NationStates Jolt Archive

PETA, People Erotically Touching Animals, is planning to distribute trading cards showing kids experiencing various types of trauma and bad consequences for eating fish. The goal is to terrify little kids so they'll never eat tuna or fish and chips again.

Here's a link to the article

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051116/NEWS01/511160329/1006

Here's a picture of some of the trading cards

http://img497.imageshack.us/img497/3584/54246fishfriends1ei.jpg

Does anybody else think that using scare tactics and protests against little kids is out of line?

PETA won't be happy until everyone is eating moss.

They've also got a comic on the same subject. (http://www.fishinghurts.com/feat-newcomic.asp)

http://www.fishinghurts.com/images/150-comic.gif

PETA sucks. :mad:

PETA, People Erotically Touching Animals, is planning to distribute trading cards showing kids experiencing various types of trauma and bad consequences for eating fish. The goal is to terrify little kids so they'll never eat tuna or fish and chips again.

Here's a link to the article

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051116/NEWS01/511160329/1006

Here's a picture of some of the trading cards

http://img497.imageshack.us/img497/3584/54246fishfriends1ei.jpg

Does anybody else think that using scare tactics and protests against little kids is out of line?

What else are they there for? Apart from programmed consumers (thanks TV)

They've also got a comic on the same subject. (http://www.fishinghurts.com/feat-newcomic.asp)

http://www.fishinghurts.com/images/150-comic.gif

PETA sucks. :mad:Ah, so PETA's latest tactic is turning children against their parents? Lovely.:(

Ah, so PETA's latest tactic is turning children against their parents? Lovely.:(

Yeah, they're swell like that. :rolleyes:

Just remember that when you see a PETA activist throw paint on someone wearing fur, in the US you are allowed to use a limited amount of force to subdue and detain the offender for arrest on assault charges.

Riding them down to the pavement works for me.

I prefer beating them to death with a frozen leg of lamb.

I'm not sure on how they plan to distribute these to my children.
If one winds up in my child's hand in a manner where someone circumvented me, I will address them personally.
And violently.

PETA- Peckers Evicerated,Torn Apart.

You know what? I think PETA are some kind of pawn for some mad dictator with plans for world domination.

Think about it - you infiltrate the main superpower with a group that aims to stop people eating meat and fish. Gradually, over time, it grows in influence and more people follow it. Then, when everyone is a vegetarian and thus lacking in basic nutrients that help keep you healthy and strong, the dictator moves in and easily takes control from the enfeebled population!

I prefer beating them to death with a frozen leg of lamb.
I'm a lot heavier than a leg of lamb.

I'm a lot heavier than a leg of lamb.

Which means I probably can't swing you like a club. ;)

PETA are so illogical.

Though I do suspect that some of my friends here in Britain are members of similar organisations. Damn vegans...

Just remember that when you see a PETA activist throw paint on someone wearing fur, in the US you are allowed to use a limited amount of force to subdue and detain the offender for arrest on assault charges.

Riding them down to the pavement works for me.


Me too. Just not on the blacktop in summer in a Walmart parking lot. I'll be happy in distrubuting abrasions and contusions and maybe a clump of scalp torn out, but I dont want to cook their head.

PETA, People Erotically Touching Animals, is planning to distribute trading cards showing kids experiencing various types of trauma and bad consequences for eating fish. The goal is to terrify little kids so they'll never eat tuna or fish and chips again.

Here's a link to the article

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051116/NEWS01/511160329/1006

Here's a picture of some of the trading cards

http://img497.imageshack.us/img497/3584/54246fishfriends1ei.jpg

Does anybody else think that using scare tactics and protests against little kids is out of line?

They are now getting out of hand. It is time to tell PETA to shut the hell up.

Damn vegans...

How do you spot the difference between a vegan and a heroin addict?

...

No, it's not a joke - I genuinely want to know. It's caused me to make several mistakes in the past :(

How do you spot the difference between a vegan and a heroin addict?

...

No, it's not a joke - I genuinely want to know. It's caused me to make several mistakes in the past :(
The heroin addict looks healthier and is less annoying to talk to despite the fact that he always asks to borrow a couple of bucks.

PETA, People Erotically Touching Animals, is planning to distribute trading cards showing kids experiencing various types of trauma and bad consequences for eating fish. The goal is to terrify little kids so they'll never eat tuna or fish and chips again.

Here's a link to the article

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051116/NEWS01/511160329/1006




There is something wrong with school officials not being more upset just because they arent on school property-they are on the other side of a fence.

I guess drug dealers and aedophiles can congregate there now too?

I dont want any motherfucker solicitors of any type anywhere near my kids or schools.
If this were my community, I'd be there too. Photographing the activists, collecting year make and model of vehicles they arrive in, then visit them at home and work to expound my beliefs on them.

PETA won't be happy until everyone is eating moss.


Moss has a right to live unmolested too...

I'm starting my own PETA -- People Eating Tasty Animals.

PETA, People Erotically Touching Animals, is planning to distribute trading cards showing kids experiencing various types of trauma and bad consequences for eating fish. The goal is to terrify little kids so they'll never eat tuna or fish and chips again.

Here's a link to the article

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051116/NEWS01/511160329/1006

Here's a picture of some of the trading cards

http://img497.imageshack.us/img497/3584/54246fishfriends1ei.jpg

Does anybody else think that using scare tactics and protests against little kids is out of line?


That's unbelieveable. And targeting middle schoolers is ridiculous. I have nothing against vegans, just don't force me to join your lovely little insanity. I like my veggies, but I like my meat, too. Mmmmm, now I want salmon...

People, you're going about this in the wrong way. Why get angry about PETA when they volunteer to be entertainment? Engage PETA activisits in a lively debate when you encounter them. Make sure to reenforce every negative stereotype they have about carnivores, marvel at the efficency of the modern factory farm. Make comments about the necessity of eating meat so we can "show those uppity chickens their place." If possible, eat a burger while you do it and stand way too close so they have to smell the beef. Honestly, anytime I see PETA and one of their propaganda trucks (you know, the ones with the loudspeakers and videoscreens) my face lights up like a child on Christmas morning and my wife groans "not again" because she knows I'm about to embarass her in public again :). Like any fundamentalists, PETA is best dealt with through absurdity and satire, to actually meet their statements and tactics with anything else implies that they are close enough to the mainstream to be worthy of discussion.


p.s. Similar tactics can be used against street preachers, Greenpeace donation solicitors, CocaCola protesters, and my favorite: LaRouchies!

Awwwww. Do a group of people's opinions and some truths about certain sources of food offend you? Poor bubbies.

Does anybody else think that using scare tactics and protests against little kids is out of line?

Everything PETA does it out of line. They're psychos.

Awwwww. Do a group of people's opinions and some truths about certain sources of food offend you? Poor bubbies.

Fish is a very healthy source of food - discouraging children to eat it is pretty disgusting. How would you react if McDonalds introduced an ad campaign aimed at children about how evil it is to eat vegetables, how everyone should live on burgers and that if their parents try to convince them to eat heathily they are the enemy?

That's unbelieveable. And targeting middle schoolers is ridiculous. I have nothing against vegans, just don't force me to join your lovely little insanity. I like my veggies, but I like my meat, too. Mmmmm, now I want salmon...

Looky at the face of Psychosis (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/040817_petakids.pdf): (PDF)

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news/images/article_156_timeline.gif (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/feature_peta_kids_map.cfm)
(click to fiew Flash/PDF)

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news/images/article_156_comicbook.gif (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/040726_mommykills.pdf)

PETA won't be happy until everyone is eating moss.
Ick!

That's just wrong! Think of the poor moss! It's a living orgamism!! :p

Awwwww. Do a group of people's opinions and some truths about certain sources of food offend you? Poor bubbies.

Speaking to my children without my permission offends me.
Teaching them crap I don't believe is true is offensive to me.
Assaulting women who wear fur offends me (and I've pounded one person for this already - to the praise of both the fur owner and the police).
People who stand around and chant while I'm duck hunting offends me.
People who burn labs offend me.
People who dress up as deer and run in the woods during deer season look like targets to me.

I'm starting my own PETA -- People Eating Tasty Animals.


It has been done, and I am a card carrying member. :D

Anyhow, these cards have made me hungry for some fish. With that, I am off to lunch! :)

Fish is a very healthy source of food - discouraging children to eat it is pretty disgusting. How would you react if McDonalds introduced an ad campaign aimed at children about how evil it is to eat vegetables, how everyone should live on burgers and that if their parents try to convince them to eat heathily they are the enemy?

Me, personally? I wouldn't give a shit. It's not up to me to bring up other people's spawn; if they don't want their kids to see it, they should do what they can to prevent it. And if their kids do see it and ask them about it, they should explain their own opinions on the subject. And if they really feel that strongly about it, they can put their foot down and tell the kid what they're going to do and why.

I find the lack of parental responsibility pervasive in certain western societies more disgusting than ad campaigns.

