NationStates Jolt Archive

This time they have gone too god damn far. They stole a kindergarten class' bunny. Now they are stealing pets from children, have they no souls?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20975943/?gt1=10357

The sons of bitches stole a rabbit from a classroom and left a flier protesting the coming Ringling Brother's circus showing a picture of a bear trying to escape a cage and bearing the names of PETA and the Northwest Animal Rights Network. PETA, of course, disavows any knowledge of the action and claims they support people owning domesticated animals. We all of course know this is bullshit and that if PETA wasn't involved directly, they wholly support this.

I hope they catch whoever did this and send them to the stockade after a public flogging.

I feel that it is ironic that animal rights activists sometimes care more about animal rights than human rights...

(I'm talking about it on a general POV)

Public flogging for rabbit theft?

It's super cool when people over-react to perceived over-reaction.

Ah, rabble rousing...

Public flogging for rabbit theft?

It's super cool when people over-react to perceived over-reaction.

Ah, rabble rousing...
They are stealing rabbits from children, public flogging for theft from children is much better than what I was going to or what most people would suggest. And considering the kind of shit they pull, it seems like a good way to teach them a lesson.

Public flogging for rabbit theft?

The first juvenile executed in the United States was done so for?

Answer:Bestiality

The first juvenile executed in the United States was done so for?

Answer:Bestiality

HA hahaaa! Wow! That was a good one! *wipes tears of laughter off face*
aahh...

Oh. Wait.. that wasn't a joke...:eek::(:mad::confused:

“We talked about how some people have different ideas about animals,” said teacher Lori Peters. “Some people don’t think they should be in cages.”

And some people are just major assholes who will do anything to spread their propaganda. Yes, even stealing from preschool kids. On a related note, What the hell does a preschool bunny have to do with the Ringling Brothers Circus? It could be that they both kept animals in cage, but that would be insane.

A few more PETA propaganda:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news/images/article_156_comicbook.gif
http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/peta.jpg

and of course we can't forget the bucket of blood.

http://dailyablution.blogs.com/photos/blogpictures/peta.jpg

All of these handed out to, you guess it, children!

Well they knew if they let the bear out of its cage they would either have been (a) mauled or (b) arrested and convicted for a change.

Public flogging for rabbit theft?

It's super cool when people over-react to perceived over-reaction.

Ah, rabble rousing...

Public flogging might be an overreaction, but whoever was responsible really needs a judicial Boot to the Head for this over the (big) top asshattery that exposes preschool children to Animal Liberation propaganda and animal violence.

I would personally be inclined to sentence the bastard to Community Service at a local slaughterhouse. Ironic punishment for the crime.

A few more PETA propaganda:
Somehow those things don't feel right.

A few more PETA propaganda:

*censored for the children*

All of these handed out to, you guess it, children!

That is downright creepy.

Umm why? They'll just end up killing them for propaganda purposes.

I think it will be the other way around actually, in which case, FUCK YES NOW!

I think a more fitting punishment for animal rights activists would be to give them all our pets and all our zoo animals.

Well they knew if they let the bear out of its cage they would either have been (a) mauled or (b) arrested and convicted for a change.

Yea but with A. everyone will get to see major assholes being killed by the same animal that they are trying to free, which would be funny and entertaining, at least to me. B is also as good, but I would prefer A. :D

I think a more fitting punishment for animal rights activists would be to give them all our pets and all our zoo animals.

Umm why? They'll just end up killing them for propaganda purposes.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Umm why? They'll just end up killing them for propaganda purposes.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

In that case, killings on that scale would expose their hypocrisy.

I personally feel sorry for the poor bunny, it was the kid's pet, so why take it?

Id sue the crap out of the people who stole the bunny. I understand their cause, but what does the bunny have to do with the bear? And the fliers, they represent a good point, but giving them to kids in KINDERGARDEN was just dumb.

I bet those kids will be haunted by the images of the bunny and the fliers.....

In that case, killings on that scale would expose their hypocrisy.

They do that pretty well right now.

They do that pretty well right now.

Not well enough to basically eliminate their membership, apparently.

Not well enough to basically eliminate their membership, apparently.

Can't we at least just give them the bears, elephants and anything else that kills them or has a fighting chance?

I personally feel sorry for the poor bunny, it was the kid's pet, so why take it?

Id sue the crap out of the people who stole the bunny. I understand their cause, but what does the bunny have to do with the bear? And the fliers, they represent a good point, but giving them to kids in KINDERGARDEN was just dumb.

I bet those kids will be haunted by the images of the bunny and the fliers.....

Well you got to give them credit, they stole a beloved class pet, and they advertised who did it, I doubt the kids in that classroom will ever become PETA members.

... how about putting them in a cell with some rabbits. then you only feed them salads. and let them choose to either feed the rabbits and starve, or eat the salad and starve the rabbits.

I wonder how much rights they will give those rabbits.

... how about putting them in a cell with some rabbits. then you only feed them salads. and let them choose to either feed the rabbits and starve, or eat the salad and starve the rabbits.

I wonder how much rights they will give those rabbits.

Better yet, they eat the salad, and then the rabbits eat them. :D

Well you got to give them credit, they stole a beloved class pet, and they advertised who did it, I doubt the kids in that classroom will ever become PETA members.

PETA has gone too far,

"were the good guys, trying to protect animals, blah blah blah"

come on, everyone knows that this organization is going into the toilet, no matter how many times they try to get out of It.

Oh and by the way PETA, you kill more animals than everyones mom and dad in america combine............theres a place called a supermarket, where everything is already dead, and no one has to kill anything, learn to get used to it.

... how about putting them in a cell with some rabbits. then you only feed them salads. and let them choose to either feed the rabbits and starve, or eat the salad and starve the rabbits.

I wonder how much rights they will give those rabbits.

Meh, just put them in a cage with three bears. :D

Can't we at least just give them the bears, elephants and anything else that kills them or has a fighting chance?

Wouldn't it be just a lot easier to round up PETA members and toss them into tiger/lion enclosures with the message of "ethically treat THAT!".

Well, the natural response to a PETA member handing out to a kid of mine (if I had one) one such flier (I don't fish, though I do love all meats) would be locating the address of PETA members and handing their children fliers in colorful terms and illustrations explaining that their parents rape goats. Or children.

If someone traumatized my child and caused me that much trouble, gloves would come off.

... how about putting them in a cell with some rabbits. then you only feed them salads. and let them choose to either feed the rabbits and starve, or eat the salad and starve the rabbits.

I wonder how much rights they will give those rabbits.

I like this idea. And salad. And rabbit. Decisions, decisions.

I like this idea. And salad. And rabbit. Decisions, decisions.

That would only affect the True Believers, i.e. the lower ranking minions and celebrity endorsement tools. The upper echolon all the way to Ingrid Newkirk are fucking doublethink hypocrites.

PETA are, in addition to being bastards, species traitors. I'm all for preventing unnecessary cruelty to animals, but these guys seem to put animals before humans.

Whoever stole that rabbit deserves... ooh, I know! They should be made to teach that class - after the kids are told that this guy stole the rabbit, and that they will not get in trouble no matter what happens to him.

We all of course know this is bullshit

...because you say so?

Hmm, something tells me that PETA might know what its own position is better than you do.

Whoever stole that rabbit deserves... ooh, I know! They should be made to teach that class - after the kids are told that this guy stole the rabbit, and that they will not get in trouble no matter what happens to him.

I am Heikoku and I approve of that message.

I am Heikoku and I approve of that message.

I am Luporum and I approve of the approval of that message.

PETA are, in addition to being bastards, species traitors. I'm all for preventing unnecessary cruelty to animals, but these guys seem to put animals before humans.

so should human interests always trump animal interests on pain of species treason?

I am Luporum and I approve of the approval of that message.

I am Heikoku and I approve of the approval of the approval of that message.

I am Heikoku and I approve of the approval of the approval of that message.

I am Lup- *head asplode*

I'm all for preventing unnecessary cruelty to animals, but these guys seem to put animals before humans.

The only position of theirs that might remotely justify that accusation is the one concerning animal testing, and there their position has much more to do with a rejection of "ends justify the means" logic than support for non-human superiority.

After all, they do not advocate forcibly imprisoning human beings for drug tests either.

I am Lup- *head asplode*

I am Heikoku and I approve of the head exp- *head asplode*.

I an Bann-ed and I do not approve of this grisly mess all over the place...

*sweeps particulate of skull under the rug*

Mnnhrmm mmmhmm

*regenerates head*

You should really use a mop.

I am Heikoku and I approve of the head exp- *head asplode*.

I an Bann-ed and I do not approve of this grisly mess all over the place...

*sweeps particulate of skull under the rug*

I like the southpark episode with Peta and the half human/half duck creature begging to be killed...that sums up my thoughts on Peta entirely

...because you say so?

Hmm, something tells me that PETA might know what its own position is better than you do.
Something tells me you are an ethical vegan.

Whoever did this is clearly an idiot, as that poor bunny will probably die very quickly in the wild.

However, I'm not going to be so foolish as to blame animal rights activists as a whole, or PETA as a whole. There are plenty of reasonable, sane animal rights activists who actually think through their positions and behave like adults. That description just doesn't include people who release other people's domesticated animals into the wild. :rolleyes:

...because you say so?

Hmm, something tells me that PETA might know what its own position is better than you do.

Not only is PETA a home-grown Al'Qaeda waiting to happen (ALF, Rodney Coronado, etc.) but it's also the 101st Typing Keyboarders of the Animal Rights movement. They'll bitch and raise a fuss about what seems to be legitimate animal rights issue... but then when you take a closer look at what they really espouse and do.

You realize they're fucking nuts.

They don't believe in Animal Rights. They believe in Animal Liberation.

Which basically boils down to the following:

1) Animals have the same rights as human beings, if not more so.
2) Human beings should not use animals in any way at all. Not only does this involve animal products or byproducts (including necessary medical items such as insulin for diabetics- a hypocrisy highlighted by Ingrid Newkirk's own insulin dependence) but they should not have contact with animals in any way. Even as pets. Domesticated animals are to be turned loose into the wild to "be free."

They also don't practice what they preach. If anything they do the opposite. In addition to Miss Newkirk's insulin habit, there's also the infamous cases of PETA branches in Virginia and North Carolina (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL) that were rounding up pets under the false impression that they were seeking homes for them, only to gas those poor animals and store their corpses in walk-in freezers for future Animal Liberation propaganda props.

There's also Miss Newkirk herself, full out outrageous quotes that could make the Phelps family sound like the collected works of Shakespeare by comparison. One of her more famous once decried people bemoaning the Holocaust when she claimed much worse was happening to chickens every day in processing plants.

Frankly PETA is a bunch of attention whore terrorist supporters that need to be labelled and treated as such by the U.S. Government.

--snip--
Oh my. The seething feelings... Here, have some fried chicken. ;)

And yes, PETA gives a bad name to animal rights. Gravy?

I think a more fitting punishment for animal rights activists would be to give them all our pets and all our zoo animals.

They ain't getting my cat and horse.

Even if the bloody horse dumped me on my face yesterday.

But still...Horse and Cat make life worth living.

Oh my. The seething feelings... Here, have some fried chicken. ;)

And yes, PETA gives a bad name to animal rights. Gravy?

Mmmm... chicken and gravy.... :homerdrool:

Not only is PETA a home-grown Al'Qaeda waiting to happen (ALF, Rodney Coronado, etc.)...

ridiculous

ridiculous

Ehhh....they do seem to hold irrational ideas and want everyone to conform to those ideas and will achieve their means to get the message across by any means, and that does include killing animals to 'make a point'.

Sounds like a terrorist organization to me. I wonder if anyone actually has a copy of those PETA comics, you know "Your daddy/mommy kill animals".

I feel that it is ironic that animal rights activists sometimes care more about animal rights than human rights...

(I'm talking about it on a general POV)

The problem is, they don't care about animals. They've killed animals to underline some obscure points. They believe all animals, including domestic, should be returned to the wild - thus condemning them to short lives full of pain and illness. They're selective in the animals they want to "protect" - they think nothing of killing thousands of animals plowing pastureland and prairies under for crops and then cavil at the killing of a steer for meat. They're illogical, irrational, ill-informed, hypocritical and willfully ignorant (read stupid). In short, they're detestable.

Yeah, they've been targetting children more and more. Probably because only a mind childlike in its simplicity accepts "animal rights." ;)

Still, even the nuttiest can't take the pets from a million other classrooms across the country, which are great fun. We had guinea pigs in one, turtles in another, as I recall. Nice memories, and taking turns caring for the animals taught us responsibility. :)

Yeah, they've been targetting children more and more. Probably because only a mind childlike in its simplicity accepts "animal rights." ;)

Still, even the nuttiest can't take the pets from a million other classrooms across the country, which are great fun. We had guinea pigs in one, turtles in another, as I recall. Nice memories, and taking turns caring for the animals taught us responsibility. :)

If they try to take Amelia or Sierra, they'll be met with serious force.

To help put this thread in the proper perspective, here is a video clip of an animal rights activist protesting a bull running event in spain and what happens when she meets the bull she is protecting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrIW4qtbXtE

Note: She survived.

Edit: Warning: The video contains a rather graphic scene of a woman tossed around and bashed by a bull like a human ragdoll.

To help put this thread in the proper perspective, here is a video clip of an animal rights activist protesting a bull running event in spain and what happens when she meets the bull she is protecting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrIW4qtbXtE

Note: She survived.

Wow.... :eek: ......just wow..... LG, you might want to put a warning on that, it's a bit graphic..... but wow.....

To help put this thread in the proper perspective, here is a video clip of an animal rights activist protesting a bull running event in spain and what happens when she meets the bull she is protecting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrIW4qtbXtE

Note: She survived.

Welcome to the future as animal liberators would have it. Except replace the bull with wolves, elephants, bears, you name it. Sounds like fun.

To all you animal haters out there, maybe it's time for the country to step up and enact some animal right laws. That way we can start arresting all those PETA members for unnecessary animal cruelty. We can throw them in jail and make them make chairs and desks for our children rather than scaring them emotionally for life. Besides since PETA is so crazy I am sure we can draw the line just so that PETA can't operate, but without affecting our meat industry.

A few more PETA propaganda:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news/images/article_156_comicbook.gif
http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/peta.jpg

and of course we can't forget the bucket of blood.

http://dailyablution.blogs.com/photos/blogpictures/peta.jpg

All of these handed out to, you guess it, children!

Ah, yes. Because children should be shielded from the truth. :rolleyes: That reminds me of an anti-bullfight campaign spot that was banned in the south of France because it exposed children to the sight of violence and cruelty. In other words, children should be encouraged to watch bulls being slaughtered, but they shouldn't be told what's going on!

Whoever did this is clearly an idiot, as that poor bunny will probably die very quickly in the wild.

However, I'm not going to be so foolish as to blame animal rights activists as a whole, or PETA as a whole. There are plenty of reasonable, sane animal rights activists who actually think through their positions and behave like adults. That description just doesn't include people who release other people's domesticated animals into the wild. :rolleyes:

I agree entirely.

But that's just too subtle for the braindead "all animal rights activists should be flogged!" morons.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news/images/article_156_comicbook.gif



My mom uses a giant Bowie knife to disembowel Thumper while he's still alive! Epic win!

(also, Wilgrove, check TGs]

I'd personally make them live in a zoo for a year, changing the enclosures they're in on a weekly basis.

Either that or publically flog them, wither works for me.:D

But that's just too subtle for the braindead "all animal rights activists should be flogged!" morons.

Well, animal activists who are not psychotic hypocrites like PETA should be doing their best to distance themselves from such organizations, if not renounce PETA's tactics. Then maybe people wouldn't have such outward disdain for animal rights activists as a whole. The empty can rattles the most, er, the craziest group of the movement defines the methods of the movement to the eye of the public, whom I would hope they are trying to catch the attention of.

