NationStates Jolt Archive

http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=2&guideContext=65.72&pmmsid=1443434

Yet another issue with PETA killing off animals. Video from CNN and we get see the president of PETA supporting the murdering of animals.

There is nothing wrong with free speech and thinking that people who wear fur are assholes. However, there is a problem with kidnapping, causing trauma, and killing animals. That isn't free speech, that's a terrorist organization.

Can americans tell me why you guys stop babies with strange names on airports but allow these animal killers free with it's president cheerleading it's members efforts?

Canada City']
Yet another issue with PETA killing off animals. Video from CNN and we get see the president of PETA supporting the murdering of animals.


Can you really, honestly, commit acts of terrorism against food?

Disclaimer: This is coming from a person who watched March of the Penguins and came out of it with only the thought, "I wonder what penguin tastes like."

Can you really, honestly, commit acts of terrorism against food?

Dog and cats are food? Maybe in Korea...

Canada City']Dog and cats are food?

In some countries they are.

In some countries they are.

That might be true, but still doesn't deter the fact that PETA are terrorists. They have burned labs and restaurants, lie to get adopted pets only to put them to sleep, blood buckets to kids who get out of KFC, create comics where "mommy and daddy" kill animals, and hire people to beat animals so they record it on tape for more propaganda.

That's because if you ever dare go against PETA, they'll come out with all the cute little animals they can, proclaim "We're just trying to defend these helpless cute animals, you must hate puppies!!" then throw paint on you and burn down your house.

:D

Canada City']That might be true, but still doesn't deter the fact that PETA are terrorists. They have burned labs and restaurants, lie to get adopted pets only to put them to sleep, blood buckets to kids who get out of KFC, create comics where "mommy and daddy" kill animals, and hire people to beat animals so they record it on tape for more propaganda.

Meh ... the KKK has done far worse and they're still around. America is only against *brown* terrorists, remember?

Meh ... the KKK has done far worse and they're still around. America is only against *brown* terrorists, remember?

I dunno...those ecoterrorists they arrested recently looked pretty white to me...

I'm just waiting for Free Soviets to come in and offer his two cents about how violence in the name of a living thing isn't terrorism [nevermind that most terrorism is committed in the name of living things--in most cases for the sake of the people that perpetuate said acts]. Apparently, it's OK to firebomb testing labs and cause millions in property damage if it saves some Lemurs.

But seriously, the message PETA is sending is that they care so much for animals that it has led them to completely disregard human life. Take, for example, their claim that animals shouldn't be used for medical testing. If we stopped using animals for medical testing, biomedical science as we know it would come more or less to a halt. We'd lose about 90% of the progress we've made in the last century or so and the life expectancy would plummet within a generation or two.

To date there has not been a more disgusting perversion of the concept of "rights" than its detachment from mankind altogether.

dont kill annimals
Kill humans
Humans are the ones with the overpopulation problem
are there 6 billion elephants? i think not
are there 6 billion ugly fleshy things? yes

I dunno...those ecoterrorists they arrested recently looked pretty white to me...

Well they have to have the John Walker Lindh token whites now and then ... don't want to seem biased, after all.

To date there has not been a more disgusting perversion of the concept of "rights" than its detachment from mankind altogether.

thats what people said when women, non-whites, and other assorted minorities (in the power sense) were given rights, such as voting and stuff

dont kill annimals
Kill humans
Humans are the ones with the overpopulation problem
are there 6 billion elephants? i think not
are there 6 billion ugly fleshy things? yes
I don't see you lining up at the Grand Canyon for one last dive.

dont kill annimals
Kill humans
Humans are the ones with the overpopulation problem
are there 6 billion elephants? i think not
are there 6 billion ugly fleshy things? yes

Yeah ... but there are trillions of insects ... if anything is ripe for genocide ....

thats what people said when women, non-whites, and other assorted minorities (in the power sense) were given rights, such as voting and stuff
...and?

Peta apparently is a bunch of hypocrites. And guess what Peta is international...so leave out the american shit m'kay? They took innocent adoptable pets froma VET and took them and killed them. They had homes or were fixing to be adopted. But in their infinite wisdom... they put them to sleep and threw them in a garbage site. NOW thats compassion. Fuck Peta!:mad:

dont kill annimals
Kill humans
Humans are the ones with the overpopulation problem
are there 6 billion elephants? i think not
are there 6 billion ugly fleshy things? yes
So, want to lead by example?

Canada City']Can americans tell me why you guys stop babies with strange names on airports but allow these animal killers free with it's president cheerleading it's members efforts?
You may as well ask why the School of the Americas (http://www.soaw.org/new/) is still open, or why those guys who like to attack Cuba are given a free pass to live in Florida.

Meh ... the KKK has done far worse and they're still around. America is only against *brown* terrorists, remember?
Oh get off it, already. We hate the KKK as much as we hate Al-Qaeda. It's just alot eaiser to protect ourselves from the KKK, considering they don't use suicide bombers.

Not everything is racist, for christs sake. You really need to cash in your race card for a less obvious debating tool. :rolleyes:

Canada City']http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=2&guideContext=65.72&pmmsid=1443434

Yet another issue with PETA killing off animals. Video from CNN and we get see the president of PETA supporting the murdering of animals.

There is nothing wrong with free speech and thinking that people who wear fur are assholes. However, there is a problem with kidnapping, causing trauma, and killing animals. That isn't free speech, that's a terrorist organization.

Can americans tell me why you guys stop babies with strange names on airports but allow these animal killers free with it's president cheerleading it's members efforts?

For some reason AOL demands me to have an ActiveX element installed to play that movie (i'm a linux user, yea yea, i know, i'm a stinking commie for not running windows :p ), so, what's in the movie?

Canada City']That might be true, but still doesn't deter the fact that PETA are terrorists. They have burned labs and restaurants, lie to get adopted pets only to put them to sleep, blood buckets to kids who get out of KFC, create comics where "mommy and daddy" kill animals, and hire people to beat animals so they record it on tape for more propaganda.

WTF?

I'm just waiting for Free Soviets to come in and offer his two cents about how violence in the name of a living thing isn't terrorism [nevermind that most terrorism is committed in the name of living things--in most cases for the sake of the people that perpetuate said acts]. Apparently, it's OK to firebomb testing labs and cause millions in property damage if it saves some Lemurs.

But seriously, the message PETA is sending is that they care so much for animals that it has led them to completely disregard human life. Take, for example, their claim that animals shouldn't be used for medical testing. If we stopped using animals for medical testing, biomedical science as we know it would come more or less to a halt. We'd lose about 90% of the progress we've made in the last century or so and the life expectancy would plummet within a generation or two.

To date there has not been a more disgusting perversion of the concept of "rights" than its detachment from mankind altogether.

I'm in favour of limiting animal testing to the extent possible, animal testing for cosmetics eg, are a no no for me

thats what people said when women, non-whites, and other assorted minorities (in the power sense) were given rights, such as voting and stuff

...and?

I think his/her point is:
If the argument "they are different, so they do not have rights" was invalid in those cases, why would it be valid now ?

are there 6 billion ugly fleshy things? yes
I may be missing the point here, but aren't most creatures composed of flesh? I'm pretty sure that animals are rarely composed entirely of stone.
Furthermore, while the human body is hardly attractive in most cases, it is above average when placed beside the rest of the world (for every tiger or great white there are billions of roaches and baboons).

Peta apparently is a bunch of hypocrites. And guess what Peta is international...so leave out the american shit m'kay? They took innocent adoptable pets froma VET and took them and killed them. They had homes or were fixing to be adopted. But in their infinite wisdom... they put them to sleep and threw them in a garbage site. NOW thats compassion. Fuck Peta!:mad:

This adoption story's been brought up a couple of times in this thread. Could somebody fill me in with the details? Why did they do it?

Meh ... the KKK has done far worse and they're still around. America is only against *brown* terrorists, remember?
It took a couple of years of the War Against Terror before it occured to anybody in the GOP that attending fundraisers for NORAID was a bit of a contradiction, though.
Hell, I think this year was the first Saint Patrick's day this century that the head of Sinn Fein wasn't invited to the White House, although (to be fair) it was Clinton who started that stupid tradition in the first place.

Oh get off it, already. We hate the KKK as much as we hate Al-Qaeda.

Then why aren't we bombing, or at least banning, the KKK? Membership in Al Qaeda is an arrestable/detainable offense. Membership in the KKK is not.

I'd say that's clear proof that America does not hate the KKK as much as Al Qaeda.

I'm in favour of limiting animal testing to the extent possible, animal testing for cosmetics eg, are a no no for me
I agree wholeheartedly. I think they should test cosmetics on PETA activists. Speaking of which, I've got this great cosmetic eye whitener that's mainly hydrochloric acid I've been wanting to test. Anyone have the number for PETA? ;)

I don't see you lining up at the Grand Canyon for one last dive.
now that sounds like fun!

disclamer: do not try this as it coud cause seriouse dammage to both you and the environment

Then why aren't we bombing, or at least banning, the KKK? Membership in Al Qaeda is an arrestable/detainable offense. Membership in the KKK is not.

I'd say that's clear proof that America does not hate the KKK as much as Al Qaeda.
It is a matter of activity. The KKK doesn't do anything anymore, Al Qaeda is bouncing about and making shit happen, so AQ gets a higher priority on the big board.
Further, we can't bomb the countries that the KKK hide in because that would mean turning our planes on ourselves. Somehow, I doubt the politician that suggests sending a few bombers to settle with Mississippi is going to get reelected anytime soon.
Finally, the AQ has signifigantly more government, financial and popular support than the KKK, and AQ is an international issue. The KKK doesn't even cover the whole US.

