NationStates Jolt Archive

(this isn't even getting into adding things like lentils).
Pulses, fuck yeah!

Pulses, fuck yeah!

Either you knew they were called that, or you've read some Jared Diamond. Either way, kudos.

Either you knew they were called that, or you've read some Jared Diamond. Either way, kudos.
Never heard of this chap Diamond, but (from his WikiP page) he sounds very interesting.

Never heard of this chap Diamond, but (from his WikiP page) he sounds very interesting.

Without a doubt the best writer on human civilization I've read. Manages to take complex concepts and make them attainable to idiots like me. I recommend reading at least a few chapters of Guns, Germs and Steel. At the very least, it provides ample ammunition against racists.

From the article:
PETA Senior Vice President Lisa Lange said the decision is unfair, considering some of the other spots that air during the big game.
"PETA's veggie ads are locked out while ads for fried chicken and burgers are allowed -- even though these foods make Americans fat, sick, and boring in bed," she said in the statement.


God I hate PETA. Im really glad they got excluded.

"even though these foods make Americans fat, sick, and boring in bed"
Vegetarian because of bitter sexual experiences?

Vegetarian because of bitter sexual experiences?

Its just PETA playing whatever cards they have. Those wackjobs have never been interested in facts, just whatever delusional thing they can say to help their agenda.


I point to their leaders saying animal testing has never helped anyone. While their leaders are diabetics who use insulin that was tested on pigs.

Theyre fucking insane.

I point to their leaders saying animal testing has never helped anyone. While their leaders are diabetics who use insulin that was tested on pigs.

Theyre fucking insane.That's pretty funny. :p

I point to their leaders saying animal testing has never helped anyone.

source?

That's pretty funny. :p

And thats just the tip of the delusional, hypocritical, batshit insane iceberg that is PETA.

source?

Honest question, if I source such a thing, would it even matter? Given how youve been arguing in this thread, Im inclinded to believe you'll just ignore it anyway.

Honest question, if I source such a thing, would it even matter? Given how youve been arguing in this thread, Im inclinded to believe you'll just ignore it anyway.

So you don't have a source?

Edit: You do also realize that it's "leader", singular--one particular person, for that matter? And that whatever hypocrisy you might suggest, it has nothing whatsoever to do with their actual message?

Vegetarian because of bitter sexual experiences?

Eh, some people like the angry sex.

So you don't have a source?

It was in a TV interview. Im looking for it right now ffs.



Edit: You do also realize that it's "leader", singular--one particular person, for that matter? And that whatever hypocrisy you might suggest, it has nothing whatsoever to do with their actual message?

Translation: I am going to grammar nit pick and say your source is irrelevent anyway.


See, this is why Im not inclined to bother hunting for it. People like you and FS will just ignore it or minimalize it anyway. Why waste my time if you'll just pretend its not really there?

PETA Senior Vice President Lisa Lange said the decision is unfair, considering some of the other spots that air during the big game.
"PETA's veggie ads are locked out while ads for fried chicken and burgers are allowed -- even though these foods make Americans fat, sick, and boring in bed," she said in the statement.

Is she speaking from experience? I don't ever remember sleeping with Lisa Lange while I was single. However I am not fat or sick. Maybe it's her taste in men.

It was in a TV interview. Im looking for it right now ffs.

Translation: I am going to grammar nit pick and say your source is irrelevent anyway.

See, this is why Im not inclined to bother hunting for it. People like you and FS will just ignore it or minimalize it anyway. Why waste my time if you'll just pretend its not really there?

No, the point would be that - finding one hypocritical PETA-bod, doesn't make PETA hypocritical... just like one hypocritical Christian doesn't make every christian hypocritical.

Now, if you could show that it's a policy...

Translation: I am going to grammar nit pick

Wait, seriously? You think the difference between "their leaders are" and "Ingrid Newkirk is" is just a "grammar nit pick"?

and say your source is irrelevent anyway.

Well, if they actually claimed that animal testing never helped anyone, it would probably reflect badly on their judgment and credibility.

But, no, the hypocrisy of people within an organization has nothing to do with the merits of the organization's message itself.

People like you and FS will just ignore it or minimalize it anyway. Why waste my time if you'll just pretend its not really there?

So are you actually going to contest any of what I said? Or is this whining the sum total of your response?

No, the point would be that - finding one hypocritical PETA-bod, doesn't make PETA hypocritical... just like one hypocritical Christian doesn't make every christian hypocritical.

Now, if you could show that it's a policy...

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/hivemind2.jpg


We all know its a Hive Mind anyway...

For the record:

Animals Used for Experimentation FAQs (http://www.peta.org/about/faq-viv.asp)

Certainly, some medical developments were the result of cruel animal tests, but that does not mean that the developments would not have been possible without animal testing or that the primitive techniques used in the 1800s are still valid today.

“Should we throw out all the drugs that were developed and tested on animals? Would you refuse to take them?”

Unfortunately, a number of things in our society came about through the exploitation of others. For instance, many of the roads that we drive on were built by slaves. We can’t change the past; those who have already suffered and died are lost. But what we can do is change the future by using non-animal research methods from now on.

In all seriousness, PET's insane, delusional, hypocritical, attention whoring, terrorist sponsering existance aside, I dont think their ad was that objectionable. Full of shit, yes. But all ads are.

That being said, I understand NBC pulling the ad after the whole boob thing. I think the pulling of this ad shows problems with the FCC more then it does with PETA.

Im sure PETA is, however, much happier that ad got pulled. It lets them whine to the press and get attention like the media sluts they are.

For the record:

Animals Used for Experimentation FAQs (http://www.peta.org/about/faq-viv.asp)

hey, no sourced and honest representations of what peta says. this thread here be for making shit up.

For instance, many of the roads that we drive on were built by slaves.
Um, I'm pretty sure the interstate system was built in the 20th century. Was asphalt invented back in the early 1800s?

Um, I'm pretty sure the interstate system was built in the 20th century. Was asphalt invented back in the early 1800s?

Originally, is what I think he means. Though I'm not sure how it matters.

Also, the Interstate system isn't the only game in town.

Um, I'm pretty sure the interstate system was built in the 20th century. Was asphalt invented back in the early 1800s?

Is this seriously the best you can do?

Even accepting the conflation of "interstate system" with "roads" as such and ignoring the fact that road-building amounts to more than laying pavement, I can think of plenty of other examples, and so, I'm sure, can you.

For the record:

Animals Used for Experimentation FAQs (http://www.peta.org/about/faq-viv.asp)

I know what PETA says, so youre kinda arguing a strawman. I was pointing out what their LEADER said (see, no type o this time, so you cant even go off on a tangent about that).

But, like I said, you and FS have already in so many words said that even if I source it, it wont mean anything and youre pretty much going to ignore it, so why should I waste my time?

hey, no sourced and honest representations of what peta says. this thread here be for making shit up.

Seriously?

As opposed to all the times youve actually provided a source in this thread, right? Dont throw stones at glass houses.

Is this seriously the best you can do?

Even accepting the conflation of "interstate system" with "roads" as such and ignoring the fact that road-building amounts to more than laying pavement, I can think of plenty of other examples, and so, I'm sure, can you.

I'm not even arguing with you bro. You need to take a step back and calm down.

I'm not even arguing with you bro. You need to take a step back and calm down.

Yeah, and no tasing, either.

I know what PETA says, so youre kinda arguing a strawman. I was pointing out what their LEADER said (see, no type o this time, so you cant even go off on a tangent about that).

Somehow I'm more inclined to trust PETA's sourced official position than the biased recollection of a random Internet poster, when it comes to determining the positions of PETA's leadership.

Now, if you could actually provide a credible source, things might be different.

But, like I said, you and FS have already in so many words said that even if I source it, it wont mean anything and youre pretty much going to ignore it, so why should I waste my time?

...so you're not actually going to back up any of your claims?

Judging by my past experience in PETA threads, it's actually FS and I who should be adopting that position, because despite much time and effort spent refuting the ridiculous claims about PETA that pop up it never seems to make any difference... yet, strangely, unlike you we have, actually, backed up our claims in this thread.

Show us the same respect. Or stop making claims you refuse to substantiate.

But, like I said, you and FS have already in so many words said that even if I source it, it wont mean anything and youre pretty much going to ignore it, so why should I waste my time?

actually, we said that we don't believe you have one, and hold that finding stupidity and even outright hypocrisy do not actually constitute arguments against a position . a subtle, but distinct difference.

Seriously?

As opposed to all the times youve actually provided a source in this thread, right? Dont throw stones at glass houses.

i'm comfortable with my sources. have you found any yet?

I'm not even arguing with you bro. You need to take a step back and calm down.

Sorry. :)

For what it's worth, I live within a short distance of a road still in use that dates back to the eighteenth century.

Edit: And so do lots of people on the East Coast, I'd guess.

i'm comfortable with my sources. have you found any yet?

No, I stopped looking, because you guys have flat out said its irrelevent. I know what will happen. Ill post it if I find it, and you guys will say "Oh well, his position is not PETA's position" or say he mispoke, or something.

If we want to discuss the hypocrisy inherant in PETA's positions (like euthenizing more animals then they save...), and not laughablly stupid things their leadership says, create a new thread and Ill show my sources because they wont just be brushed off as "irrelevent".

Personally, whether PETA's intentions are noble or not, you cannot argue that they haven't epicly, epicly failed at what they are trying to achieve. They attracted a huge amount of hatred and ridicule, and thus their associated cause also suffers.

