten up.Back to defining "others". Save the Person or save the bunny. Who is more real? They're both equal after all... :rolleyes:
yes, you do. otherwise you get in trouble when you bust down a door to save somebody, or knock over a bunch of shit during a struggle, or have to break into and steal a vehicle to save yourself or others.Unlike with mayhem activists, in none of your cases is the property being destroyed for the simple purpose of "punishment," destruction and/or loss of revenue. Those are huge differences.
Cite please. What did Gandhi destroy and how did he do it. he organized burnings of official documents in response to the asiatic registration act. what a fucking terrorist. And you are comparing this (public, peaceful burning of (essentially) draft cards (not buildings)) :eek: ... you are comparing Gandhi's peaceful protests to firebombing, destruction of medical research, assault, breaking and entering, releasing non-native - non-fearal creatures into an alien ecosystem, advocating violence and killing puppies !?!?!
What a fucking moron. :headbang:

PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals? is that who you're talking about. I once offered to host a $500/plate steak dinner fund raiser for them, but they never replied to my letter. Oh, well, Kai Sara-Sara ::: pulls out beef jerky to snack on :::

gandhi engaged in at least several acts of political property destruction, which would have to qualify as 'force' under the definition of terms in the discussion at that point. if political property destruction is force, gandhi engaged in minor terrorism under your definition. if it isn't, then the alf and elf don't engage in terrorism.

Political property destruction meaning? Did he burn down buildings or something? All he did was sit down on the ground and play doormat along with everybody else who would listen. I don't see PETA or their extensions ALF doing that. I see them actively protesting, yelling, engaging in vandalism and arson (ALF).

Ghandi didn't engage in any criminal activities to my knowledge. ALF, and by extension PETA on the other hand, does not have such a squeaky clean record.

As for burning official documents, where is your source? And you failed to mention whether they were copies with no value beyond reading or originals that are supposed to be kept in a safe place?


civilian won't work because not all concievable 'legitimate' targets will be military - police forces, private mercenaries, paramilitaries, people providing shelter to 'legitimate' targets, civilian scientists engaged in war crimes, spies, etc.

All of these targets you listed are either involved in the government or are extensions of them. ALF has been hitting privately run properties. Big difference there.


the alf and elf target the infrastructure of institutions involved in actions that harm the entities they aim to defend. which is as close to justified as anything else, as long as you accept the ethical claims their actions are based on. so i suppose that means we should actually argue about whether their ethical claims have any good arguments behind them then, yes?

No.

You also forget that what they do is considered criminal by any existing governmental structure. Arson to date, is a big crime wherever you look. As is the destruction and theft of private property not belonging to you. But violent crime is considered only crime under a variety of circumstances EXCEPT when used to affect political change. Then it becomes terrorism.

For example, let us take another organization. The Maoist in Nepal. Or the Japanese Red Army while it still existed. Both of them are terrorists organizations designed to effect political and domestic change via violence. What differentiates them from ALF? Aside from their choice of immediate targets, not much. Operational procedure (violence and the threat of to achieve ends), methodology, rhetoric, propoganda are mostly the same.

Additionally, to give their claims legitimity when their actions and the consequences thereoff (animals released into urban environments where they end up confused, bewildered and cause much destruction before dying), is the grossest of hypocrisies. Furthermore, ALF's primary methods of conduct are criminal in every sense of the word. Why should they be given the right to claim ethics when they violate it with their very actions?

To say that it is ethical is to give the enraged man with his neighbors the right to burn their house down. To say that it is ethical is to give the poor man the right to rob a bank. To say that it is ethical is to give the mass murderer the right to do what he does because he disagreed with his victims.

Are these right? Are these ethical? No. Are the actions of PETA and ALF ethical? No.

PETA IS a terrorist organization AFAIAC.

A search warrant executed at Blanton’s home turned up evidence that PETA’s other co-founder, Alex Pacheco, had also been planning burglaries and break-ins along with Rodney Coronado. The feds seized “surveillance logs; code names for Coronado, Pacheco, and others; burglary tools; two-way radios; night vision goggles; [and] phony identification for Coronado and Pacheco.”

PETA has published a leaflet called “Animal Liberation Front: the Army of the Kind.” In another pamphlet, “Activism and the Law,” PETA openly offers advice on “burning a laboratory building.”

Perhaps Newkirk’s most telling comment, though, came in a 2002 U.S. News & World Report feature. “Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective,” she admitted. “We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.”

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21

I'm sorry, but a threat of violence IIRC is against the law. PETA does actively support the ALF, by their own admittance:
PETA’s connections to ALF and ELF are indisputable. “We did it, we did it. We gave $1,500 to the ELF for a specific program,” PETA’s Lisa Lange admitted on the Fox News Channel. PETA has offered no fewer than eight different explanations of what the “specific program” was, but law enforcement leaders have noted that since the Earth Liberation Front is a criminal enterprise, it has absolutely no legal “programs” of any kind.


http://www.animalscam.com/sources.cfm?type=aud

Audio captured of PETA members and leaders talking about use of violent tactics to get their way. There is no moral justification in what PETA is doing. None at all. Arsons can KILL people. Infact if an arson is lit and it causes the death of someone the arsonist in pretty much every state can be charged with either manslaughter or in some extreme cases outright murder. Firefighters can always die fighting fires. It'll be even worse if its done because some jackass decided to light empty homes on fire. Firefighters still check to see if anyone is inside them.

And finally..speaking for myself..I work on 5th Ave..in the fall and spring months I wear a leather jacket I got for my 18th birthday. Should one of these PETA knuckleheads try to smear stuff on me, throw paint on me, get in my face..you WILL hear about me on the news. Because I honestly will take this persons head (be it man or woman. My mother raised me to respect women up to the point where they lay a violent finger on you then all bets are off), and put it through a building.It'll be a spectacular case of violence upon a human not seen ever before. I'll even warn them first shit I'll warn them multiple times against it. But if you fuck with me, and fuck with something I view with sentimental pride I will hurt you to no end.

yeah...

rational discussion isn't your strong point, is it?
not really. I am kind-of an idiot.

Like I said - I've already been encouraged by the game warden - if confronted by any PETA people who are armed, open fire and ask questions later.