To all you animal haters out there, maybe it's time for the country to step up and enact some animal right laws. That way we can start arresting all those PETA members for unnecessary animal cruelty. We can throw them in jail and make them make chairs and desks for our children rather than scaring them emotionally for life. Besides since PETA is so crazy I am sure we can draw the line just so that PETA can't operate, but without affecting our meat industry.

erm, why? What commends animal cruelty laws to the state? Why lock people up for poking fluffy bunnies with sticks? It is authoratarian nonsense left wing fruitloops such as animal rights loons decry in the right, yet seem to be more than happy to impose when it suits. Like hunting in the UK.

Ah, yes. Because children should be shielded from the truth. :rolleyes:

Unless the parents of the children are hunters/go fishing however, the propaganda posters are blatant lies designed to turn children against parents.

Would you allow people to hand out pamphlets to children claiming "God is great" and urges them to commit criminal acts like murdering anyone who disagrees? This is the same thing, only on a lesser scale.

To help put this thread in the proper perspective, here is a video clip of an animal rights activist protesting a bull running event in spain and what happens when she meets the bull she is protecting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrIW4qtbXtE

Note: She survived.

Maybe all PETA newcomers should be subjected to something like that. Help them put into perspective that the food chain sometimes puts them on a lower scale.

I'm often appalled myself over how animals are often treated.

But... these guys are insane. They seem to be unable to distinguish between different species. How bad does one's tunnel vision have to be in order to take a bunny from a bunch of kindergarten kids?

I don't like the way farm animals are treated. I mean, I eat meat and all, but I don't think their lives should be so unnecessarily terrible.

Maybe all PETA newcomers should be subjected to something like that. Help them put into perspective that the food chain sometimes puts them on a lower scale.

Yes, I hope that PETA person realized then that nature isn't always all soft and cuddly.

To help put this thread in the proper perspective, here is a video clip of an animal rights activist protesting a bull running event in spain and what happens when she meets the bull she is protecting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrIW4qtbXtE

Note: She survived.

Ahahahahaha. :p

Damn thats funny; strangely, animal rights loons never do see the vicious, violent aspect of nature until it stares them in the face. Or, in this case, gores them in the torso....

Ahahahahaha. :p

Damn thats funny; strangely, animal rights loons never do see the vicious, violent aspect of nature until it stares them in the face. Or, in this case, gores them in the torso....

I have an idea. It involves the current top echelon of PETA leadership, a video camera, BBQ sauce, and a lion enclosure. Then sending the record to all PETA members.

Unless the parents of the children are hunters/go fishing however, the propaganda posters are blatant lies designed to turn children against parents.

Not really. Whenever you buy meat, you're making yourself the direct cause for the "production" of meat - i.e., the slaughtering of animals. I don't see anything wrong in giving children the truth. I do agree that the phrasing is misleading to some extent, but it's not fundamentally incorrect. And it's less disturbing that arguing that children should never be told the truth.

Giving people facts is the necessary basis for them to develop an informed point of view.


Would you allow people to hand out pamphlets to children claiming "God is great" and urges them to commit criminal acts like murdering anyone who disagrees? This is the same thing, only on a lesser scale.

It's not the same thing in any way. In fact, it's the exact reverse. How is "oppose killing" the same as "kill"? :confused:

Ah, yes. Because children should be shielded from the truth. :rolleyes:
Except that's not the truth at all, it's propaganda. Most people don't butcher their own food, and of the few who do only a very small proportion do so while the food is still alive.

That reminds me of an anti-bullfight campaign spot that was banned in the south of France because it exposed children to the sight of violence and cruelty. In other words, children should be encouraged to watch bulls being slaughtered, but they shouldn't be told what's going on!

The second sentence does not follow from the first.

i saw some people protesting at the gates of the hotel next to my office one day. they were yelling "ban foie gras!"

i just thought 'haven't these people got anything better to do?' :rolleyes:

i saw some people protesting at the gates of the hotel next to my office one day. they were yelling "ban foie gras!"

i just thought 'haven't these people got anything better to do?' :rolleyes:

An oft-heard but inane point. Doing one thing, and protesting against one form of horrific abuse, does not mean you cannot do other things before and after.

I've always thought that PETA acted too stupid to be anything but a strawman for the meat industry.

An oft-heard but inane point. Doing one thing, and protesting against one form of horrific abuse, does not mean you cannot do other things before and after.

How exactly does being able to do things of more worth before and after make something seen as pointless suddenly useful?

How exactly does being able to do things of more worth before and after make something seen as pointless suddenly useful?

How exactly is opposing abominable cruelty "pointless"?

I have an idea. It involves the current top echelon of PETA leadership, a video camera, BBQ sauce, and a lion enclosure. Then sending the record to all PETA members.

Surely the lions should get a starter as well?

Not only is PETA a home-grown Al'Qaeda waiting to happen (ALF, Rodney Coronado, etc.)

ridiculousThey vocally support terrorist organisations and terrorist attacks, so they're not that far off.

We can throw them in jail and make them make chairs and desks for our children rather than scaring them emotionally for life.Read that as make them into chairs, which might be abit over the top. Atleast since the goal was NOT to scar kids for life. :p

How exactly is opposing abominable cruelty "pointless"?

That's not the point and of course depends on whether you see foie gras as abominable cruelty anyway. PM obviously sees it as mostly pointless.

You seem to be saying that the phrase "don't they have anything better to do?" is a fallacy somehow, because 'they' are still able to do whatever is 'better' before and after the event. I'm just wondering how this actually works.

How exactly is opposing abominable cruelty "pointless"?

If this refers to animal rights activism; because the state has any number of more pressing issues than considering the bleatings of the odd long haired hippy, arresting them when the desecrate graves or attack researchers, and then going throught the whole tedious process of trying and sentnecing them. All in aid of the cessation of treatment that a few middle class idealists with no experiance of nature consider abominable.

How exactly is opposing abominable cruelty "pointless"?
Except PETA doesn't oppose "abominable cruelty." In fact, PETA just opposes whatever the hell PETA feels like opposing. PETA usually doesn't worry about little things like "whether or not abominable cruelty is actually taking place" before they do something asinine.

Here's my cherished personal example!

I worked in a lab that used animals in research. Mostly turtles, mudpuppies, and frogs. I was in charge of feeding the animals and checking their tanks (among other things) so I kind of got to know all the critters in the animal care facility.

There was NEVER, at any time, in any way, any form of "abominable cruelty" going on at this facility. The worst suffering any of these creatures EVER experienced, in their entire lives, would be painless euthanizing at the hands of a trained professional. A significantly less painful death than any they could expect in the wild.

That didn't stop PETA from breaking in, vandalizing the place, and "liberating" a bunch of animals. Most memorably, they "liberated" one salt-water species into a near-by freshwater lake.

Now there's a lovely way of "opposing abominable cruelty": by practicing it!

Face it, PETA is just a nimrod cult for selfish, pampered suburban kids who want to feel rebellious and definitely never want to do their homework. They're creeps and losers who care absolutely NOTHING for the actual status of animals.

Not really. Whenever you buy meat, you're making yourself the direct cause for the "production" of meat - i.e., the slaughtering of animals. I don't see anything wrong in giving children the truth. I do agree that the phrasing is misleading to some extent, but it's not fundamentally incorrect. And it's less disturbing that arguing that children should never be told the truth.

Hmm, I guess "The gap on the shelf created by your parents purchasing meat is indirectly responsible for the production of more meat" doesn't really have that much of a ring to it. Also if they don't buy that meat it'll go to waste, so that space is going to be created anyway unless there's a huge drop in the demand for meat.

Also how come we never see people protesting fly spray? It's suffering in a can.

Giving people facts is the necessary basis for them to develop an informed point of view.

As such, can I give little children pamphlets that say TAXATION IS THEFT?:D

geeze these freaks need something more constructive to do. I can understand them wanting to gripe about the circus or whatever, but they always go too far. They have a freakin cult mindset. And I wonder what they are going to do with the bunny.

Ahahahahaha. :p

Damn thats funny; strangely, animal rights loons never do see the vicious, violent aspect of nature until it stares them in the face. Or, in this case, gores them in the torso....

...

You are a sick, sick person, Chris. How can you call something that horrible funny?

PETA is nuts, though. Those propaganda pictures that Wilgrove posted? Pathetic...really pathetic, not to mention they might traumatize younger children, AND they even include blatant gender stereotypes! :rolleyes:

I'm all for preventing animal cruelty, but other animal species are not sentient. There are only two other species right now that I would see as qualifying for rights, and those would be chimpanzees and dolphins. They're the only ones with intelligence very close to humans, though it's much more obvious with the tool use of the chimpanzees.

And another thing about those images, those of you that actually approved of them: Why? They are very clearly biased and propaganda based...notice how both the "mommy" and the "daddy" appear to be enjoying the killing of the animals and how they using knives and other things on the animals while they're still alive, with lots of gore and everything...it's so obviously disgustingly propaganda I can't see why anyone would agree with it.

Surely the lions should get a starter as well?

the rabbit?

AND they even include blatant gender stereotypes! :rolleyes:

Oh, yeah, that's another reason to luuuuuuuuuv PETA:

They oppose using animals for meat, but they adore treating female human beings like piece of meat. They also have run several charmingly racist ad campaigns.

You seem to be saying that the phrase "don't they have anything better to do?" is a fallacy somehow, because 'they' are still able to do whatever is 'better' before and after the event. I'm just wondering how this actually works.

I'm not too sure what you're asking. Someone can defend several causes, or do several things that they consider important.

If this refers to animal rights activism; because the state has any number of more pressing issues than considering the bleatings of the odd long haired hippy, arresting them when the desecrate graves or attack researchers, and then going throught the whole tedious process of trying and sentnecing them.

You're simultaneously off-topic and raising a strawman. I was refering to people protesting peacefully against the torturing of animals in a specific case. They didn't "desecrate garves". Should they be hauled off to prison for exercising peaceful freedom of speech?


All in aid of the cessation of treatment that a few middle class idealists with no experiance of nature consider abominable.

Completely beside the point. And cruel treatment is objective. It's cruel. That can't be denied by anyone who's completely self-deluding.

Except PETA doesn't oppose "abominable cruelty." In fact, PETA just opposes whatever the hell PETA feels like opposing. PETA usually doesn't worry about little things like "whether or not abominable cruelty is actually taking place" before they do something asinine.

Here's my cherished personal example!

I worked in a lab that used animals in research. Mostly turtles, mudpuppies, and frogs. I was in charge of feeding the animals and checking their tanks (among other things) so I kind of got to know all the critters in the animal care facility.

There was NEVER, at any time, in any way, any form of "abominable cruelty" going on at this facility. The worst suffering any of these creatures EVER experienced, in their entire lives, would be painless euthanizing at the hands of a trained professional. A significantly less painful death than any they could expect in the wild.

That didn't stop PETA from breaking in, vandalizing the place, and "liberating" a bunch of animals. Most memorably, they "liberated" one salt-water species into a near-by freshwater lake.

Now there's a lovely way of "opposing abominable cruelty": by practicing it!

Face it, PETA is just a nimrod cult for selfish, pampered suburban kids who want to feel rebellious and definitely never want to do their homework. They're creeps and losers who care absolutely NOTHING for the actual status of animals.

What has any of that got to do with anything I said about foie gras? :confused:

Regarding your point: There are a lot of idiots in PETA who do a lot of harm to the cause other people defend far more intelligently. Of course, there are intelligent people in PETA too. It's a mixed bag. (Why did you assume I would disagree with you?)


Hmm, I guess "The gap on the shelf created by your parents purchasing meat is indirectly responsible for the production of more meat" doesn't really have that much of a ring to it. Also if they don't buy that meat it'll go to waste, so that space is going to be created anyway unless there's a huge drop in the demand for meat.

You're correct, of course. But the fundamental fact remains that each consumer actively takes part in the causation of extreme cruelty to animals. By their numbers in some countries (UK), vegetarians can have a positive impact. Also, it's an issue of principle, and of not being a hypocrite: if someone recognises their own actions participate in something they believe is wrong, the logical course of action is to stop.

To put it another way: Do you vote? The impact of your one vote is negligeable. The outcome of no election will ever be changed by your individual vote. But you still vote (I assume), as do I. With good reason. The logic is similar.


As such, can I give little children pamphlets that say TAXATION IS THEFT? :D

Of course... although that's a point of view rather than a fact. ;)

I'm not too sure what you're asking. Someone can defend several causes, or do several things that they consider important.

Yes, but that doesn't make those that others consider unimportant useful. If one is doing something unimportant, generally one will have something better to do. It's not relevant whether they already do something 'better' at another time anyway, and there's always something going wrong that can be protested against.

I'm not actually taking a position on foie gras, just trying to understand your reasoning.

The saddest part of this ridiculous incident is that the animal rights nutjobs have probably "released the creature into it's natural environment!", and by that I mean they've dumped the poor thing in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps a field or a forest. Or if they're really lazy and stupid a local park.

Where the confused rabbit, whose "natural environment" is in fact a hutch, will die very soon from either predators, the weather, disease, wild rabbits or even starvation.

What has any of that got to do with anything I said about foie gras? :confused:
Why would you expect that my reply would have anything to do with what you said about foie gras? If I'd wanted to reply to that, I would have.


Regarding your point: There are a lot of idiots in PETA who do a lot of harm to the cause other people defend far more intelligently. Of course, there are intelligent people in PETA too. It's a mixed bag. (Why did you assume I would disagree with you?)

No, it's really not. PETA is not a good organizations with a few bad apples. PETA is a terrible organization with a history of racism, sexism, and domestic terrorism. PETA is an organization that professes to care about animals while refusing to do even the most cursory research on the subject they claim to care so much about.

Seriously, don't continue to let them con you. You're being chumped.

ridiculous

True, they're more like the House of Saud, rather than Al-Qaeda itself. Bankrolling the terrorist ALF, and then providing free of charge legal services once they're nabbed.

erm, why? What commends animal cruelty laws to the state? Why lock people up for poking fluffy bunnies with sticks? It is authoratarian nonsense left wing fruitloops such as animal rights loons decry in the right, yet seem to be more than happy to impose when it suits. Like hunting in the UK.

Ugg did you even read what I said? I was basically saying if animal cruelty laws was to ever been enacted the first group who will get arrested is PETA. I guess sarcasm doesn't show too well in text format.

Yes, but that doesn't make those that others consider unimportant useful. If one is doing something unimportant, generally one will have something better to do. It's not relevant whether they already do something 'better' at another time anyway, and there's always something going wrong that can be protested against.

I'm not actually taking a position on foie gras, just trying to understand your reasoning.

I'm trying to understand yours. ;)

You're saying it's a matter of personal opinion, yes? In that case, surely we're thinking the same. If you consider something to be important, why would you not do it simply because other people (whom you consider to be wrong) view it as unimportant?

Why would you expect that my reply would have anything to do with what you said about foie gras? If I'd wanted to reply to that, I would have.


You posted in response to my post, which you quoted. That strongly implied you were responding to some point I made. Which you weren't. That made what you were doing look deliberately misleading, by putting words into my mouth.


No, it's really not. PETA is not a good organizations with a few bad apples. PETA is a terrible organization with a history of racism, sexism, and domestic terrorism. PETA is an organization that professes to care about animals while refusing to do even the most cursory research on the subject they claim to care so much about.

Seriously, don't continue to let them con you. You're being chumped.

*nods* My view was rather that it's an organisation I mostly despise, but which has a not-insignificant number of good apples. I think a lot of what they do is terrible, harmful and downright stupid. That doesn't mean I'd oppose them on those instances when they're actually right, just because it's them.