Personally, whether PETA's intentions are noble or not, you cannot argue that they haven't epicly, epicly failed at what they are trying to achieve. They attracted a huge amount of hatred and ridicule, and thus their associated cause also suffers.

Their biggest mistake as been constantly funding, defending, and hiring members of the ALF.

Personally, whether PETA's intentions are noble or not, you cannot argue that they haven't epicly, epicly failed at what they are trying to achieve.

In raising awareness of the mistreatment of animals, I think they've succeeded massively.

Considering the intensity of the opposition, the fact that they haven't managed to eradicate the exploitation of animals hardly proves a lack of effective tactics.

Sorry. :)

For what it's worth, I live within a short distance of a road still in use that dates back to the eighteenth century.

Edit: And so do lots of people on the East Coast, I'd guess.

Hey its all good man. I just don't want there to be any misunderstandings or silly fights.

There are probably lots of roads around me that were originally built in colonial times (living in VA its inevitable), but we were talking about different things. You meant when the roads were set up for the first time and I was talking about their modern iterations.

the hypocrisy inherant in PETA's positions (like euthenizing more animals then they save...)

since they actually argue for the increased use of euthanasia (http://www.peta.org/MC/factsheet_display.asp?ID=39) (provided it is done in certain ways, etc.), it is difficult to see exactly how that counts as hypocrisy. perhaps you would care to spell it out?

Personally, whether PETA's intentions are noble or not, you cannot argue that they haven't epicly, epicly failed at what they are trying to achieve. They attracted a huge amount of hatred and ridicule, and thus their associated cause also suffers.

I said that earlier, lol........Id say that they succeeded quite well on the Corporate Level...

But, on the individual Meat Eating level...yeah, id say its Epic Phail...

since they actually argue for the increased use of euthanasia (http://www.peta.org/MC/factsheet_display.asp?ID=39) (provided it is done in certain ways, etc.), it is difficult to see exactly how that counts as hypocrisy. perhaps you would care to spell it out?

There is something hypocritical and disturbing about a group that rails against the slaughter of animals and then euthenizes more then they save.

I wonder why eating free range meat is somehow so terribly immoral, yet euthenizing animals is somehow moral.

Personally, whether PETA's intentions are noble or not, you cannot argue that they haven't epicly, epicly failed at what they are trying to achieve. They attracted a huge amount of hatred and ridicule, and thus their associated cause also suffers.

took on the fast food industry and won. took on the big chain pet stores and won. etc. as i said earlier, they are actually surprisingly effective given the depth of their opposition. far more effective than most other organizations i can think of at just plain getting shit done. and since the opposition tends to respond pretty vitriolically to regular people on the street merely mentioning that they don't eat meat, i really don't see any upside for peta to change its ways.

In raising awareness of the mistreatment of animals, I think they've succeeded massively.


They haven't raised awareness of that though. The only thing they raise awareness of is their whimsical and 'annoying' methods they use, that's the thing that makes the news, not their cause. They make their cause seem worse by association.


Considering the intensity of the opposition, the fact that they haven't managed to eradicate the exploitation of animals hardly proves a lack of effective tactics.

The thing is, though, what they've managed to do is make their ideas counter to the mainstream. They've made it incredibly unfashionable to be associated with them.

and since the opposition tends to respond pretty vitriolically to regular people on the street merely mentioning that they don't eat meat

:rolleyes:

Ive never seen the guy who is an unprovocted dousche to the vegetarian for no reason.

I have seen, on a regular basis, the vegetarian who is an unprovokd self rightous dousche to non-vegetarian.

I wonder why eating free range meat is somehow so terribly immoral, yet euthenizing animals is somehow moral.

Well, if you want to know why PETA thinks so, you could have spent thirty seconds with Google, like I did.

Free-Range and Organic Meat, Eggs, and Dairy Products: Conning Consumers? (http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=96)

took on the fast food industry and won. took on the big chain pet stores and won. etc.

Any nominal lawsuit winnings do not weigh against how far they've held back the cause in the long term, in my opinion.


and since the opposition tends to respond pretty vitriolically to regular people on the street merely mentioning that they don't eat meat

This is just nonsense. I know huge amounts of vegetarians that hate PETA, in fact I think there are websites up called vegetariansagainstPETA or something. They're not just a joke amongst conservatives, but amongst 'trendy' liberal students, and even 'teh ebil liberal mediaaa' like south park for instance.


, i really don't see any upside for peta to change its ways.

Seriously? You don't see any reason why they shouldn't stop with this sea kittens crap for instance? Seeeeriously?

Well, if you want to know why PETA thinks so, you could have spent thirty seconds with Google, like I did.

Free-Range and Organic Meat, Eggs, and Dairy Products: Conning Consumers? (http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=96)

So, PETA says that free range isnt really free range? Good for them. I dont believe them.

Beside, they are also against hunting, even if its just to eat what you kill. They are also against me eating meat I bought from the local mom and pop farmer that lives 45 minutes away.

Yet, they are ok with euthenizing animals from shelters. Apperantly PETA believes they should have a monopoly on murdering animals.

If thats not hypocritical, I dont know what it. But its apperant that in some peoples mind, PETA should be treated as this golden organization that can do no wrong.

EDIT: Theyre even against fishing for fucks sake.

So, PETA says that free range isnt really free range? Good for them. I dont believe them.

you belief doesn't really matter when it comes to them being hypocrites.

even if it was the case that there was something hypocritical about supporting euthanasia for unwanted pets and opposing meat eating from even truly free range animals (which i still don't see - the point for them is to prevent suffering, not keep as many anaimals alive as possible), you would need to show that they do believe that things claiming 'free range' actually are.

If thats not hypocritical, I dont know what i[s].

this is a possibility you should seriously consider.

So, PETA says that free range isnt really free range? Good for them. I dont believe them.

Why not? Do you have any actual reason? Do you doubt that the meat industry, like any other industry, is dominated by profit-seeking, and that humane practices tend to be less profitable than inhumane ones?

Beside, they are also against hunting, even if its just to eat what you kill.

Shooting an animal isn't the same as euthanizing one, and killing to deal with the problem of massive pet animal overpopulation (a problem that will kill the animals anyway, and probably more unpleasantly) is not equivalent to at least some forms of hunting.

No human in the developed world, of course, need hunt to survive.

They are also against me eating meat I bought from the local mom and pop farmer that lives 45 minutes away.

Why should their position be otherwise?

Yet, they are ok with euthenizing animals from shelters. Apperantly PETA believes they should have a monopoly on murdering animals.

No, as best I can tell they have no problem with other shelters euthanizing animals that no one adopts, either.

:rolleyes:

Ive never seen the guy who is an unprovocted dousche to the vegetarian for no reason.

I have seen, on a regular basis, the vegetarian who is an unprovokd self rightous dousche to non-vegetarian.

I am a vegetarian. On a regular basis, I encounter people who harass me about it. This is why I've stopped mentioning that I don't eat meat unless someone else asks why I'm avoiding dishes that have some (or unless someone is having me over and asks).

If you want to know, I've had people shove meat under my nose when I'm trying to eat, loudly complain about the fact that I'm not eating meat, try to pick fights about my dietary decisions (repeatedly), tell me that I'm unhealthy (I'm not) or that I will be unhealthy if I continue to be vegetarian, assume that I am a vegetarian for reason x y or z and that as such, I'm going to act like a b or c.

On the other hand, I can only think of a few vegetarians who are absolute douchebags, but I tend to avoid associating with them.

Why not? Do you have any actual reason? Do you doubt that the meat industry, like any other industry, is dominated by profit-seeking, and that humane practices tend to be less profitable than inhumane ones?

Because PETA has an agenda just like any corperation does, so why should I trust them more?


Shooting an animal isn't the same as euthanizing one, and killing to deal with the problem of massive pet animal overpopulation (a problem that will kill the animals anyway, and probably more unpleasantly) is not equivalent to at least some forms of hunting (even hunting for food.)

So, shooting an animal to control that animal's population is morally wrong, but its OK for PETA to euthenize overpopulated dogs?

Why should their position be otherwise?

Because, as of right now, their position is basically "We can kill animals for our own reasons, but you cant kill animals to eat".

If the animal hasnt suffered any cruelty, their main objection is just that Im eating it. So basically, theyre ok with killing animals (as long as its not cruely) as long as you dont eat them.

No, as best I can tell they have no problem with other shelters euthanizing animals that no one adopts, either.

As long as you dont eat them.

Seriously? You don't see any reason why they shouldn't stop with this sea kittens crap for instance? Seeeeriously?

What exactly was so offensive about the sea kittens thing?

Any nominal lawsuit winnings do not weigh against how far they've held back the cause in the long term, in my opinion.

maybe, though that is a far murkier bit of ground to hold

This is just nonsense. I know huge amounts of vegetarians that hate PETA, in fact I think there are websites up called vegetariansagainstPETA or something. They're not just a joke amongst conservatives, but amongst 'trendy' liberal students, and even 'teh ebil liberal mediaaa' like south park for instance.

my point is rather that lots of people freak out about somebody being vegetarian at all, even when done politely. this has become slightly less common than it used to be thanks to a couple decades of very vocal normalizing, but it still exists.

I am a vegetarian. On a regular basis, I encounter people who harass me about it. This is why I've stopped mentioning that I don't eat meat unless someone else asks why I'm avoiding dishes that have some (or unless someone is having me over and asks).