OK, I've thought of a good way to stop eating animals - eat PETA members instead.

Also interesting:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

snip


Bingo! Getting into a debate with a PETArd is like having a fist fight with a unarmed man. They just cannot back up what they put out. We have driven off all the petards who come through the peta-sucks forums because they just can't argue thier side. Most of them are hit and run anyway,they just spout off on how we are murders then run. Oh well, best thing to do is ask them how many animals has been put in dumpsters because of peta's death vans. :D

Speaking to my children without my permission offends me.
So don't let them have contact with people you don't want them to have contact with.


Teaching them crap I don't believe is true is offensive to me.
Restrict their television, radio and reading habits. Oh, and don't take them out in public, just to be safe. And make sure to homeschool them.


Assaulting women who wear fur offends me (and I've pounded one person for this already - to the praise of both the fur owner and the police).
Okay, assaulting people for wearing fur is not legal, so people shouldn't really be doing it.


People who stand around and chant while I'm duck hunting offends me.
So don't hunt on land where other people have access.


People who burn labs offend me.
Again, illegal.


People who dress up as deer and run in the woods during deer season look like targets to me.
Feel free to shoot them, but be prepared for some jail time.

One of these days I am going to find the most annoying of PETA member and force him at gunpoint to eat steak tartare.

Feel free to shoot them, but be prepared for some jail time.

I doubt you would get jail time for this. I think if nothing elce it would be ruled out as a hunting accedent. Though it is stupid for the ARA's to go out in deer costumes durring hunting season. That would be like putting a turban on your head and carrying a dummy AK-47 through Iraq. :p

So don't let them have contact with people you don't want them to have contact with.

You'll note that the story has PETA people harassing kids on their way to school (just outside school grounds).


Restrict their television, radio and reading habits. Oh, and don't take them out in public, just to be safe. And make sure to homeschool them. Now you're being ridiculous.


Okay, assaulting people for wearing fur is not legal, so people shouldn't really be doing it.
That's what the police said after I rode a PETA protester's face into the concrete after she threw paint on an old woman. Backslapping and congratualtory handshakes were my reward, and knowing that the PETA person's face was permanently scarred.


So don't hunt on land where other people have access. They were trespassing. If I had been the land owner, I could have legally shot them.


Feel free to shoot them, but be prepared for some jail time.

If someone is in a deer outfit, it's very likely that I'll get away with shooting them - because I'll be able to say that they looked very much like a deer. And I'll be the only one alive to tell the story.

Our local game warden warns us about these people every year - and says that if we shoot one by accident, we won't be charged.

I doubt you would get jail time for this. I think if nothing elce it would be ruled out as a hunting accedent. Though it is stupid for the ARA's to go out in deer costumes durring hunting season. That would be like putting a turban on your head and carrying a dummy AK-47 through Iraq. :p

You may be right and I agree, it's a pretty moronic thing to do and I really can't see the purpose of it. Still, if you're aware that those people are there, aren't you obligated to take extra care to prevent hitting them?

I can see vegetarianism for dietary reasons being valid, but the philosophy behind veganism is just a little too bizarre for most people to support.

You may be right and I agree, it's a pretty moronic thing to do and I really can't see the purpose of it. Still, if you're aware that those people are there, aren't you obligated to take extra care to prevent hitting them?
No. You wouldn't be charged with a criminal offense, but PETA will likely try to sue the shit out of you.

I am a vegetarian and generally support PETA, however, I think such tactics are sort of silly really. I'm not convinced they are harmful however, and even if they are, they surely aren't anything compared to all the corporate advertising directed at children, not to mention them buying up our school lunchrooms. That is why I am actually against trying to dissuade children from fish or milk or whatever, surely these are much healthier alternatives to Coca-Cola and McDonald's hamburgers.

You may be right and I agree, it's a pretty moronic thing to do and I really can't see the purpose of it. Still, if you're aware that those people are there, aren't you obligated to take extra care to prevent hitting them?

The game warden in my area says "No."

You may be right and I agree, it's a pretty moronic thing to do and I really can't see the purpose of it. Still, if you're aware that those people are there, aren't you obligated to take extra care to prevent hitting them?Yep. By law they are supposed to be wearing Blaze Orange - not deer hide. If it looks like a deer and you shoot it, it's legal.

You may be right and I agree, it's a pretty moronic thing to do and I really can't see the purpose of it. Still, if you're aware that those people are there, aren't you obligated to take extra care to prevent hitting them?

If you see a deer and your deer hunting, your going to shoot the deer. If someone is dumb enough to wear a deer suit in a middle of a forest during deer season, a hunter is lible to shoot the deer. If it turns out to be a person... its an accidental shooting.

What you want the hunters to do? Walk up to the deer and see if its a human or a real deer before shooting it?

I can see vegetarianism for dietary reasons being valid, but the philosophy behind veganism is just a little too bizarre for most people to support.
I agree.

I think a positive ad campaign that highlights the benefits and shows the TRUTH and puts in the facts would be fine - at least for being a vegetarian. I'd agree on health-related grounds but not on the grounds of 'animal rights'.

And for the record, I'm a vegetarian (though I still eat fish).

So don't let them have contact with people you don't want them to have contact with.

So don't hunt on land where other people have access.


Heh, yeah right.

And if you don't want to get punched in the face you should duck.

If you don't want to be robbed don't own property.

You'll note that the story has PETA people harassing kids on their way to school (just outside school grounds).

Parents can always drop their kids off at the gates, or instruct their kids to ignore these people.


Now you're being ridiculous.
Not really. If you want to avoid this stuff, you have to take steps to avoid it.



That's what the police said after I rode a PETA protester's face into the concrete after she threw paint on an old woman. Backslapping and congratualtory handshakes were my reward, and knowing that the PETA person's face was permanently scarred.
Well, I personally think that's pretty disproportionate, but if you got away with it without charges and without being beaten up yourself, good for you. I would've laughed at both the old woman and the idiot dumb enough to throw paint on someone.


They were trespassing. If I had been the land owner, I could have legally shot them.
You can shoot someone for just trespassing over in the States? Wow. That's... barbaric.


If someone is in a deer outfit, it's very likely that I'll get away with shooting them - because I'll be able to say that they looked very much like a deer. And I'll be the only one alive to tell the story.

Our local game warden warns us about these people every year - and says that if we shoot one by accident, we won't be charged.

I suppose that's somewhat logical. If you shoot someone in a deer outfit, and somebody else recognises that it's a person and not a deer, and then shoots you, are they up for charges? Or is that "defending the life of another"?

You can shoot someone for just trespassing over in the States? Wow. That's... barbaric.

Unless it's peculiar to his jurisdiction, no I don't think you can.

That's what the police said after I rode a PETA protester's face into the concrete after she threw paint on an old woman. Backslapping and congratualtory handshakes were my reward, and knowing that the PETA person's face was permanently scarred.
Well, just because some-one is doing something illegal, doesn't mean that you should do something similarly illegal. Two wrong generally don't make a right. And mucking-up someone's face definately ain't a right...

But, yeah, self-righteous vegetarians do get on my nerves. You know the sort, the ones that smug at you because they think they are better than you because they eat vegetables. In some respects, eating more vegetables maybe heathlier, but if you buy some meat in a shop, the animal's already dead, you ain't hurting it any more by eating it.

But then demand does create supply...

Make sense of that, some one...

Parents can always drop their kids off at the gates, or instruct their kids to ignore these people.


Not really. If you want to avoid this stuff, you have to take steps to avoid it.



Well, I personally think that's pretty disproportionate, but if you got away with it without charges and without being beaten up yourself, good for you. I would've laughed at both the old woman and the idiot dumb enough to throw paint on someone.


You can shoot someone for just trespassing over in the States? Wow. That's... barbaric.



I suppose that's somewhat logical. If you shoot someone in a deer outfit, and somebody else recognises that it's a person and not a deer, and then shoots you, are they up for charges? Or is that "defending the life of another"?

Boy, you're really reaching, aren't you?

I suppose that's somewhat logical. If you shoot someone in a deer outfit, and somebody else recognises that it's a person and not a deer, and then shoots you, are they up for charges? Or is that "defending the life of another"?

I highly doubt this would ever happen. If it were another hunter or ARA who saw the action, I think the responce would be a "Oh shit". If you were to open fire on the person who killed the idiot in the deer costume you would be charged with murder.

Well, just because some-one is doing something illegal, doesn't mean that you should do something similarly illegal. Two wrong generally don't make a right. And mucking-up someone's face definately ain't a right...

If the injury is incidental to my subduing the subject using a minimum of force...

Well, on a scientific level, we are discovering that fish are smarter in some cases than once thought. However, telling children their parents are malicious murderers is going overboard IMHO.

You can shoot someone for just trespassing over in the States? Wow. That's... barbaric.

In Virginia, if I post the land No Trespassing, and it's my land, I certainly can.