Then there's the fact that the vast majority of anti-PETA people are so mind-blowingly stupid that they could almost make PETA people look smart.

I'm trying to understand yours. ;)

You're saying it's a matter of personal opinion, yes? In that case, surely we're thinking the same. If you consider something to be important, why would you not do it simply because other people (whom you consider to be wrong) view it as unimportant?

I don't think anyone is actually trying to change the opinions of animal rights protestors. I just don't see why "don't these people have anything better to do?" is an invalid and inane statement, if your opinion is such that what they are doing is not useful, and just conveys aforementioned opinion.

Damnit, this is what always happens whenever I try to clarify something (read; nitpick), a confusing and nonsensical exchange of posts lasting for pages.

This quite happily reminds me of this other thread Ari should post in.:D:fluffle:

LOL. I will. I'm just doing way too many things at the same time right now. ;)

This quite happily reminds me of this other thread Ari should post in.:D:fluffle:

I don't think anyone is actually trying to change the opinions of animal rights protestors. I just don't see why "don't these people have anything better to do?" is an invalid and inane statement, if your opinion is such that what they are doing is not useful, and just conveys aforementioned opinion.


Ah. Well, for one thing, that statement is usually made by people who are trying to say that they have no intention of making any effort to understand the position of the protesters. It's arrogance based on a mixture of intellectual laziness and closed-mindedness, which really shouldn't be conducive to arrogance.

Second, it usually implies that the protestors aren't entitled to their own views.

Which, on a related topic, reminds me of an incident my sister told me. She's a vegan and an active animal rights campaigner. She and fellow activists of hers had signs up in Paris with pictures depicting what goes on in slaughterhouses. They were standing by to give further information to anyone who came up and requested it (they weren't going out to bother people who didn't want to stop and talk). A middle-aged man strode up and demanded to know whether they had authorisation from the local authorities to be there. They had. The man hadn't been expecting that (for some reason), and resorted to screaming (I quote, literally): "This is a democracy! You shouldn't be allowed to be here!" :D

1) Animals have the same rights as human beingsTechnically speaking this is very true as things stand now.

If a hungry lion meets a poor tourist the tourist will be supper, if the tourist is armed say hello to lion steak - Both situations play out completely 'right'.

In nature the one who's smarter and/or stronger triumphs at the cost of others, be the suffering party plant, fungal or animal matter.

Though, we should also remember that maintaining biodiversity and viable ecosystems is necessary because we *need* functioning nature in order to survive: We should see environmentalism as a selfish act by & for humans.


btw.
What is PETA's stance on pets in general? I s'pose they (shouldn't?) don't accept pets or domesticated animals in general like cats, dogs or even horses or any sort of medical treatment of such animals.

Surely the lions should get a starter as well?

ALF could be the main course. They're the muscle of PETA, so they're heavier on protein. PETA leadership is generally light on protein and gray matter.

Not really. Whenever you buy meat, you're making yourself the direct cause for the "production" of meat - i.e., the slaughtering of animals. I don't see anything wrong in giving children the truth. I do agree that the phrasing is misleading to some extent, but it's not fundamentally incorrect. And it's less disturbing that arguing that children should never be told the truth.

By blatantly twisting the content like this, one could use the same logic to argue that firearms manufacturers are directly responsible for firearms murders despite the fact that they never actually did.

This is a bald faced lie, and should be exposed as such. Destruction of PETA credibility on all levels of society is the only way to strangle them of support and money.


Giving people facts is the necessary basis for them to develop an informed point of view.

There are facts, and there are flavored facts deliberately skewed to create bias and uninformed points of view. PETA dispenses the latter as well as outright lies.


It's not the same thing in any way. In fact, it's the exact reverse. How is "oppose killing" the same as "kill"? :confused:

Observe. PETA encourages illicit actions to achieve their goals. This includes funding legal defense for arsonists and burglars so long as they do so in the name of "animal liberation". Their upper echelons have been caught on record espousing riots and civil disorder to achieve their goals.

They also poison children with skewed facts in order to create breeding grounds for fresh recruits, who they then encourage to take up criminal acts who's only saving grace is that they haven't gone "kill people directly".

They do however, encourage destruction of private property as well as extortion and grave robbing to force people to comply.

Do they encourage terror and destruction to achieve their goals? Do they espouse coercive tactics? The answer is yes.

Is this in any form or sense, the actions of an organization that should somehow be viewed as not criminal?

To put it another way: Do you vote? The impact of your one vote is negligence. The outcome of no election will ever be changed by your individual vote. But you still vote (I assume), as do I. With good reason. The logic is similar.

I will begin voting in two years, but only because the government forces us to. As for why I dislike voting.


Giving people facts is the necessary basis for them to develop an informed point of view.

She and fellow activists of hers had signs up in Paris with pictures depicting what goes on in slaughterhouses.

Are there people that can't put two and two together and realise what happens in slaughterhouses? They use the word slaughter for a reason.

They had. The man hadn't been expecting that (for some reason), and resorted to screaming (I quote, literally): "This is a democracy! You shouldn't be allowed to be here!" :D

:D

You posted in response to my post, which you quoted. That strongly implied you were responding to some point I made. Which you weren't. That made what you were doing look deliberately misleading, by putting words into my mouth.

I was simply bringing things back to the topic at hand.

PETA fully supports cruelty to animals, and PETA practices animal torture on a routine basis. It doesn't matter if we're talking about foie gras or fur. If you actually think that PETA gives two shits about cruelty to animals, then I've got a piece of the True Cross I'd like to sell you.


*nods* My view was rather that it's an organisation I mostly despise, but which has a not-insignificant number of good apples. I think a lot of what they do is terrible, harmful and downright stupid. That doesn't mean I'd oppose them on those instances when they're actually right, just because it's them.

You should always oppose PETA, just like you should always oppose the KKK. If you ever find yourself agreeing with PETA, you should be just as concerned and careful as if you find yourself agreeing with the KKK.

If you find yourself routinely agreeing with a bunch of ignorant wanna-be terrorists, you might want to take a long look at your own beliefs.


Then there's the fact that the vast majority of anti-PETA people are so mind-blowingly stupid that they could almost make PETA people look smart.
Most people who are anti-PETA are anti-PETA because they actually, you know, are aware of what PETA does. But hey, whatever you have to tell yourself.

but which has a not-insignificant number of good apples.

Where?

Ah, yes. Because children should be shielded from the truth. :rolleyes: That reminds me of an anti-bullfight campaign spot that was banned in the south of France because it exposed children to the sight of violence and cruelty. In other words, children should be encouraged to watch bulls being slaughtered, but they shouldn't be told what's going on!

You're funny, personally I find the comic and the bucket of blood to be bullshit and hypocritical because PETA kills animal themselves, but no, not because that they can't take care of the animals, nor is it because that the animal was in poor health, or was suffering in pain, no they kill them for propaganda purposes. Also I can't remember the last time I saw anyone's mom or dad gutting a live rabbit or fish. They do gut rabbits and fish, but mostly so we can eat them, because yes, people actually do use the meat off of animals for nutrition and substance. It's silly I know.

You're simultaneously off-topic and raising a strawman. I was refering to people protesting peacefully against the torturing of animals in a specific case. They didn't "desecrate garves". Should they be hauled off to prison for exercising peaceful freedom of speech?



Completely beside the point. And cruel treatment is objective. It's cruel. That can't be denied by anyone who's completely self-deluding.



My apologies. I was referring to the UK loons who attack Huntingdon life sciences by desecrating the graves of families grandmothers; I assumed you'd have heard of it given all the publicity it attracted.

As for middle class idealists, it is the central issue; thanks to said idealistic, ignorant Guardian reading loons, fox hunting is now banned for no good reason other than to allow New Labour to court such voters.

...

You are a sick, sick person, Chris. How can you call something that horrible funny?


Easily. If the fruitloop being tossed about like a ragdoll could not envisage an enraged bull, strangely, not being able to read her PETA badge, frankly the bull was doing humanity a favour in removing stupidity from the gene pool.:p

My apologies. I was referring to the UK loons who attack Huntingdon life sciences by desecrating the graves of families grandmothers; I assumed you'd have heard of it given all the publicity it attracted.

As for middle class idealists, it is the central issue; thanks to said idealistic, ignorant Guardian reading loons, fox hunting is now banned for no good reason other than to allow New Labour to court such voters.

Isn't fox hunting basically following around dogs on horseback as they do the actual hunting? Doesn't sound like much of a loss to me.

Easily. If the fruitloop being tossed about like a ragdoll could not envisage an enraged bull, strangely, not being able to read her PETA badge, frankly the bull was doing humanity a favour in removing stupidity from the gene pool.:p

This close to a Darwin Award.

Isn't fox hunting basically following around dogs on horseback as they do the actual hunting? Doesn't sound like much of a loss to me.

It was, however, a harmless countryside tradition, and a cherished one at that. There was no good reason for that New labour **** to ban fox hunting beyond his trying to get one over on the upper class, an yet he nonetheless imposes animal rights-esque fluffy bunny hugging morality upon the rest of the nation.

My apologies. I was referring to the UK loons who attack Huntingdon life sciences by desecrating the graves of families grandmothers; I assumed you'd have heard of it given all the publicity it attracted.

As for middle class idealists, it is the central issue; thanks to said idealistic, ignorant Guardian reading loons, fox hunting is now banned for no good reason other than to allow New Labour to court such voters.


I can't believe that I almost agree with you, Chris. Banning Fox-hunting was a ridiculous endevour undertaken by idealistic yet ignorant animal rights groups.

However, I do not delight in the killing of Fox's myself. I do think it is cruel. However. The estates used by the wealthy Lord's and Ladie's fox-hunts are essentially worthless now that they can't hunt. It's not profitable, or entertaining anymore.

So guess what animal activists? Now the former hunters are much, much more likely to sell thier now essentially useless land to private companies. Specifically building developers. And said developers will use that land to create housing estates, and roads or whatever. They will destroy the environment not only of the Fox, but of countless other animals.

So in the end, you will find that for the lives of 2 or 3 foxes not killed in hunts per year, you get the nigh extinction of natural habitats for various animals perpetrated by developers.

I somehow don't think they thought this through...

I can't believe that I almost agree with you, Chris. Banning Fox-hunting was a ridiculous endevour undertaken by idealistic yet ignorant animal rights groups.

However, I do not delight in the killing of Fox's myself. I do think it is cruel. However. The estates used by the wealthy Lord's and Ladie's fox-hunts are essentially worthless now that they can't hunt. It's not profitable, or entertaining anymore.

So guess what animal activists? Now the former hunters are much, much more likely to sell thier now essentially useless land to private companies. Specifically building developers. And said developers will use that land to create housing estates, and roads or whatever. They will destroy the environment not only of the Fox, but of countless other animals.

So in the end, you will find that for the lives of 2 or 3 foxes not killed in hunts per year, you get the nigh extinction of natural habitats for various animals perpetrated by developers.

I somehow don't think they thought this through...

Why would a government ever think things through?

It was, however, a harmless countryside tradition, and a cherished one at that. There was no good reason for that New labour **** to ban fox hunting beyond his trying to get one over on the upper class, an yet he nonetheless imposes animal rights-esque fluffy bunny hugging morality upon the rest of the nation.

Tell them to come over here, the more dead foxes we have the better. Same with rabbits, cats, toads (although they breed so fast that the entire country's inevitably f***ed) and to a lesser extent camels.

Why would a government ever think things through?

Or my fellow excitable young leftists either...

I think a more fitting punishment for animal rights activists would be to give them all our pets and all our zoo animals.

Ahhh, they'd just do to them what they do with every other domesticated animal they nab; execute them for daring to like humans.

Not really. Whenever you buy meat, you're making yourself the direct cause for the "production" of meat - i.e., the slaughtering of animals. I don't see anything wrong in giving children the truth. I do agree that the phrasing is misleading to some extent, but it's not fundamentally incorrect. And it's less disturbing that arguing that children should never be told the truth.

If I have children, I will tell them the truth - in the way I, NOT ANIMAL RIGHT ACTIVISTS, SEE FIT. I have the right to be allowed that much, and will force them to allow me that right by any means necessary, up to and included giving their kids fliers informing them that their parents have sex with animals, childre, etc, all in very graphic ways.

Wouldn't it be just a lot easier to round up PETA members and toss them into tiger/lion enclosures with the message of "ethically treat THAT!".

They can expose to the lions and tigers the values of the vegan died (for those few seconds before the big cats sever their jugular veins).

Why would a government ever think things through?Animal rights activists arn't exactly known for that trait either.

Ah, yes. More proof that the truth of anything in human affairs lies somewhere between the looniest extremes on both sides. Proof also that both sides are equally vulnerable to such looniness.

Ah, yes. More proof that the truth of anything in human affairs lies somewhere between the looniest extremes on both sides. Proof also that both sides are equally vulnerable to such looniness.
I'm amazed at how prevalent this bogus idea has become.

Folks, this is called the "false middle." The idea that every subject has two equally nutty extreme sides, and that the truth lies somewhere between them, is crap.

Take, for example, the shape of the Earth. We have one side claiming that the Earth is round, and one side claiming that the Earth is not round. Do we then conclude that the truth is found somewhere in between, and that we should take the high road by rejecting both "extreme" ends of the debate? Of course not. We would only do that if we were arrogant morons who cared more about finding a high horse to ride than about understanding reality.

Take, for example, the shape of the Earth. We have one side claiming that the Earth is round, and one side claiming that the Earth is not round. Do we then conclude that the truth is found somewhere in between, and that we should take the high road by rejecting both "extreme" ends of the debate? Of course not. We would only do that if we were arrogant morons who cared more about finding a high horse to ride than about understanding reality.

The Earth isn't round, it's an oblate spheroid http://boards.1up.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Also it has mountains, valleys and other aberrations.

A more appropriate example might be Intelligent Design vs Evolution, although you can reach a middle ground in that argument but only from one side.

I'm not trying to say that that doesn't happen and that the solution is always in the middle, I'm just bored and like finding flaws in people's analogies and arguments. One of the easy ways to best me in a debate/discussion in person is to just let me pick apart my own argument.

Animals deserve to be treated right; they deserve to not be abused.

What they don't deserve is to have a bunch of crackpots like PETA "defending" them.

They vocally support terrorist organisations and terrorist attacks, so they're not that far off.

this only works if we dilute 'terrorism' to utter innocuousness.

this only works if we dilute 'terrorism' to utter innocuousness.

Breaking and entering, theft and arson are harmless now?

Breaking and entering, theft and arson are harmless now?

I think his point isn't that they are harmless, but that they don't necessarily constitute terrorism. And that to make the above terrorism, you trivialise the term to irrelevence.


In fact we even have specific names for those crimes rather then the umbrella of "terrorism."


Course I could be wrong :)

Breaking and entering, theft and arson are harmless now?

Unfortunately it seems the only way most Americans and the U.S. Government will take the potential threat of PETA seriously is if someone manages to trick Ingrid Newkirk into saying something to the effects of "We are liberating these animals in the name of Allah."

I support P.E.T.A.* :D





*People Eating Tasty Animals

I think his point isn't that they are harmless, but that they don't necessarily constitute terrorism. And that to make the above terrorism, you trivialise the term to irrelevence.


In fact we even have specific names for those crimes rather then the umbrella of "terrorism."


Course I could be wrong :)

One of the key points of terrorism is forcing a compliance to one's viewpoints by threat or intimidation. If we wanted to get nitty gritty on semantics, then PETA whores kidnapping harmless animals and deliberately exposing preschool children to graphic and often misleading Animal Liberation propaganda has the potential to be ruled as an act of terrorism by a judge.