It is a matter of activity. The KKK doesn't do anything anymore, Al Qaeda is bouncing about and making shit happen, so AQ gets a higher priority on the big board.

Oh I dunno ... the Klan is, after all, the "invisible army". Those invisible bombs have taken down more invisible buildings and killed more invisible people than donkey rides killed people at the Grand Canyon last year.

Further, we can't bomb the countries that the KKK hide in because that would mean turning our planes on ourselves. Somehow, I doubt the politician that suggests sending a few bombers to settle with Mississippi is going to get reelected anytime soon.

PFFT! Where's your sense of adventure?

Besides, the guy said "hate as much". We are clearly more tolerant of the KKK's presence than we are Al Qaeda's for whatever the reason.

I may be missing the point here, but aren't most creatures composed of flesh? I'm pretty sure that animals are rarely composed entirely of stone.
Furthermore, while the human body is hardly attractive in most cases, it is above average when placed beside the rest of the world (for every tiger or great white there are billions of roaches and baboons).
I LIKE baboons . . . . . .:p

Oh I dunno ... the Klan is, after all, the "invisible army". Those invisible bombs have taken down more invisible buildings and killed more invisible people than donkey rides killed people at the Grand Canyon last year.



PFFT! Where's your sense of adventure?

Besides, the guy said "hate as much". We are clearly more tolerant of the KKK's presence than we are Al Qaeda's for whatever the reason.


Yes and not only the KKK, there are alot of "terrorists" in the US but we don't care. I mean having enemies inside the country is much worse than fighting something that actually is spread all over the world and gets support from alot of countries.

Oh I dunno ... the Klan is, after all, the "invisible army". Those invisible bombs have taken down more invisible buildings and killed more invisible people than donkey rides killed people at the Grand Canyon last year.
I never thought of that before. Why doesn't the government take the rights and the need for protection of invisible people seriously? Do they not bleed invisible blood? Do they not have invisible children?
We must work for greater societal visibility for the invisible among us.
Or something to that effect.
PFFT! Where's your sense of adventure?
In the closet, beside my Morality and on the shelf below my Compassion.
Besides, the guy said "hate as much". We are clearly more tolerant of the KKK's presence than we are Al Qaeda's for whatever the reason.
Because people can ignore the KKK. Most humans want to be blind to everything around them, and they have become very adept at not seeing or reacting to things that don't force the issue. However, you force people to see what is going on, and they can get pretty pissed off.

Truthfully, it's because our so-called government is paranoid and is trying to enforce a mass histaria that causes us to forget the important things so that Bush and friends can sneek around and do whatever the hell they want. By the time we notice anything, it's been over and done with and they're on thier next scam. Moreover, we all know PETA people are crazy, but the whole point of them is to save the so-called cute animals and forget about the 'ugly' ones. Honestly, these so-called animal rights people discriminate against certain ones. And for what? For cuteness.

I think his/her point is:
If the argument "they are different, so they do not have rights" was invalid in those cases, why would it be valid now ?
...and I have the distinct impression Fran didn't answer as such because to do so exposes the breathtaking stupidity of that argument. Simply put, it's valid now because the people referenced back then were actually humans and the organisms I'm talking about quite clearly aren't. The fact that a number of prejudiced folks opposed rights for women and minorities [i.e. other people] does nothing to invalidate my claim that rights belong to humans.

I'm wholeheartedly against:
PETA
rt..rn
eh.ei
vi..am
ec.ta
na.ml
tl..e.s
i...n
o..t
n

o
f

t
h
e


The thing aboutAQ and the KKK is:
the KKK knows America. They're more clever than AQ. They know where all the good hiding places are and they know that nobody cares about the invisible people. That's why their attacks on African Americans began to number less and less. They shift their targets. Meanwhile, AQ attacks the visible and can't even get past mall security. They can't even get past the kid with the paper gun and blue paper hat with "polese" written on it.

Peta is run by a bunch of idiots. They kill animals to prevent anyone else from doing the same. It's like the US nuking itself so Iran and North Korea can't.

...and I have the distinct impression Fran didn't answer as such because to do so exposes the breathtaking stupidity of that argument. Simply put, it's valid now because the people referenced back then were actually humans and the organisms I'm talking about quite clearly aren't. The fact that a number of prejudiced folks opposed rights for women and minorities [i.e. other people] does nothing to invalidate my claim that rights belong to humans.
That's not fair, C. exigua (http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4200000/newsid_4209000/4209004.stm) are people too!

That's not fair, C. exigua (http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4200000/newsid_4209000/4209004.stm) are people too!

:eek: Where do you come up with stuff like that all the time?

I'm just waiting for Free Soviets to come in and offer his two cents about how violence in the name of a living thing isn't terrorism [nevermind that most terrorism is committed in the name of living things--in most cases for the sake of the people that perpetuate said acts].

since i've never said anything of the sort, it'll probably be awhile.

Apparently, it's OK to firebomb testing labs and cause millions in property damage if it saves some Lemurs.

there are a large number of cases where it is a-ok to destroy property. more than that, there are times when it is a moral obligation.

since i've never said anything of the sort, it'll probably be awhile.
Oh yeah? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8956140&postcount=39)

In case you're still not getting it, I'm referring to this passage: "i have a rather hard time ascribing the word 'terrorism' on actions that go out of their way to prevent harm to living beings and do not aim to motivate change through the use of terror."

How's that crow taste?

Oh yeah? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8956140&postcount=39)

In case you're still not getting it, I'm referring to this passage: "i have a rather hard time ascribing the word 'terrorism' on actions that go out of their way to prevent harm to living beings and do not aim to motivate change through the use of terror."

How's that crow taste?

let's play compare and contrast:

"violence in the name of a living thing isn't terrorism"
vs.
actions that go out of their way to avoid harming living beings and don't aim to create change by instilling terror aren't terrorism

hmm, it seems to me that there might be some sort of significant difference between the two statements...

Yeah? What?

The Valar are coming.

In a healthy society you can advocate mass murder or bombing government buildings or any number of other atrocities legally.

We call this "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression."

let's play compare and contrast:

"violence in the name of a living thing isn't terrorism"
vs.
actions that go out of their way to avoid harming living beings and don't aim to create change by instilling terror aren't terrorism

hmm, it seems to me that there might be some sort of significant difference between the two statements...
Allow me to clarify:

Your statement can be interpretted in two ways [both of which are false]. The first is that PETA goes out of its way to "avoid" harming living things by firebombing these labs when people aren't in them, eliminating human fatalities, but harming folks anyway because their equipment and/or belongings have been destroyed in the ensuing blaze. It hurts the investors, it hurts the people who work there and it hurts the students attempting to learn things there.

The bottom line here is that terrorism is still terrorism even if the terrorists don't happen to kill anyone--regardless of whether that was the terrorist's intent or not. If a suicide bomber were to detonate himself in Times Square tomorrow and somehow [through some miracle] managed [i]not to hurt anyone, I somehow doubt that wouldn't be terrorism.

The second is that PETA's actions go out of their way to avoid harming things via the act of rescuing the animals in the first place; regardless of whether human bystanders are harmed. This does not defeat the definition of "terrorism" since property was destroyed in order to force a desired political and/or cultural change [and the consumption of meat clearly qualifies].

Also, you're going to have a devil of a time trying to prove that PETA isn't trying to instigate change as a result of terror tactics: if firebombings don't qualify, I don't know what does. I guess that makes it okay for me to hurl molotav cocktails in your windows, provided I make sure you're not home first, no?

For every animal PETA saves, I go out of my way and slowly bash the heads in of a thousand precious baby seals. Then I sell their fur to poor orphans in freezing third world countries. Don't hate PETA, don't makean orphan go all winter without a warm baby seal-fur coat.
http://www.ciromonacojr.com/blog/baby_seal.jpg
"Thanks, PETA, for keeping an orphan warm!"

Yeah ... but there are trillions of insects ... if anything is ripe for genocide ....

w00t! Kill the roaches! :mp5:

w00t! Kill the roaches! :mp5:
You monster!

Anybody who is against the slaughter of baby seals has obviously never had a baby seal and sauerkraut sandwich! MMMMMMmmmmmmmmmm Baby seal.

Anybody who is against the slaughter of baby seals has obviously never had a baby seal and sauerkraut sandwich! MMMMMMmmmmmmmmmm Baby seal.
Think of the orphans. :(

I hate PETA.

Yeah ... but there are trillions of insects ... if anything is ripe for genocide ....

And how many of each species? Would one speak of a 'genocide' of Mammalia?

For every animal PETA saves, I go out of my way and slowly bash the heads in of a thousand precious baby seals. Then I sell their fur to poor orphans in freezing third world countries.

Exactly how many "freezing third world countries" exist?

The first is that PETA goes out of its way to "avoid" harming living things by firebombing these labs when people aren't in them, eliminating human fatalities,
The fact that doing those kind of illegal things is easier and safer at night has nothing to do with it.

Your statement can be interpretted in two ways [both of which are false]. The first is that PETA goes out of its way to "avoid" harming living things by firebombing these labs when people aren't in them, eliminating human fatalities, but harming folks anyway because their equipment and/or belongings have been destroyed in the ensuing blaze. It hurts the investors, it hurts the people who work there and it hurts the students attempting to learn things there.

of course, PETA doesn't firebomb anything. they are a legal non-profit organization. the earlier discussion was in the context of the ALF and the ELF. which do explicitly require all of their actions "to take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human."

anyway, financial loses are not the same as physical harm. or have we taken up the argument that outsourcing somebody's job is equivalent to assualt now?