Speaking to my children without my permission offends me.
Teaching them crap I don't believe is true is offensive to me.
Assaulting women who wear fur offends me (and I've pounded one person for this already - to the praise of both the fur owner and the police).
People who stand around and chant while I'm duck hunting offends me.
People who burn labs offend me.
People who dress up as deer and run in the woods during deer season look like targets to me.

peta at least is marginalized in society,if you're worried about who is teaching your kids what i'd be more worried about the public schools... also how the fukk does peta know where you duck hunt... most guys i know don't even tell their wives.... dress up like a deer during deer season... hell i don't even go in the woods and hope i don't take fire while driving in my car.

also how the fukk does peta know where you duck hunt...

They scout out every pond and lake for miles around, until they find you.

Unless it's peculiar to his jurisdiction, no I don't think you can.

According to the law, it is considered legal to shoot trespasser if you consider him a threat to your life, family, and home I believe.

According to the law, it is considered legal to shoot trespasser if you consider him a threat to your life, family, and home I believe.
It varies from state to state.

Boy, you're really reaching, aren't you?

If you mean last bit about shooting someone, I'm not advocating it, I'm just genuinely curious as to how the law would deal with that situation. It would probably need to be tested in court and I imagine it would need to be taken on a case-by-case basis, with outcomes depending on the make-up for the particular jury and specifics of the case. If the person was standing on two legs, in the open, waving their arms around and screaming for them not to shoot, despite wearing deer colours like a moron, I can't see the shooter being let off or someone taking a shot at the first shooter to prevent a human killing being treated too harshly.

And I forgot about the blazing orange thing. Like I said, if you run around in a deer outfit when there are people walking around with rifles shooting things that look like deer, you're an idiot.

Over here recently, a state politician was charged for shooting his son in a hunting accident, despite the fact the son wasn't pressing charges and wanted the case dropped, and his injuries were very minor. He's expected to get 3-6 months jail time, I think.

For the rest, I just don't like that some people think it's anyone's reponsibility but theirs to bring up their kids.

In Virginia, if I post the land No Trespassing, and it's my land, I certainly can.

Really? Again, that's pretty barbaric. Down here in Aus, if you shoot a trespasser who isn't posing an immediate, quantifiable risk to your safety or the safety of others, you're up on manslaughter charges at the very least, if you kill them, and GBH if you wound them.

If you mean last bit about shooting someone, I'm not advocating it, I'm just genuinely curious as to how the law would deal with that situation. It would probably need to be tested in court and I imagine it would need to be taken on a case-by-case basis, with outcomes depending on the make-up for the particular jury and specifics of the case. If the person was standing on two legs, in the open, waving their arms around and screaming for them not to shoot, despite wearing deer colours like a moron, I can't see the shooter being let off or someone taking a shot at the first shooter to prevent a human killing being treated too harshly.

And I forgot about the blazing orange thing. Like I said, if you run around in a deer outfit when there are people walking around with rifles shooting things that look like deer, you're an idiot.

Over here recently, a state politician was charged for shooting his son in a hunting accident, despite the fact the son wasn't pressing charges and wanted the case dropped, and his injuries were very minor. He's expected to get 3-6 months jail time, I think.

For the rest, I just don't like that some people think it's anyone's reponsibility but theirs to bring up their kids.


It's quite unlikely that you'll see the hunter if you're in a deer suit. So there won't be any waving of arms (nor any witnesses).

The game warden said to be careful, but that no one would be charged if it was someone in a deer suit.

Really? Again, that's pretty barbaric. Down here in Aus, if you shoot a trespasser who isn't posing an immediate, quantifiable risk to your safety or the safety of others, you're up on manslaughter charges at the very least, if you kill them, and GBH if you wound them.
IMHO, Death is the only acceptable form of amnesty.

The goal is to terrify little kids so they'll never eat tuna or fish and chips again.
it'd take a lot to stop me wanting fish and chips, at any age. meh, peta are loonies.

If you mean last bit about shooting someone, I'm not advocating it, I'm just genuinely curious as to how the law would deal with that situation. It would probably need to be tested in court and I imagine it would need to be taken on a case-by-case basis, with outcomes depending on the make-up for the particular jury and specifics of the case. If the person was standing on two legs, in the open, waving their arms around and screaming for them not to shoot, despite wearing deer colours like a moron, I can't see the shooter being let off or someone taking a shot at the first shooter to prevent a human killing being treated too harshly.

And I forgot about the blazing orange thing. Like I said, if you run around in a deer outfit when there are people walking around with rifles shooting things that look like deer, you're an idiot.

Welcome to the world of PETA. You should listen to their arguements sometime. During the PETA v NRA debate, it was almost comedic.

Over here recently, a state politician was charged for shooting his son in a hunting accident, despite the fact the son wasn't pressing charges and wanted the case dropped, and his injuries were very minor. He's expected to get 3-6 months jail time, I think.

While I'm sure there's some anti-gunner prosecutors here that would try the same thing for publicity, they are becoming the minority. In most cases, an accidental shooting is considered just that.

For the rest, I just don't like that some people think it's anyone's reponsibility but theirs to bring up their kids.

Agreed fully. The entire "it takes a village" nonsense from the 90's just made it easier for the irresponsible to avoid even more responsibility.

Really? Again, that's pretty barbaric. Down here in Aus, if you shoot a trespasser who isn't posing an immediate, quantifiable risk to your safety or the safety of others, you're up on manslaughter charges at the very least, if you kill them, and GBH if you wound them.

In many places in the US, the mere fact of someone being in your home is now considered an "immediate, quantifiable risk to your safety or the safety of others". Being on your land is ussually less likely to be considered a threat but it varies.

aren't these the same people who threaten to kidnap and harm the children of people who work at animal testing labs?
(As well as physicaly attacking people who work at such labs with baseball bats outside their homes as they get out of their cars... or digging up the graves of relatives of people who own guinneapig breeding farms and stealing the remains - both these from UK animal rights groups that fall under the same crowd)

Brainwashing propagander and scaring children with cartoons are the least malign activities that these terrorist groups resort to.

aren't these the same people who threaten to kidnap and harm the children of people who work at animal testing labs?
(As well as physicaly attacking people who work at such labs with baseball bats outside their homes as they get out of their cars... or digging up the graves of relatives of people who own guinneapig breeding farms and stealing the remains - both these from UK animal rights groups that fall under the same crowd)

Brainwashing propagander and scaring children with cartoons are the least malign activities that these terrorist groups resort to.

That's more ALF & ELF but PETA funds them and their legal defenses.

For the rest, I just don't like that some people think it's anyone's reponsibility but theirs to bring up their kids.
Problem is, parents have almost no say (except in Kansas :rolleyes: ) what gets fed to them in schools.

Go back and click on the first two links in my post with the graphics. PETA knows exactly how to use the "system" to their advantage. The only thing a Parent can do to "avoid" that crap is to put their kid(s) into private schools... if they are rich enough... :headbang:

Problem is, parents have almost no say (except in Kansas :rolleyes: ) what gets fed to them in schools.



Of course there's too many parents who don't care what the schools teach the kids as long as the kids are away most of the day and come back w/ good grades. If they don't then it's the schools fault.

If I ever catch a teacher handing these comics/cards/BS out as a "instructional aid", I'll find the money for a private school.

IMHO, Death is the only acceptable form of amnesty.

Well, it's not like the trespasser would be let right off (if they lived). They'd get a slap on the wrist, a lecture from a magistrate and maybe a fine. The shooter may well end up doing hard time for manslaughter, attempted murder, GBH or a variety of other crimes. And I think if someone shoots another person for taking a shortcut through their backyard, they deserve it.

Welcome to the world of PETA. You should listen to their arguements sometime. During the PETA v NRA debate, it was almost comedic.

Yeah. I agree with some of their sentiments and some of things they've done (I believe they played a fairly major part in having sanctions put on Australian sheep trade to America for certain practices employed by some farmers here). But then they also do a lot of stupid shit, in really idiotic ways that I don't agree with.

Badgering kids about stuff in the street falls on the "stupid shit" side. If I'd been harangued in the street as a kid and teenager about not eating meat, I would still probably be eating meat now.


In many places in the US, the mere fact of someone being in your home is now considered an "immediate, quantifiable risk to your safety or the safety of others". Being on your land is ussually less likely to be considered a threat but it varies

That's the US for you, I guess. Public, militant organisations like PETA and laws like those. There's plenty of idiocy to go around over there.

According to the law, it is considered legal to shoot trespasser if you consider him a threat to your life, family, and home I believe.

Of course, even the most restrictive states would allow for that. I was talking about a mostly innocent trespasser though. Like the PETA protestors.

It varies from state to state.

Yep. I have never looked at Virginia law so I will take your word for it that you may do so if you have posted a warning.

For the rest, I just don't like that some people think it's anyone's reponsibility but theirs to bring up their kids.

That's totally off the issue though. This isn't about parents not protecting their kids, it's about these nutjobs targeting kids. You want parents to be with their kids all day long?