I think his point isn't that they are harmless, but that they don't necessarily constitute terrorism. And that to make the above terrorism, you trivialise the term to irrelevence.


In fact we even have specific names for those crimes rather then the umbrella of "terrorism."


Course I could be wrong :)

Oh I see, so he was talking about devaluing the term terrorism rather than calling setting things on fire harmless?

One of the key points of terrorism is forcing a compliance to one's viewpoints by threat or intimidation.

Forgive me if I get this wrong, but I haven't used boilerplate for a while now.

I think the standard response to this is, "That definition also implicates goverments, authorities and modern institutions as well."

If we wanted to get nitty gritty on semantics, then PETA whores kidnapping harmless animals and deliberately exposing preschool children to graphic and often misleading Animal Liberation propaganda has the potential to be ruled as an act of terrorism by a judge.

It could.

Though to get nitty-gritty on semantics, the things outlines above could be too ;)

This time they have gone too god damn far. They stole a kindergarten class' bunny. Now they are stealing pets from children, have they no souls?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20975943/?gt1=10357

The sons of bitches stole a rabbit from a classroom and left a flier protesting the coming Ringling Brother's circus showing a picture of a bear trying to escape a cage and bearing the names of PETA and the Northwest Animal Rights Network. PETA, of course, disavows any knowledge of the action and claims they support people owning domesticated animals. We all of course know this is bullshit and that if PETA wasn't involved directly, they wholly support this.

I hope they catch whoever did this and send them to the stockade after a public flogging.

You do know this highly offensive to me. It's like asking to flog all Muslims after a bombing.

You do know this highly offensive to me. It's like asking to flog all Muslims after a bombing.
No, it's not. Unless all Muslims advocate and agree with bombings and contribute to those efforts.

Oh I see, so he was talking about devaluing the term terrorism rather than calling setting things on fire harmless?

yeah. its not like this devaluing doesn't have precedent (see, for example, 'war'), but if we want terrorism to denote something more than "stuff i don't approve of", we can't go around calling everything we don't approve of 'terrorism'. and if we do want it to mean that, then it seems to me that the concept is entirely fluffy rather than terrifying.

No, it's not. Unless all Muslims advocate and agree with bombings and contribute to those efforts.

I'm an animal rights activist and I don't agree with this obtuseness. And I am profoundly irked by your title.

yeah. its not like this devaluing doesn't have precedent (see, for example, 'war'), but if we want terrorism to denote something more than "stuff i don't approve of", we can't go around calling everything we don't approve of 'terrorism'. and if we do want it to mean that, then it seems to me that the concept is entirely fluffy rather than terrifying.

Terrorism is a violent act (either against person or property) that is carried out by a non-state actor with the intent of bringing about a change in behavior, either social or governmental.

The ALF sure seems to fit that criteria.

I'm an animal rights activist and I don't agree with this obtuseness. And I am profoundly irked by your title.
Lets' see. Activist is a term meaning some one who actively works towards a cause. That means you actively work towards the cause of "animal rights." I am not saying vegans or vegetarians should be flogged, or even ethical versions there of (which is almost the same thing as animal rights activists). I said animal rights activists participating in such activities should be flogged to teach them a lesson. I stand by what I said. The end.

Lets' see. Activist is a term meaning some one who actively works towards a cause. That means you actively work towards the cause of "animal rights." I am not saying vegans or vegetarians should be flogged, or even ethical versions there of (which is almost the same thing as animal rights activists). I said animal rights activists participating in such activities should be flogged to teach them a lesson. I stand by what I said. The end.

Ripping-off pets is not a part of activism any more then blowing people-up is a part of praying. It's merely an add-on by extremists who take activism too-far.

A few more PETA propaganda:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news/images/article_156_comicbook.gif
http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/peta.jpg

All of these handed out to, you guess it, children!

Those are amazing! The one with Daddy brutalizing fish made me laugh very hard... I wonder what kind of fish he catches with that skull&crossbones lure in his hat.

Those are amazing! The one with Daddy brutalizing fish made me laugh very hard... I wonder what kind of fish he catches with that skull&crossbones lure in his hat.

Goldfish, arrrrrghhh...

Those are amazing! The one with Daddy brutalizing fish made me laugh very hard... I wonder what kind of fish he catches with that skull&crossbones lure in his hat.

Hm. So these people only defend animals. There is no-one screaming genocide when we use anti-bacterial soap?

I didn't even see the skull & crossbones, I want to a fishing hat like that.

Ripping-off pets is not a part of activism any more then blowing people-up is a part of praying. It's merely an add-on by extremists who take activism too-far.

So basically you're claiming that people who don't do or support this should be flogged, which is offensive.

Terrorism is a violent act (either against person or property) that is carried out by a non-state actor with the intent of bringing about a change in behavior, either social or governmental.

The ALF sure seems to fit that criteria.

except that that also includes all revolutionary groups and all warriors in pre or post-state societies, amongst a host of other plausibly 'legitimate' force users. in fact, there seems to be no terror implied by this definition at all - 'terrorism' is in fact often a positive good in the world that should be actively supported, advanced, and nurtured.

i don't think this gets at the actual meaning of the term.

Hm. So these people only defend animals. There is no-one screaming genocide when we use anti-bacterial soap?

They only defend animals when it suits their attention whore fix. Note the case of the Virginia and North Carolina pet murders as examples of how they'll actuall kill animals to get the attention they desperately crave.

Hm. So these people only defend animals. There is no-one screaming genocide when we use anti-bacterial soap?

Fish aren't cute, but they are cuter than bacteria.

I should probably be on PETA's hitlist...Not only do I eat fish 3-4 times a week, but I've had whale many times.

So basically you're claiming that people who don't do or support this should be flogged, which is offensive.
So right then, how do you actively work to support animal rights?

So right then, how do you actively work to support animal rights?

Mostly with my voice online. Perhaps once-in-a-while I'll picket.

If I have children, I will tell them the truth - in the way I, NOT ANIMAL RIGHT ACTIVISTS, SEE FIT. I have the right to be allowed that much, and will force them to allow me that right by any means necessary, up to and included giving their kids fliers informing them that their parents have sex with animals, childre, etc, all in very graphic ways.

You want to get yourself arrested for promoting child pornography? Well, that'll be one less lunatic on the streets, I suppose...

You want to get yourself arrested for promoting child pornography? Well, that'll be one less lunatic on the streets, I suppose...

No, I only want revenge against those that dare traumatize my kid.

http://weaselhut.net/Picture 014 (Custom).jpg

I consulted my cat and she thought this was the best reply. :)

And some people are just major assholes who will do anything to spread their propaganda. Yes, even stealing from preschool kids. On a related note, What the hell does a preschool bunny have to do with the Ringling Brothers Circus? It could be that they both kept animals in cage, but that would be insane.

A few more PETA propaganda:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news/images/article_156_comicbook.gif
http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/peta.jpg

and of course we can't forget the bucket of blood.

http://dailyablution.blogs.com/photos/blogpictures/peta.jpg

All of these handed out to, you guess it, children!

They working with Jack Chick? Those comics remind me of his.. but in a more bloody way. I'd be mad as hell if I had a kid and someone just went up to my kid and handed them something like this.

Is it legal without a parents/guardian consent? If it is.. it shouldn't be.

I don't agree with or support PETA, because they lie by omission and haven't got a clue what they're on about half the time. They're like modern feminists. Aye, we knew what it was about in the 20s, when they wanted the vote. Aye, we knew what it was about in the 60s when they wanted abortion, equal pay, etcetera, but now the aims are all over the shop. PETA are the same.

By the way, I'm a veggie who is strongly in favour of animal rights. But these cocks go about it the wrong way, to say the least.

Most memorably, they "liberated" one salt-water species into a near-by freshwater lake.

D'oh. :headbang:

I support animal rights to some degree (Shockingly to people who don't really think, I actually manage to support animal rights and animal testing at the same time!), but I am endlessly amazed by some of the stupid shit that the craziest parts of PETA and similar organizations come up with.

D'oh. :headbang:

I support animal rights to some degree (Shockingly to people who don't really think, I actually manage to support animal rights and animal testing at the same time!), but I am endlessly amazed by some of the stupid shit that the craziest parts of PETA and similar organizations come up with.
I have a visceral dislike for "animal rights activists" at this point, due entirely to the fact that I have never encountered a single such activist who knew as much about the care of animals in research as I do.

Forgive me, but I think that if you're going to consider yourself an "activist" for any cause then you should probably take the time to learn what the fuck you're talking about.

Something tells me you are an ethical vegan.

Could you actually answer the question?

Why should we trust you over PETA as to what PETA actually thinks?

Not only is PETA a home-grown Al'Qaeda waiting to happen (ALF, Rodney Coronado, etc.)

I'm sorry, I stopped reading here.

I'm sorry, I stopped reading here.

yeah, i am honestly confused how those sorts of statements make their way into every single discussion on this subject. its such a prima facie silly thing to say.

I have a visceral dislike for "animal rights activists" at this point, due entirely to the fact that I have never encountered a single such activist who knew as much about the care of animals in research as I do.

Forgive me, but I think that if you're going to consider yourself an "activist" for any cause then you should probably take the time to learn what the fuck you're talking about.

100% agreed. I have had the lucky experience of being friends with an animal rights activist who also happens to have a Master's degree in zoology and a bachelor's in biochemistry, and who has worked in research involving animals herself, so I associate activists more with smart, sane people like her than with the idiots who don't know the difference between saltwater and freshwater species.

stuff like that is really stupid, it doesn't help their cause in any way. They believe in some fairy-tale version of animals where when you release an animal they live happily ever-after instead of dying or destroying the eco-system in which you released them. Their often very graphic protests and stubbornness also turns the people away from mainstream animal rights causes.
I do think that some forms of direct action are good, like trying to prevent whale-hunts etc.


Hm. So these people only defend animals. There is no-one screaming genocide when we use anti-bacterial soap?

because bacteria aren't animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animalia).

Not really. Whenever you buy meat, you're making yourself the direct cause for the "production" of meat - i.e., the slaughtering of animals. I don't see anything wrong in giving children the truth. I do agree that the phrasing is misleading to some extent, but it's not fundamentally incorrect. And it's less disturbing that arguing that children should never be told the truth.

Giving people facts is the necessary basis for them to develop an informed point of view.



So there are parental guides on movies and video games with violence and sex why? I mean, violence and sex happens, its a part of life, why sheild 5 year old billy from it?

Because they are KIDS! Because their biggest worry should be how high to climb on the jungle gym, not what the burger on their plate sounded like when it died. For crapsake, can we preserve SOME innocence in the youth of today before they hit 8 and the girls all want to dress like the sluts they see on tv and the boys say fuck more than they say hello? >.<

I was looking up girl's skirts, checking out thier hot little butts, and watching very brutal B horror movies at five.

Yours must have been a pretty disturbing childhood.

Animal liberation is generally a good thing. I'm sort of neutral on this, its not a big deal either way.

I miss the days when test labs went up in flames...

Why should we trust you over PETA as to what PETA actually thinks?.
I feel no need to answer rhetorical questions.

I feel no need to answer rhetorical questions.

So basically the voices in your head.

yeah, i am honestly confused how those sorts of statements make their way into every single discussion on this subject. its such a prima facie silly thing to say.

Only because so far nobody committing crimes in the name of Animal Liberation has actually injured or killed another human being. But given how ALF and similar-minded individuals are receiving comparatively no attention from the governments as opposed to any perceived Jihadi groups and cells, it's only a matter of time before that line is crossed.

PETA is a terrorist support network waiting to happen, much in the way Al'Qaeda was a terrorist support network before venturing into committing actual terrorism itself. They serve as the official mouthpiece for groups like ALF, and they have provided material support such as covering the legal expenses for Rodney Coronado in his arson case.

Only because so far nobody committing crimes in the name of Animal Liberation has actually injured or killed another human being.

Apart from that toddler that got filled full of shrapnel back in 1990...

Why should we trust you over PETA as to what PETA actually thinks?


I can't tell you why you should trust Gauthier cause I don't know him personally. But I can tell you why you shouldn't trust PETA as to what it claims to think. Because it's actions don't follow and are damned hypocritical.

It's like trusting the likes of Fred Phelps, or Ann Coulter.

Apart from that toddler that got filled full of shrapnel back in 1990...

They did? You have information on that? I haven't heard of it, but it'd be another bullet to put in PETA's propaganda.

I feel no need to answer rhetorical questions.

The question wasn't rhetorical. If you actually had a good reason, you could have given it.

But given how ALF and similar-minded individuals are receiving comparatively no attention from the governments as opposed to any perceived Jihadi groups and cells,

Maybe because jihadist terrorists actually kill people--fly planes into buildings, plant bombs in subways, that sort of thing.

Nothing animal liberationists have done even remotely compares.

it's only a matter of time before that line is crossed.

Arbitrary speculation.

Because it's actions don't follow and are damned hypocritical.

Specifically regarding the humane keeping of domesticated animals? Really?

Hm. So these people only defend animals. There is no-one screaming genocide when we use anti-bacterial soap?

Like I said, nobody cares about the insecticide you can walk to the shops and buy. But if somebody tried to kill something bigger in the same way there'd be an uproar.

For those of you who don't know, most household insecticides work by blocking the chemical that stops nerves from firing, the end result of which is a muscle once used is used continuously, this will result in convulsions until the affected insect eventually dies of exhaustion.

stuff like that is really stupid, it doesn't help their cause in any way. They believe in some fairy-tale version of animals where when you release an animal they live happily ever-after instead of dying or destroying the eco-system in which you released them.

Again there aren't many (if any) vocal animal liberation people around here, but if there are the farmers and everyone will give them hell about it because our native species are being killed by feral (and domestic) cats and feral foxes enough as it is. Not to mention the huge numbers of plant-destroying rabbits, and in there case we have to put down a few thousand pet rabbits a year because they get in the way of our biological weapons and neither of them is particularly pretty.

I do think that some forms of direct action are good, like trying to prevent whale-hunts etc.

I can agree with that, that sort of thing's downright unnecessary and you shouldn't be messing with a delicate population like that. I hate the whale hunting defence of "Well you kill <animal X>". We bred and raised that animal and then we knocked it unconscious before bleeding it to death.

Specifically regarding the humane keeping of domesticated animals? Really?

As opposed to the 'humane liberalization' of domesticated animals into environments they cannot survive in?

Or the 'humane liberalization' of pets at pounds only to kill them for propaganda purposes?

Or the 'humane destruction' of private property in order to carry out the aforementioned 'humane liberalization'?

Or the 'humane liberalization' of animals through extortion and grave robbing?

PETA as a whole is full of hypocritical trash.

This time they have gone too god damn far. They stole a kindergarten class' bunny. Now they are stealing pets from children, have they no souls?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20975943/?gt1=10357

The sons of bitches stole a rabbit from a classroom and left a flier protesting the coming Ringling Brother's circus showing a picture of a bear trying to escape a cage and bearing the names of PETA and the Northwest Animal Rights Network. PETA, of course, disavows any knowledge of the action and claims they support people owning domesticated animals. We all of course know this is bullshit and that if PETA wasn't involved directly, they wholly support this.

I hope they catch whoever did this and send them to the stockade after a public flogging.

No need to flog them; just throw them into a cage with one or two hungry lions. They believe animal rights are more important than human rights; give them a chance to "put their money where their mouths are"! LOL :D

Maybe because jihadist terrorists actually kill people--fly planes into buildings, plant bombs in subways, that sort of thing.

Nothing animal liberationists have done even remotely compares.