The bottom line here is that terrorism is still terrorism even if the terrorists don't happen to kill anyone--regardless of whether that was the terrorist's intent or not. If a suicide bomber were to detonate himself in Times Square tomorrow and somehow [through some miracle] managed [i]not to hurt anyone, I somehow doubt that wouldn't be terrorism.

intentions matter. did they intend to kill people and just screw it up, or did they actively avoid killing anyone but themselves? what sort of message did they intend to send?

would you label thich quang duc a terrorist?

Also, you're going to have a devil of a time trying to prove that PETA isn't trying to instigate change as a result of terror tactics: if firebombings don't qualify, I don't know what does. I guess that makes it okay for me to hurl molotav cocktails in your windows, provided I make sure you're not home first, no?

again, PETA no firebomby

i don't claim a blanket excuse to engage in property destruction against any target at any time. surely you don't claim that destroying property is never justified or even acceptable. it's all in the question of justification.

w00t! Kill the roaches! :mp5:

Why, pray tell? There exists much more to the Blattodea than those few companions of domestic renown.

w00t! Kill the roaches! :mp5:

Nah, start with the mozzies. Rotten buggers. After that, do in the ants that invade my house every summer.

I have no sound. My dad is'nt installing a new sound card yet because he just got back from a different country. Can someone tell me what the people were saying in the vidio?

Canada City']Yet another issue with PETA killing off animals. Video from CNN and we get see the president of PETA supporting the murdering of animals.

The bit that really gets me in that video is where the president of PETA says the animals weren't caused any pain or suffering or misery. Yeah, sure - they were just KILLED. There's no way they'd be given any chance of experiencing misery after that, I guess. Nor anything else either, for that matter (such as a loving home and a long, happy life...).

I think the vet nailed it on the head when he gave his interpreatation of the Christmas card as being that PETA just don't want people to have pets. I guess we should all let our cats and dogs go wild to fend for themselves. :rolleyes: Or better yet, kill them and drop them in skips.

of course, PETA doesn't firebomb anything. they are a legal non-profit organization. the earlier discussion was in the context of the ALF and the ELF. which do explicitly require all of their actions "to take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human."

anyway, financial loses are not the same as physical harm. or have we taken up the argument that outsourcing somebody's job is equivalent to assualt now?
I'm sorry, but the link between PETA and Rodney Coronado is a well documented one.

PETA sanctions firebombing testing labs, they support the ALF under the table, and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to exonerate PETA. Since they're a non-profit organization, their tax records are open to anyone who should care to look at them. Take a gander at their 1995 return and you will notice a "loan" [which, according to the Coronado family, was actually a grant] to Mr. Coronado. Now granted, they can't come right out and write "Thanks for firebombing that testing lab" [since that would land Ms Newkirk in jail where she belongs], but I would be willing to bet you'd cry foul if the same paper trail existed between, say, G.W. Bush and bin Laden.

Also, they're not really "tak all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human" by destroying peoples' livelihood.

intentions matter. did they intend to kill people and just screw it up, or did they actively avoid killing anyone but themselves? what sort of message did they intend to send?

would you label thich quang duc a terrorist?
What the hell has that got to do with anyting? Last I checked, ALF members weren't setting [i]themselves on fire in protest [since if they were, I wouldn't be complaining]. If you want to immolate yourself in protest; fine: that's not my problem. If you want to immolate other peoples' things in protest, you'd better have a damn good reason. I'm sorry, but "these animals are cute and should be freed" isn't a valid justification for destroying millions of dollars worth of testing equipment and staggering said lab's productivity for months--perhaps years to come.

You've obviously [and unsurprisingly] utterly failed at your attempt to understand the situation. Since you didn't answer my point I'm just going to repeat myself word for word until you do.

The bottom line here is that terrorism is still terrorism even if the terrorists don't happen to kill anyone--regardless of whether that was their intent or not. If a suicide bomber were to detonate himself in Times Square tomorrow and somehow [through some miracle] managed not to hurt anyone, I somehow doubt that wouldn't be terrorism.

again, PETA no firebomby
I have come forth with evidence that suggests that they do in fact firebomb things--or at the very least, they write checks for people who do. You, on the other hand, have no supporting claim besides "PETA no firebomby," an infantile [and erroneous] claim that speaks more starkly as to the quality of your intellect than you had probably ever anticipated.

i don't claim a blanket excuse to engage in property destruction against any target at any time. surely you don't claim that destroying property is never justified or even acceptable. it's all in the question of justification.
Yes, and this one just isn't good enough.

Although, I would go so far as to say that by sanctioning ELF [and PETA's] actions, you are in fact using a blanket excuse [i.e. animal "rights"] to engage in property destruction.

The bit that really gets me in that video is where the president of PETA says the animals weren't caused any pain or suffering or misery. Yeah, sure - they were just KILLED. There's no way they'd be given any chance of experiencing misery after that, I guess. Nor anything else either, for that matter (such as a loving home and a long, happy life...).

Of course if you reason like this the questions "what were the odds" and "where are your priorities" are important.
In your opinion - if something/one has a 98% chance of being mostly miserable for the rest of its/his/her natural life, 1% of good and bad balancing out and 1% of feeling mostly happy - is the 2% chance at non-misery enough to make "mercy-killing" wrong ? Assume the thing/person in question is unable to make its own wishes known

This is stricly philosophical btw; not saying the odds were that bad in this case.

Of course if you reason like this the questions "what were the odds" and "where are your priorities" are important.
In your opinion - if something/one has a 98% chance of being mostly miserable for the rest of its/his/her natural life, 1% of good and bad balancing out and 1% of feeling mostly happy - is the 2% chance at non-misery enough to make "mercy-killing" wrong ? Assume the thing/person in question is unable to make its own wishes known

This is stricly philosophical btw; not saying the odds were that bad in this case.

Did you actually watch the video? Those cats were up for adoption. PETA jumped in and snapped them up before anyone else could (except for the vet's own wife, who took one of the three kittens home - the only one who still lives). Now, if the cats had been on their "last chance" (that is, hadn't yet been adopted out and the vet was going to have to euthanase them anyway) then yeah, you might have a point. But to snap them up and KILL THEM before anyone else even had a chance to come in and adopt them? Come on, you can't be seriously saying that there's only a ONE PERCENT chance that someone would have adopted them into a loving home rather than an abusive one.

First rule of PETA, it's only OK to kill animals if PETA does it.

Canada City']Can americans tell me why you guys stop babies with strange names on airports but allow these animal killers free with it's president cheerleading it's members efforts?

There are more militant derivative groups that spring from PETA that are on the top of FBI watch lists.

You pretty much have to commit arson, murder, etc., to get on those lists. Stealing and euthanizing animals doesn't really count as terrorism today.

don't belive the media (not always)

Did you actually watch the video? Those cats were up for adoption. PETA jumped in and snapped them up before anyone else could (except for the vet's own wife, who took one of the three kittens home - the only one who still lives). Now, if the cats had been on their "last chance" (that is, hadn't yet been adopted out and the vet was going to have to euthanase them anyway) then yeah, you might have a point. But to snap them up and KILL THEM before anyone else even had a chance to come in and adopt them? Come on, you can't be seriously saying that there's only a ONE PERCENT chance that someone would have adopted them into a loving home rather than an abusive one.
This is because PETA is against the idea of having pets in the first place. They contend all animals should be "freed," including those who are pets. Obviously, since being owned by a human is so degrading, death is a nobler option [never mind that most domesticated animals would simply return to their owner's doorsteps and raise hell until let back in--God knows my cat would be clawing at the stormdoor within minutes].

This is because PETA is against the idea of having pets in the first place. They contend all animals should be "freed," including those who are pets. Obviously, since being owned by a human is so degrading, death is a nobler option [never mind that most domesticated animals would simply return to their owner's doorsteps and raise hell until let back in--God knows my cat would be clawing at the stormdoor within minutes].
Melkor Unchained has a kitty?
Fiddlebottoms is so amazed that he has forgotten all aspects of grammar but those which relate to the 3rd Person Present tense.

Melkor Unchained has a kitty?

*wonders if it is a white one*

This is because PETA is against the idea of having pets in the first place. They contend all animals should be "freed," including those who are pets. Obviously, since being owned by a human is so degrading, death is a nobler option [never mind that most domesticated animals would simply return to their owner's doorsteps and raise hell until let back in--God knows my cat would be clawing at the stormdoor within minutes].

In addition, PETA's "Animal Liberation" overlooks the fact that through millenia of domestication and training by man, certain species have become so used to the presence and care by humans that they would never survive well on their own. Then again I'm talking about the same bunch of misanthropic bastards who lie about getting homeless pets adopted in order to gas them in the back of their vans and dump the corpses for their own propaganda tactics.

They don't care about the animals anywhere near as much as they've fooled most of America into believing.

*wonders if it is a white one*
Black and white: the thing's a nutcase. I've never seen such a vocal creature in my life. Most cats I've owned were fairly quiet and unobtrusive; this one is loud and insanely aggressive when it comes to getting attention: I know cats are generally a bit strange, but this cat is a nutcase. He's rapidly becoming my life-time favorite cat.

In some countries they are.

(throws up)

how could anyone eat man's best friend? Totally inhumane, imo.

I hate PETA... but people should not eat pets. They trust us to be their friends/protectors, and to betray the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution it took for the gray wolf to become the canis familiaris or for the tiger/lion to become the cat... is just sick, again imho.

We should pet our pets, not eat them. They aren't wild. We domesticated them.

Exactly how many "freezing third world countries" exist?
Several. Think former USSR.

(throws up)

how could anyone eat man's best friend? Totally inhumane, imo.
But it's so succulent!