That's the US for you, I guess. Public, militant organisations like PETA and laws like those. There's plenty of idiocy to go around over there.

Um, PETA is an international organization w/ the "militant" parts also causing problems in the UK and Aus.

In many places in the US, the mere fact of someone being in your home is now considered an "immediate, quantifiable risk to your safety or the safety of others". Being on your land is ussually less likely to be considered a threat but it varies.

If you're on your own property in a rural area, far from help, it can be considered a threat.

You may be right and I agree, it's a pretty moronic thing to do and I really can't see the purpose of it. Still, if you're aware that those people are there, aren't you obligated to take extra care to prevent hitting them?

Nope. Even more important than parental responsibility is personal responsibility. If you try to distract a hunter by making them think you're prey, you don't get to complain when they shoot you. Now, if the hunter knows you aren't a deer and shoots you, thats wrong, but if he honestly thinks you're a deer, why should he make an special allowances because you're an idiot?

If I saw a PETA member outside a school pushing this crap, I will try and hurt them. Even if I become the first anti-PETA Martyr. They are no different than the Terrorist groups of the Middle east, they use false propaganda to use their cause.

Nope. Even more important than parental responsibility is personal responsibility. If you try to distract a hunter by making them think you're prey, you don't get to complain when they shoot you. Now, if the hunter knows you aren't a deer and shoots you, thats wrong, but if he honestly thinks you're a deer, why should he make an special allowances because you're an idiot?

You know, even though the hunter may not be criminally responcible, I think he could be responcible in tort so he would have to pay damages.

Problem is, parents have almost no say (except in Kansas ) what gets fed to them in schools.Of course there's too many parents who don't care what the schools teach the kids as long as the kids are away most of the day and come back w/ good grades. If they don't then it's the schools fault.

If I ever catch a teacher handing these comics/cards/BS out as a "instructional aid", I'll find the money for a private school.

Yeah, a lot of parents just pawn their kids off to schools so they don't have to deal with them for 6 hours a day, rather than really caring about taking a hand in their education.

If teachers in public schools do that, I would agree it's not good (and probably in violation of a slew of regulations.) If they do it in a private school and the administration allows it, well.. parents are free to have their kids schooled at a different private school.


That's totally off the issue though. This isn't about parents not protecting their kids, it's about these nutjobs targeting kids. You want parents to be with their kids all day long?

If parents want their kids completely insulated from this stuff all the time, then yes. They should be with them, or taking steps to prevent the stuff from happening, like petitioning the local government to keep the people away from the entrances to schools. If parents want their kids to stop being targetted, they should be doing something about it, not just whining about it but otherwise doing nothing.

You know, even though the hunter may not be criminally responcible, I think he could be responcible in tort so he would have to pay damages.

Why pay damages for someone else's stupidity?

PETA is nothing shy of a terrosist orginization and should be banned as such from here-on-out!

scare tactics against children?!

They should be ranked amongst the other thusly labled groups as ignorant retards, and terrorists!

the only good PETA member is one that doesn't exist!:sniper:

Why pay damages for someone else's stupidity?

Mistake of fact is not a defense in tort unless that mistake is to the threat of great bodily harm to yourself.

I'm not supporting it, just saying that's the way (I think) it is.

You know, even though the hunter may not be criminally responcible, I think he could be responcible in tort so he would have to pay damages.

Oh, he could be sued in civil court, but since the "victim" was breaking the law, it would have a slim chance of success and the hunter could probably sue back for harrassment and the land-owner (if different) for tresspassing.

Um, PETA is an international organization w/ the "militant" parts also causing problems in the UK and Aus.

I believe they begun in the US, though, no? I've seen no news of the "militant" bits causing any real 'problems' here. IIRC, they played a part in having the recent live sheep trade court case prosecuted, but I personally see that as a good thing. If the entire trade is banned altogether, mores the better. It's a disgusting practice. But I haven't heard of read of them doing anything similar here as to what their doing over in the US, and certainly not on the sort of scale that is apparently seen there.

Why pay damages for someone else's stupidity?

Because in civil law, you can be made to pay damages for someone else's stupidity. Civil law is a whole lot different from criminal law.

Please don't bash the fine organization of PETA. I am a part of that organization and am offended.

Oh wait, I'm a part of the other PETA. You know, People Eating Tasty Animals!!!!

You know, even though the hunter may not be criminally responcible, I think he could be responcible in tort so he would have to pay damages.

Unlikely if there was neither malice nor negligence. The important thing to consider here is that during deer season, in a deer hunting area where everyone is legally required to wear bright colors (sometimes very specific bright colors), the dead individual decided to dress as a deer specifically to cause trouble. A good analogy would be if you dressed all in black and then decided to take a nap in the middle of an unlit highway. Were you to be run over, it wouldn't (and shouldn't) be the driver's fault.

If parents want their kids completely insulated from this stuff all the time, then yes. They should be with them, or taking steps to prevent the stuff from happening, like petitioning the local government to keep the people away from the entrances to schools. If parents want their kids to stop being targetted, they should be doing something about it, not just whining about it but otherwise doing nothing.

This really doesn't involve trying to keep kids insulated. Its more along the lines of parents are unhappy that their kids are being targeted for propaganda by this organization. Most parents will tell the kids about the different points of views that exist and that they should really question everything. But here the source of tension is the fact that these people are deliberately targeting younger more impressionable kids with what is basically propaganda.

Because in civil law, you can be made to pay damages for someone else's stupidity. Civil law is a whole lot different from criminal law.
That really depends on what you've done in the situation. Like if someone walks into a yard and gets attacked by a dog when you don't have a beware of dog sign you will be held liable. However if you go into clearly marked hunting teritory with knowledge of the laws and purposely disobay them your not going to win.

Oh, he could be sued in civil court, but since the "victim" was breaking the law, it would have a slim chance of success and the hunter could probably sue back for harrassment and the land-owner (if different) for tresspassing.

Ugh, yeah. And the suits could go on for decades that way. But if you can sue someone for damages because you slipped on a wet floor in their shop, or because you cut yourself on a window while you were breaking into their house (though I believe this loophole was closed after that particular case), you can sue for just about anything.

Ugh, yeah. And the suits could go on for decades that way. But if you can sue someone for damages because you slipped on a wet floor in their shop, or because you cut yourself on a window while you were breaking into their house (though I believe this loophole was closed after that particular case), you can sue for just about anything.

Yes you can sue for just about anything. That doesn't mean you'll win.

If parents want their kids completely insulated from this stuff all the time, then yes.

Again, this isn't about the parents and how well they want their kids protected. It may not be reasonable for a parent to want to "completely [insulate]" their kids from outside influence but the point is that these people shouldn't be targeting kids. It's just wrong.

They should be with them, or taking steps to prevent the stuff from happening, like petitioning the local government to keep the people away from the entrances to schools.

Who says that they haven't? But still this is off the issue.

If parents want their kids to stop being targetted, they should be doing something about it, not just whining about it but otherwise doing nothing.

Look at my first reply to your post on page 3, you can't be held responcible if someone is going to steal from you or hit you. Yes maybe you can do something to prevent it, and you certainly shouldn't provoke it, but why are you placing the burden on the innocent parent? The real offender here is the loopy PETA member who is targeting kids for PETA propaganda.

PETA is nothing shy of a terrosist orginization and should be banned as such from here-on-out!

scare tactics against children?!

They should be ranked amongst the other thusly labled groups as ignorant retards, and terrorists!

the only good PETA member is one that doesn't exist!:sniper:


Now now. PETA's tactics are disgusting, and if they were on my land I'd probably fire a shell full of rocksalt their way to let them know I felt threatened, but banning speech because it is foolish is even worse than the foolish speech. I do not like their message, I will mock and ridicule them for sport whenever I have the chance, but I will defend their right to be "ignorant retards," as should anyone who values their own rights.

This really doesn't involve trying to keep kids insulated. Its more along the lines of parents are unhappy that their kids are being targeted for propaganda by this organization. Most parents will tell the kids about the different points of views that exist and that they should really question everything. But here the source of tension is the fact that these people are deliberately targeting younger more impressionable kids with what is basically propaganda.

And television ads aimed at children that are selling sugary breafast cereals with no nutrional value, or selling useless, cheap junk are different how? What about pamphlets being handed out that are anti-Iraq war? Or even pro-war for that matter?

And television ads aimed at children that are selling sugary breafast cereals with no nutrional value, or selling useless, cheap junk are different how? What about pamphlets being handed out that are anti-Iraq war? Or even pro-war for that matter?

Because 1 is trying to sell me some delicious sugary cereal while the other is trying to instill values and beliefs into me.

Now now. PETA's tactics are disgusting, and if they were on my land I'd probably fire a shell full of rocksalt their way to let them know I felt threatened, but banning speech because it is foolish is even worse than the foolish speech. I do not like their message, I will mock and ridicule them for sport whenever I have the chance, but I will defend their right to be "ignorant retards," as should anyone who values their own rights.