Aside from that bit mentioned about the toddler riddled with shrapnel story I'm waiting for a link on, your criteria for whether or not an individual or organization can be deemed terrorist is body cody counts? If body counts were an internationally accepted criteria for defining terrorists Spain would be talking out of its ass calling ETA a terrorist organization and Guantanamo Bay would have a lot less occupants than it currently does now.

I also like how you conveniently ignore the parts where I say PETA is not a terrorist organization in itself, but a terrorist support network like Al'Qaeda started out as.

Arbitrary speculation.

Arbitrary? Given their willingness to be ALF's mouthpiece and financing Rodney Coronado's legal defense, you're saying it's arbitary to reasonably predict that the actions of those they support will eventually escalate towards human violence?

Again I'm waiting for a link on the shrapnel-riddled toddler story.

Specifically regarding the humane keeping of domesticated animals? Really?

Hypocrisy in that they call for the total abandoment of animal usage in all forms including pets, work assistance and animal products while Ingrid Newkirk is a confirmed diabetic who uses animal-based insulin.

Hypocrisy in that they supposedly cry out against animal cruelty yet they had branches in Virginia and North Carolina kill pets obtained under false pretenses to use their carcasses for Animal Liberation propaganda.

Hypocrisy in that Ingrid Newkirk calls for the protesting of animal killings for productive reasons but then commits animal killings herself.

"PETA assails other parties for killing animals for food or research. Then it kills animals — but for really important reasons, such as running out of room."

The question wasn't rhetorical. If you actually had a good reason, you could have given it.
If you don't understand that it is rhetorical, I'm not going to waste my breath on an explanation you will dismiss out of hand.

Prepare for one of the awesomest pictures ever by volume.




http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/4623/sovietrabbitpm2.jpg


Russian reversal with a Monty Python and the Holy Grail reference!

If you don't understand that it is rhetorical, I'm not going to waste my breath on an explanation you will dismiss out of hand.

And yet you have no explanation for why it is rhetorical. Splendid. And I suppose the follow up question of, "Have you actually put some intelligent thought into your position?" is also a rhetorical no?

Prepare for one of the awesomest pictures ever by volume.




http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/4623/sovietrabbitpm2.jpg


Russian reversal with a Monty Python and the Holy Grail reference!

It would be a tragic but delicious irony if some private lab engineered one of those and a bunch of Animal Liberationists decided to free it.

your criteria for whether or not an individual or organization can be deemed terrorist is body cody counts?

Government focus on terrorist organizations should indeed be proportionate to the actual danger they pose.

And, no, my criterion for terrorism is not based on body counts, but organizations that do not intentionally kill people are not "terrorist." Direct action is not terrorism.

I also like how you conveniently ignore the parts where I say PETA is not a terrorist organization in itself, but a terrorist support network like Al'Qaeda stated out as.

I like how you conveniently ignore the fact that I haven't even been arguing about this point... it doesn't matter what the relationship between PETA and the so-called "terrorist" animal liberation organizations are, because they are not remotely comparable to al-Qaeda either.

Arbitrary? Given their willingness to be ALF's mouthpiece and financing Rodney Coronado's legal defense, you're saying it's arbitary to reasonably predict that the actions of those they support will eventually escalate towards human violence?

Wait--because PETA supports the ALF, the ALF is going to start killing people?

Explain this line of reasoning, please.

Hypocrisy in that they call for the total abandoment of animal usage in all forms including pets,

"Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free.""

Animal Rights Uncompromised: PETA on 'Pets' (http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp)

Or is this another case where PETA's opponents know the organization's positions better than the organization itself does?

work assistance and animal products while Ingrid Newkirk is a confirmed diabetic who uses animal-based insulin.

Ingrid Newkirk =/= PETA.

Not to mention the fact that I did ask specifically about PETA's alleged hypocrisy regarding its support for the humane keeping of domesticated animals... namely, a basis for The_Pantless_Hero maintaining that "in reality" PETA supports liberating rabbits from kindergarten classrooms, despite its statement to the contrary.

Hypocrisy in that they supposedly cry out against animal cruelty yet they had branches in Virginia and North Carolina kill pets obtained under false pretenses to use their carcasses for Animal Liberation propaganda.

Demonstrate this. And, again, you're missing the direction of my question.

Hypocrisy in that Ingrid Newkirk calls for the protesting of animal killings for productive reasons but then commits animal killings herself.

That's an interesting quote.

Ingrid Newkirk, of course, did not actually say it herself... one of her critics did. And the comparison of euthanasia--a perfectly justified response to the pet overpopulation crisis, and one that is hardly specific to PETA--to the breeding of animals deliberately to imprison them in horrific conditions and ultimately kill them is an absurd one.

As opposed to the 'humane liberalization' of domesticated animals into environments they cannot survive in?

Yeah... only nobody has given an explanation as to why they think PETA supports this, when they explicitly say otherwise.

Or the 'humane liberalization' of pets at pounds only to kill them for propaganda purposes?

Euthanizing animals kept in poor conditions with nowhere else to go is perfectly humane.

Or the 'humane destruction' of private property in order to carry out the aforementioned 'humane liberalization'?

The destruction of private property can be perfectly humane.

Between 1998 and 2005 PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, killed at least 14,403 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters, most of which were at animal shelters awaiting adoption. PETA has a $9,370 walk-in freezer at their Norfolk, Virginia HQ for the storage of dead bodies (animals they kill). PETA also paid Rodney Coronado over $70,000 to firebomb a Michigan State University medical research facility where he destroyed over 30 years of medical research.

Ethical my ass.

PETA also paid Rodney Coronado over $70,000 to firebomb a Michigan State University medical research facility

no they didn't.
1) coronado isn't a mercenary
2) it went to his support fund during his trial

no they didn't.
1) coronado isn't a mercenary
2) it went to his support fund during his trial
Because PETA is a tax-exempt organization its tax returns are a matter of public record. In 1995 there is a notation $45,200 to the Rodney Coronado Support Committee. $25,000 was given as a "loan" that was never paid back to a Ray Coronado, his father. Coronada is a terrorist. He bombed a university medical reserach facility. He's a fucking monster and what he did was tantamount ot blowing up a hospital because the drugs and treatments used in hospitals are developed at medical research labs like the one he destroyed.

Government focus on terrorist organizations should indeed be proportionate to the actual danger they pose.

And, no, my criterion for terrorism is not based on body counts, but organizations that do not intentionally kill people are not "terrorist." Direct action is not terrorism.

So you advocate legalizing theft, arson and vandalism as "Direct Action"? Are you also saying the government shouldn't focus as much on terrorist organizations that haven't inflicted mass casualties in a well-publicized attack?

I like how you conveniently ignore the fact that I haven't even been arguing about this point... it doesn't matter what the relationship between PETA and the so-called "terrorist" animal liberation organizations are, because they are not remotely comparable to al-Qaeda either.

Yes they are. The Department of Homeland Security has listed ALF as a terroristic threat:

Animal Rights Groups and Ecology Militants Make DHS Terrorist List, Right-Wing Vigilantes Omitted (http://www.cq.com/public/20050325_homeland.html)

In addition, officials of the FBI and the BATF addressed a Senate panel on domestic terrorism, mentioning ALF as well as the Earth Liberation Front as being a growing concern:

FBI, ATF address domestic terrorism (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/)

When you add that along with the payments to Rodney Coronado for his arson, yes, it is accurate and fair to compare PETA to Al'Qaeda in that it provides material support to known terrorist groups.

Wait--because PETA supports the ALF, the ALF is going to start killing people?

Explain this line of reasoning, please.

Known operatives of ALF have taken increasingly violent measures to spread their message of Animal Liberation:

Animal Liberation Front bomber jailed for 12 years (http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,,1967374,00.html)

Donald Currie, an ALF activist was convicted for conducting a bombing campaign against people associated with Huntington Life Sciences.

First was planting a homemade bomb on the doorstep of one of his targets.

In the first of two attacks for which he was convicted, Currie targeted the home of Paul Blackburn, a senior executive for GlaxoSmithKline, in Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, in September last year, placing a device made of matches, cigarettes and a bottle of white spirit on the doorstep.

It exploded in what firefighters described as a "large fireball" shortly after being discovered by Mr Blackburn's adult daughter at 11pm. The businessman was away from home, but his wife and another daughter, aged eight, were asleep inside at the time. The attack on the family followed years of phone calls and intimidation at their home.

Then he tried to rig car bombs against another target:

On the evening of the attack, in Caversham, Reading, Ms Brooks and her partner disturbed Currie planting a device under one of their cars. He fled, and a second bomb was found abandoned in a hedge. The couple's two children, aged 11 and 14, were in the house at the time. Currie was arrested at the end of the family's street, close to a bicycle on which he planned to escape. He was carrying a fire lighter and cigarette lighter and wearing a mask.

Those bombs could have had the potential to kill their intended targets. But of course you'll try to dismiss that with a "Rogue Agent" excuse.

"Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free.""

Animal Rights Uncompromised: PETA on 'Pets' (http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp)

Or is this another case where PETA's opponents know the organization's positions better than the organization itself does?

And a link from PETA itself is supposed to be unbiased? Using that same approach, I could link to Chinese government websites to prove there's no human rights abuses going on over there. The fact still stands that PETA never practices what it preaches and in fact makes it a point to raise a stink about things that it has no qualms doing by itself.

Ingrid Newkirk =/= PETA.

Bull Fucking Shit. Ingrid Newkirk is PETA's president. Therefore whatever Ingrid Newkirk does fully reflects on the organization as a whole. If not, then by that same token nobody has the right to criticize the United States Government based on what George W. Bush and his administration says or does or the right to criticize the government of Iran based on what Mahmoud Ahmedinejad says or does.

Demonstrate this. And, again, you're missing the direction of my
question.

PETA trial opens in animal deaths (http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/534959.html)

Has PETA been listed as a terrorist group by the US government yet?

Has PETA been listed as a terrorist group by the US government yet?

Unfortunately, that won't happen unless someone gets Ingrid Newkirk to say she's "doing it for Allah."

Unfortunately, that won't happen unless someone gets Ingrid Newkirk to say she's "doing it for Allah."

Really?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/index.html

Really?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/index.html

That was just a Senator saying that PETA funded ALF, providing them material support. It was not an official certification of PETA as a terrorist organization unfortunately.

So you advocate legalizing theft, arson and vandalism as "Direct Action"?

Do you just make things up as you go along? That's not what I said.

Are you also saying the government shouldn't focus as much on terrorist organizations that haven't inflicted mass casualties in a well-publicized attack?

Well, the "well-publicized" part is irrelevant, but yes. Terrorist organizations responsible for mass casualties should receive more attention than ones whose harm is comparatively minor.

The Department of Homeland Security has listed ALF as a terroristic threat:

Yeah, so? That proves nothing.

Wait... haven't you been insisting that these groups are mostly ignored by the government?

When you add that along with the payments to Rodney Coronado for his arson, yes, it is accurate and fair to compare PETA to Al'Qaeda in that it provides material support to known terrorist groups.

Only if "terrorism" is broadened to include a wide variety of actions that may be perfectly morally justified, therefore making the comparison ridiculous anyway for a different reason (like comparing PETA to al-Qaeda because members of both breathe would be.)

But of course you'll try to dismiss that with a "Rogue Agent" excuse.

Well, among other things, yes--because generally animal liberationists don't advocate killing humans, even if they advocate other forms of violence and illegal activity like property destruction.

And notice that in this case, unlike the actions of al-Qaeda, the attempted bombing was not indiscriminate.

And a link from PETA itself is supposed to be unbiased?

A link from PETA about what PETA does, for instance with regard to its euthanasia policy, you could fairly accuse of bias.

But the link I posted was about the actions PETA advocates. It is, after all, an advocacy organization; it would be transparently counterproductive not to tell the truth.

Bull Fucking Shit. Ingrid Newkirk is PETA's president. Therefore whatever Ingrid Newkirk does fully reflects on the organization as a whole. If not, then by that same token nobody has the right to criticize the United States Government based on what George W. Bush and his administration says or does or the right to criticize the government of Iran based on what Mahmoud Ahmedinejad says or does.

No, I can criticize the US government for what George Bush does in his capacity as president of the US, and I can criticize PETA for what Ingrid Newkirk does in her capacity as president of PETA.

But if George Bush does, in his personal life, something that contradicts his policies, I cannot criticize the US government for that. Only him. And the same is true of PETA.

PETA trial opens in animal deaths (http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/534959.html)

No mention of "for propaganda purposes" anywhere there... just a dispute over PETA's willingness to use euthanasia.

And, of course, both workers were found not guilty (http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=6031689&nav=menu45_2) of animal cruelty.

Because PETA is a tax-exempt organization its tax returns are a matter of public record. In 1995 there is a notation $45,200 to the Rodney Coronado Support Committee. $25,000 was given as a "loan" that was never paid back to a Ray Coronado, his father.

right. support committee. for his trial. what part confuses you?

Yeah... only nobody has given an explanation as to why they think PETA supports this, when they explicitly say otherwise.


PETA funds legal defense teams for arsonists and terrorists (explain to me how planting bombs in people's houses and cars isn't terrorism).

PETA's has also supported people who have deliberately raided labs for animals to release into the wild where they either become a nuisance, a local threat or quickly die in the wild.

And yet you believe them when they say otherwise.

I guess China doesn't have human rights abuses.
North Korea is actually a paradise.
AIDS is actually implanted in condoms.

And that you're a turnip.

Actions speak louder than words. If you're going to believe mere words over actions, I'm going to maim you and loudly proclaim that I didn't. And I'm going to expect that you will affirm my statement.

Otherwise you're a damn hypocrite.


Euthanizing children kept in poor conditions with nowhere else to go is perfectly humane.

See how that can be so easily twisted? And poor conditions? What poor conditions? Most PETA people haven't even a clue what the conditions are but are all too willing to believe the party line of "All cases of kept conditions are evil horror houses"

And nowhere else to go? How do you explain PETA members euthanizing animals from pounds after lying to get them when the pounds have a higher rate of finding actual homes than PETA death factories hmmm?


The destruction of private property can be perfectly humane.

Can I burn down your house? It's for a humane cause. The removal of human hypocrisy.

PETA funds legal defense teams for arsonists and terrorists

well, arsonists anyway. though technically speaking that would only be accused arsonists who also happen to be well known activists within the community.

you prefer people not having good defenders in court?

PETA funds legal defense teams for arsonists and terrorists (explain to me how planting bombs in people's houses and cars isn't terrorism).

I'm not aware of PETA funding the legal defense teams of anyone who's planted bombs in houses. Care to support that?

And this has nothing to do with justifying your claim that PETA advocates releasing domesticated animals into the wild.

PETA's has also supported people who have deliberately raided labs for animals to release into the wild where they either become a nuisance, a local threat or quickly die in the wild.

Maybe, but the word you used (and the topic under discussion) was "domesticated."

And yet you believe them when they say otherwise.

Yes, I do. Because nobody has credibly supported a claim to the contrary.

See how that can be so easily twisted?

Look, millions of domesticated animals are killed every year because of overpopulation... if you have a problem with that, suggest an alternative. But certainly don't focus your attention on PETA, which is a minor part of that process, and which at least does it rather humanely.

Most PETA people haven't even a clue what the conditions are

How do you know that?

And nowhere else to go? How do you explain PETA members euthanizing animals from pounds after lying to get them when the pounds have a higher rate of finding actual homes than PETA death factories hmmm?

Support this, please.

Can I burn down your house?

No.

right. support committee. for his trial. what part confuses you?
A trial for his firebombing of a university medical research facility with the intent to terrorize the scientists into stopping their work looking for treatments and cures to terrible diseases. His family was paid 25 grand for his violent activities. Kind of like what terrorist organizations do with the families of suicidie bombers.