If you want to know, I've had people shove meat under my nose when I'm trying to eat, loudly complain about the fact that I'm not eating meat, try to pick fights about my dietary decisions (repeatedly), tell me that I'm unhealthy (I'm not) or that I will be unhealthy if I continue to be vegetarian, assume that I am a vegetarian for reason x y or z and that as such, I'm going to act like a b or c.

On the other hand, I can only think of a few vegetarians who are absolute douchebags, but I tend to avoid associating with them.

Like I said. Ive never met the mythical douchebag meat eater.

99% of all the vegetarians I know are self rightout holier then thou pricks who condem anyone who eats a steak. Theyre also the ones who stand around campus handing out pamphlets with dead cows next to dead jews from the holocaust that say "Whats the difference?" (which was originally a PETA ad, by the way).

What exactly was so offensive about the sea kittens thing?

It's not offensive. Just incredibly, astonishingly... lame, and further made them look like a humorous joke and source of ridicule.

maybe, though that is a far murkier bit of ground to hold


True, which is why I can only stay with the confines of 'in my opinion'.


my point is rather that lots of people freak out about somebody being vegetarian at all, even when done politely. this has become slightly less common than it used to be thanks to a couple decades of very vocal normalizing, but it still exists.

I doubt PETA helped in that regard however.

Id say there are douches on both sides of the story...Its probably Proportionately even...But, due to larger base Numbers of Meat Eaters, itd probably seem like there are more to the Vegetarians...

Its all about how far you want to take it, and if youre willing to harass people about it...

The fact that PETA is willing to, I think, is why people hate it so much...

If we want to discuss the hypocrisy inherant in PETA's positions (like euthenizing more animals then they save...).

How is that hypocrisy?

Euthanasia isn't inherently un-ethical, is it?

Euthanasia isn't inherently un-ethical, is it?

Depends on your foundational ethical viewpoints, but it is strange that they would support euthanasia without consent (unless animals can consent?).

How is that hypocrisy?

Euthanasia isn't inherently un-ethical, is it?

Well, Personally, Id say its not, but, I also eat Meat......

How is that hypocrisy?

Euthanasia isn't inherently un-ethical, is it?

Euthanizing a non-consenting creature? That doesn't strike you as unethical?

How is that hypocrisy?

Euthanasia isn't inherently un-ethical, is it?

No, its not. What I dont understand, however, is why its morally wrong to hunt to kill overpopulated animal species, or to eat animals that were not treated cruely, but its perfectly acceptable to euthenize overpopulated dogs.

That is hypocritical.

Euthanizing a non-consenting creature? That doesn't strike you as unethical?

That too.

So, shooting an animal to control that animal's population is morally wrong, but its OK for PETA to euthenize overpopulated dogs?


Are you trying to argue that the weekend warriors round here go hunting because they're trying to help the environment?

Hunters hunt because they like hunting. At best, that means they kill rather than wound... so they hunt because they like to kill.

On the other hand, euthanasia for overcrowded kennels, is not done for kicks, but because you have to do something about unadopted critters if you're going to try to keep up.

Are you trying to argue that the weekend warriors round here go hunting because they're trying to help the environment?

Hunters hunt because they like hunting. At best, that means they kill rather than wound... so they hunt because they like to kill.

On the other hand, euthanasia for overcrowded kennels, is not done for kicks, but because you have to do something about unadopted critters if you're going to try to keep up.


Can you show me a Source, or some piece of Data saying this is true?

Are you trying to argue that the weekend warriors round here go hunting because they're trying to help the environment?

No, but hunting laws are often based around controling overpopulation of certian species.

At least they tend to be around here.

What I dont understand, however, is why its morally wrong to hunt to kill overpopulated animal species, or to eat animals that were not treated cruely, but its perfectly acceptable to euthenize overpopulated dogs.

because the one increases the amount of unnecessary and/or human-induced suffering in the world while the other decreases it, presumably.

Ive never seen the guy who is an unprovocted dousche to the vegetarian for no reason.
Come, now.

Don't you remember past threads on vegetarianism in which members (such as 11010101, or whatever his name is) have posted "I'm going to eat a big steak in front of a vegetarian!!" or something similar?

99% of all the vegetarians I know are self rightout holier then thou pricks who condem anyone who eats a steak.
You need to get better aquaintences.

But, leaving 'holier-than-thou' pricks to one side, why are you surprised that folks who (in the vast majority) refrain from acting in a manner they see as unethical and harmful, condemn the self same unethical and harmful actions?

Are you also surprised that those who oppose the death penalty complain about the death penalty?

because the one increases the amount of unnecessary and/or human-induced suffering in the world while the other decreases it, presumably.

How do you figure that?

because the one increases the amount of unnecessary and/or human-induced suffering in the world while the other decreases it, presumably.

Key word. I think I speak for many when I say I doubt it does anything.

Euthanizing a non-consenting creature? That doesn't strike you as unethical?

not automatically. unless we are to believe that it is wrong to put our aging and pained pets to sleep.

or that those pets somehow figured out how to consent to things, i guess.

Because PETA has an agenda just like any corperation does, so why should I trust them more?

It doesn't require "trust" to accept that which makes sense and is supported by the evidence.

So, shooting an animal to control that animal's population is morally wrong, but its OK for PETA to euthenize overpopulated dogs?

There's nothing inherently unreasonable about this, actually. You do know what "euthanasia" means, right? Hunting hardly qualifies.

And while there are alternatives to hunting when it comes to wild animals that can survive on their own (after all, the problem is usually the consequence of human interference in the first place), no one is going to provide support for millions of domesticated animals that no one wants as pets.

Because, as of right now, their position is basically "We can kill animals for our own reasons, but you cant kill animals to eat".

Well, you can't support a meat industry whose practices extend far beyond mere "killing."

If the animal hasnt suffered any cruelty, their main objection is just that Im eating it.

Is it? I'm not sure this is their position at all--indeed, their main point is that the ways we actually treat the animals we kill (for food or otherwise) are highly cruel and inhumane.

They advocate euthanasia in ways that do not involve suffering and cruelty. After all, that's what "euthanasia" means.

So basically, theyre ok with killing animals (as long as its not cruely) as long as you dont eat them.

This, in itself, wouldn't be hypocritical. Furthermore, I can think of at least one good reason for this position (assuming it actually is PETA's): if we use the animals we kill as resources, we will be tempted to kill not only when it is necessary and justified but also when it is not.

Their biggest mistake as been constantly funding, defending, and hiring members of the ALF.

And PETA is still allowed to operate, whereas the Holy Land Foundation was shut down immediately on allegations that it sent money to Hamas. Innit special?

Depends on your foundational ethical viewpoints, but it is strange that they would support euthanasia without consent (unless animals can consent?).

As far as I know, animals are thus far unable to consent.

But I don't see that that's necessarily a problem. If you're euthanising for some reason... like overcrowded kennels of dogs that have been heavily abused, starved, or whatever... that aren't being adopted... what are the alternatives?

Using my local area as an example - if a stray dog walks on someone's land around here, they'll shoot it. Maybe it'll die, maybe it won't. We took in one rescue dog that had been shot. When someone around here doesn't want a dog any more... they shoot it, drown it, throw it in the road. Maybe they just lock it in the shed till it dies. Maybe, if it's lucky.. .they just drive it off, and shoot it if it comes back. If it's REALLY lucky, it might get taken to a shelter.

So shelters - around here - are really playing catch-up all the time. There's a big stray problem, there's a big unwanted puppy problem, there'ss a big disease problem. Most of these can be tracked back to the fact that dogs are stupid animals and thus disposable... certainly not worth paying vet bills for.

As an Englishman - it frankly sickens me.

In comparison to being 'in the wild' around here, being 'imprisoned' is a mercy. But there's only so much capacity. But then, in comparison to being 'in the wild' around here, being quietly put to sleep is a mercy, too.

Euthanizing a non-consenting creature? That doesn't strike you as unethical?

No.

Maybe if you're doing it for kicks.

No, but hunting laws are often based around controling overpopulation of certian species.

At least they tend to be around here.

You have that backasswards. The LIMITS are based around how much you can kill before you start cutting into the nominal population.

Why do you think YOU pay for the license, rather than them paying you?

No, its not. What I dont understand, however, is why its morally wrong to hunt to kill overpopulated animal species, or to eat animals that were not treated cruely, but its perfectly acceptable to euthenize overpopulated dogs.


Because hunting is usually done for pleasure. Euthanasing puppies? Less so.

Soooo...Its okay to kill Animals as long as you dont like doing it?

As far as I know, animals are thus far unable to consent.

But I don't see that that's necessarily a problem. If you're euthanising for some reason... like overcrowded kennels of dogs that have been heavily abused, starved, or whatever... that aren't being adopted... what are the alternatives?

Using my local area as an example - if a stray dog walks on someone's land around here, they'll shoot it. Maybe it'll die, maybe it won't. We took in one rescue dog that had been shot. When someone around here doesn't want a dog any more... they shoot it, drown it, throw it in the road. Maybe they just lock it in the shed till it dies. Maybe, if it's lucky.. .they just drive it off, and shoot it if it comes back. If it's REALLY lucky, it might get taken to a shelter.

So shelters - around here - are really playing catch-up all the time. There's a big stray problem, there's a big unwanted puppy problem, there'ss a big disease problem. Most of these can be tracked back to the fact that dogs are stupid animals and thus disposable... certainly not worth paying vet bills for.

As an Englishman - it frankly sickens me.

In comparison to being 'in the wild' around here, being 'imprisoned' is a mercy. But there's only so much capacity. But then, in comparison to being 'in the wild' around here, being quietly put to sleep is a mercy, too.