Sure they have the right to, until they start harassing and scaring my kids and telling them their parents are murderers and that the food they eat will kill them or make them stupid.

In one sense, I'm glad they are doing things like this. It makes them even more marginalized than they already are. Now if only the nitwits in Hollywood who give them hundreds of thousands of dollars would wake up. (as if)

Oh, he could be sued in civil court, but since the "victim" was breaking the law, it would have a slim chance of success and the hunter could probably sue back for harrassment and the land-owner (if different) for tresspassing.

Yep. And even if there was no violation of statute on the part of the plaintiff, the comparative responcibility alone would make it unlikely that the plaintiff would recover much, if at all. I was just saying there is a basis for a cause of action.

And television ads aimed at children that are selling sugary breafast cereals with no nutrional value, or selling useless, cheap junk are different how? What about pamphlets being handed out that are anti-Iraq war? Or even pro-war for that matter?

Not only is the content less offensive, as EA pointed out, but parents have much more control of their kids access to T.V. than they do over people targeting their kids in school.

And television ads aimed at children that are selling sugary breafast cereals with no nutrional value, or selling useless, cheap junk are different how? What about pamphlets being handed out that are anti-Iraq war? Or even pro-war for that matter?

If those pro/anti war pamphlets are telling kids the gov't is trying to kill them or that their parents are murderers, I'ld treat them the same way.

Selling cheap junk or crappy food is also not telling kids that eating healthy foods will kill them or that their parents murdered to get it.

Yep. And even if there was no violation of statute on the part of the plaintiff, the comparative responcibility alone would make it unlikely that the plaintiff would recover much, if at all. I was just saying there is a basis for a cause of action.


Like anyone needs a "basis" for a lawsuit. :)

Yes you can sue for just about anything. That doesn't mean you'll win.

That's true. It really depends on the lawyers and if the case is before a jury, whether that handful of the plaintiff's peers are as stupid as the plaintiff themself.



Again, this isn't about the parents and how well they want their kids protected. It may not be reasonable for a parent to want to "completely [insulate]" their kids from outside influence but the point is that these people shouldn't be targeting kids. It's just wrong.

Ahh, I guess I just disagree with you there. I don't exactly see kids as 'fair game', but neither do I see them as completely 'off limits' for this kind of thing.


Who says that they haven't? But still this is off the issue.

I don't know... who says? Maybe they have and were turned down? If that's the case, they need to try a different approach, or just cop it on the chin. But you're right, it is off issue, I guess.


Look at my first reply to your post on page 3, you can't be held responcible if someone is going to steal from you or hit you. Yes maybe you can do something to prevent it, and you certainly shouldn't provoke it, but why are you placing the burden on the innocent parent? The real offender here is the loopy PETA member who is targeting kids for PETA propaganda.

Propaganda leaflets and physical harm and theft are hardly comparable. If the kids take these pamphlet things and listen to the PETA people, they're not exactly being damaged by it (though I'm aware that's a matter of opinion). If the parent is made aware of it, they can (heaven forbid) talk to their kids about it.

Like anyone needs a "basis" for a lawsuit.

Zing! ;)

Ahh, I guess I just disagree with you there. I don't exactly see kids as 'fair game', but neither do I see them as completely 'off limits' for this kind of thing.
This is where the disagreement between you and most other people in the thread is resulting from. Most people do feel that young kids are off limits for this type of thing. I guess its a parent thing of protecting the young.

Propaganda leaflets and physical harm and theft are hardly comparable. If the kids take these pamphlet things and listen to the PETA people, they're not exactly being damaged by it (though I'm aware that's a matter of opinion). If the parent is made aware of it, they can (heaven forbid) talk to their kids about it.

In most cases, I'ld agree. The PETA "comics" however tell kids that thier parents are murderers who will kill kittens and puppies for fun if they fish or wear fur.

http://www.fishinghurts.com/pdfs/DaddyKillsAnimals.pdf
http://consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/040726_mommykills.pdf

PETA, People Erotically Touching Animals, is planning to distribute trading cards showing kids experiencing various types of trauma and bad consequences for eating fish. The goal is to terrify little kids so they'll never eat tuna or fish and chips again.

Here's a link to the article

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051116/NEWS01/511160329/1006

Here's a picture of some of the trading cards

http://img497.imageshack.us/img497/3584/54246fishfriends1ei.jpg

Does anybody else think that using scare tactics and protests against little kids is out of line?

Need to get the NRA after these pansy little bitches.

If those pro/anti war pamphlets are telling kids the gov't is trying to kill them or that their parents are murderers, I'ld treat them the same way.

Selling cheap junk or crappy food is also not telling kids that eating healthy foods will kill them or that their parents murdered to get it.

I don't know... I've seen some pretty extreme kid-targetting ads. Maybe not ads telling the kids their parents are murderers, but definitely ads that actively encourage kids to avoid things like 'yucky' brocoli and pester their parents until they give in and buy up. There might be restrictions on that sort of thing now, because it's been a few years since I saw one that blatant.

What about anti-war pamphlets that go on and on about how the government is in the business of murdering innocant civillians in foreign? I was swamped with those when I was in what would be considered "middle-school" in the US.

I'm starting my own PETA -- People Eating Tasty Animals.
The person that origionaly owned PETA.org got sued by PETA cause that was what his website was (people eating tasty animals)

Sure they have the right to, until they start harassing and scaring my kids and telling them their parents are murderers and that the food they eat will kill them or make them stupid.

In one sense, I'm glad they are doing things like this. It makes them even more marginalized than they already are. Now if only the nitwits in Hollywood who give them hundreds of thousands of dollars would wake up. (as if)


I have trouble getting too worked up over it. I mean, if you teach your kids to be aggressive freethinkers(and thats the rub, not nearly enough of those alive right now), and if you give them good answers when they question you about what PETA said, its not that huge a deal. Sure, I'd say something if I saw it happening, maybe I'd even get a little aggressive, but in the larger scheme of things, who cares?

Ahh, I guess I just disagree with you there. I don't exactly see kids as 'fair game', but neither do I see them as completely 'off limits' for this kind of thing.

Alright, so I suppose you would say we should use our best judgments when we need to consider what kind of material kids may be exposed to. That seems fair. I think though that even if we were very liberal about it we would at least ban graphic material that implicates childrens' parents as murderers...

I don't know... I've seen some pretty extreme kid-targetting ads. Maybe not ads telling the kids their parents are murderers, but definitely ads that actively encourage kids to avoid things like 'yucky' brocoli and pester their parents until they give in and buy up. There might be restrictions on that sort of thing now, because it's been a few years since I saw one that blatant..

Not saying they don't exist but there is a huge difference between saying broccoli is "yuccky" and saying milk or fish will kill you or make you retarded.

What about anti-war pamphlets that go on and on about how the government is in the business of murdering innocant civillians in foreign? I was swamped with those when I was in what would be considered "middle-school" in the US.

If those were being passed out on school grounds or right outside, like I said, I'ld feel the same way, especially if it said "you're parents support murderers" like the PETA ones do.

This is where the disagreement between you and most other people in the thread is resulting from. Most people do feel that young kids are off limits for this type of thing. I guess its a parent thing of protecting the young.

Yeah, it must be. Maybe I'll develop parental instincts as I get older? Doubtful, I think, but it's possible.

In most cases, I'ld agree. The PETA "comics" however tell kids that thier parents are murderers who will kill kittens and puppies for fun if they fish or wear fur.

http://www.fishinghurts.com/pdfs/DaddyKillsAnimals.pdf

Oh man. That is truly hilarious. Okay, I can see why some parents would be concerned about stuff like this. However, wouldn't standard literature classification laws prevent this kind of graphic stuff from being handed to kids?

I have trouble getting too worked up over it. I mean, if you teach your kids to be aggressive freethinkers(and thats the rub, not nearly enough of those alive right now), and if you give them good answers when they question you about what PETA said, its not that huge a deal. Sure, I'd say something if I saw it happening, maybe I'd even get a little aggressive, but in the larger scheme of things, who cares?

Now have a 5 yr old read those comics and come home. Having a girl who got upset at the opening scene in "Tarzan", having someone show her pictures of dead animals and telling her we did that WOULD traumatize her and strain the parent/child trust.

That is PETA's aim, and that's why I care.

Do you have kids?

Yeah, it must be. Maybe I'll develop parental instincts as I get older? Doubtful, I think, but it's possible.

You'ld be surprised. Quite a few of my views and priorities have changed since becoming a parent.



Oh man. That is truly hilarious. Okay, I can see why some parents would be concerned about stuff like this. However, wouldn't standard literature classification laws prevent this kind of graphic stuff from being handed to kids?

Not familiar w/ those. Are you sure they're not an Aussie thing?

Oh man. That is truly hilarious. Okay, I can see why some parents would be concerned about stuff like this. However, wouldn't standard literature classification laws prevent this kind of graphic stuff from being handed to kids?