They paid him to blow up a place that exists to treat people. At a school of all places. How is that not terrorism? Are you going to deny that what is being done is terrorism until someone ends up dead as an intended result of these attacks or will you continue to defend these actions even then? How many people will it take before this is wrong? A hundred? A thousand? How many people need to have their treatment delayed and die as a result some hippies' "direct action"? A million? Ten million? How many people?

Without testing on animals you lose about 90% of medical research. There are diabetics in PETA, along with millions of Americans, that wouldn't be alive toda if it weren't for testing on dogs. There are people who would have died from kidney failure if it weren't for surgical procedures that came from testing on cows, pigs, and other animals. I don't even have to know you and I can say that there is a good chance that without animal testing you would have probably died years ago.
---
well, arsonists anyway. though technically speaking that would only be accused arsonists who also happen to be well known activists within the community.

you prefer people not having good defenders in court?
Actually Rodney is an admitted arsonist. He admitted to six other attack during his not-so-famous trial for that university attack. He also admitted to that attack. He admitted it in open court as part of a plea bargain. And the prosecutor even said there was evidence that Ingrid herself was involved, though to what level wasn't specified and probably went no further than funding.

I don't think anyone can argue the basic message of PETA, preventing animal cruelty, is a bad one. I'm sure they've carried it to extremes, but the basic message is still a good one.

As to the OP. Stealing a domesticated pet rabbit is stupid. Domesticated rabbits wouldn't be able to survive in the wild. Freeing monkeys from vivisection labs, now that is something that should be applauded. Did you know those monkeys are turned permanently insane? Their skulls are cut open? It is disgusting, shameful, and wrong!

Some graphic clips...these are hard to watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiqsjeDaPWY
(i don't like the music, but still a hard video to watch)


Just go to youtube and search for vivisection clips. If you still think people who free these animals should be flogged, then you are a despicable person.

I'm not aware of PETA funding the legal defense teams of anyone who's planted bombs in houses. Care to support that?

Homes, labs, private property that doesn't belong to them.

http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-5.html
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21


And this has nothing to do with justifying your claim that PETA advocates releasing domesticated animals into the wild.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article644707.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/148420.stm

What do you call that then hmm?


Maybe, but the word you used (and the topic under discussion) was "domesticated."

Animals raised in labs ARE domesticated.


Yes, I do. Because nobody has credibly supported a claim to the contrary.


A claim to the contrary? You mean like evidence of its actions? Physical evidence? That totally contradicts what they claim to support?

You like to practice doublethink a lot do you?

So if I saw off your arm with a breadknife and claim I didn't, you will support that claim? Yes or no. There's no other possible answer. You're either a hypocrite or you aren't.


Look, millions of domesticated animals are killed every year because of overpopulation... if you have a problem with that, suggest an alternative.


Support your claim of millions. I'm not going to let you demand proof of claims for me and let your own claims go unchallenged.

And my problem is with the CRIMINAL actions of PETA. Hear that? Criminal. But you don't seem to have a problem with that. Just like any number of self appointed moral crusaders who thinks its alright to bomb clinics and shoot doctors.


But certainly don't focus your attention on PETA, which is a minor part of that process, and which at least does it rather humanely.


PETA is a multi-million dollar organization which operates by duping and brainwashing the masses with blatant lies and encourages criminal acts to achieve their goals.


How do you know that?


The same way you know that millions of domesticated animals die from overpopulation.


Support this, please.


You really can't be bothered to read links do you? Or maybe you have selective amnesia.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/534959.html


No.

Then you're a hypocrite. You won't allow a humane cause of destruction of YOUR private property because it inconveniences you. But you'll cheerily let other people's property be burned down for the same cause.

But taking a page out of your beloved PETA, I DON'T have to have your permission to burn down your house. Keep that in mind.

What about the dogs, Trollgaard? There were some dogs that got cut open had vital organs removed to observe how fast they'd die and to see if the function of the removed tissue could be replaced with injections. As a result of those cruel experiments on dogs dibeetus is no longer a fatal disease and there may even be a cure some day.

To anyone who opposes medical experimentation on animals,
Would you rather people be experiemented on? 'Cause the National Socialists of Germany did that back in the 40s and we all know how that turned out.

What about the dogs, Trollgaard? There were some dogs that got cut open had vital organs removed to observe how fast they'd die and to see if the function of the removed tissue could be replaced with injections. As a result of those cruel experiments on dogs dibeetus is no longer a fatal disease and there may even be a cure some day.

To anyone who opposes medical experimentation on animals,
Would you rather people be experiemented on? 'Cause the National Socialists of Germany did that back in the 40s and we all know how that turned out.

Well I thought that I explicitly stated that I was against vivisection and animal experimentation.

Do you really believe the ends justify the means? I don't.
Here's a thought...how about no experimination/torture on anything, human or animal?

Do you really believe the ends justify the means? I don't.
Here's a thought...how about no experimination/torture on anything, human or animal?

You can have that. But in exchange, must never consume medication of any sort for the rest of your life. And your vaccinations? Give those up too.

Say hello to smallpox.

Well I thought that I explicitly stated that I was against vivisection and animal experimentation.

Do you really believe the ends justify the means? I don't.
Here's a thought...how about no experimination/torture on anything, human or animal?
Right. So 10 million diabetic Americans and the millions more around the world should just keel over and die. Along with everyone who has ever been vaccinated, received an organ or blood transplant, taken almost any pill or other drug to survive, or had nearly any surgical procedure. If someone can't get well on their own they should die. Because without testing, especially testing on animals, that's what would happen. Probably 90% of medical research involves animal testing at some stage. So say goodbye to anyone you have ever known that has needed surgery, blood, or even medicine to live because in a world without testing they'd be dead. People are more important. It is that mentality that has gotten us to where we are today, to the top of the food chain, to the dominant species on this planet.

Homes, labs, private property that doesn't belong to them.

I didn't see any mention of "homes," except once in reference to SHAC, which they claim PETA "imitates"--apparently in the sense that PETA's protests have in some cases been personally directed, rather than being particularly violent.

Animals raised in labs ARE domesticated.

Some of them are. Some of them are merely captive.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle644707.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/148420.stm

Did PETA support either of these actions? And PETA does have the condition that the animals actually be reasonably well cared for... which would exclude liberating a rabbit in a kindergarten classroom (the original issue of dispute), but might have more room for argument as far as fish farms and fur farms go.

A claim to the contrary? You mean like evidence of its actions? Physical evidence? That totally contradicts what they claim to support?

Yeah, something like that.

Support your claim of millions. I'm not going to let you demand proof of claims for me and let your own claims go unchallenged.

"Number of cats and dogs euthanized by shelters each year:
3-4 million (HSUS estimate)"

HSUS Pet Overpopulation Estimates (http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/hsus_pet_overpopulation_estimates.html)

And my problem is with the CRIMINAL actions of PETA. Hear that? Criminal.

While PETA has supported criminals, and some of its members have undoubtedly committed crimes, I'm not aware of any criminal actions by the organization itself.

But you don't seem to have a problem with that. Just like any number of self appointed moral crusaders who thinks its alright to bomb clinics and shoot doctors.

And another bunch of "self appointed moral crusaders" thought it was alright to help runaway slaves.

Deciding whether or not actions are justified requires actually, you know, considering their justification--not resorting to some ridiculous analogy based on the illegality of and moral fervor behind the actions.

The same way you know that millions of domesticated animals die from overpopulation.

What, statistics from reliable sources?

You really can't be bothered to read links do you? Or maybe you have selective amnesia.

I read it and replied to it already. You're misrepresenting its contents--it's not clear PETA lied and the varying rates of success in finding homes has to do with differences in the animals cared for.

Then you're a hypocrite. You won't allow a humane cause of destruction of YOUR private property because it inconveniences you.

No, I won't allow you to burn my house because you accuse me of being a hypocrite.

But you'll cheerily let other people's property be burned down for the same cause.

Actually, no, I wouldn't let you burn other people's property for their alleged hypocrisy, either--especially knowing your tendency to make absurd, baseless claims in that respect.

Of course, I haven't even said that I support property destruction for animal rights objectives either. All I said was that it wasn't terrorism.

You can have that. But in exchange, must never consume medication of any sort for the rest of your life. And your vaccinations? Give those up too.

Say hello to smallpox.

I don't take medications. I don't even remember the last time I got a shot...

I don't take medications. I don't even remember the last time I got a shot...
Without vaccines smallpox wouldn't have been wiped out. Polio treatments and prevention is another that can be credited to animal testing. Chances are that sometime during your life you've had a disease that could have killed you if not treated. The reason that we've got such a low mortality rate and long lifespan compared with a thousand years ago is that we've got new medical treatments to our diseases which keep us alive longer. We have those treatments because of testing.

I don't take medications. I don't even remember the last time I got a shot...

So you're some kind of super kid who was never sick? And it doesn't matter if you remember it or not. If you're old enough, you've got a smallpox jab. But since you're unlikely to be that old, you're more likely to have Hepatitis A and B jabs, and probably a few others that are administered at very young ages.

Say goodbye to those. And say hello to Hepatitis A and B. I hope you enjoy expiring in agony as your liver gives out. Or maybe you'll get cholera instead.

Or Tuberculosis. Or Polio. Fun times, watching your fingers, toes and nose rot and fall off.

Have a pleasant, well it really won't be, death.

I don't take medications. I don't even remember the last time I got a shot...
I'm glad you stick by your principles, but to be perfectly honest I hope that if you ever have children you become a total hypocrite. Nothing sickens me more than parents who are anti-medicine.

As to the OP. Stealing a domesticated pet rabbit is stupid. Domesticated rabbits wouldn't be able to survive in the wild. Freeing monkeys from vivisection labs, now that is something that should be applauded. Did you know those monkeys are turned permanently insane? Their skulls are cut open? It is disgusting, shameful, and wrong!

Some graphic clips...these are hard to watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiqsjeDaPWY
(i don't like the music, but still a hard video to watch)


Just go to youtube and search for vivisection clips. If you still think people who free these animals should be flogged, then you are a despicable person.
You have been fed a lot of false information. I tend to assume most people are well-meaning but sometimes misinformed, so I'm going to assume that you are a well-meaning person who simply isn't aware of the realities of animals in research today.

I work in the biological sciences. I use animals in my research. If you would like to know how animal research actually works (at least in the USA), I would be happy to answer your questions.

Do you really believe the ends justify the means? I don't.


Wonderful. I, however, do. Care to justify your position, or shall we simply accent this unfounded axiom upon which you construct an argument?

Reading your later posts as I write this, I can but hope you never have children, or that you allow them to have medical care.

I didn't see any mention of "homes," except once in reference to SHAC, which they claim PETA "imitates"--apparently in the sense that PETA's protests have in some cases been personally directed, rather than being particularly violent.

PETA's arm is ALF. ALF has firebombed people's homes before and attacked people as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/507947.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6216442.stm

PETA supports ALF. PETA is an accomplice and supporter to the actions. Inconsequential difference that they don't do it directly. Hiring a hitman still puts you on murder charges.


Some of them are. Some of them are merely captive.


PETA activist don't make that distinction. As the testimonies of actual lab workers that posted here indicate.


Did PETA support either of these actions? And PETA does have the condition that the animals actually be reasonably well cared for... which would exclude liberating a rabbit in a kindergarten classroom (the original issue of dispute), but might have more room for argument as far as fish farms and fur farms go.


ALF is PETA's arm. PETA supports prosecuted ALF members with defense councils and money to their families. How can you defend someone for his actions and claim not to support him? Doublethink at work again?

As for the fish farms and fur farms, guess what happened to those fish and minks. They died. The fish couldn't survive, the mink were shot. PETA supports it apparently. This clearly makes them hypocrites.


Yeah, something like that.


Of which PETA does. Yet you continually claim that they aren't contradicting themselves.


"Number of cats and dogs euthanized by shelters each year:
3-4 million (HSUS estimate)"

HSUS Pet Overpopulation Estimates (http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/hsus_pet_overpopulation_estimates.html)


So you've proven it. What of it? PETA activist go to these shelters, lie on their applications, and then euthanize the animals. And then put them in dumpsters instead of proper disposal that the shelters can provide. Maybe you'd like it if I started dumping dead animals in your house?


While PETA has supported criminals, and some of its members have undoubtedly committed crimes, I'm not aware of any criminal actions by the organization itself.

....using this argument, one could say that Al Qaeda is not a terrorist organization. Oh, some of its people commit terror, some of them kill people, and the organization definitely supports the terrorists, but they aren't a terrorist organization.

In fact, that meant Al Capone wasn't running an organized criminal group.

Your arguments are the kind I would expect out of OJ Simpson's lawyers.


Deciding whether or not actions are justified requires actually, you know, considering their justification--not resorting to some ridiculous analogy based on the illegality of and moral fervor behind the actions.


And their justification is ludicrous. Not only is it ludicrous, but their actions directly following it clearly show that they don't even believe it.


I read it and replied to it already. You're misrepresenting its contents--it's not clear PETA lied and the varying rates of success in finding homes has to do with differences in the animals cared for.


Let me see. PETA activists walk into a shelter, promise to find homes for animals, euthanize them minutes later and dump the corpses in dumpsters. How is that not lying?


No, I won't allow you to burn my house because you accuse me of being a hypocrite.

No. You won't allow me to burn your house because you don't want to be homeless. But you'll support the actions of others in arson because of ludicrous "humane reasons".


Of course, I haven't even said that I support property destruction for animal rights objectives either. All I said was that it wasn't terrorism.

Terrorism. The use of fear tactics and force by non state actors to coerce desired behavior from victims. PETA and its subsidiary organization ALF, support and carry out arson, vandalism, stalking, targeted harassment and extortionist tactics.

It's terrorism. Terrorism lite in that they haven't got a big body count, but terrorism all the same. And according to government reports, they're getting bolder and harsher.

Do you wait until you have terminal cancer before seeing the doctor?

PETA is basically the Sinn Feinn to the ALF and a few other more hardcore animal 'rights' groups, but they don't keep as low a profile.

You have been fed a lot of false information. I tend to assume most people are well-meaning but sometimes misinformed, so I'm going to assume that you are a well-meaning person who simply isn't aware of the realities of animals in research today.

I work in the biological sciences. I use animals in my research. If you would like to know how animal research actually works (at least in the USA), I would be happy to answer your questions.

So...how does it work?

So...how does it work?
It would help if you could be more specific. As a graduate student, I was required to take a semester-long class about the use of animals in research. I highly doubt that you want me to reproduce that entire course for you on this forum.

This time they have gone too god damn far. They stole a kindergarten class' bunny. Now they are stealing pets from children, have they no souls?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20975943/?gt1=10357

The sons of bitches stole a rabbit from a classroom and left a flier protesting the coming Ringling Brother's circus showing a picture of a bear trying to escape a cage and bearing the names of PETA and the Northwest Animal Rights Network. PETA, of course, disavows any knowledge of the action and claims they support people owning domesticated animals. We all of course know this is bullshit and that if PETA wasn't involved directly, they wholly support this.

I hope they catch whoever did this and send them to the stockade after a public flogging.

Heheh funny that the theft of a childs pet would seemingly provoke more outrage than ohh I dunno, digging up a dead woman!

It would help if you could be more specific. As a graduate student, I was required to take a semester-long class about the use of animals in research. I highly doubt that you want me to reproduce that entire course for you on this forum.

Haha, I actually wouldn't mind, but let me think of a few questions.


Hmm...

Do you operate on still living animals?
Do you inject them with substances that you don't know are safe?
Do you cut out organs, as previously stated by someone, and watch how long the animal dies?
Do you do brain surgery on animals (living ones), just to see how they work?

Man I just get bashed for everything! I don't like animal testing, and I yelled at because I want sick people to die...