Merely because there are worse alternatives does not make euthanasia ethically sound. It may be the lesser of multiple evils, but there is nothing inherently ethical about putting down pets just because you can't afford to care for them.

Key word. I think I speak for many when I say I doubt it does anything.
Presumeably it must do something.


because the one increases the amount of unnecessary and/or human-induced suffering in the world while the other decreases it, presumably.
Incidently, I think this kind of 'tallying' has lead many animal lib organisations astray.

Also, it's sad that organisations such as PETA or Earth First, who represent particular viewpoints (in my eyes, particular wrong viewpoints) in the animal lib/ecology movements, are taken as spokesmen for what is a wide and varied movement.

But I don't see that that's necessarily a problem. If you're euthanising for some reason... like overcrowded kennels of dogs that have been heavily abused, starved, or whatever... that aren't being adopted... what are the alternatives?


It's not a problem for me, but I can imagine how it would conflict with PETA's precepts. The whole 'same rights as humans' thing, do you really think they would deny the right for a human to choose whether they live or die, regardless of whether they're in pain or not?

And PETA is still allowed to operate, whereas the Holy Land Foundation was shut down immediately on allegations that it sent money to Hamas. Innit special?

i continue to be amused by you apparent belief that the bush administration was a bunch of deep cover hippie animal activists. it's just so cute.

Merely because there are worse alternatives does not make euthanasia ethically sound.


Okay. Does it make it intrinsically UN-ethical? (Which is what I was originally talking about).


It may be the lesser of multiple evils...


...which is why it may be the most ethical choice.


...but there is nothing inherently ethical about putting down pets just because you can't afford to care for them.

Which is irrelevent - because I said that it wasn't intrinsically UN-ethical. It doesn't have to be 'intrinsically ethical' for that to be true.

It's not an ideal world. Sometimes the most ethical thing we can do isn't perfectly ethical.

Like I said. Ive never met the mythical douchebag meat eater.

I assure you there are many of them.

99% of all the vegetarians I know are self rightout holier then thou pricks who condem anyone who eats a steak. Theyre also the ones who stand around campus handing out pamphlets with dead cows next to dead jews from the holocaust that say "Whats the difference?" (which was originally a PETA ad, by the way).

How many vegetarians do you actually know? By actually know I mean know personally, not the ones you see holding signs occasionally?

Incidently, I think this kind of 'tallying' has lead many animal lib organisations astray.

yeah, it certainly poses some fairly well known dangers

It's not a problem for me, but I can imagine how it would conflict with PETA's precepts. The whole 'same rights as humans' thing, do you really think they would deny the right for a human to choose whether they live or die, regardless of whether they're in pain or not?

Ethical treatment. That's the goal.

Maybe, ideally, some kind of 'perfect' ethics. But we live in societies that abuse animals, and tolerate it. Sometimes you have to settle for ethical triage.

i continue to be amused by you apparent belief that the bush administration was a bunch of deep cover hippie animal activists. it's just so cute.

Nice irrelevant straw man. If one group gets shut down on charges of supporting terrorists, why should another be exempt?

Ethical treatment. That's the goal.

Maybe, ideally, some kind of 'perfect' ethics. But we live in societies that abuse animals, and tolerate it. Sometimes you have to settle for ethical triage.

But PETA put out this image of being completely uncompromising.

Nice irrelevant straw man. If one group gets shut down on charges of supporting terrorists, why should another be exempt?

what else are we supposed to make of the fact that you find it deeply suspicious that peta continued to freely operate under the bush admin despite being 'known terrorist supporters'?

and perhaps because every investigation has been unable to find anything shutdownable?

But PETA put out this image of being completely uncompromising.

Hence the name: "People for the Absolute Equal Rights For Animals", right?

No wait - that's NOT what they're called, is it?

You have that backasswards. The LIMITS are based around how much you can kill before you start cutting into the nominal population.

Why do you think YOU pay for the license, rather than them paying you?

Unless you live in Chicagoland, Id not get bitchy. Some animals around here you are allowed to hunt soley because there is a population problem.



How many vegetarians do you actually know? By actually know I mean know personally, not the ones you see holding signs occasionally?

Off the top of my head, 9.

One of them is not how I described.

I love how its so hard for vegetarians to imagine that a lot of them are pricks. Yes, you guys really are just morally superior.:rolleyes:

not automatically. unless we are to believe that it is wrong to put our aging and pained pets to sleep.

or that those pets somehow figured out how to consent to things, i guess.

Except when those cats and dogs weren't in pain to begin with and were taken from no-kill shelters by PETA employees who lie about finding homes for them:

PETA Killed 97 Percent of 'Companion Animals' in 2006, According to VDACS (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-10-2008/0004734363&EDATE=)

Now when various animal rights organizations say Pet Overpopulation is a myth and that they can handle unwanted animals effectively without resorting to euthanasia on a fraction of PETA's enormous budget, PETA doesn't suddenly look like the shiny bastion of animal rights it's trying to pass itself off as:

PETA and Euthanasia (http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549/output/print)

Except when those cats and dogs weren't in pain to begin with and were taken from no-kill shelters by PETA employees who lie about finding homes for them:

PETA Killed 97 Percent of 'Companion Animals' in 2006, According to VDACS (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-10-2008/0004734363&EDATE=)

Now when various animal rights organizations say Pet Overpopulation is a myth and that they can handle unwanted animals effectively without resorting to euthanasia on a fraction of PETA's enormous budget, PETA doesn't suddenly look like the shiny bastion of animal rights it's trying to pass itself off as:

PETA and Euthanasia (http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549/output/print)

Sssh. PETA is perfect. How dare you sir?

Off the top of my head, 9.

One of them is not how I described.

I love how its so hard for vegetarians to imagine that a lot of them are pricks. Yes, you guys really are just morally superior.:rolleyes:

No, it's just that since this is the internet and your behaviour so far in this thread indicates that you are willing to bend the truth, exaggerate and refuse to provide sources, your statement "all vegetarians I know are like x" does not mean much. Further, 8/9 is 89%, not 99%.
Also, I never claimed moral superiority. I just don't see nearly as many vegetarians harassing meat eaters compared to the number of meat eaters who have harassed me about my diet so I find your 99% "statistic" a little suspicious.

No, it's just that since this is the internet and your behaviour so far in this thread indicates that you are willing to bend the truth, exaggerate and refuse to provide sources, your statement "all vegetarians I know are like x" does not mean much. Further, 8/9 is 89%, not 99%.
Also, I never claimed moral superiority. I just don't see nearly as many vegetarians harassing meat eaters compared to the number of meat eaters who have harassed me about my diet so I find your 99% "statistic" a little suspicious.

:rolleyes:


Wow. From now on, Ill caculate the exact statistic to make sure someone doesnt get bitchy over an obvious exaggeration.

Besides, Ive bent no truth. And with that whole source thing, I alreayd addressed that.

For the record, I also find your claim that a lot of meat eaters harass you very suspicious. I personally think you have the vegetarian victim complex.

Unless you live in Chicagoland, Id not get bitchy. Some animals around here you are allowed to hunt soley because there is a population problem.


Really? This one I would like to see sourced.

Sssh. PETA is perfect. How dare you sir?

Fortunately for your argument, there is no "People for the Ethical Treatment of Strawmen".

Fortunately for your argument, there is no "People for the Ethical Treatment of Strawmen".

There should be....Straw has feelings too you know....

Wow. From now on, Ill caculate the exact statistic to make sure someone doesnt get bitchy over an obvious exaggeration.

I'm just saying that even if the tiny sample of people you know constituted an accurate representation of vegetarians, you could at least get the numbers right.

Besides, Ive bent no truth. And with that whole source thing, I alreayd addressed that.

Your method of addressing left much to be desired. You simply claimed that nobody would listen anyway, even when other posters told you that they would be willing to listen if you would just provide evidence. Further, you have misstated PETA's position on the use of drugs developed with animal testing (and this was pointed out by another poster) so yes, I would say that you have at least bent the truth.

For the record, I also find your claim that a lot of meat eaters harass you very suspicious. I personally think you have the vegetarian victim complex.

Yes, a vegetarian persecution complex. I haven't endured entire meals worth of someone telling me how my lack of meat consumption is such a horrible, horrible thing to the point where I avoid mentioning it on the off chance that it will result in unpleasant dinner conversation.

lol wut

Once a girl starts talkin yall shutup

We don't post on this forum every 2 seconds. Anyway, stop spamming this thread ya drunkard.

Once a girl starts talkin yall shutup

Well, Im not saying thats not a good philosophy......

But, This isnt really the thread for it, lol...

I'm just saying that even if the tiny sample of people you know constituted an accurate representation of vegetarians, you could at least get the numbers right.

Its not like exageration is a regular part of NSG or anything. Youre just being nitpicking and you know it. Dont play dumb. Its rather unbecoming.


Your method of addressing left much to be desired. You simply claimed that nobody would listen anyway, even when other posters told you that they would be willing to listen if you would just provide evidence. Further, you have misstated PETA's position on the use of drugs developed with animal testing (and this was pointed out by another poster) so yes, I would say that you have at least bent the truth.

1. I dont believe those posters would have listened, because I saw how they were earlier in the thread.
2. I never said it was PETA's position. I was very specific that I was talking about their leader. It was a strawman for Soheran to argue that.

Did you even read my posts?

Yes, a vegetarian persecution complex. I haven't endured entire meals worth of someone telling me how my lack of meat consumption is such a horrible, horrible thing to the point where I avoid mentioning it on the off chance that it will result in unpleasant dinner conversation.