Maybe in Australia, I don't think we have such laws in the States. I think school boards are mostly responcible for regulating material here and I don't think they can stop anyone off of school property from handing kids material.

Now have a 5 yr old read those comics and come home. Having a girl who got upset at the opening scene in "Tarzan", having someone show her pictures of dead animals and telling her we did that WOULD traumatize her and strain the parent/child trust.

That is PETA's aim, and that's why I care.

Do you have kids?

That's why I'd beat the crap out of the person that handed it to my child, plead guilty to assault and battery, and get a 30-day suspended sentence (first offense, pillar of the community, etc).

I'm a vegetarian, and i support people who try to persuade people not to eat meat. To a certain degree though. PETA, on the other hand, actually quite annoy me. They make it seem that every vegetarian is a nut who will try to ban meat at every available oppurtunity. So everyone who thinks that all vegetarians are crazy ass people who hug trees and will smash someone in for eating a burger is wrong. But i don't think its right to mock their choices, and to force them to eat meat etc. Joke all you will, just don't be suprised when they get angry back.
Also, people who get angry for us being vegetarians and who make the other PETA (people eating tasty animals etc. etc.) seriously need to get a life. No offence, but its kinda stupid. We don't take the piss because you eat meat. Or at least me and my friends don't.

Now have a 5 yr old read those comics and come home. Having a girl who got upset at the opening scene in "Tarzan", having someone show her pictures of dead animals and telling her we did that WOULD traumatize her and strain the parent/child trust.

That is PETA's aim, and that's why I care.

Do you have kids?


Yeah, it hurts, I know that. But the "won't somebody think of the children" argument ususally leads to badness. It is the argument that has been used to justify the persecution of homosexuals, a costly and ineffective war on drugs, odious gun control measures of all colors, and censorship. As a country, hell, as a planet, we need a thicker skin. No, I don't have kids, but I did have a sister that was nearly a decade younger than me who I had to care for alot of the time. I know how worked up kids can get. I also know how short their attention spans are. Kids go through alot in this world, and there are alot of children living perfectly normal lives who have been through worse trauma than an icky cartoon. We humans are amazingly resiliant animals.

PETA, People Erotically Touching Animals, is planning to distribute trading cards showing kids experiencing various types of trauma and bad consequences for eating fish. The goal is to terrify little kids so they'll never eat tuna or fish and chips again.

Here's a link to the article

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051116/NEWS01/511160329/1006

Here's a picture of some of the trading cards

http://img497.imageshack.us/img497/3584/54246fishfriends1ei.jpg

Does anybody else think that using scare tactics and protests against little kids is out of line?

Well, I must admit, I think that someone made that up and gave you the link. But if it's true, for shame! PETA people! For Shame!

That's why I'd beat the crap out of the person that handed it to my child, plead guilty to assault and battery, and get a 30-day suspended sentence (first offense, pillar of the community, etc).

Wouldn't it be more fun to take a sick day off work, set up a hibachi, and starting handing out rare burgers during lunch? You'd be the coolest parent ever!

You'ld be surprised. Quite a few of my views and priorities have changed since becoming a parent.

The chances of my having kids are very slim, at best. Don't really enjoy interacting with them, have no desire to have any of my own, don't have sex with the right gender needed to produce them, etc.


Not familiar w/ those. Are you sure they're not an Aussie thing?

They must be, I guess. As far as I'm aware, it's illegal to supply minors with things like porn rags, and particularly graphic comic books and such are often restricted to 15 years and above. I remember not being allowed to buy a copy of this cool "Alien" (the H.R. Geiger Alien) graphic novel because I was only 13 at the time. The Film and Literature Classification Board is a government comittee that's responsible for movies, games, and (obviously) literature, so they handle all that stuff. Is there nothing similar in the States?

Wouldn't it be more fun to take a sick day off work, set up a hibachi, and starting handing out rare burgers during lunch? You'd be the coolest parent ever!

Depends. If I had just witnessed the surprise of seeing them hand my child this stuff, the punching would be far more enjoyable.

If I knew the PETA people were coming in advance, setting up the burgers and steaks would be fine.

Depends. If I had just witnessed the surprise of seeing them hand my child this stuff, the punching would be far more enjoyable.

If I knew the PETA people were coming in advance, setting up the burgers and steaks would be fine.
I would hold a hotdog eating contest

LOL not only is it fun but they get a varity pack of animals in every bite!

Joke all you will, just don't be suprised when they get angry back.
Also, people who get angry for us being vegetarians and who make the other PETA (people eating tasty animals etc. etc.) seriously need to get a life. No offence, but its kinda stupid. We don't take the piss because you eat meat. Or at least me and my friends don't.

Look, if you want to eat sprouts, have fun, I don't really care (unless you're my sister, then I have to mock you, its international law). If you decide to cross that line, and speak to me, to interrupt my life because you're just so damn convinced of the superiority of your choice, then you're fair game. I will laugh, ridicule, make fun of, mock, and generally treat you as my own personal clown until I get bored or you walk away. Don't bother me and I won't bother you, but understand that any intrusion will be interpreted as volunteering to be the day's entertainment.

Depends. If I had just witnessed the surprise of seeing them hand my child this stuff, the punching would be far more enjoyable.

If I knew the PETA people were coming in advance, setting up the burgers and steaks would be fine.

Egh, you might want to control yourself and hold off on the punching in that situation. Seeing a parent go crazy and start hitting people is probably more traumatic for a kid than this twisted comic book stuff. I know from first hand experience that it can screw a kid up pretty badly for months.

The Film and Literature Classification Board is a government comittee that's responsible for movies, games, and (obviously) literature, so they handle all that stuff. Is there nothing similar in the States?


Mmmmmm.....orwellian bureaucracy.

Yeah, it hurts, I know that. But the "won't somebody think of the children" argument ususally leads to badness. It is the argument that has been used to justify the persecution of homosexuals, a costly and ineffective war on drugs, odious gun control measures of all colors, and censorship. As a country, hell, as a planet, we need a thicker skin. No, I don't have kids, but I did have a sister that was nearly a decade younger than me who I had to care for alot of the time. I know how worked up kids can get. I also know how short their attention spans are. Kids go through alot in this world, and there are alot of children living perfectly normal lives who have been through worse trauma than an icky cartoon. We humans are amazingly resiliant animals.

I'm not advocating censorship or the "for the children" arguements. When PETA tells kids that their parents are murderers and that they'll die from eating healthy food, parents and the public in general need to be informed what PETA supports and endorses.

Mmmmmm.....orwellian bureaucracy.

lmao

Is there nothing similar in the States?

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1470 makes it a federal criminal offense to distribute obscene material to children.

The problem is the material is probably not considered obscene.

I would hold a hotdog eating contest

LOL not only is it fun but they get a varity pack of animals in every bite!

If they're not kosher, that is. Might even be a human finger in there.

I would hold a hotdog eating contest

LOL not only is it fun but they get a varity pack of animals in every bite!

Do they have Gyros where you're from? You can get it here in Chicago at alot of hotdog stands, its this giant Greek spiced meat log (wow, that sounded dirtier than I was expecting). It's a processed combination of lamb, pork, and beef. They put it on a spit and then shave off strips when you order. Better living through modern technology, I tells ya!

I'm not advocating censorship or the "for the children" arguements. When PETA tells kids that their parents are murderers and that they'll die from eating healthy food, parents and the public in general need to be informed what PETA supports and endorses.

That they do, and in this wonderful system of ours, an anti-PETA should be right there next to them providing a counterpoint. Now, if PETA sets foot on school grounds, they should be arrested immediately, but if they stay off grounds, I can't see what you can do that wouldn't be a wholesale violation of the first ammendment.

The chances of my having kids are very slim, at best. Don't really enjoy interacting with them, have no desire to have any of my own, don't have sex with the right gender needed to produce them, etc.

Ah, that would explain it.




They must be, I guess. As far as I'm aware, it's illegal to supply minors with things like porn rags, and particularly graphic comic books and such are often restricted to 15 years and above. I remember not being allowed to buy a copy of this cool "Alien" (the H.R. Geiger Alien) graphic novel because I was only 13 at the time. The Film and Literature Classification Board is a government comittee that's responsible for movies, games, and (obviously) literature, so they handle all that stuff. Is there nothing similar in the States?

Ah, the definition of "graphic" is different. You can't show kids sexual material but the violent or disturbing materials have different regulations. Since PETA makes these themselves, there are fewer regs. them.

If they're not kosher, that is. Might even be a human finger in there.
True

Hmmm I wonder if peta would care about the finger

Mmmmmm.....orwellian bureaucracy.

Hah, yeah. They do end up completely banning things some times, which pisses me off. If I, a credit card carrying adult, want to buy a computer game where the objective is to murder people in creative and gruesome ways, I should be able to. You can make it 18+ restricted to keep it out of the hands of the young'uns, but banning it outright is more offensive to me than the material itself. The problem is the many parents will just buy whatever video game their kid wants them to buy, regardless of the classification and then won't actuall take any interest in seeing what their kid is playing.