Heh here's a hint, change you nickname!

So you're some kind of super kid who was never sick? And it doesn't matter if you remember it or not. If you're old enough, you've got a smallpox jab. But since you're unlikely to be that old, you're more likely to have Hepatitis A and B jabs, and probably a few others that are administered at very young ages.

Say goodbye to those. And say hello to Hepatitis A and B. I hope you enjoy expiring in agony as your liver gives out. Or maybe you'll get cholera instead.

Or Tuberculosis. Or Polio. Fun times, watching your fingers, toes and nose rot and fall off.

Have a pleasant, well it really won't be, death.
I was sick with common things, such as colds. I might of had the flu once, but nothing big. Oh, and I broke my arm once.

Without vaccines smallpox wouldn't have been wiped out. Polio treatments and prevention is another that can be credited to animal testing. Chances are that sometime during your life you've had a disease that could have killed you if not treated. The reason that we've got such a low mortality rate and long lifespan compared with a thousand years ago is that we've got new medical treatments to our diseases which keep us alive longer. We have those treatments because of testing.
I haven't had any disease which could kill me, I don't think chicken pox can kill people. I guess the flu, or certain strains, have the potential to kill people, but I survived.

I'm glad you stick by your principles, but to be perfectly honest I hope that if you ever have children you become a total hypocrite. Nothing sickens me more than parents who are anti-medicine.

Man I just get bashed for everything! I don't like animal testing, and I yelled at because I want sick people to die...

I was sick with common things, such as colds. I might of had the flu once, but nothing big. Oh, and I broke my arm once.


I haven't had any disease which could kill me, I don't think chicken pox can kill people. I guess the flu, or certain strains, have the potential to kill people, but I survived.



Man I just get bashed for everything! I don't like animal testing, and I yelled at because I want sick people to die...

You seem to be missing the point that the diseases that could kill you which you haven't had have been prevented through medicine and vaccines...

Bah, bring 'em on! If my genes are strong enough, then I'll live. If not, I'll die.

(Just don't give me ebola or aids...)

Umm well perhaps you will live, but I would say that is a testement to the inoculations that you have already had, rather than any 'strength' your genes may have.

Bah, bring 'em on! If my genes are strong enough, then I'll live. If not, I'll die.

(Just don't give me ebola or aids...)

When you say 'genes', you must mean 'genes (except the ones that are involved in humans being smart enough to devise cures for diseases rather than just giving up and dying)'

Do you operate on still living animals?

I don't, personally, but a member of my laboratory does.


Do you inject them with substances that you don't know are safe?

No, we don't. However, we do deliver surgical lesions to the brains of the animals, and the purpose of our research is investigating the impact of those lesions. In other words, we don't know what the full impact of the lesions will be. I think that's kind of similar to injecting a substance without knowing the full range of its effects.


Do you cut out organs, as previously stated by someone, and watch how long the animal dies?

No. We remove the inner ear and vestibular nerve on one side of the animal's head (so we do "cut out organs"), but we then feed and maintain the animals for up to several weeks before they are sacrificed (killed) and their brain tissue examined. We aren't interested in seeing how long they will live after the opperation (since we already know that they can usually live just as long as normal animals, if they are cared for during the recovery period).


Do you do brain surgery on animals (living ones), just to see how they work?
Obviously the answer is yes. Though I wouldn't say it is "just" to see how they work. "Just" implies something simple, and it's certainly not simple. It also suggests that we "just" are curious for the sake of being curious. We actually are curious for several important reasons.

1) There are direct clinical applications for our research. Vestibular impairment resulting from injury or disease is actually very common among humans. Most of the falling injuries that bring people to the ER are the result of some form of impairment in their vestibular system. In the majority of cases, humans recover from these problems. However, in some cases they don't. We are trying to understand the problems in order to be better able to help patients who suffer from them.

2) Understanding how the brain repairs itself and adapts after injury is crucial to understanding how the brain processes information. Understanding how the brain works is the first step toward knowing how to repair the brain.

3) One of the most interesting things that has been discovered about the brain is that the pattern of recovery after injury is remarkably similar to the patterns seen during development. This means that by understanding how the brain recovers function after injury or disease, we are also gaining some insight into how the brain forms in the first place.

That last one also has a very personal component for me. My younger brother had epilepsy as a baby, and has on going neurological problems today (he's a teen now). He recently had an fMRI scan performed on his brain, and they discovered that an important region of his brain appears to have simply not formed. This may have been the cause of OR the result of his seizures when he was a baby. The more we know about how the brain is supposed to form, the better able we may be to help people like my brother!

You seem to be missing the point that the diseases that could kill you which you haven't had have been prevented through medicine and vaccines...

Bah, bring 'em on! If my genes are strong enough, then I'll live. If not, I'll die.

(Just don't give me ebola or aids...)

Nonsense. Trolls are awesome (the mythological ones, which is what my name is based on)!

Heh now don't make me go fetch my Galdr Bok!

Heh here's a hint, change you nickname!

Nonsense. Trolls are awesome (the mythological ones, which is what my name is based on)!

When you say 'genes', you must mean 'genes (except the ones that are involved in humans being smart enough to devise cures for diseases rather than just giving up and dying)'

What? 'genes' and 'genes? What's the difference?

edit: bah, reread your post. Sure, why not?

Man I just get bashed for everything! I don't like animal testing, and I yelled at because I want sick people to die...
I wasn't trying to bash you. I simply know that if you truly stick to your principles and decline any medical care that was developed using animal testing, then your children will not be able to receive basic immunizations and treatments for normal childhood illnesses. If, God forbid, one of your children were to have an even more serious illness, you would be forced to deny them potentially life-saving treatment.

But from reading you thus far, I doubt you would do that. Most people will do whatever it takes to protect their kids and help them get well when they are sick.

Heh now don't make me go fetch my Galdr Bok!

Bah. Pay the toll or I'll eat you!

Heheh funny that the theft of a childs pet would seemingly provoke more outrage than ohh I dunno, digging up a dead woman!

I like how that is a completely irrelevant topic.

I like how that is a completely irrelevant topic.

Naa not really. In the news sometime last year we had reports of the ALF digging up the dead wife of a guy that worked at a testing lab.

Bah. Pay the toll or I'll eat you!

Not a chance now, wheres that spell for troll shot?

Heheh funny that the theft of a childs pet would seemingly provoke more outrage than ohh I dunno, digging up a dead woman!

Silly Peepelonia, it's because bunnies are cute and fluffy and dead people are not. Simple. :p

What? 'genes' and 'genes? What's the difference?

edit: bah, reread your post. Sure, why not?

But why? Being smart enough to cure or avoid a disease is basically the same as being genetically resistent.

Silly Peepelonia, it's because bunnies are cute and fluffy and dead people are not. Simple. :p

Ohhh I don't know.......:rolleyes:

Ohhh I don't know.......:rolleyes:

Someone had to say it :p

Bah, bring 'em on! If my genes are strong enough, then I'll live. If not, I'll die.

(Just don't give me ebola or aids...)
"Strong genes" won't help you if you're in a car wreck and need a blood transfusion or organ transplant.

Animal experimentation made those possible.

Do you realize how nasty you sound when you suggest that all people who require serious medical attention have "weak genes"?

"Strong genes" won't help you if you're in a car wreck and need a blood transfusion or organ transplant.

Animal experimentation made those possible.

Do you realize how nasty you sound when you suggest that all people who require serious medical attention have "weak genes"?

IIRC, he has said that all people who need organ transplants are weak and feeble disgraces to the human race and deserving of painful death.

Interesting.

So, declining to take action when you are injured is now a sign of "strength"?

Sounds like this system will swiftly ensure the elimination of "strong" individuals from the gene pool. Which, in evolutionary terms, means that their genes were actually the "weak" genes.

I believe the technical term is stupid genes, or idiot genes.

IIRC, he has said that everyone who needs organ transplants are a weak and feeble disgrace to the human race and is deserving of painful death.
Interesting.

So, declining to take action when you are injured is now a sign of "strength"?

Sounds like this system will swiftly ensure the elimination of "strong" individuals from the gene pool. Which, in evolutionary terms, means that their genes were actually the "weak" genes.

Do you really believe the ends justify the means? I don't.
Here's a thought...how about no experimination/torture on anything, human or animal?

It depends on the ends and the means if question. In the case of using the knowledge gained from the suffering of a few animals for the benefit of all mankind until the end of civilisation (trillions if not quadrillions or quintillions of people). I would say that the benefits far outweigh the price paid.

Bah, bring 'em on! If my genes are strong enough, then I'll live. If not, I'll die.

I'd be willing to bet that if you were in that situation you'd change your tune. Your survival instinct is just too damn strong.

I was sick with common things, such as colds. I might of had the flu once, but nothing big. Oh, and I broke my arm once.


Unless you're in the bottom rung economic circle, or are Amish, you've had vaccines against various diseases I'm willing to bet. Try asking your parents if they ever had you inoculated. Without those vaccines, you'd be catching a hell lot more diseases.

And somehow, I expect you dosed up on medication when you had the cold.

Face it, without those vaccines you've had, as well as your neighbors for that herd immunity, there's a good probability that you might have caught something deadly.

Like smallpox.

And somehow, I expect you dosed up on medication when you had the cold.
Even if he didn't, I'd expect he tried some "home remedies," changed his diet, and/or changed his activity level when he was ill.

This is because the normal response to injury or illness is to engage in behaviors aimed at restoring health. Hell, my friend's puppy got a cut on his leg the other day, and he sat down to lick the cut. It's instinct to try to sooth discomforts.

Some people have this bizarre idea that taking medicine or receiving medical care is "artificial," while all those other behaviors are not. Drinking OJ when you have a cold? That's "natural!" But imbibing medication is "unnatural!" Never mind that in both cases you are consuming a substance in an attempt to improve your health.

IIRC, he has said that all people who need organ transplants are weak and feeble disgraces to the human race and deserving of painful death.

Now where have I heard that kind of talk before? It sounds similar to some talks that mentioned untersmench (sp?) and the Aryan race. It also included smokestacks I think. And fires.

Now where have I heard that kind of talk before? It sounds similar to some talks that mentioned untersmench (sp?) and the Aryan race. It also included smokestacks I think. And fires.

And wasn't all the talk about of strong genes and weak genes made into a pseudo-science before? Oh that's right, it was called Eugenics.

I'd be willing to bet that if you were in that situation you'd change your tune. Your survival instinct is just too damn strong.
Stop trying to discourage natural selection.

Stop trying to discourage natural selection.

Fate works hand in hand with natural selection. He's already given a "come get me" statement to fate. Now he just needs to say "I am invincible" and all that will be left will be a pile ashes.

Fate works hand in hand with natural selection. He's already given a "come get me" statement to fate. Now he just needs to say "I am invincible" and all that will be left will be a pile ashes.

Or he could throw a party where everyone except The Red Death is invited.

But why? Being smart enough to cure or avoid a disease is basically the same as being genetically resistent.

Not naturally. Outside help in the form of medicine would have let you survive.

"Strong genes" won't help you if you're in a car wreck and need a blood transfusion or organ transplant.

Animal experimentation made those possible.

Do you realize how nasty you sound when you suggest that all people who require serious medical attention have "weak genes"?

True, although it is true that if you get sick, or are born with a defect, something went wrong, either your immune system wasn't strong enough, or your genes got messed up during conception, or you inherited 'weak genes'.



Unless you're in the bottom rung economic circle, or are Amish, you've had vaccines against various diseases I'm willing to bet. Try asking your parents if they ever had you inoculated. Without those vaccines, you'd be catching a hell lot more diseases.

And somehow, I expect you dosed up on medication when you had the cold.

Face it, without those vaccines you've had, as well as your neighbors for that herd immunity, there's a good probability that you might have caught something deadly.

Like smallpox.
Yes, I had vaccines when I was little, but I didn't have a choice.

It depends on the ends and the means if question. In the case of using the knowledge gained from the suffering of a few animals for the benefit of all mankind until the end of civilisation (trillions if not quadrillions or quintillions of people). I would say that the benefits far outweigh the price paid.

I'd be willing to bet that if you were in that situation you'd change your tune. Your survival instinct is just too damn strong.

Its going to happen soon.

Would I take medications if it meant I would live? Possibly. Depends on what disease, how I got it, and how old I was.


Fate works hand in hand with natural selection. He's already given a "come get me" statement to fate. Now he just needs to say "I am invincible" and all that will be left will be a pile ashes.

I am invincible. I am in the prime of my life, come get me fate! Come get me! I'll take anything you throw at me!

Happy?

This type of "animal rights" activist is in the same vein as the "feminists" who want to call a manhole cover a "personhole" cover and say all hetero sex is rape. They are fringe nutcases and should not be allowed to be confused with mainstream activists.

I believe in animal rights. I think they should have the right to enough suitable habitat to keep a genetically healthy population and exist in a natural state. If they are farmed for food or other reasons, they should be kept in healthy, comfortable, low stress enviroments. ( corporate farms are disgusting places, in general) Pets should be kept as comfortable and healthy as possible, both physically and emotionally. They trust us to do what's right for them and we should live up to that as best we can.

But people like PETA are just generally nutty. I should know, my step-grandmother is a member. A sweet, well-meaning woman. But a little off. Though I did threaten to turn her over to the Humane Society if she carried out her plan to make her cat a vegetarian.

PETA's arm is ALF.

No, the ALF is not PETA's arm. PETA might ideologically support the ALF; that does not make them PETA's arm.

Hiring a hitman still puts you on murder charges.

Giving money to a hitman's defense fund doesn't.

ALF is PETA's arm. PETA supports prosecuted ALF members with defense councils and money to their families.

Some ALF members.

ALF is not a centralized organization. A person can claim to be a part of ALF, and can claim responsibility for certain actions; that does not mean that every other member of ALF supports them, or that PETA does.

How can you defend someone for his actions and claim not to support him?

Obviously when PETA supports certain individuals, they support those individuals. But they do not necessarily support every action everywhere that claims to be for animal liberation.

As for the fish farms and fur farms, guess what happened to those fish and minks. They died. The fish couldn't survive, the mink were shot. PETA supports it apparently. This clearly makes them hypocrites.

No, actually it doesn't... assuming PETA actually supported these actions, a claim that you have not justified.

In effect there is a judgment call here: does it serve the interests of animals more to keep them imprisoned in horrible conditions, or to release them into the wild, knowing that they are likely to die?

It's not absurd to maintain that the second is preferable.

So you've proven it. What of it? PETA activist go to these shelters, lie on their applications,

The lying is not clear. And what motive would PETA activists have to lie, anyway?

and then euthanize the animals.

Like everyone else.

And then put them in dumpsters instead of proper disposal that the shelters can provide.

Two employees of PETA, you mean. Who were penalized for it.

Not the organization as a whole.

Maybe you'd like it if I started dumping dead animals in your house?

No, but I'd like it if you made at least a pretense at reasonable discussion.

....using this argument, one could say that Al Qaeda is not a terrorist organization.

Except that al-Qaeda itself, as an organization, has advocated, planned, and carried out terrorism. PETA has not.

And their justification is ludicrous.

Actually, their justification is perfectly reasonable.

What is "ludicrous" is the reaction, as threads like this prove.

promise to find homes for animals

They do? Really?

This seems to be a point of dispute... my impression is that, at most, PETA promises to make an attempt. Which is all that is reasonable, again, considering the numbers of animals that are euthanized all the time.

No. You won't allow me to burn your house because you don't want to be homeless.

Sorry, you can't read my mind. If you had a really good reason to burn down my house, I might let you. But you don't.

Terrorism. The use of fear tactics and force by non state actors to coerce desired behavior from victims.