*shrug* I dont believe you. Or at the very least, I believe youre exaggerating.

Its funny how quick vegetarians are to believe each others stories about the mean meat eaters, but when confronted with a story about the douchebag vegetarian crusader, its suddenly unbelievable.

Once a girl starts talkin yall shutup

I'm a girl. I didn't start off with inane, unrelated blather in poorly typed pseudo-English.

Who u calling a drunkard

...

Yeah, you're totally extreme. :rolleyes:

1. I dont believe those posters would have listened, because I saw how they were earlier in the thread.
2. I never said it was PETA's position. I was very specific that I was talking about their leader. It was a strawman for Soheran to argue that.

Did you even read my posts?

Yes. I did read your posts. You failed to dig up this specific quote from the leader of PETA. It should be a simple matter, no?

*shrug* I dont believe you. Or at the very least, I believe youre exaggerating.

I know that I've been places where people have looked at me like I had another head when I mention that I don't eat meat. Try leaving a big city and pretending to be a vegetarian for a day.

Its funny how quick vegetarians are to believe each others stories about the mean meat eaters, but when confronted with a story about the douchebag vegetarian crusader, its suddenly unbelievable.

No, there are douchebag vegetarians, but they're probably less than 10% of all vegetarians. You probably wouldn't know most vegetarians are vegetarians unless they explicitly state it. On the other hand, if 10% of omnivores are douchebags about it, you're going to have a lot more douchegags about a lack of eating meat. Add the people who actually aren't aware that people choose to avoid eating meat... in this case it isn't usually malice, but it can get old really fast.

impressive thread kill

Close ur mouth or ill close it 4 u dakini

Your attempt would be highly entertaining.

Yes. I did read your posts. You failed to dig up this specific quote from the leader of PETA. It should be a simple matter, no?

And would have been a waste of time. Look at Gauthier's last post. Totally ignored. Case in point.


I know that I've been places where people have looked at me like I had another head when I mention that I don't eat meat. Try leaving a big city and pretending to be a vegetarian for a day.

How cute that you assume I live in a big city. I dont.


No, there are douchebag vegetarians, but they're probably less than 10% of all vegetarians. You probably wouldn't know most vegetarians are vegetarians unless they explicitly state it.

And most do state it. First chance they get. They are quick to tell you so that you know how morally superior they are. They say it with a bit of a high and mighty tone and then look around expecting us all to congratulate them.

Well, not most. But a larger portion then you seem to be willing to admit.

On the other hand, if 10% of omnivores are douchebags about it, you're going to have a lot more douchegags about a lack of eating meat. Add the people who actually aren't aware that people choose to avoid eating meat... in this case it isn't usually malice, but it can get old really fast.

Yes. Us omnivores are naturally pricks. Must be the steak. :rolleyes:

Your thread derailing skills leave me envious.

finally dakini shutin ur mouth up wat a gd choice

Dude. GTFO. The grown ups are talking.

yall know i was jokin bout everthin i said
i apoligize 2 u dakini !
i am so sorrrrrrryyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/ritalin/gfx/ritalin_large.jpg

Kid, this is a thread for a discussion. If you want to whine and spam, do it in the spam forum.

who the grown ups

Those of us having a quasi-intellegent conversation.

And would have been a waste of time. Look at Gauthier's last post. Totally ignored. Case in point.
Grave n Idle (who the post was directed towards) hasn't been in this thread since the post was made. I wouldn't say it's been ignored, I'd say that the relevant poster has walked off or is posting somewhere else at the moment and will address it later (if the new found spam queen hasn't doubled the size of this thread in the meantime).

How cute that you assume I live in a big city. I dont.

Fine. Go pretend to be a vegetarian for a day then. Preferably around people you don't know well.

Yes. Us omnivores are naturally pricks. Must be the steak. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I said that. Instead I said that about 10% of people are douchebags. There are just likely to be more douchebags who eat meat since there are more people who eat meat (assuming an equal distribution of doucehbaggery).

finally dakini shutin ur mouth up wat a gd choice

Has someone reported this nuisance or shall I?

Fine. Go pretend to be a vegetarian for a day then. Preferably around people you don't know well.

Most people actually assume I am a vegetarian at first, because I eat very little meat.

I have yet to face ridecule, even among people whose assumptions Ive never corrected.

most do state it. First chance they get. They are quick to tell you so that you know how morally superior they are. They say it with a bit of a high and mighty tone and then look around expecting us all to congratulate them.

Well, not most. But a larger portion then you seem to be willing to admit.

I missed this (whether through editing or whatever...)

I can only think of a few people where the first thing I knew about them is that they didn't eat meat (and the ones I can think of I only knew this because I joined a vegetarian club... so I'd hardly say this counts... although there were some non-vegetarians who joined for the discount card). It's something that comes up about as often as food in general comes up.

am i that annoyin sorry

The sincerity of your apology is questionable since you're repeating behaviour you're claiming to apologize for.

its just i am sooooo frustrated
i have no one 2 share my feelings with

This thread isn't about feelings. It's about the animal rights group PETA.
Start your own thread or get a blog.

i have no one 2 share my feelings with Well, I have. I am sharing them with you, and that's why you've got a red card for spamming.

EDIT: Make that "banned".

The most distressing thing to me about PETA isn't their brand of activism so much as it is the sweeping generalizations they make in defense of their stances. The one issue I take the most offense at is their take on dog breeders. I agree that IRRESPONSIBLE dog breeders (and there are a few in every bunch, as I'm sure there are pleasant omnivores and belligerent vegetarians and vice-versa). are a problem and need to be prosecuted.

But I own a Briard, and they're not generally in the rescue pool. I own one because I love the temperament, the herding group in general, the breed's characteristics, the hair-not-fur hypoallergenic-ness, and they're just plain beautiful animals. The Briard Club of America recommended a local breeder, and I consulted with them, as well as the regional BCA affiliate to search for a rescue Briard. At the time, there were none within about 1000 miles of my location (at that time, Seattle).

The local breeder's bitch was just about to have puppies, and so I offered to help whelping in exchange for a lower price on the dog (food and proper care is expensive). I got the runt of the litter (who has since grown up to be a 70-lb. teddy bear/alarm system/exercise partner), and I've never been happier with a pet.

Now PETA has trained its sights on ALL DOG BREEDING, period. The rhetoric on their forums ("it's like telling your kids when, where and with whom they can have sex" is one example) is inflammatory, ill-educated, and completely biased. No reputable or ethical breeder does what PETA claims ALL breeders do. Yes, pet stores get animals from mills, but a responsible breeder is not a mill.

Instead of going after bad breeders or mill maniacs, they seek to eliminate all dog breeding, period. This action would lead to the extinction of a majority of breeds and/or force some underground into a far more questionable state of affairs.

I have no problem with PETA's principles. It's how they choose to act on them that can be very dubious and alarmingly unspecific.

I have no problem with PETA's principles. It's how they choose to act on them that can be very dubious and alarmingly unspecific.

I do. The general principle of "Animal Liberation" is an unworkable farce that would do more damage than it supposedly prevents. PETA wants the world to have absolutely nothing to do with animals. Not for laboratory testing, not for fur, not for food, not even for pets or agricultural labor. Nothing.

The galling "Some Are More Equal Than Others" hypocrisy of the PETA leadership, Ingrid Newkirk in particular speaks volumes. She has made it clear she opposes the use of animals in medical research or any benefits derived from such. Yet she's a diabetic who uses bovine insulin to keep herself alive.

“Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”
— PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue, Sep 1989

And there's of course the cases of the euthanized companion animals- often taken from no-kill shelters under the lie of finding homes for them.

Grave n Idle (who the post was directed towards) hasn't been in this thread since the post was made. I wouldn't say it's been ignored, I'd say that the relevant poster has walked off or is posting somewhere else..

As far as I recall, the last one was directed to.. Free Soviets, I think.


It's not a post I was especially intent on replying to - I seem to recall something about other groups saying they could adopt ALL the strays if they had PETA's budget... or something. Which may be true, or may be bullshit... but it kind of ignores the fact that only a fraction of PETA's budget is going to euthanasia...

So, not just because I don't think it was directed to me, but also because it was one of those kinda nonsensical posts, I ignored it.

The galling "Some Are More Equal Than Others" hypocrisy of the PETA leadership, Ingrid Newkirk in particular speaks volumes. She has made it clear she opposes the use of animals in medical research or any benefits derived from such. Yet she's a diabetic who uses bovine insulin to keep herself alive.


Ah, this tired old crap again.

Has anyone actually sourced this yet, by the way?

I know the former VP of PETA was diabetic, and now uses a synthetic insulin product.

Regardless, one (or two, or even ten) person(s) acting in a way you see as hypocitical doesn't taint the whole barrel.

Ah, this tired old crap again.

Has anyone actually sourced this yet, by the way?

That quote from Vogue means nothing to you obviously.

I know the former VP of PETA was diabetic, and now uses a synthetic insulin product.

Regardless, one (or two, or even ten) person(s) acting in a way you see as hypocitical doesn't taint the whole barrel.

Except when the hypocrisy is from the founding leadership of the barrel.

As far as I recall, the last one was directed to.. Free Soviets, I think.

It's not a post I was especially intent on replying to - I seem to recall something about other groups saying they could adopt ALL the strays if they had PETA's budget... or something. Which may be true, or may be bullshit... but it kind of ignores the fact that only a fraction of PETA's budget is going to euthanasia...