I'm not advocating censorship or the "for the children" arguements. When PETA tells kids that their parents are murderers and that they'll die from eating healthy food, parents and the public in general need to be informed what PETA supports and endorses.

Could the specific wording of "YOUR DADDY!!!!!" be considered defamation at all? Or could saying that eating this stuff will kill you be "false advertising", since it's not actually a medical fact?

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1470 makes it a federal criminal offense to distribute obscene material to children.

The problem is the material is probably not considered obscene.


You're probably right. Perhaps the US needs to have a more flexible literature classification system? You'd probably cop a fine of some sort if you distributed that sort of graphic literature to really young children, over here.

That they do, and in this wonderful system of ours, an anti-PETA should be right there next to them providing a counterpoint. Now, if PETA sets foot on school grounds, they should be arrested immediately, but if they stay off grounds, I can't see what you can do that wouldn't be a wholesale violation of the first ammendment.

There are and PETA has been counter-protested recently. :)

If they pushed something like that where I live, I would try to find every legal measure I could to inhibit them.

pretty soon PETA will try to keep animals from eating animals...

True

Hmmm I wonder if peta would care about the finger

It's one thing to say you don't care about humans - it's another thing to see them cut up like that and eaten for real.

Hah, yeah. They do end up completely banning things some times, which pisses me off. If I, a credit card carrying adult, want to buy a computer game where the objective is to murder people in creative and gruesome ways, I should be able to. You can make it 18+ restricted to keep it out of the hands of the young'uns, but banning it outright is more offensive to me than the material itself. The problem is the many parents will just buy whatever video game their kid wants them to buy, regardless of the classification and then won't actuall take any interest in seeing what their kid is playing.

Agreed w/ you there.



Could the specific wording of "YOUR DADDY!!!!!" be considered defamation at all? Or could saying that eating this stuff will kill you be "false advertising", since it's not actually a medical fact?

If they push it to far, I'm sure the issue will be brought up. In Texas, there is a law against the defamation of beef.

pretty soon PETA will try to keep animals from eating animals...
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34
too late

Peta was here yesterday (Pensacola) and directly across the street (on Public grounds) the local radio DJ's were giving out coupons for FREE Fish sandwiches! It was Too Funny! They had three or four times the number of people lined up to get their cards than PETA did.

I am a proud member of PETA-people for the eating of tasty animals.

If they push it to far, I'm sure the issue will be brought up. In Texas, there is a law against the defamation of beef.

Defamation of BEEF? Holy cow (Ho ho ho)! That strikes me as a quinessentially Texan law.

Okay guys, you've managed to convince me that this whole deal is A Bad Thing(tm). See? I'm not totally without reason.

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34
too late

Idiots.

Reminds me of that futurama episode with the lion they trained to eat tofu.

Defamation of BEEF? Holy cow (Ho ho ho)! That strikes me as a quinessentially Texan law.

Okay guys, you've managed to convince me that this whole deal is A Bad Thing(tm). See? I'm not totally without reason.

Someone being convinced in a "general" thread"!?

*falls over from shock*

Idiots.

Reminds me of that futurama episode with the lion they trained to eat tofu.

Wasn't there a Far Side comic that had something similar?

* passes out *

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34
too late

omg, vegan cats and dogs...:rolleyes:

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34
too late

That's classic. Take them off thier natural diet and then have to give them supplements.

Duh.

Someone being convinced in a "general" thread"!?

*falls over from shock*

Hah! Do I get an award for being the First? Or was there some cave man back in the NS General days of yore that was convinced hitting his mate Ugg over the head with a rock isn't a good way to stay friends?

Don't get me wrong, though. On a personal level, I still don't care. But you've convinced me that there are sufficient, sane reasons enough for other people to care that I can't approve of them doing stuff like this.

Like Fred Phelps is to Christians, this kind of shit from PETA is to veg*ns. They're really giving all of us a bad name.

Hah! Do I get an award for being the First? Or was there some cave man back in the NS General days of yore that was convinced hitting his mate Ugg over the head with a rock isn't a good way to stay friends?

Don't know if you're the first but you're definitely part of a rare breed so watch out for Danish dominoe stackers. :)


Don't get me wrong, though. On a personal level, I still don't care. But you've convinced me that there are sufficient, sane reasons enough for other people to care that I can't approve of them doing stuff like this.

Which is a long way from attacking the people against these nitwits. All in all, a good day.

I plan to start my own organization: PEDA
People for the Eating of Dumb Animals.
Our sole purpose will be to avoid a law suit from PETA as long as possible.

Don't know if you're the first but you're definitely part of a rare breed so watch out for Danish dominoe stackers. :)

Yeah, those Danish domnoites are dangerous folk, they are.




Which is a long way from attacking the people against these nitwits. All in all, a good day.

Well, being against nitwits doesn't instantly exclude someone from being a nitwit (or dimwit or halfwit) themselves, and there were quite a few back at the beginning of the thread. PETA-bashing is just fashionable at the moment. Now, while PETA is involved in some really stupid stuff, a lot of people just jump on the PETA-bashing bandwagon to be cool. Kind of like how hating that boy group Hanson was fashionable some 2 months after loving them was fashionable. I was hating Hanson before it was cool, damn it!

They've also got a comic on the same subject. (http://www.fishinghurts.com/feat-newcomic.asp)

http://www.fishinghurts.com/images/150-comic.gif

PETA sucks. :mad:

Did anyone else notice the logical contradiction in the leaflet?

At the top of the second page: "Fish are really smart. They can learn from each other and can remember things for a long time."

If this is true then why do they keep going for the bait?:confused:

Did anyone else notice the logical contradiction in the leaflet?

At the top of the second page: "Fish are really smart. They can learn from each other and can remember things for a long time."

If this is true then why do they keep going for the bait?:confused:
And just as you can’t breathe underwater,
fish can’t breathe when they’re out of the
water. So after your daddy yanks them out
of the water, the poor little fish flop
around gasping for air.

I like this little contradiction. They can't breathe out of the water, so why are they gasping for air instead of water?

I thought I would inject a little science into this conversation and provide some scientific ammunition for everyone to use should they ever find themselves confronted by PETA "intellectuals".

Besides the obvious indicators of the human animal's carnivorous nature such as stereoptic vision (both eyes face forward) and specialized canines and incisors for eating meat, humans have several adaptations that make us designed (take that as you will) to not only consume meat, but be reliant on it.

Genetics
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/index.php?newsid=6675
As we all know, and probably aren't too proud of, our closest living animal relative is the chimpanzee, sharing 97~98% of the same genetic code as humans (with 2 more chromosomes). Other than humans, chimpanzees eat the most meat of any of the great apes (yes, we're one of the great apes). The difference however, is that chimpanzees suffer from a large number of meat related ailments, and as such have a much shorter lifespan than humans, despite eating far less meat than we do. Why is this? Well recent research into the human genome has uncovered a large number of genes specifically designed to protect us from the effects of a diet high in animal protein and fat. Humans produce far more HDL cholesterol (the good kind) than chimpanzees. HDL is important because it pulls LDL cholesterol (the bad kind) out of the cardiac arteries and brings it back to the liver, where it can be removed from the bloodstream. Humans also have several genes that decrease the risk of vascular disease and Alzheimer's, both of which have been linked to meat consumption. Furthermore, we're far more resistant to meat-borne parasites than our chimpanzee relatives. When we look at the fossil record, an interesting trend occurs; when our ancestors increased their meat consumption, their life span also increased!

Brain development
http://www.mercola.com/2002/apr/3/evolution.htm
http://www.nutrition4health.org/NOHAnews/NNW01BrainExpansion.html
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/134/1/183
Human beings arguably have perhaps the most highly developed brain in the animal kingdom. Although there are animals that possess larger brains than humans, we have the largest brain to bodysize ratio. The human frontal lobe is the largest and most complex in the animal kingdom, rivaled only by the brains of cetaceans (whales and dolphins), whose diets are remarkably similar to what many scientists think the first humans ate. So what caused us to get that way? Well, when we look at the fossil record for about 1-2 Million years ago, we find there were three homonid species. Two of which were strictly grain/berry eaters, and one, Homo habilis, consumed meat. Homo habilis was also the only one of the three species to use tools, and was the only species to evolve further. Pretty good deal for an "evil animal killer", huh? It's no coincidence that the explosive brain development seen in our ancestors occurred at the same time meat consumption increased. When one looks at the brain, it becomes very obvious that it's composed of fatty tissues. No doubt we've all heard of DHA and the omega fatty acids, specifically Omega-3 (Alphalinolenic Acid [ALA]). Anthropological research indicates our ancestors (even modern human ancestors) had a diet approximately 40-80 times richer in Omega-3 than we do today. Omega-3 is ESSENTIAL (hence the name essential fatty acid) because it is used to make DHA, another type of fatty acid that is *extremely* important in brain function. Research with students has shown that addition of omega-3 supplements increase academic performance. Furthermore, omega-3 and it's cousin omega-6 are essential to healthy heart function. So where does omega-3 come from? You guessed it, the best source appears to be fish. So no Billy, eating (clean) fish won't make you stupid, quite the opposite. Asians have one of the highest levels of academic performance in the world (this is a statistic, if you are offended, get over yourself). Is it also a coincidence that their diets on average have one of the best Omega-3 levels in the world? According to the WHO, the Japanese are the longest living people in the world, and their diet is rich in seafood (ding ding! Omega-3!!). In order to make DHA, the body also needs omega-6, which is prevalent in such meats as beef and lamb. No doubt the veggie-heads will try to say there are non-meat sources of Omega-3 and Omega-6, and yes, this is true, linseed oil does have a great deal of omega-3, and grains and beans carry a great deal of omega-6, but research has shown these are inferior to meat sources. It is probably of interest to note humans were once able to manufacture some of these essential fatty acids on their own, but we have lost that cellular machinery because it became unnecessary as we became (quite obligatory) carnivores. This is most predominant in the Inuit tribe, whose diet is nearly completely comprised of meats. Yes, we do need vegetables, but we also can't survive (I don't call what PETA is surviving) without the benefits of good meats.