(throws up)

how could anyone eat man's best friend? Totally inhumane, imo.

How is it different from eating a horse ?
Or, for the sake of argument - why would eating a dog who has lived happily for 10 years[1] be more "inhumane" than eating a maltreated chicken ?

[1] Not that fooddogs live happily.

But it's so succulent!
Not really, dog tastes like crap. There is a reason why it is hard to find dog-meat outside the 3rd World: The worst beef I have ever had (this isn't counting beef that had gone bad and made me sick, of course, because that can't count as food) was better than dog.

Not really, dog tastes like crap. There is a reason why it is hard to find dog-meat outside the 3rd World: The worst beef I have ever had (this isn't counting beef that had gone bad and made me sick, of course, because that can't count as food) was better than dog.
My mother used to make the best dog.

How is it different from eating a horse ?
Or, for the sake of argument - why would eating a dog who has lived happily for 10 years[1] be more "inhumane" than eating a maltreated chicken ?

[1] Not that fooddogs live happily.

well i've never knowingly eaten horse, unless that Elmer's paste I ate in kindergarten was made of horse. hehe

Chickens are not pets. Chickens were made for eating. So sayeth Hardee's, so say I!

hehe

Every dog that was ever born has had built into his instinct a desire/affinity for man and to be man's companion. You see a dog on the street, he might growl at you a little bit... you pat him on the head, give him some food, etc... and he'll be loyal to you, protect you, be your friend. Dogs are awesome.

My mother used to make the best dog.

If we want to defeat PETA we have to fight fire with fire! Use maddox's system of supporting a vegetarian you know to nullify their moral crusade!

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

"If God didn't want us to eat animals, than why did he make them out of meat?"

I want to see someone train animals to firebomb PETA.

This is because PETA is against the idea of having pets in the first place. They contend all animals should be "freed," including those who are pets. Obviously, since being owned by a human is so degrading, death is a nobler option [never mind that most domesticated animals would simply return to their owner's doorsteps and raise hell until let back in--God knows my cat would be clawing at the stormdoor within minutes].

Yes, I agree with you here. In fact, I made this same point in my first post (bottom of the previous page page 4).

I'd rate my cat's chances of survival at bugger all if she had to fend for herself, too.

I want to see someone train animals to firebomb PETA.

Wasn't it the Americans in WW2 who trained bats to roost under wooden Japanese roofs with firebombs attached to their legs? IIRC the project was dropped after they torched a visiting general's car.

Wasn't it the Americans in WW2 who trained bats to roost under wooden Japanese roofs with firebombs attached to their legs? IIRC the project was dropped after they torched a visiting general's car.

That sounds either too awesome to be made up, or something that should have happened in Sgt. Bilko.

I'm sorry, but the link between PETA and Rodney Coronado is a well documented one.

PETA sanctions firebombing testing labs, they support the ALF under the table, and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to exonerate PETA. Since they're a non-profit organization, their tax records are open to anyone who should care to look at them. Take a gander at their 1995 return and you will notice a "loan" [which, according to the Coronado family, was actually a grant] to Mr. Coronado. Now granted, they can't come right out and write "Thanks for firebombing that testing lab" [since that would land Ms Newkirk in jail where she belongs], but I would be willing to bet you'd cry foul if the same paper trail existed between, say, G.W. Bush and bin Laden.

It's another glaring double standard in how America treats PETA compared to other (mostly ethnic) terrorist organizations.

Everyone knows that one of the excuses for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was allegedly supporting Al Qaeda and paying money to the families of Palestinian Suicide Bombers.

Everyone also knows that John Walker Lindh the "American Taliban" was charged with providing material support to the enemy.

PETA clearly pays firebombers like Rodney Coronado and provides material support to them. Yet nobody clamps down on them. I guess Ingrid Newkirk would have to proclaim converting to Islam before action against PETA would be taken.

Chickens are not pets. Chickens were made for eating.
All the best-tasting animals are.

PETA clearly pays firebombers like Rodney Coronado and provides material support to them. Yet nobody clamps down on them. I guess Ingrid Newkirk would have to proclaim converting to Islam before action against PETA would be taken.

The FBI lists them as the top American terrorists. But they assume a lower priority because they commit arson, and haven't killed people for fun yet.

As soon as they start killing people, that's when the roundup will start.

I believe that the secret to being a successful policeman or agent is to account for all killings. Everything else can slide - but if someone gets killed, you have to rounds someone up.

I'm sorry, but the link between PETA and Rodney Coronado is a well documented one.

PETA sanctions firebombing testing labs, they support the ALF under the table, and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to exonerate PETA. Since they're a non-profit organization, their tax records are open to anyone who should care to look at them. Take a gander at their 1995 return and you will notice a "loan" [which, according to the Coronado family, was actually a grant] to Mr. Coronado. Now granted, they can't come right out and write "Thanks for firebombing that testing lab" [since that would land Ms Newkirk in jail where she belongs], but I would be willing to bet you'd cry foul if the same paper trail existed between, say, G.W. Bush and bin Laden.

the thing about it is that, as far as i know, these connections are all well documented because they are legal. does PETA offer legal aid to people accused of animal liberation? yes. do they condone and even encourage such activities? yes. do they as an organization engage in them or train people for them? no.

so sure, there's a link. but the groups and their activities are still seperate. PETA doesn't secretly run the ALF from their secret mountain lair. if we want to discuss the downright hypocrisy of PETA, do it in the context of PETA. if we want to discuss so-called 'eco-terrorism', we have to do it in the context of groups that are actually engaged in it.

Also, they're not really "tak all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human" by destroying peoples' livelihood.

so you are going to take up the cause of protecting people's jobs from outsourcing or technological change then?

What the hell has that got to do with anyting? Last I checked, ALF members weren't setting [i]themselves on fire in protest [since if they were, I wouldn't be complaining]. If you want to immolate yourself in protest; fine: that's not my problem.

i'm sorry, i was just expanding upon your own example. you know, the one where you said "If a suicide bomber were to detonate himself in Times Square tomorrow and somehow [through some miracle] managed not to hurt anyone, I somehow doubt that wouldn't be terrorism". i can go over it again in more detail if you like.

in response to that claim, i said terrorism is a crime largely of intentions - like first degree murder. as an example, i tossed out the name thich quang duc. he went into a public area and covered himself with explosive materials which he then ignited. you said you doubted that such actions wouldn't be terrorism just because nobody else was killed. i, obviously, disagree. but so, apparently, do you. which means we agree - intentions matter.

If you want to immolate other peoples' things in protest, you'd better have a damn good reason. I'm sorry, but "these animals are cute and should be freed" isn't a valid justification for destroying millions of dollars worth of testing equipment and staggering said lab's productivity for months--perhaps years to come.

excellent, now you're coming to it. not only do intentions matter, but so do justifications. very good. next step, look into the actual justification offered for various actions and consider it logically.

Although, I would go so far as to say that by sanctioning ELF [and PETA's] actions, you are in fact using a blanket excuse [i.e. animal "rights"] to engage in property destruction.

no, i'm not. not all property destruction is necessary or justified. but some is.

....I'd rate my cat's chances of survival at bugger all if she had to fend for herself, too.
Well actually I think El Gato here could fend for himself as he used to be a stray and we haven't [and won't] get him declawed. When we let him outside he hunts and stuff; I imagine we don't have many rodents in my front yard.

PETA are extremists. I am not aware of a paramilitary wing within PETA, but their goal is the 'liberation of all animals'. This may mean killing the animals. PETA's definition of animal cruelty is extreme. They are helped a great deal by misled celebrities. IMO, there are much bigger problems in the world than stray dogs and cats.

the thing about it is that, as far as i know, these connections are all well documented because they are legal. does PETA offer legal aid to people accused of animal liberation? yes. do they condone and even encourage such activities? yes. do they as an organization engage in them or train people for them? no.

so sure, there's a link. but the groups and their activities are still seperate. PETA doesn't secretly run the ALF from their secret mountain lair. if we want to discuss the downright hypocrisy of PETA, do it in the context of PETA. if we want to discuss so-called 'eco-terrorism', we have to do it in the context of groups that are actually engaged in it.
So you don't have a problem with nonprofit organizations funneling money to terrorist groups? A number of charities have been shut down in recent years for sending money to Arabian terrorists, do you think that's unjustified too [unless you agree with me that Ingrid Newkirk should be arrested]? You kind of just conceded my whole point right there, and as a result, everything that follows in this post is without merit; most of what follows seem like feeble swings at one's foe while plummeting towards the mat. I can almost hear the announcer going wild from here.

so you are going to take up the cause of protecting people's jobs from outsourcing or technological change then?
Looks like the scarecrow (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) needs to take another walk down the yellow brick road. Companies relocating/cutting jobs != firebombing testing labs in the name of Animal "rights." One deals with the occupations and trade of humans and between humans and the other deals with the "rights" of animals. This comparison is utterly useless and erroneous.

I never equated financial losses with physical harm, I merely suggested that the principle was the same: it's harm againt one's livelihood but to a [generally] lesser degree. Assault [let's compare it to property damage], for example, is a diminished form of force from, say, murder [let's compare this to physical damage], but that doesn't mean I think it's OK to assault someone. For the same reason I wouldn't advocate the death penalty for any of these folks, but they should be in jail [along with the people who pay them].

That said, Extreme financial losses can [since one will likely no longer be able to afford healthcare in such a circumstance] at times be something of a catalyst for physical harm, but that wasn't a point I saw fit to make at the time.

i'm sorry, i was just expanding upon your own example. you know, the one where you said "If a suicide bomber were to detonate himself in Times Square tomorrow and somehow [through some miracle] managed not to hurt anyone, I somehow doubt that wouldn't be terrorism". i can go over it again in more detail if you like.
Sounds to me like you just did.