So, not just because I don't think it was directed to me, but also because it was one of those kinda nonsensical posts, I ignored it.
My apologies. I know I didn't address it because I haven't really been talking about PETA so much, let alone their animal shelters or policies or whatever. And yes, it was a little nonsensical.

That quote from Vogue means nothing to you obviously.

It means that PETA is opposed to current animal testing, not using the results of animal testing which has already occurred and nothing can be done about. This came up a couple of pages ago.

It means that PETA is opposed to current animal testing, not using the results of animal testing which has already occurred and nothing can be done about. This came up a couple of pages ago.

Which means PETA's vocal opposition to animal testing has a Grandfather Clause in it. How convenient.

Which means PETA's vocal opposition to animal testing has a Grandfather Clause in it. How convenient.
I'm not sure if it's convenience so much as something that nothing can be done about. However, it is possible to find alternatives to animal testing in the future.

I'm not sure what's so difficult about this concept.

Except when those cats and dogs weren't in pain to begin with and were taken from no-kill shelters by PETA employees who lie about finding homes for them:

PETA Killed 97 Percent of 'Companion Animals' in 2006, According to VDACS (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-10-2008/0004734363&EDATE=)

was this supposed to support the previous statement? because it didn't.

Now when various animal rights organizations say Pet Overpopulation is a myth and that they can handle unwanted animals effectively without resorting to euthanasia on a fraction of PETA's enormous budget, PETA doesn't suddenly look like the shiny bastion of animal rights it's trying to pass itself off as:

PETA and Euthanasia (http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549/output/print)

so if every shelter could dramatically increase its budget and get a thousand more volunteers, they could probably avoid having to euthanize any animals and perhaps manage to keep them in good conditions. odds of that actually happening?

according to the humane society (http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/hsus_pet_overpopulation_estimates.html), there are something like 7 million cats and dogs that move through the system each year, and about half of them are euthanized. the math seems to be in peta's favor here...

That quote from Vogue means nothing to you obviously.


What quote from vogue?

Remember where I asked if anyone had sourced it...


Except when the hypocrisy is from the founding leadership of the barrel.

Irrelevent. Even if the pope rapes homeless people, it doesn't mean all christians rape homeless people... or even all catholics... or even all cardinals.

Which means PETA's vocal opposition to animal testing has a Grandfather Clause in it. How convenient.

And what? They should go back in time? Wanting to change the world is fine... let's just keep it in mind that we're probably not going to change yesterday's world, hmm?

was this supposed to support the previous statement? because it didn't.



so if every shelter could dramatically increase its budget and get a thousand more volunteers, they could probably avoid having to euthanize any animals and perhaps manage to keep them in good conditions. odds of that actually happening?

according to the humane society (http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/hsus_pet_overpopulation_estimates.html), there are something like 7 million cats and dogs that move through the system each year, and about half of them are euthanized. the math seems to be in peta's favor here...

Except PETA could take provide actual care without resorting to euthanasia. If it felt like doing so.

“It is a totally rotten business, but sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever. “I don’t think a dog living in a cage walking in circles for the rest of its life in a dog prison is a swell thing.” … “It sounds lovely if you’re naïve. We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn’t do as much work.”

–The Virginian-Pilot, August 1, 2000

There's no actual humanitarian motive behind PETA's euthanasia drive. It's all about convenience, saving money that can be diverted to propaganda and publicity, and having convenient corpses they can keep in the walk-in freezer of theirs for later use.

And what? They should go back in time? Wanting to change the world is fine... let's just keep it in mind that we're probably not going to change yesterday's world, hmm?

Surprisingly they're not committed to following up on standards they're eager to impose on others.

"It (animal research) is immoral even if it is essential."
Ingrid Newkirk - Founder, PETA
Washington Post, May 30, 1989

“I’m an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products — and I have no qualms about it … I’m not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don’t see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.”

–Glamour, (PETA Senior Vice President Marybeth Sweetland)

There's no actual humanitarian motive behind PETA's euthanasia drive. It's all about convenience, saving money that can be diverted to propaganda and publicity, and having convenient corpses they can keep in the walk-in freezer of theirs for later use.

So there's no humanitarian motive behind not wanting to keep animals in cages their entire lives leaving them to a miserable lonely existence? Also, do you have evidence that PETA keeps a walk-in freezer of animal corpses?

Surprisingly they're not committed to following up on standards they're eager to impose on others.

I don't see the conflict there. Even if they believe past animal testing was immoral... it is the 'past' part that makes it unchangable.

Ah. Thanks for the quote, by the way. I see, by Vogue, you mean Glamour, and by Ingrid Newkirk, you mean Marybeth Sweetland. Oh, and by 'bovine insulin', you mean synthetic insulin. And by 'leader', you mean 'former VP'.

Why?

Why is it BS? Because Nirvana said "It's okay to eat fish, 'cause they don't have any feelings'?

'Animal rights' as a collective movement has consistently run into one problem. People are okay with saving kittens, and baby seals, and even whales... because they're kind of cute. But when you try to explain that Mako sharks are almost extinct, or that certain less-than-environmental policies have destroyed the habitat of such-and-such a carrion eater... you just can't seem to conjure up the same level of support.

So... why does this:

http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/index.asp

engender cries of rage, while this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dymD_xplYnA&feature=related

get's a giggle?

As far as what I knew, saving seals is done not because they're cute and cuddly animals, but because they're endangered.

As far as what I knew, saving seals is done not because they're cute and cuddly animals, but because they're endangered.
Seals are not endangered. Especially not the ones people are all up in arms about protecting. People get all pissy because of claims that the cute ones are being killed (it hasn't been legal to kill them as babies since the 1987).

I don't see the conflict there. Even if they believe past animal testing was immoral... it is the 'past' part that makes it unchangable.



Ah. Thanks for the quote, by the way. I see, by Vogue, you mean Glamour, and by Ingrid Newkirk, you mean Marybeth Sweetland. Oh, and by 'bovine insulin', you mean synthetic insulin. And by 'leader', you mean 'former VP'.

I have made a small mistake here with which part of PETA leadership took insulin. On the other hand you're arguing synthetic insulin would have been possible entirely without research into organic insulin and bovine-derived products. Yet such morally principled crusaders of animals who would demand that us human beings stop live-saving research and let all those nasty pathogens and parasites wipe out humanity aren't above reaping the benefits of such for themselves post-facto.

"Humans have grown like cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of
the planet."
Ingrid Newkirk - Founder, PETA
Reader's Digest, June, 1990

Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, "We'd be against it."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA
(_Washington_Post_, May 30, 1989)

"We have a lazy, sick society. People bring diseases on themselves.
[People should] avoid getting the disease in the first place."
Dan Mathews - PETA spokesperson
USA Today, July 27, 1994

"I am not a morose person but I would rather not be here.
don't have any reverence for life, only for the entities themselves.
I would rather see a blank space where I am.
This will sound like fruitcake stuff again, but at least I wouldn't be
harming anything." Ingrid Newkirk Founder, PETA
Washington Post, November 13, 1983

And they hate their fellow humans more than they love animals.

She has made it clear she opposes the use of animals in medical research or any benefits derived from such. Yet she's a diabetic who uses bovine insulin to keep herself alive.

So? This isn't even hypocritical, actually. Is PETA saying that no one should use drugs whose developers used animal testing? No. It's saying that animal testing should be stopped.

And that makes perfect sense. It's not as if boycotting such drugs will save the animals already killed or mistreated in the development process of the drug.

Except PETA could take provide actual care without resorting to euthanasia.

Every organization on the planet makes decisions of priority about how to allocate resources.

Organizations spending money to, say, lobby governments to increase money on AIDS research aren't spending their money directly caring for AIDS victims... is that hypocritical, too?

So how is this commercial too sexy? Jeez, I've seen tampons and Victoria Secret commercials that are sexier than that.

Seals are not endangered. Especially not the ones people are all up in arms about protecting. People get all pissy because of claims that the cute ones are being killed (it hasn't been legal to kill them as babies since the 1987).

Hence why I posted that ''as far as I knew''. If the argument is that seals are cute, then the organizations that are trying to protect them are as hypocritical as PETA is.

Hence why I posted that ''as far as I knew''. If the argument is that seals are cute, then the organizations that are trying to protect them are as hypocritical as PETA is.

Actually, I think that PETA does at least some of the work in protesting the seal hunt. They still use images of the baby seals with white coats and suggest that these are the animals being hunted even though hunting seals with white coats has been banned for 20 years. It's not that these organizations don't protest other hunts, just that this one gets more attention because the animals are cute so people care more.

Actually, I think that PETA does at least some of the work in protesting the seal hunt. They still use images of the baby seals with white coats and suggest that these are the animals being hunted even though hunting seals with white coats has been banned for 20 years. It's not that these organizations don't protest other hunts, just that this one gets more attention because the animals are cute so people care more.

Something that is terribly ridiculous (I'm not calling your post ridiculous). All animals, regardless of how cute they are or not, should be respected and protected.

And not to be bunched in with the PETA freaks out there, I eat meat and we humans posses the right to feed. I just think that animals shouldn't suffer too much for feeding us.

Something that is terribly ridiculous (I'm not calling your post ridiculous). All animals, regardless of how cute they are or not, should be respected and protected.

Even ants? :eek:

Even ants? :eek:

Come on Hydey-kun, don't take it to extremes. You know what I meant.;)

Something that is terribly ridiculous (I'm not calling your post ridiculous). All animals, regardless of how cute they are or not, should be respected and protected.

And not to be bunched in with the PETA freaks out there, I eat meat and we humans posses the right to feed. I just think that animals shouldn't suffer too much for feeding us.