As a final nail in the coffin for PETA, I'll quote a single line from a research paper which has been proven in multiple scientific research trials:
"The inability of dietary ALA supplements to augment DHA status in vegans has been observed despite their low baseline DHA status "

In other words, vegans, and by that token, most of PETA, are severely deficient in a chemical essential to brain function, though I suppose most of you will probably not find that too surprising.

So if we want to "think of the children" as it were, we'd do best to encourage them to exercise their God-given right (some would say duty) to eat animals. Research has shown that children are far more susceptible to developmental problems caused by a diet lacking meat than adults, so wouldn't encouraging children to not eat meat be at the very least, indirectly harmful to them?

A good question to ask of PETA would be this: Since they claim to be all about "eating naturally", why must they take supplements (which we've already established is ineffective) to offset their diet free of meat? How is taking a supplement more "natural" than eating what we're designed to: meat? Is it any coincidence vegetarians and vegans are 5 times more likely to suffer from anemia and certain vitamin deficiencies than are those who eat a sensible diet of meat?

While there's no doubt fish contaminated with mercury can cause mental retardation, and heart disease is the #1 killer in most of the western world, these things can hardly be blamed on us carrying out the purely natural act of eating meat. Instead it comes from what we've done to the environment in terms of pollution, and how we often prepare our meats. What we eat at fast-food restaurants and from TV dinners is far from "natural", instead they've had the living crap processed out of them. Americans aren't fat because they're lazy (we do after all, take the shortest vacations in the western world, and have one of the longest work weeks, our President aside), but instead because we've been complacent in what we've allowed food companies to get away with (no we don't need the government's all knowing hand, we just need to vote with our dollar). Deep-frying foods destroys the essential fatty acids, instead turning them into highly dangerous trans-fatty acids, which can replace good cellular machinery in the brain, causing plenty of mental problems (let's not even think of what it does to your heart).

Does anyone else find it ironic that foods which are healthy for us are costing more than the "bad" foods with additives and special processing, when it costs more money to produce the foods that are bad for us (but no doubt taste better in some cases)? (OK that was a touch off-topic)

I have no doubt that this post will fall on deaf ears in the case of the meat-nazi PETA people, who are quite stubbornly close-minded on the subject. I do however, take some pride in knowing I have at least been more scientifically rigorous than simply calling someone I disagree with a murderer.

On another note regarding morons that dress up like deer and harass duck hunters, I should point out that in the United States (and I suspect in other countries as well), the wildlife refuges they hold so dear are paid for in a VERY large part by funds collected from hunting and fishing licenses. Hunters and fishers are far better and more effective environmentalists than the eco-nazis can ever hope to be, and I want to know what PETA has done for the environment? When it became apparent that lead-based buckshot was entering the food chain and contaminating ducks, duck hunters were the ones that lead the charge to ban lead-based shotgun shells in favor of environmentally safer steel based buckshot, even though it meant a decrease in effective killing power and range. Where was PETA? No doubt torching an animal research lab that will likely produce a life-saving drug they'll have need of in the future. Hypocrisy abounds. If PETA spent its money on purchasing land and creating wildlife refuges instead of paying for the legal defenses of their psychotic criminal element, maybe I'd have some more respect for them.

Oh and one more thing, I don't care what you say, if you eat fish, you're not a vegetarian!! ^_^

Speaking to my children without my permission offends me.
Teaching them crap I don't believe is true is offensive to me.



I agree. Aside from school teachers, stay away from my kids.

If I become aware that someone is pitching something to my kids, those folks are going to get fucked up badly. Especially fuckers hanging around the school areas. Sell drugs, preach religion or tell my kids about PETA, you are going to get hurt and know loss in a very personal way.

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34
too late
Oh, and how is this healthier for my little kitty?

*Proceeds to serve her kitty a nice can of Chicken and Tuna*

Oh, and how is this healthier for my little kitty?

*Proceeds to serve her kitty a nice can of Chicken and Tuna*

See, it's more "natural" to take a cat off of meat and feed it a vegetarian diet and then have to give them vitamin supplements to maintain health. Easily available at animal run vitamin stores located throughout the wild.

Oh, and how is this healthier for my little kitty?

*Proceeds to serve her kitty a nice can of Chicken and Tuna*
It's not healthier for your kitty, but it's much healthier for the chickens and tuna being slaughtered in an inhumane and cruel way for the sake of your pet. Oh, and owning pets is immoral and unethical. Animals should run free to starve and die young of crazy diseases.

It's not healthier for your kitty, but it's much healthier for the chickens and tuna being slaughtered in an inhumane and cruel way for the sake of your pet. Oh, and owning pets is immoral and unethical. Animals should run free to starve and die young of crazy diseases.


Except for the ones that PETA has decided to put down "humanely" of course.

Except for the ones that PETA has decided to put down "humanely" of course.
Well of course. PETA loves your pets to death!

Well of course. PETA loves your pets to death!


And they love "potential" pets to death. I'm sure you've heard about the Petards that have been cited for taking a cat & kittens from a vet promising to adopt them out and then putting them down shortly after just to dump them in a dumpster?

And they love "potential" pets to death. I'm sure you've heard about the Petards that have been cited for taking a cat & kittens from a vet promising to adopt them out and then putting them down shortly after just to dump them in a dumpster?
No, I hadn't heard of that. Were they making a blood sacrifice to the Dumpster God?

one plus point if anyone if there was a totalatarian regime


those fucks would be lined up against a wall and :mp5:

No, I hadn't heard of that. Were they making a blood sacrifice to the Dumpster God?

No, they were taking all the animals they had "humanely" killed and were dumping them in a dumpster behind a supermarket for several months. The market called the cops and they got caught and cited w/ over 2 doz counts of illegal dumping/improper disposal. They also got at least two counts of fraudulently taking animals from the vet.

I love the contradiction in that they put down over 2/3 of thier "rescued" animals while the ASPCA adopts out over 3/4 but defending it in that there's "too many" pets while at the same time argueing animals have a "self adjusting" population control for thier opposition to hunting.

No, they were taking all the animals they had "humanely" killed and were dumping them in a dumpster behind a supermarket for several months. The market called the cops and they got caught and cited w/ over 2 doz counts of illegal dumping/improper disposal. They also got at least two counts of fraudulently taking animals from the vet.

I love the contradiction in that they put down over 2/3 of thier "rescued" animals while the ASPCA adopts out over 3/4 but defending it in that there's "too many" pets while at the same time argueing animals have a "self adjusting" population control for thier opposition to hunting.
Well, as my old boss used to say whenever I said something to him, "You can't argue with a sick mind".

Hmm. Something smells fishy here...

(I couldn't resist :p)

Well, I don't care what PETA thinks about eating meat, it can suck mine.

oo peta's no good. hell, i'm a vegetarian, former vegan (still would be, but i'm eating on campus w/ bad selections), and i hate peta. i'm not too fond of animal rights activists anyhoo. call me a contradiction i suppose.

I really don't like PETA. It's fucktards like that that make all vegetarians look bad. PETA is to vegans/vegetarians what the september 11th hijackers are to islam or what abortion clinic bombers are to christianity.

PETA won't be happy until everyone is eating moss.

Except the poor little innocent waterbears living in that moss. :(

Except the poor little innocent waterbears living in that moss. :(

Think of the poor waterbears! :(

Need to get the NRA after these pansy little bitches.

They have, the results

NRA: 1
Pansy little bitches: 0

oo peta's no good. hell, i'm a vegetarian, former vegan (still would be, but i'm eating on campus w/ bad selections), and i hate peta. i'm not too fond of animal rights activists anyhoo. call me a contradiction i suppose.

Contradiction? No. You're just one of the rare souls that still understands the virtue of personal choice...you've earned a cigar and a gun. ;)