The difference here is that Thich Quang Duc [does your keyboard have a 'Shift' key, by the way?] only meant to hurt himself--and if terrorism is a crime of "intentions" as you say, then the fact that this man didn't mean to hurt anyone else should count for something. Generally, suicide bombers do mean to hurt people.

Still, assuming for the sake of argument that my example is flawed, you still have to answer to the fact that these [previously discussed] actions are still terrorism anyway, as you've already admitted that terrorism is a chosen tactic of the animal liberation movement.

Again, this repeated invocation of Thich Quang Duc is [as was your previous 'argument'] another wanton straw man.

in response to that claim, i said terrorism is a crime largely of intentions - like first degree murder. as an example, i tossed out the name thich quang duc. he went into a public area and covered himself with explosive materials which he then ignited. you said you doubted that such actions wouldn't be terrorism just because nobody else was killed. i, obviously, disagree. but so, apparently, do you. which means we agree - intentions matter.
Intentions matter, but if you'd care to reference your own summary in context with what was actually said and when you'd realize that I didn't "doubt that such actions wouldn't be terrorism just because nobody else was killed" in context with Thich Quang Duc, which was an erroneous example you brought up later, having nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is when you initiate force against other people or other people's things --when you do it to yourself it's called "suicide." We have different words for them for a reason.

excellent, now you're coming to it. not only do intentions matter, but so do justifications. very good. next step, look into the [i]actual justification offered for various actions and consider it logically.
I'm aware of what animal "rights" are, thankyouverymuch. I'm much more familiar with the movement than even you are, as exemplified by your earlier attempts to paint PETA in such a rosy tone. Organisms shouldn't be guaranteed against harm from man based solely on their status of organisms alone; otherwise I couldn't swat a fly without being arrested or chase a gopher off my porch with a rake. Not only would such policies [such as, say, the abolition of meat products] by met with crazed disapproval, laws attempting to support them would be utterly ridiculous and unenforceable.

The idea that animal "rights" even exist puts them on moral equal footing with humanity, which is a proposition I refuse to accept for a plethora of reasons. The philosophical undertones of the animal "rights" movement suggest rather strongly that humans and animals should be treated as equals--subsequently ignoring the very faculty [reason] that animals lack and allowed us to come to that ridiculous conclusion in the first place.

PETA are extremists. I am not aware of a paramilitary wing within PETA, but their goal is the 'liberation of all animals'.

Actually it isn't. To quote their mission statement:

PETA is dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.

While I disagree with this specific missionstatement, I do agree with the concept of ethical treatment of animals.

IMO, there are much bigger problems in the world than stray dogs and cats.
While I agree, I do not think "there are bigger problems" is a valid reason to ignore smaller problems alltogether.

PETA is dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.
This is something I have a problem with right off: I'd have been dead seven or eikght years ago if it wasn't for experiments on animals, and I find it bloody offensive that some mealy mouthed bunny hugger thinks I'd be better off dead because it might have saved a few pigs from having their pancreases pithed. Fuck that.

There's also the fact that the UK branch of the ALF (an organisation who's American wing PETA associates with) don't appear to have a single clue about ecology or how the environment works: there's been a few cases lately of the cretins releasing the occupants of mink farms into the wild. Right, a horde of albino polecats aren't going to demolish any wildlife to be found in the vicinity at all, are they?

This is something I have a problem with right off: I'd have been dead seven or eikght years ago if it wasn't for experiments on animals, and I find it bloody offensive that some mealy mouthed bunny hugger thinks I'd be better off dead because it might have saved a few pigs from having their pancreases pithed. Fuck that.
You're not the only one. Mary Beth Sweetland [PETA's #2] is a type A diabetic, who requires daily insulin shots [a result of testing on dogs, by the way] to survive. That alone should expose a major fundamental flaw in one's thinking; and I think we all know how I feel about contradictions: It's a shame I just took that quote down the other day.

The idea that animal rights even exist puts them on moral equal footing with humanity, which is a proposition I refuse to accept for a plethora of reasons.

It only puts animals on a moral equal footing where the specific rights granted to them are concerned - not in every aspect. Granting an animal the right to not be tortured for instance does not mean it can apply for citizenship.

Wasn't it the Americans in WW2 who trained bats to roost under wooden Japanese roofs with firebombs attached to their legs? IIRC the project was dropped after they torched a visiting general's car.
yeah there was a bit about this on the history channel the other day. i wasnt paying enough attention to figure out how the incendary part worked but they put a thousand or so bats into a "bomb". dropping it released the bats who would naturally go to the eaves of buildings to get out of the light, bringing the fire to the buildings (somehow). no training necessary.

they tested it by building a japanese village in the nevada desert and setting fire to it with the bat bomb. the decided it worked pretty well.

the old man on the tv said the only reason they didnt use it was that the atomic bomb was ready at about the same time and it ended the war.

It only puts animals on a moral equal footing where the specific rights granted to them are concerned - not in every aspect. Granting an animal the right to not be tortured for instance does not mean it can apply for citizenship.
Animal torture laws are already on the books, so obviously that's not what PETA's even fighting against.

If you're talking about my philosophical stance on animal rights I suppose I can agree to an extent: I don't see the logic in getting off on beating one's dog, but at the same time I wouldn't necessarily regard this as justification for beating the man.

While I disagree with this specific missionstatement, I do agree with the concept of ethical treatment of animals.

Except PETA does not call for ethical treatment of animals at all. They believe in the ass-tastic concept of "Animal Liberation," where all animals wild or domestic are to be released from human "captivity." No animal products, and especially no pets. These misanthropes are blind to how human history has irrevocably made many animals dependent on humans to continue fluorishing.

And any group that lies about finding homes for adopted pets in order to gas them and throw the corpses in a dumpster is not one I would see as holding up standards of "ethical treatment" of animals.

Except PETA does not call for ethical treatment of animals at all.

They no longer live up to their name, no :(

You're not the only one. Mary Beth Sweetland [PETA's #2] is a type A diabetic, who requires daily insulin shots [a result of testing on dogs, by the way] to survive. That alone should expose a major fundamental flaw in one's thinking; and I think we all know how I feel about contradictions: It's a shame I just took that quote down the other day.
Ah: I thought the testing was on pigs because that was used to manufacture insulin before they started using plasmids and bacteria to do so.
Having a diabetic deputy chairman in an aggressive animal rights organisation is taking the piss though. You're right about that one.
Mind you, about the only one of their celebrity supporters who seems to be walking the walk as well as talking the talk is Jane Weidlin. However often Chrissie Hinds bitches about not eating any meat, I don't think I've ever seen a picture of her where she isn't sporting a bit of leather about her person...

They were looking into the bat bombing thing, yes. They also wired up a cat as a walking bug in the '50s: the poor creature wandered outside then got run over and they gave up on that idea.

Ah: I thought the testing was on pigs because that was used to manufacture insulin before they started using plasmids and bacteria to do so.
Having a diabetic deputy chairman in an aggressive animal rights organisation is taking the piss though. You're right about that one.
Mind you, about the only one of their celebrity supporters who seems to be walking the walk as well as talking the talk is Jane Weidlin. However often Chrissie Hinds bitches about not eating any meat, I don't think I've ever seen a picture of her where she isn't sporting a bit of leather about her person...

ActivistCash.org has detailed files on many organizations, especially PETA. Some of the findings are just alarming.

As for Crissie Hinds, are you surprised about hypocrisy from someone in a band called The Pretenders?

ActivistCash.org has detailed files on many organizations, especially PETA. Some of the findings are just alarming.
I shall look into that then. (Not very deep if it turns out to be neocon liberal bashing, mind.)

yeah there was a bit about this on the history channel the other day. i wasnt paying enough attention to figure out how the incendary part worked but they put a thousand or so bats into a "bomb". dropping it released the bats who would naturally go to the eaves of buildings to get out of the light, bringing the fire to the buildings (somehow). no training necessary.

they tested it by building a japanese village in the nevada desert and setting fire to it with the bat bomb. the decided it worked pretty well.

the old man on the tv said the only reason they didnt use it was that the atomic bomb was ready at about the same time and it ended the war.

Ok, my bad. In my defence I heard the story several years ago from my dad so it probably got changed a bit along the grape line.

So you don't have a problem with nonprofit organizations funneling money to terrorist groups?
...
you've already admitted that terrorism is a chosen tactic of the animal liberation movement

see, shit like this makes me think you are either a really sloppy thinker or are just not paying attention. cause you have utterly missed the point of everything i've ever said on the subject.

I never equated financial losses with physical harm

so you agree that economic harms are not harms in the relevant sense. excellent. now we can ignore the silliness about the ALF or ELF seeking to harm animals, human or otherwise.

The difference here is that Thich Quang Duc only meant to hurt himself--and if terrorism is a crime of "intentions" as you say, then the fact that this man didn't mean to hurt anyone else should count for something. Generally, suicide bombers do mean to hurt people.

of course it counts. that's my point. the intentions of a self-immolating monk, a suicidal kid outside a football stadium in oklahoma, a member of hamas, and a jailed anarchist facing execution matter in calling their similar actions 'terrorism'. all of them covered themselves in combustible material and then ignited it, but only one would reasonably be called a terrorist.

Terrorism is when you initiate force against other people or other people's things --when you do it to [i]yourself it's called "suicide." We have different words for them for a reason.

that's a silly definition of terrorism and you know it. we also have different words for using force against people or property; words like assault and property destruction.

terrorism is something different than mere 'initiation of force'.