By that definition, possibly a justified and even meritorious course of action--depending on who the "victims" are and what the "desired behavior" is.

No, the ALF is not PETA's arm. PETA might ideologically support the ALF; that does not make them PETA's arm.


You're kidding right? They fiscally support ALF, publicly protect its members when caught. If they're not PETA's arm, they're sure as hell supported by them.


Giving money to a hitman's defense fund doesn't.


But it does indicate that you support the hitman's actions. Which were criminal to begin with.


Some ALF members.

ALF is not a centralized organization. A person can claim to be a part of ALF, and can claim responsibility for certain actions; that does not mean that every other member of ALF supports them, or that PETA does.



Obviously when PETA supports certain individuals, they support those individuals. But they do not necessarily support every action everywhere that claims to be for animal liberation.

And PETA supports the violent law breaking ones. The arsonists, thieves and vandals. What does that say about PETA? Nothing good.


In effect there is a judgment call here: does it serve the interests of animals more to keep them imprisoned in horrible conditions, or to release them into the wild, knowing that they are likely to die?

Let's put it this way. How do you know it was "horrible conditions"? Are you a fish? A mink perhaps? You automatically assume.

As for the likelihood to dying, that wasn't the only consequence of releasing them. The minks attacked people's pets and caused a mess in the town.

Maybe the next time they release plague infected monkeys in an city center, you'll applaud it too?


It's not absurd to maintain that the second is preferable.


So if I raid a zoo for some lions, you won't mind if I put them on your front doorstep?


The lying is not clear. And what motive would PETA activists have to lie, anyway?

To get access to animals they wouldn't be able to otherwise. So they can kill them.


Like everyone else.


There is a distinct lack of euthanized animals when really adopted to be put into homes.


Two employees of PETA, you mean. Who were penalized for it.

Not the organization as a whole.


PETA's president has gone on record urging killing of animals, regardless of who they belonged to. And so she doesn't represent PETA now?


No, but I'd like it if you made at least a pretense at reasonable discussion.


I'm using PETA's actions as a basis here. PETA isn't reasonable. If you can't deal with their actions when applied to you, you shouldn't be supporting them.


Actually, their justification is perfectly reasonable.


Not when it's based on lies.


They do? Really?

This seems to be a point of dispute... my impression is that, at most, PETA promises to make an attempt. Which is all that is reasonable, again, considering the numbers of animals that are euthanized all the time.


What kind of attempt at finding homes is euthanizing animals the moment you've got them in your hands and some privacy?


Sorry, you can't read my mind. If you had a really good reason to burn down my house, I might let you. But you don't.

I may not be able to read your mind, but I can read your responses and probable reasonings behind them.

And my reason is as good as PETA's reasons for arson. It's a "humane cause".


By that definition, possibly a justified and even meritorious course of action--depending on who the "victims" are and what the "desired behavior" is.

Uh huh. So suddenly rule of law can be conveniently tossed aside for certain people when they don't behave the way you like.

And what great moral judge is going to sit there and say "It's justified" hmm?

Then by certain standards, it would be then moral to saw off your arms and legs to alter your behavior to be more socially acceptable. And it would be meritorious.

Better yet, they eat the salad, and then the rabbits eat them. :D

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/bb/300px-Killer_rabbit.JPG
"He's got a vicious streak a mile wide!"

How many plants had to die to make your salad?

If they're not PETA's arm, they're sure as hell supported by them.

Again: just because some ALF members are supported by PETA doesn't mean that every action anyone calling themselves ALF does is supported by PETA.

But it does indicate that you support the hitman's actions. Which were criminal to begin with.

So? What's wrong, in and of itself, with supporting criminal actions? The law is not the be-all and end-all of justice.

Criminal actions might generally be immoral, and as such supporting them might generally be wrong... but that's clearly absurd if applied to all cases. Was it wrong to shelter Jews from the Holocaust? A line must be drawn somewhere--you must justify that defense of animal rights falls within the limits of the principle.

And PETA supports the violent law breaking ones. The arsonists, thieves and vandals. What does that say about PETA? Nothing good.

Quite the contrary, it shows that they are actually willing to stand by their principles.

If PETA is right about the level of rights animals have, it would be rank hypocrisy to only support moderate, slow, legal means to liberate them--especially when the political system is hardly inclined to cooperate at the moment.

Let's put it this way. How do you know it was "horrible conditions"? Are you a fish? A mink perhaps? You automatically assume.

That's an interesting standard with some interesting consequences.

Among other things, it would preclude, say, condemning human slavery. (Unless you have been a slave.)

Maybe the next time they release plague infected monkeys in an city center, you'll applaud it too?

Stop making things up. I did not applaud it. I merely said that even if PETA supported it--a claim for which you have not provided a shred of support--that in and of itself does not justify calling them hypocritical.

So if I raid a zoo for some lions, you won't mind if I put them on your front doorstep?

I tend to think that animal liberations should endanger the life and welfare of both the released animals and bystanders as little as possible... a criterion according to which putting lions on my doorstep clearly fails.

To get access to animals they wouldn't be able to otherwise. So they can kill them.

For fun? Because in reality they despise animals? Why? Why does PETA have this weird desire to pointlessly slaughter animals en masse on false pretenses--especially when it contradicts everything else they say and do?

That's a potential disaster on a public relations level, not to mention illegal and against their ethics... and I can't imagine any reason they would have that would outweigh those considerations. Even a concern for minimizing monetary costs would be more easily satisfied by simply not taking in as many animals in the first place.

There is a distinct lack of euthanized animals when really adopted to be put into homes.

Obviously.

PETA's president has gone on record urging killing of animals,

Not arbitrarily.

I'm using PETA's actions as a basis here. PETA isn't reasonable.

Is that really the best you can do?

If you can't deal with their actions when applied to you,

Maybe I can and maybe I can't, but making absurd analogies does not illustrate that either way.

you shouldn't be supporting them.

I have argued that they are not terrorists and that they are not hypocritical--at least not to the extreme degree that they are said to be.

I have not said that I support them... for what it's worth, I disagree rather strongly with their position on animal testing for medical purposes, for essentially utilitarian reasons.

Not when it's based on lies.

What, animal rights?

What kind of attempt at finding homes is euthanizing animals the moment you've got them in your hands and some privacy?

Not much of one. But it's not clear that this is PETA's routine policy.

And my reason is as good as PETA's reasons for arson. It's a "humane cause".

No, just saying it's a "humane cause" isn't good enough. You have to actually justify it.

Uh huh. So suddenly rule of law can be conveniently tossed aside for certain people when they don't behave the way you like.

No. The "rule of law" can be tossed aside for certain people when they behave in grievously immoral ways. Whether or not I like it is irrelevant.

For instance, "terrorism" against slave-owners would have been justified, if it brought about the swifter release of slaves.

(Actually, in cases like animal rights and slavery, this question, somewhat murky in other contexts, is much more clear-cut. Insofar as the law does not recognize certain beings as worthy of consideration, it is unjust in itself; the denial of rights to certain members of the moral community is not a political decision anyone is entitled to make.)

And what great moral judge is going to sit there and say "It's justified" hmm?

We all have to, ourselves. Like we must whenever we make moral decisions. We cannot escape it.

Then by certain standards, it would be then moral to saw off your arms and legs to alter your behavior to be more socially acceptable. And it would be meritorious.

Of course. But those standards are (probably) not very good ones.

Something tells me you are an ethical vegan.

He would be if it wasn't so inconvienent. Seriously, I can dig up the post.

Again: just because some ALF members are supported by PETA doesn't mean that every action anyone calling themselves ALF does is supported by PETA.

Let me put it this way. You agreed that PETA supports certain ALF members. You agreed that by supporting them, they are thereby supportive of those members actions. Those actions were criminal actions.

Can you at least agree that PETA supports and endorses criminal actions?


So? What's wrong, in and of itself, with supporting criminal actions? The law is not the be-all and end-all of justice.

Rights stop when your face starts as some people are wont to say. As to the law, the law exists to provide order and a framework for that justice. If you want to toss it out for a particular moral crusade, then you have no grounds to argue against ANY form of moral crusade, be it bombing hospitals, killing doctors, believers of a different faith, women by their dress, ethnic makeup or just plain culling the stupid.


Criminal actions might generally be immoral, and as such supporting them might generally be wrong... but that's clearly absurd if applied to all cases. Was it wrong to shelter Jews from the Holocaust? A line must be drawn somewhere--you must justify that defense of animal rights falls within the limits of the principle.

Your example doesn't work for a very simple reason. Jews were human and sapient. The only non-humans that appear to have sapiency are monkeys and dolphins. PETA and ALF makes no distinction.

Laws exist as part of a sapient social construct. Otherwise we might as well have the law of the strong. Meaning if I have a gun and you don't, I can justifiably kill you and take your goods.


Quite the contrary, it shows that they are actually willing to stand by their principles.

If by principles you mean the principle of causing destruction ignorant of the consequences of their actions, then maybe.


If PETA is right about the level of rights animals have, it would be rank hypocrisy to only support moderate, slow, legal means to liberate them--especially when the political system is hardly inclined to cooperate at the moment.

Rights are a human construct. Application to of said rights animals is the thinking of the delusional. There is animal cruelty, and there is animal worship. PETA appears to be doing the latter.


That's an interesting standard with some interesting consequences.

Among other things, it would preclude, say, condemning human slavery. (Unless you have been a slave.)

Hah. And you accuse me of making ludicrous arguments. Human slavery came in many forms. American slavery, of which I believe you are referring to, was one of the worst kinds available. In Hellenic cultures, the culture of slavery certainly had them operating at much better standards of living and importance than American ideas of human chattel.

And most importantly, you are now equating humans, and human laws, to animals.

If so, you cannot support PETA's advocacy of euthanizing animals as by your standards, they are now committing mass murder.

Oh, and I certainly hope you grow your own pesticide free crops. Because meat would be cannibalism then. And mass agriculture harvesting results in the death of many field animals.

See how ludicrous it is?


Stop making things up. I did not applaud it. I merely said that even if PETA supported it--a claim for which you have not provided a shred of support--that in and of itself does not justify calling them hypocritical.

http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/animalrightsquote.htm#Crimin


"Throughout the late '80s, me and a handful of friends just like you people here, we started to break windows, we started to slash tires, we started to rescue animals from factory farms and vivisection breeders, and we graduated to breaking into laboratories . As long as we emptied the labs of animals, they were still easily replaced. So that's when the ALF in this country, and my cell, started engaging in arson." Rodney Coronado, convicted felon for 1992 Michigan State University firebombing and PeTA funds beneficiary, speaking at SHAC rally, Edison, New Jersey, November 30, 2002

"As a direct-action warrior, it made a lot of sense to me to attack institutions in the fur trade . we need to destroy them by any means necessary." Rodney Coronado, convicted felon of 1992 Michigan State University firebombing and beneficiary of PeTA funds, "Conference on Organized Resistance," American University, January 26, 2003


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


So. A director of PETA doesn't count as PETA's decision making now?

Oh, and did you know the head of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, uses insulin injections to stave off diabetes? Insulin, which is derived off pigs? If she really believed in the crap she spouted, she should have allowed diabetes to kill her.

But she doesn't.

And she co-founded PETA.

Ergo, PETA was founded on the hypocrisy of a woman who should have euthanized herself if she wanted to walk the talk.

[QUOTE=Soheran;13088368]
I tend to think that animal liberations should endanger the life and welfare of both the released animals and bystanders as little as possible... a criterion according to which putting lions on my doorstep clearly fails.


But animal liberationists don't. And you support them. So you have no argument against lions on your doorstep. You want to support their actions? Suck up to the consequences. Otherwise, you're just another hypocrite.


For fun? Because in reality they despise animals? Why? Why does PETA have this weird desire to pointlessly slaughter animals en masse on false pretenses--especially when it contradicts everything else they say and do?


Because they're attention whores. Societal rejects who think they're doing good and are experts at doublethink. People who believe that in order to 'save something', they must destroy it. And they do it because slaughtered animals gives them ammunition for their propaganda purposes.


That's a potential disaster on a public relations level, not to mention illegal and against their ethics... and I can't imagine any reason they would have that would outweigh those considerations. Even a concern for minimizing monetary costs would be more easily satisfied by simply not taking in as many animals in the first place.

I'll give you an example. Blackwater. A mercenary firm. Caught selling arms to the enemies of their employers. That's a disaster for a mercenary firm which can't operate without being trusted.

But they did it anyway. Why? Because they thought they wouldn't get caught. And because they got greedy.

As for PETA? They brainwash people into doublethink and hypocrisy. Combined with the general ignorance of actual animal habits and behaviors, they can think it's all 'good'. Facts dispute their blowhard fantasies.

Like how certain Bishops can claim that condoms have AIDS in them, or how immunization is a giant conspiracy to sterilize people, and the ignorant masses believe it.

You have this weird idea that people aren't capable of saying one thing, believing it, and doing another while still holding that belief. Look at organized religion, and the kind of stupids that do things that totally contradict the basic tenets of their religion while claiming to be religious.

How much human hypocrisy do you have to have your nose rubbed in before you realize just how much of it permeates 'do good' fallacies like PETA?


Obviously.


Unless PETA gets their hands on them. Then it's to the death mobile for them.


Is that really the best you can do?


You support PETA. I am simply applying their tactics and justifications in ways that directly effect you. Putting the shoe on the other foot so to speak. But you can't see that can you?


I have argued that they are not terrorists and that they are not hypocritical--at least not to the extreme degree that they are said to be.


And I argue that they are. Maybe not as severe as the more extreme elements that exist, but they are getting there.

And I note you haven't answered my question about cancer. Would you wait until it's terminal before having it treated?


I have not said that I support them... for what it's worth, I disagree rather strongly with their position on animal testing for medical purposes, for essentially utilitarian reasons.

Then you should have said so at the very beginning. Arguing for them makes it look like you support them.


What, animal rights?


No, killing animals in gruesome ways, and then accusing others of doing so using footage of what they did as 'proof'.


Not much of one. But it's not clear that this is PETA's routine policy.


Despite PETA's president's endorsements?


No, just saying it's a "humane cause" isn't good enough. You have to actually justify it.

Sure, I'm culling human hypocrisy, making it a better species for everyone in the planet. There's my justification. It's certainly no worse than PETA's.


No. The "rule of law" can be tossed aside for certain people when they behave in grievously immoral ways. Whether or not I like it is irrelevant.

For instance, "terrorism" against slave-owners would have been justified, if it brought about the swifter release of slaves.

(Actually, in cases like animal rights and slavery, this question, somewhat murky in other contexts, is much more clear-cut. Insofar as the law does not recognize certain beings as worthy of consideration, it is unjust in itself; the denial of rights to certain members of the moral community is not a political decision anyone is entitled to make.)


Law is a human construct. It would thereby apply to humans and human actions, not animals. Attempting to apply human law to animals at its logical extreme would create a society that would starve to death in short order. Carnivores would be prevented from eating, herbivore populations would quickly overpopulate the area and strip it of all consumable foods and starve to death.


We all have to, ourselves. Like we must whenever we make moral decisions. We cannot escape it.

But you're making an argument for some great moral judge to allow for 'justifiable' ignorance of law in order to cause wanton destruction.


Of course. But those standards are (probably) not very good ones.

According to you maybe. But according to the ones doing the sawing? Probably very good ones. Your disagreement with it is inconsequential.

Unless you enjoy anarchic moral crusade groups running around, rule of law cannot be tossed aside for violence just because you think it's right.

Otherwise, your argument can be used to support the delusional serial killer who believes he is doing "gods work".

Okay, here's the post where he says he's not a vegetarian even though he thinks it's moral to be one. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11842688&postcount=18)

I'll try to find the one where he says that he isn't one because it's inconvienent.