Ah, so it's fine to eat cats? Dogs?

:rolleyes:

Ive never seen the guy who is an unprovocted dousche to the vegetarian for no reason.

I have seen, on a regular basis, the vegetarian who is an unprovokd self rightous dousche to non-vegetarian.

I've seen both, but honestly, far more of the former than the latter - probably because, as Dakini postulated, there are simply far more non-vegetarians than vegetarians, and therefore probably a greater number (but similar percentage) of assholes in their midst. For the record, I eat meat and have no intention of stopping, but that doesn't mean I don't think a lot of objections to PETA are overblown. I don't agree with many of their positions or tactics, but the degree of RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE they inspire just baffles me.

Ah, so it's fine to eat cats? Dogs?

Yeah. In fact in lots of places... they do.

Yeah. In fact in lots of places... they do.
I know. I was sort of trying to test for how far the "it doesn't matter if it's a cute animal" went...

I know. I was sort of trying to test for how far the "it doesn't matter if it's a cute animal" went...

I think cows, especially baby ones, are cute, it don't stop me from eating beef, or veal.

Its funny how quick vegetarians are to believe each others stories about the mean meat eaters...
And most do state [that they are vegetarians]. First chance they get. They are quick to tell you so that you know how morally superior they are. They say it with a bit of a high and mighty tone and then look around expecting us all to congratulate them.
You're going from made-up statistics about vegetarians to sweeping statements about vegetarians?

Get a grip.



I do. The general principle of "Animal Liberation" is an unworkable farce that would do more damage than it supposedly prevents. PETA wants the world to have absolutely nothing to do with animals. Not for laboratory testing, not for fur, not for food, not even for pets or agricultural labor. Nothing.
PETA's stance is in no way the "general principle" of the animal lib movement, and it is disingenuous to suggest so.

Many of us in the movement are strongly opposed to the Deep Ecology (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/#3)-inspired schtick of organisations such as PETA or Earth First.

PETA's stance is in no way the "general principle" of the animal lib movement, and it is disingenuous to suggest so.

Many of us in the movement are strongly opposed to the Deep Ecology (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/#3)-inspired schtick of organisations such as PETA or Earth First.

Sorry, meant to emphasize PETA's views on Animal Liberation.

I know. I was sort of trying to test for how far the "it doesn't matter if it's a cute animal" went...

Just speaking personally, my objection to eating dogs and cats is not really that they're cute, but rather that they're smart. Cows and chickens can be cute, too, but they have a great deal less in the way of personality.

Pain stimuli alone doesn't equate sentience, much less self-awareness.

A modern robot could probably be programmed to receive a pain input whenever someone attempted to harm it as an alarm system against vandalism.

Plus, I don't see vegetarian lions, or any carnivore which cares about its prey for the matter, if an hungry lion went at you, it wouldn't show any compassion at all, so why should humans treat other animals better than how such other animals treat each other? We should be glad to be on the top of the food chain for being sentient. Otherwise predators would tear us apart and make us suffer horrible pain with no mercy. This vegetarianism is just a bunch of philosophical bull, single-cause activism to distract idealistic people from the real problems of society, probably funded by big corporations behind the scenes which would benefit from their actions. And by the Illuminati New World Order

And as a mandatory logical fallacy, the historical curiousity that Hitler was a vegetarian hasn't been mentioned yet.

Sorry, meant to emphasize PETA's views on Animal Liberation.
Nae probs.

I've just heard too many folks equate PETA with the whole animal lib movement, or, even more often, use 'animal rights' and 'animal lib' as synonyms.

I wags me finger at such nonsense, I do.



Pain stimuli alone doesn't equate sentience, much less self-awareness.

A modern robot could probably be programmed to receive a pain input whenever someone attempted to harm it as an alarm system against vandalism.
But would this pain be phenomenological, i.e., would it feel the pain, or merely have an data input that pain is happening?

Some might argue the two are the same, but I wouldn't equate a (current) computer receiving the data string "I am in love" with a human feeling s/he is in love.

Plus, I don't see vegetarian lions, or any carnivore which cares about its prey for the matter, if an hungry lion went at you, it wouldn't show any compassion at all, so why should humans treat other animals better than how such other animals treat each other?
Precisely because we aren't those other animals. We're animals of a rather different nature.

A lion has no choice in the matter of eating meat or not; we do. A lion has no choice in the structure of it's social group; we do. A lion as very little ability to think abstractly, to dramatically change its surrounding environment and actions; we do. A lion does not have the advanced mental compacity for compassion; we do.

This vegetarianism is just a bunch of philosophical bull, single-cause activism to distract idealistic people from the real problems of society
On the contrary, vegetarianism can be seen as a small part of a larger ecological movement, which is dedicated not only to ecologically sustainable living, but tp radical social change. There are those of us who believe society cannot become truly liberatory unless we have the right character towards our ecology, and vice versa.

Ah, so it's fine to eat cats? Dogs?

Cat meat, not so much, but they do get eaten. Dogs are also reared and eaten semi-regularly in a few countries around these parts.

Cat meat, not so much, but they do get eaten. Dogs are also reared and eaten semi-regularly in a few countries around these parts.

is/ought

I couldn't be a vegetarian for long anyway if I could get with someone who looked like some of those models in that commercial spot... I'd have to eat her eventually. <.< >.> <.<

On the other hand you're arguing synthetic insulin would have been possible entirely without research into organic insulin and bovine-derived products.

I am?

Quote me.

And as a mandatory logical fallacy, the historical curiousity that Hitler was a vegetarian hasn't been mentioned yet.

Hitler wasn't a vegetarian. His doctor ordered him to be one for health problems, but he frequently cheated on his diet as far as I've heard.

I am?

Quote me.

Ah. Thanks for the quote, by the way. I see, by Vogue, you mean Glamour, and by Ingrid Newkirk, you mean Marybeth Sweetland. Oh, and by 'bovine insulin', you mean synthetic insulin. And by 'leader', you mean 'former VP'.

You're trying to dismiss the highlighting of PETA hypocrisy by saying it's synthetic insulin. So you believe that synthetic insulin would have been possible without animal research?

You're trying to dismiss the highlighting of PETA hypocrisy by saying it's synthetic insulin. So you believe that synthetic insulin would have been possible without animal research?

If I cook a curry, using just vegetables... but I use a recipe that I perfected on lamb - is it a lamb curry?

If I cook a curry, using just vegetables... but I use a recipe that I perfected on lamb - is it a lamb curry?

Another strawman fallacy you're throwing up. Curry has nothing to do with animal products in the first place. While synthetic insulin would have been impossible to develop without studying organic insulin to begin with.

:rolleyes:

Another strawman fallacy you're throwing up.

i do not think that means what you think it means

i do not think that means what you think it means

It might be a Red Herring, but the point is that it was a fallacy. Trying to compare curry recipes to the development of synthetic insulin is complete hogwash.

It might be a Red Herring, but the point is that it was a fallacy. Trying to compare curry recipes to the development of synthetic insulin is complete hogwash.
As is trying to claim that anyone in this thread made the claim that animal testing was not used in the development of insulin.

It might be a Red Herring, but the point is that it was a fallacy. Trying to compare curry recipes to the development of synthetic insulin is complete hogwash.

it wasn't a comparison

Another strawman fallacy you're throwing up. Curry has nothing to do with animal products in the first place. While synthetic insulin would have been impossible to develop without studying organic insulin to begin with.

:rolleyes:

Just as a total non-sequitur, my ex-husband, an ex-boyfriend and my 16-year old cat would not be alive today if not for the animal testing responsible for insulin. So PETA would condemn both humans (no great loss as far as my ex-husband is concerned) and animals to death rather than accept that animal (and human) testing saves lives of animals as well as people.

So PETA would condemn both humans (no great loss as far as my ex-husband is concerned) and animals to death rather than accept that animal (and human) testing saves lives of animals as well as people.

...or maybe they just think that it's wrong to mistreat animals, even if it can bring about medical benefits.

Should we test drugs on unwilling humans?

...or maybe they just think that it's wrong to mistreat animals, even if it can bring about medical benefits.

Should we test drugs on unwilling humans?

Well, prejudiced as I am, I'm glad that my cat is alive and healthy. And, as far as unwilling humans are concerned, we've done testing on unwilling and unaware humans and, for all I know, we still are. Following is a well-known example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male

Well, prejudiced as I am, I'm glad that my cat is alive and healthy. And, as far as unwilling humans are concerned, we've done testing on unwilling and unaware humans and, for all I know, we still are. Following is a well-known example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male

is/ought!

It might be a Red Herring, but the point is that it was a fallacy. Trying to compare curry recipes to the development of synthetic insulin is complete hogwash.

*eats the Red Herring* Take that PETA!

Again, PETA paints with too broad a brush on the issue of dog breeding, that's my main problem with them.

is/ought!

Yes, I know the difference. But does PETA?

They are militantly against using animals, even under controlled conditions, for needed research. But they seem to, tacitly, accept using humans, against their will and without their knowledge, for research - and aren't we animals, too?

and aren't we animals, too?

But if we are Animals, should we eat other Animals?

But if we are Animals, should we eat other Animals?

Animals come under three headings:

Herbivores
Carnivores
Omnivores

We're omnivores, like bears, pigs, dogs and some other apes, this means we're geared to eat both meat and vegetables. I would argue, however, that we do need to be as humane as possible to our food animals. I would also argue that, while meat offers the best source of protein for us, it is not the only source, and we do eat far too much of it for health, at least in the First World.