I'm much more familiar with the movement than even you are, as exemplified by your earlier attempts to paint PETA in such a rosy tone.

you mean the times i've said that PETA isn't the same as the ALF? or the times i've said that i find most people's reactions to PETA to be ridiculously emotional and severely lacking in rationality? because that's about the closest thing to support for them you'll find from me.

i am not in the PETA fan club and i'm ambivalent about many ALF actions. i even eat meat, own pets, and think that at least some hunting practices can be justified. i do, however, support the ELF. my interest in the subject is largely confined to arguing that actions that go out of their way to avoid harming living beings and don't aim to create change by instilling terror aren't terrorism.

I shall look into that then. (Not very deep if it turns out to be neocon liberal bashing, mind.)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ActivistCash

The idea that animal "rights" even exist puts them on moral equal footing with humanity, which is a proposition I refuse to accept for a plethora of reasons. The philosophical undertones of the animal "rights" movement suggest rather strongly that humans and animals should be treated as equals--subsequently ignoring the very faculty [reason] that animals lack and allowed us to come to that ridiculous conclusion in the first place.
Coming in late, but the assumption that animals lack the capacity to reason (which is what you're resting your case on) flies in the face of research that seems to indicate, while we can't say for sure that they're reasoning, we really can't say for sure that they're not either.

A couple papers on the subject:
http://grimpeur.tamu.edu/~colin/Papers/transitive%20inference.pdf
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~rkthomas/Conditional.htm

Now while we do not know if they can or can't, that seems to place them on the same level as marginal humans as talked about by objectivist Shawn E. Klein (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=926&h=53) that is -- while marginal humans can't reason now, there is the possibility that they someday could based on medical technology.

Coming in late, but the assumption that animals lack the capacity to reason (which is what you're resting your case on) flies in the face of research that seems to indicate, while we can't say for sure that they're reasoning, we really can't say for sure that they're not either.

A couple papers on the subject:
http://grimpeur.tamu.edu/~colin/Papers/transitive%20inference.pdf
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~rkthomas/Conditional.htm
Granted, we have no real way of knowing how far some organisms may be on the evolutionary ladder, and we likely know less about where said evolution will take them--it's entirely possible that we're witnessing the beginnings of a process that we may not survive to see the end of--at least in some cases.

My benchmarks, as far as developing reason and cognitive faculty, are twofold: production significant alteration of the surrounding environment to create things--be they structures, tools, or what-have you] and trade.

To date the closest example I can think of off the top of my head is beaver dams or any other fashioned dwelling, and for the second I think I can say fairly safely that no animal has even come close. I've heard of nothing in the animal kingdom that was equated to mean 'this is mine and that is yours, I'll give you this for that.'

Now while we do not know if they can or can't, that seems to place them on the same level as marginal humans as talked about by objectivist Shawn E. Klein (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=926&h=53) that is -- while marginal humans can't reason now, there is the possibility that they someday could based on medical technology.
The marginal humans argument is like the 'lifeboat' moral situations I often talk about here* and isn't quite as precarious as the writer seems to indicate. Marginal humans aren't treated necessarily in the same capcity as fully functional ones anyway : animals treat their marginal members differently and so do we.

As a practical consideration, the [i]severely marginal [say, someone who's been in a coma for twenty years] actually don't have any rights, since no matter what happens, someone else will inevitably determine my fate one way or the other--legal protection or no that's not what I would consider fulfillment of my 'right to life' even if they kept me plugged in. The only way around this, logically speaking, would have been if said person had established his desire beforehand had reason, consciousness, and volition but lost it].

Infants and the elderly are pretty ridiculous examples though, but I can see where they're coming from with coma patients, the mentally challenged, and so forth.

*A 'lifeboat' situation is taken here to mean an argument based off of a metaphysical abnormality or emergency. Specifically, it refers here loosely to the query I often hear from altruists, who are prone to ask "what should you do if you're in a lifeboat only built for one, but you're in with a pregnant/old/black/purple person as well?"

Canada City']http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=2&guideContext=65.72&pmmsid=1443434

Yet another issue with PETA killing off animals. Video from CNN and we get see the president of PETA supporting the murdering of animals.

There is nothing wrong with free speech and thinking that people who wear fur are assholes. However, there is a problem with kidnapping, causing trauma, and killing animals. That isn't free speech, that's a terrorist organization.

Can americans tell me why you guys stop babies with strange names on airports but allow these animal killers free with it's president cheerleading it's members efforts?

LOL.

By equating the "murdering" of animals with terrorism, you are ironically agreeing with much of for what PETA is supposed to stand.

My benchmarks, as far as developing reason and cognitive faculty, are twofold: production significant alteration of the surrounding environment to create things--be they structures, tools, or what-have you] and trade.

To date the closest example I can think of off the top of my head is beaver dams or any other fashioned dwelling, and for the second I think I can say fairly safely that no animal has even come close. I've heard of nothing in the animal kingdom that was equated to mean 'this is mine and that is yours, I'll give you this for that.'
Actually, greater apes have been known to engage in trade, giving up one type of food for another, or giving up food in return for being able to retrieve something else of value (such as an infant ape). They also engage in tool-making ability, though there still isn't consensus on whether it's inherited, conditioned, or actual reasoning(1).

Even so, I think these are poor operants to be basing notions of reasoning on for a couple of reasons: first, both of these things require a materialist approach to the world. This is simply impossible for some animals based on physiology alone. A dolphin simply doesn't have the physical capability to build significant structures or use tools in a significant manner, yet I'm sure you'd agree that physical capacity does not define the ability to reason. As for trade, that requires some notion of individual property-ownership, a concept that even some tribal humans did not ascribe to.

And as for what you determine "significant", that's rather a convenient benchmark, isn't it? After all, anybody can move it around to mean absolutely anything, which in essence means that it's meaningless. It strikes me as just a convenient excuse to not accept evidence.

A 'lifeboat' situation is taken here to mean an argument based off of a metaphysical abnormality or emergency. Specifically, it refers here loosely to the query I often hear from altruists, who are prone to ask "what should you do if you're in a lifeboat only built for one, but you're in with a pregnant/old/black/purple person as well?"

As to lifeboat situations, are you suggesting that because they occur rarely or in extremes that a philosophy does not need to determine how they fit in? Personally, I think it's the other way around, it is precisely these rarities that a coherent philosophy must address in a manner that is rational and consistent with the whole, otherwise you have to acknowledge that you are following a philosophy that leads to living in a contradiction (albeit in a rare case, but a contradiction is still a contradiction, no matter how rarely it occurs.)

----
(1) And I submit that there likely never will be consensus until we stop thinking of human beings as fundamentally different.. hell, it was at one time maintained that aboriginals and africans weren't fully human either, and any time they did something that would belie that, other excuses were found to maintain it -- eventually these excuses stretched so thin that we realized racism isn't valid. I firmly believe the same thing will happen to speciesism.. it'll just take a lot longer.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ActivistCash
Neocons with a corporate cock up their arses, then. Oh well.

I'm just going to assume here that you have no dispute with the chunks of text you decided to leave out of your reply; if I'm wrong in assuming your silence on these points doesn't indicate an agreement with them, please point it out since I'm writing this post under the assumption that you agree with the majority of my previous post [since most of it was ignored].

Actually, greater apes have been known to engage in trade, giving up one type of food for another, or giving up food in return for being able to retrieve something else of value (such as an infant ape). They also engage in tool-making ability, though there still isn't consensus on whether it's inherited, conditioned, or actual reasoning(1).
Eating less so your offspring can live isn't trade, it's necessity, if that's what you're getting at [since mothers don't regularly exchange their young for a bushel of bananas]. Preferring certain types of food, likewise, is not trade. I have, in all of my time at the zoo, never seen two apes swap morsels of food according to their preference; in most situations I'm sure they avoid the food they don't like in favor of the food they do like altogether.

Even so, I think these are poor operants to be basing notions of reasoning on for a couple of reasons: first, both of these things require a materialist approach to the world.
Which is to be expected, since I'm a materialist. I find it curious how you've decided to attack my position without bothering to state your own; a traditional tactic of my moral opponents. What's your definition of development of cognizance and reason?

This is simply impossible for some animals based on physiology alone. A dolphin simply doesn't have the physical capability to build significant structures or use tools in a significant manner, yet I'm sure you'd agree that physical capacity does not define the ability to reason. As for trade, that requires some notion of individual property-ownership, a concept that even some tribal humans did not ascribe to.
Dolphins do use rudimentary tools, in point of fact. They can't rightly fashion anything yet, but at that point in the evolutionary phase, neither could we. Dolphins, as intelligent as they are, simply aren't sentient, and the rights ascribed to sentient beings can't and won't ever be appliued to them. If it's impossible for some creatures on basis of physiology, then guess what? They don't have rights. Broadly speaking, there isn't any other reason anyway, being that sentience depends on certain physiological factors itself. Maybe it's just our chemical configuration, who knows?

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who refuse to see the difference between man and animal; decrying our nature [and most of our accomplishments] as being precisely as barbaric as the rest of the animal kingdom.

And as for what you determine "significant", that's rather a convenient benchmark, isn't it? After all, anybody can move it around to mean absolutely anything, which in essence means that it's meaningless. It strikes me as just a convenient excuse to not accept evidence.
If you think that's the case, you may want to reaquaint yourself with the definitions of the words "trade," "reason" and "production" and note their absence in the remainder of the animal kindgom. I believe I've stated my position rather clearly and consicely, elaborating at every turn when requested. As mentioned above, you have yet to posit a counterpoint [since it's apparently not worth your time to denote where rights begin, while happily bashing my thoughts on the matter], which leads me to believe you're arguing just for the sake of argument itself.


As to lifeboat situations, are you suggesting that because they occur rarely or in extremes that a philosophy does not need to determine how they fit in?
No, I'm suggesting that because they occur rarely that they shouldn't be the basis of one's morality.

Personally, I think it's the other way around, it is precisely these rarities that a coherent philosophy must address in a manner that is rational and consistent with the whole, otherwise you have to acknowledge that you are following a philosophy that leads to living in a contradiction (albeit in a rare case, but a contradiction is still a contradiction, no matter how rarely it occurs.)
I think the fact that noted animal rights activists who are calling for an end to animal testing are living off the results of said testing is a more stark testament to the nature of contradiction in the animal "rights" movement than anything I've said here or anywhere else on these boards. Do you really expect millions of diabetes sufferers to just roll over and die, for example, since animal testing violates the animals "rights?"

----
(1) And I submit that there likely never will be consensus until we stop thinking of human beings as fundamentally different.. hell, it was at one time maintained that aboriginals and africans weren't fully human either, and any time they did something that would belie that, other excuses were found to maintain it -- eventually these excuses stretched so thin that we realized racism isn't valid. I firmly believe the same thing will happen to speciesism.. it'll just take a lot longer.
You know, I could sit here and think of a retort to this, but I think it pretty much speaks for itself. Anyone who is prepared to equate themselves with an animal is free to agree with you, I suppose. I have a little more self respect than that, thanks.

Eating less so your offspring can live isn't trade, it's necessity, if that's what you're getting at [since mothers don't regularly exchange their young for a bushel of bananas]. Preferring certain types of food, likewise, is not trade. I have, in all of my time at the zoo, never seen two apes swap morsels of food according to their preference; in most situations I'm sure they avoid the food they don't like in favor of the food they do like altogether.


His example is questionable and I would ask for his examples.

However, rudimentary trade does happen. It was observed in the Gombe that the alpha would parcel out more bananas to those that allied with him.

So trading for "favors" do happen.

As to swapping for food? Meh. I would have to see that. If it happens it would be more of a "hey can I have that? I don't want this"

You are correct that mothers don't the young for food. However, an aunt might give the mother a snack for a chance to hold and or play with a youngster.

Keen observation on your zoo comments. That is indeed who they work. They are coniving little bastards too(speaking of chimps if that is who you were refering too). I remember a chimp found a fig tree in bloom. He ate is fill and then told the others about it. ;)


Dolphins do use rudimentary tools, in point of fact.


Correct. Some birds as well.


Dolphins, as intelligent as they are, simply aren't sentient, and the rights ascribed to sentient beings can't and won't ever be appliued to them. If it's impossible for some creatures on basis of physiology, then guess what? They don't have rights. Broadly speaking, there isn't any other reason anyway, being that sentience depends on certain physiological factors itself. Maybe it's just our chemical configuration, who knows?


Actually I don't think they have been able to prove or disprove that.


It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who refuse to see the difference between man and animal; decrying our nature [and most of our accomplishments] as being precisely as barbaric as the rest of the animal kingdom.

There are startling similarties. If you ever have time "Chimpanzee Politics" would be an interesting read.


I think the fact that noted animal rights activists who are calling for an end to animal testing are living off the results of said testing is a more stark testament to the nature of contradiction in the animal "rights" movement than anything I've said here or anywhere else on these boards. Do you really expect millions of diabetes sufferers to just roll over and die, for example, since animal testing violates the animals "rights?"


Well there are many thoughts on the animal rights movement. Some understand the need. For example, Dr. Goodall only speaks about against bad living conditions and "BS" testing. There are cases where testing is questionable on the value. Be it there is enough information on record(ie one test involved taking monkeys, strapping them in a chair and high spead them against a wall for impact trauma for cars. The Highway patrol keeps endless data on that. In fact you can get a great recommendation for car seats from them as they see first hand what chairs did well and those that did not).

Dr. Goodall has also argued that crappy living space and a boring depressing existence (speaking for chimp testing) may not give the cleanest results for drug testing on aids.

There are bad labs that have living quarters that nobody would ever place thier pets in. Those are the ones that should be examined and forced to clean up or be abolished.

Testing for the sake of keeping grant money should also be questioned.

Canada City']Can americans tell me why you guys stop babies with strange names on airports but allow these animal killers free with it's president cheerleading it's members efforts?

Wow this is new. I don't see how these things go together at all, but of course I still don't get PETA's point of veiw either. Animals eat animals, humans are animals so why are we different?
PETA= People Eating Tasty Animals. mmmmmmmmmmmmm....... steak.......

They were looking into the bat bombing thing, yes. They also wired up a cat as a walking bug in the '50s: the poor creature wandered outside then got run over and they gave up on that idea.

While we're on the topic did you know that the Russians trained dogs to run under tanks with mines attached to their backs (they put the dogs food bowls under tanks until they learned to run under them)? Unfortunately when they were deployed in battle they went for the Russian tanks (as it was Russian tanks that were used in training).;)

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

That site will tell you as much about the hypocrisy and arrogance of PETA as you would ever care to know.

PETA is a joke! A nasty, sick joke.

I don't see you lining up at the Grand Canyon for one last dive.


:D

Sigline material.

I'm back folks.

I agree with this poster's sentiments. Eco-terrorism spits in the face of law, just like any other sort of terrorism. Crack down on these lawbreakers.

Nonetheless, for all of PETA's absurdities (rather large absurdities, at that), I don't think they are quite on the level of ELF (Earth Liberation Front) and the others that torch Hummers. That group has the freedom to be stupid, as long as that stupidity isn't hurting me.

I hate PETA. I want more animal rights, inlcuding their right to live with whom they depend on. I am also against BS testing. I don't want a thousand chimpanzees or dogs or whatever to die just so scientists can tell me that drinking shampoo isn't smart. No freak'n duh. It also tastes bad. Who's drink it? People use animals to test drugs. The fact that what's good for a rabbit is often bad for a person tells me that maybe we need better, more reliable tests. I hate it when people kill for fun. Here's my ladder theory:
imagine a ladder. At the top is killing people. That's where al-quieda is. That's where Stalin and Hitler basicly were. Near the bottom, you find some hippy dudes who are against soap because it "hurts" bacteria. A bit higher, but still pretty low is where the average Joe is. That's the meat-eating and using medicines that were tested on animals rung is. Near the top are:
-torturing animals for amusement.
-torturing animals to death for amusement.
-disecting live and screaming animals for pleasure.
-PETA
It's high on the ladder. It's only a few feet from the top. Of course, there's an elevator that only goes up, but that ruins my example. It's about a few miles from meat-eating to people-killing, but some people do climb it. It takes a lot to go from eating nimals to torturing them, but not very much to go from torturing animals to torturing people. That's the main reason against animal cruelty. It's a "gateway" crime.

While we're on the topic did you know that the Russians trained dogs to run under tanks with mines attached to their backs (they put the dogs food bowls under tanks until they learned to run under them)? Unfortunately when they were deployed in battle they went for the Russian tanks (as it was Russian tanks that were used in training).;)
Clever thinking.

Just thought I'd mention, for those of you who don't think that PETA are terrosists, that PETA members once dug up the body of a guy who used to work in a lab that tested on animals. The family never got the body back...

Canada City']Can americans tell me why you guys stop babies with strange names on airports but allow these animal killers free with it's president cheerleading it's members efforts?
You may as well ask why the School of the Americas (http://www.soaw.org/new/) is still open, or why those guys who like to attack Cuba are given a free pass to live in Florida.

Just thought I'd mention, for those of you who don't think that PETA are terrosists, that PETA members once dug up the body of a guy who used to work in a lab that tested on animals. The family never got the body back...
I think it was the grandmother of somebody who was farming rabbits for a research plant, and the ALF rather than PETA.

I just want to know how they can support the hypocrisy in their ranks. They go and take animals who were likely to get good homes and murder them with chemicals and then go and attack others. But..but ethunasia is good... Im like shut up idiot. Peta is no better than the people and companies they are fighting against when they allow morons and psychos to commit these acts. I saw that vet and h eard his story and I believe him. they care about animals? hah! dumping them in the garbage is not a loving act... they are all assholes.

Just thought I'd mention, for those of you who don't think that PETA are terrosists, that PETA members once dug up the body of a guy who used to work in a lab that tested on animals. The family never got the body back...

*buzzer sound* I am sorry but I would like proof to the claim.....

*buzzer sound* I am sorry but I would like proof to the claim.....

http://www.looksmartluxurytravel.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20050828/ai_n14909677?pi=tralux

http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/10/02/do0205.xml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3725702.stm

http://www.looksmartluxurytravel.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20050828/ai_n14909677?pi=tralux

http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/10/02/do0205.xml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3725702.stm

Ahh thank you. That is rather is twisted. However, it was ALF rather then PETA.

Alf is a hairs breath away from directing violence against humans......

That is rather is twisted. However, it was ALF rather then PETA.

did the ALF actually claim it either?

Can you really, honestly, commit acts of terrorism against food?

Disclaimer: This is coming from a person who watched March of the Penguins and came out of it with only the thought, "I wonder what penguin tastes like."
McDonalds does.

Meh ... the KKK has done far worse and they're still around. America is only against *brown* terrorists, remember?
Please. The FBI and the courts turned the KKK from a feared terrorist organization that ran the south into a scattered affiliation of crackpot crackers. The FBI even ignored the constitution to do it.

Ahh thank you. That is rather is twisted. However, it was ALF rather then PETA.

This is like saying "It was the IRA rather than Sinn Fein"

I don't think you can really seperate the actions of PETA and the ALF.

Somehow, I managed to miss this post. :eek:

see, shit like this makes me think you are either a really sloppy thinker or are just not paying attention. cause you have utterly missed the point of everything i've ever said on the subject.
Care to elaborate? You seemed to be interested in hastening to PETA's defense, and I've pointed out several times that they encourage activities that no reasonable person should have any business defending. You speak of "sloppy thinking" without bothering to demonstrate or point to said sloppiness.

EDIT: I had thought you had conceded that this was terrorism on account of your opening statements in post #87. Upon reflection, it appears you have not made this concession at all, opting for the term "animal liberation" over "terrorism" in a context where the latter would have been infinately more appropriate. These people aren't being jailed because they're animal rights activists, they're being jailed because they're blowing shit up in an attempt to force their desired changes.

so you agree that economic harms are not harms in the relevant sense.excellent. now we can ignore the silliness about the ALF or ELF seeking to harm animals, human or otherwise.

No, I said [and this gets funner and funner every time I repeat it] that it is harm of a differing magnitude. I offered a pretty concise comparison [which you ignored] in my previous post. Sloppy thinking indeed. Intellectual criticism coming from you sounds about as natural as an oral bowel movement.

of course it counts. that's my point. the intentions of a self-immolating monk, a suicidal kid outside a football stadium in oklahoma, a member of hamas, and a jailed anarchist facing execution matter in calling their similar actions 'terrorism'. all of them covered themselves in combustible material and then ignited it, but only one would reasonably be called a terrorist.
Okay, so then if intentions count, and ALF/PETA/ELF intend to destroy property and people's livelihoods, how does that not make them terrorists?

that's a silly definition of terrorism and you know it. we also have different words for using force against people or property; words like assault and property destruction.

terrorism is something different than mere 'initiation of force'.

I'm gonna bold this because it feels oh so good. You want your crow medium, medium rare, or well done?

ter·ror·ism P Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
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.
Note the inclusion of "property." It's every bit as much an act of terrorism to firebomb my house while I'm in it [as a result of, say, my dietary preferences] as it is to just wait until I go on vacation.

you mean the times i've said that PETA isn't the same as the ALF? or the times i've said that i find most people's reactions to PETA to be ridiculously emotional and severely lacking in rationality? because that's about the closest thing to support for them you'll find from me.

i am not in the PETA fan club and i'm ambivalent about many ALF actions. i even eat meat, own pets, and think that at least some hunting practices can be justified. i do, however, support the ELF. my interest in the subject is largely confined to arguing that actions that go out of their way to avoid harming living beings and don't aim to create change by instilling terror aren't terrorism.
Quite clearly, the ALF/ELF/PETA M.O. is "don't test on animals, or we might just firebomb your shit." If that isn't "instilling terror" [since obviously the prospect of firebombing isn't a pleasant one], I don't know what is.

Again, my point is that these actions harm living things anyway, as I have pointed out numerous times. Destruction of property often incurs something of a financial burden [at least in these quanitites], which is harm if you ask me. Yes, they do [usually] go out of their way to prevent causing physical harm to people, but physical harm ain't the only kind of harm.

Sloppy thinking indeed.

Also, Free Soviets, why are you leaving out enormous chunks of text from my posts? A lot of it is pretty important to the surrounding points, which you're taking out of context and misinterpreting at an alarming rate [specifically, the idea you came up with that I "agree" that economic harm is not 'relevant']. Am I to assume you can find no response to the majority of my statements? If I disagree with something you say [as I seem to do quite frequently], I am able to demonstrate why I disagree on each and every point. If you're not prepared to do the same, what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Are you conceding my points or just evading them because you can find no response?

PETA does not support pets or any ownership of animals by humans. It is their offical stance just most people are too stupid to look deeply into it. They also do not support using animals for medical research of any kind or condone the use of medicines derived from animal research (aka all important medicine ever invented). At the same time one of the highest officials in PETA uses insilin on a daily basis (insilin was developed through extensive testing on animals and could not have been developed otherwise). PETA has also been linked to violent terrorists who have been arrested for destroying research laboratories (they provide funding).

Bottom line: PETA is one of the most dispicable organizations in America today. They are highly hypocritical and predjudiced against all human life. Would you kill a mouse to save your mother's life? How about 20,000 mice to save millions of people over the next few generations? Have you ever taken a tylenol or had any type of medical treatment? Do you own and love a pet? If you answer yes to any of these questions PETA is working against you in every way they can including violence. Do not support something you know nothing about.

Canada City']Can americans tell me why you guys stop babies with strange names on airports but allow these animal killers free with it's president cheerleading it's members efforts?
You may as well ask why the School of the Americas (http://www.soaw.org/new/) is still open, or why those guys who like to attack Cuba are given a free pass to live in Florida.

McDonalds does.
You said exactly what I was thinking. Ten points.

Seriously, though... speaking as another Canadian, as much as I'd like to act as though we're all holier-than-thou and the US is corrupt, we've got terrorism too. Everyone does. We just have less people. And of course, sometimes we're nicer [or pushovers, whichever term you prefer.]
PETA has the right idea but the wrongest of wrong ways of getting their point across. Okay, we get it - let's not kill/torture/abuse animals. Now calm down, PLEASE.
I doubt that they should be classified as 'terrorists', though. Their aim is not really to get their way using fear to manipulate people - I think it actually has more to do with guilt. Guilterists.
Fortunately/unfortunately, it works.

I'm sorry, but the link between PETA and Rodney Coronado is a well documented one.

PETA sanctions firebombing testing labs, they support the ALF under the table, and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to exonerate PETA. Since they're a non-profit organization, their tax records are open to anyone who should care to look at them. Take a gander at their 1995 return and you will notice a "loan" [which, according to the Coronado family, was actually a grant] to Mr. Coronado. Now granted, they can't come right out and write "Thanks for firebombing that testing lab" [since that would land Ms Newkirk in jail where she belongs], but I would be willing to bet you'd cry foul if the same paper trail existed between, say, G.W. Bush and bin Laden.

Yes and the link exists with Bush.

The Bin Laden Family worked with Bush's Family for years.
Now was it the Osama's that Bush met?
Well that is harder to prove, but it is easy to prove he worked with Bin Laden(s).

:D

Yes and the link exists with Bush.

The Bin Laden Family worked with Bush's Family for years.
Now was it the Osama's that Bush met?
Well that is harder to prove, but it is easy to prove he worked with Bin Laden(s).

:D
Osama bin Laden has been effectively "outed" from his family for years: he's estranged from them and they don't consider him a family member anymore. He walked out on them to start his jihad, a move they didn't much like. Most of the bin Laden family is fairly pro-American, as they own a construction concern and would probably have little or no business if it weren't for us.

Yes, Bush worked with members of the bin Laden family in the past, but any link between him and Osama himself is likely a dubious one at best.

This is like saying "It was the IRA rather than Sinn Fein"

I don't think you can really seperate the actions of PETA and the ALF.

Unless you can name a link between the two then no that is not the same.

Sinn Fein calls itself the political side of the IRA. There is a link.

What is the link between the two?

Unless you can name a link between the two then no that is not the same.

Sinn Fein calls itself the political side of the IRA. There is a link.

What is the link between the two?

Direct: Financial and Legal (PETA has given quite a bit of money)
Indirect: Moral (supports the actions of ALF/ELF)

Well, PETA's official stance on violence is sort of wishy-washy: they say that they neither condone it nor condemn it, but that they understand it. I forget the name of the guy who said this, but one of PETA's publicity advisors resigned not too long ago as a result of this, citing that PETA's management was "out to lunch" if they thought they could maintain this position on violence post-9/11.

ELF (Environmental Liberation Front), ALF (Animal Liberation Front), FOE (Friends of the Earth). Those three are horrible. (Mikial Gorbachev former ruler of the Soviet Union is the head of some united enviromental organization)

Don't forget Sea Shepherd.

Don't forget Sea Shepherd.

What have they done? Only thing I heard was sinking illegal whalers....

What have they done? Only thing I heard was sinking illegal whalers....
Well we've both probably heard different accounts, but this is the fist I've heard anybody mention that the operation they dispatched was "illegal"--even if it was, I'm not prepared to designate Sea Shepherd as a law-enforcement agency. I forget whose fleet it was; some Scandinavian nation's if I remember correctly.

I remember seeing their founder on TV once and being utterly disgusted with everything that came out of his mouth. I'm not entirely certain that they engage in activities quite to the magnitude of the ALF or what-not, as I'm not as familiar with Sea Shepherd as I am with some of the other, more well-known groups. Just off the top of my head, most of my complaints with them [SS] are immaterial--philosophical quarrels rather than tangible ones.

Well we've both probably heard different accounts, but this is the fist I've heard anybody mention that the operation they dispatched was "illegal"--even if it was, I'm not prepared to designate Sea Shepherd as a law-enforcement agency. I forget whose fleet it was; some Scandinavian nation's if I remember correctly.


Don't know about a fleet. The one or two articles I read involved rogue ships.

The problem with waiting for the authorities is that the authorities are not going after them. Not cost effective and after all they are only animals.

So I don't know. If everybody says no whaling then hey you take your chances if you are going to whale.

If the countries aren't going to police it, why not let them?


I remember seeing their founder on TV once and being utterly disgusted with everything that came out of his mouth. I'm not entirely certain that they engage in activities quite to the magnitude of the ALF or what-not, as I'm not as familiar with Sea Shepherd as I am with some of the other, more well-known groups. Just off the top of my head, most of my complaints with them [SS] are immaterial--philosophical quarrels rather than tangible ones.

Can't speak for him as I have not heard him talk.