Or would you argue that we force our carnivorous companion animals to eat vegetables exclusively? Given that cats, for instance, are obligate carnivores, that could be a death sentence for them.

*snip*

lol, yeah I know, Im sorry, In numerous posts Ive said and attempted to defend the fact that I eat meat.....

It was just the only thing I could think of when I read your post....

is/ought

Why not?

lol, yeah I know, Im sorry, In numerous posts Ive said and attempted to defend the fact that I eat meat.....

It was just the only thing I could think of when I read your post....

I don't see why you should have to defend your eating habits, unless you're eating small children.

I don't see why you should have to defend your eating habits, unless you're eating small children.

Take that up with the PETA supporters.....

Take that up with the PETA supporters.....

Oh, please. Disagreeable children with a tenuous grasp on logic. Why try?

Oh, please. Disagreeable children with a tenuous grasp on logic. Why try?

Cause I had LOOOTTS of time at Work, lol...

Another strawman fallacy you're throwing up. Curry has nothing to do with animal products in the first place. While synthetic insulin would have been impossible to develop without studying organic insulin to begin with.

:rolleyes:

The LAMB curry would probably have SOME kind of connection to animal products, don't you think? (Two connections if I was also using cream or yogurt, I suppose).

But the nice spinach and potato curry I make with the same sauce... is it an 'animal' curry?

Is it 'contaminated' by it's historical association with 'animal' curry?

Is it 'contaminated' by it's historical association with 'animal' curry?

Only if you claim that anything that originated from 'animal' curry is morally wrong.

I don't see why you should have to defend your eating habits, unless you're eating small children.

See - therein lies the problem.
You acknowledge that eating some things (in your example: small children) is not acceptable.
PETA has a bigger list of "some things" than you.

However, for some reason, some people completely and utterly freak out when they hear that. It is almost like their religion is under attack...
Of course that PETA itself behaves like a fundamentalist terrorist group does not help.

Only if you claim that anything that originated from 'animal' curry is morally wrong.

Would a vegetarian eating the spinach and potato version of the curry be hypocritical?

Would a vegetarian eating the spinach and potato version of the curry be hypocritical?

If the conditions I specified were fulfilled, yes.

Ah, so it's fine to eat cats? Dogs?

I didn't say that, but dogs are eaten in places like China. Cats I'm not sure, but I'm sure someone somewhere eats them.

I didn't say that, but dogs are eaten in places like China. Cats I'm not sure, but I'm sure someone somewhere eats them.

A lot of places do, when food is scarce. Companion animals are usually the first to go in times of hardship. Big cats are used as traditional medicines though.

Big cats are used as traditional medicines though.

They are? What kinds of illnesses do they cure, according to traditional medicine?

They are? What kinds of illnesses do they cure, according to traditional medicine?

Rheumatism I think, and assorted joint aches. The bones are powdered and used as the equivalent of a fortifier if I'm not mistaken. Aphrodisiacs as well maybe, but I think that was elephant tusks.

Rheumatism I think, and assorted joint aches. The bones are powdered and used as the equivalent of a fortifier if I'm not mistaken. Aphrodisiacs as well maybe, but I think that was elephant tusks.

Heh, what do you know. One learns something new every day.

Heh, what do you know. One learns something new every day.

I grew up around a whole bunch of traditional medicines, although it barely scratches the surface. One of the odd things I remember was the use of frogs meat or blood, I don't remember which, boiled and taken as a tonic to help recover strength post pregnancy.

Less odd was a very peculiar mixture of chicken and herbs that were double boiled to extract the nutrients and turned into a drink for growing children who had weak constitutions. I can't say how effective it is, but I do have an older sibling who rarely took it (I got dosed regularly) growing up and falls sick every other week.

I grew up around a whole bunch of traditional medicines, although it barely scratches the surface. One of the odd things I remember was the use of frogs meat or blood, I don't remember which, boiled and taken as a tonic to help recover strength post pregnancy.

Less odd was a very peculiar mixture of chicken and herbs that were double boiled to extract the nutrients and turned into a drink for growing children who had weak constitutions. I can't say how effective it is, but I do have an older sibling who rarely took it (I got dosed regularly) growing up and falls sick every other week.

That does sounds interesting. Especially given the fact that modern medicine always wants to discourage us from seeking alternatives in traditional medicine like herbal and hollistic.

With me, an aspirin won't help with a headache, but if I apply eucalyptus cream to my temples, the headache goes away. Nature has so much to offer.

With me, an aspirin won't help with a headache, but if I apply eucalyptus cream to my temples, the headache goes away. Nature has so much to offer.
A glass of water usually suffices.

A glass of water usually suffices.

Not if the day was awfully tense and hectic.

Not if the day was awfully tense and hectic.
Whatever floats yer boat.

PETA: We like non-human animals so much, we treat women as such!

Yawn. PETA was too cheap to actually buy ad time, so they make this utterly non-shocking advert with the full knowledge it will be rejected and they can use the fake controversy to get attention. Just another item to ad to the list of why PETA is a scummy organization.

That does sounds interesting. Especially given the fact that modern medicine always wants to discourage us from seeking alternatives in traditional medicine like herbal and hollistic.


Half the problem comes from the two separate fields from where traditional medicines come from and modern medicines. The exact compound/preparation of traditional medicines were sometimes kept secret, and were often passed down in either as a generational occupation or master to apprentice. Modern medicine on the other hand, tends to work with labs, peer reviewed research (not always mind) and as a consequence, tends to treat anything that didn't originate from there as unreliable.

Of course, one thing to remember is that even traditional medicine was subject to Darwinian winnowing. Over the course of several thousand years, what didn't work got tossed out in favor of what did. It may not have been fully understood why it did in some cases, but if it worked, nobody complained. On the flip side, since traditional medicines are rarely monitored by a governing body, you do get the amateur or fraudulent practitioners, who don't help the practice much.

Acupuncture for example, is still getting a lot of maybe-maybe not from the modern medicine corner.


With me, an aspirin won't help with a headache, but if I apply eucalyptus cream to my temples, the headache goes away. Nature has so much to offer.

That it does.

Half the problem comes from the two separate fields from where traditional medicines come from and modern medicines. The exact compound/preparation of traditional medicines were sometimes kept secret, and were often passed down in either as a generational occupation or master to apprentice. Modern medicine on the other hand, tends to work with labs, peer reviewed research (not always mind) and as a consequence, tends to treat anything that didn't originate from there as unreliable.

Yeah. I have heard of some doctors that do like thgeir patients to look for alternatives in traditional medicine. But mostly it is discouraged.

Of course, one thing to remember is that even traditional medicine was subject to Darwinian winnowing. Over the course of several thousand years, what didn't work got tossed out in favor of what did. It may not have been fully understood why it did in some cases, but if it worked, nobody complained. On the flip side, since traditional medicines are rarely monitored by a governing body, you do get the amateur or fraudulent practitioners, who don't help the practice much.

That's also true. Whereas in modern medicine, if a doctor commits mal-practice, the government using his/her license can monitor and bring him/her to justice.

Acupuncture for example, is still getting a lot of maybe-maybe not from the modern medicine corner.

Although there are doctors who prescribe it for their patients? (i.e. people suffering from severe muscle spasms)

That it does.

Indeed it does.

PETA: We like non-human animals so much, we treat women as such!

Yawn. PETA was too cheap to actually buy ad time, so they make this utterly non-shocking advert with the full knowledge it will be rejected and they can use the fake controversy to get attention. Just another item to ad to the list of why PETA is a scummy organization.

I didn't think of that but I think you could be right. It certainly fits with their pattern of behavior.

If the conditions I specified were fulfilled, yes.

Seriously?

Because the recipe was devised for meat, applying it to a vegetarian dish makes the vegetarian hypocritical?

With me, an aspirin won't help with a headache, but if I apply eucalyptus cream to my temples, the headache goes away. Nature has so much to offer.

Aspirin is actually a herbal remedy, too...

But they seem to, tacitly, accept using humans, against their will and without their knowledge, for research

Um, no, they do not. That is not among the alternatives they suggest for animal testing.

Um, no, they do not. That is not among the alternatives they suggest for animal testing.
Effectively, the first humans to use the drugs are therefore the test subjects.

Effectively, the first humans to use the drugs are therefore the test subjects.

...who, presumably, consent knowingly. Not that we can't--or don't already--test drugs and treatments on human beings.

This is the Orginization that wanted to replace all the milk in Ben and Jerry's Ice Human Breat Milk instead of Cow Milk.......God Knows what they would have done with a commercial on the Superbowl just saying that knowing those Crzy Bastards The FCC would have killed NBC for allowing it. probably would have showed photos of cows in a slaughter house and told small children how they're destroying their vision of the planet by not starving to death.

Let's recap some of PETA's greatest exploits:

Offered Veggie burgers for a year to Hamburg residents if they would change the name of their town to Veggieburg.

Tried to get the term "fish" replaced with "sea kittens". In this vein, also tried to get Spearfish High School to change its name to Sea Kitten High School.

Tried to get the Green Bay Packers to change their name to either Green Bay Pickers or Six Packers - apparently the current name supports the meat packing industry.

Given pamphlets to children (without parents' permission) entitled "Your Daddy Kills Animals", urging children not to let their parents near their cats/dogs until their parents stop killing fish and cows and... whatever.

Created a logo for "Murder King", which was amusing.

And, let us not forget PETA encouraging human dairy farms. I want to get the job as the milker. *nods*

Aspirin is actually a herbal remedy, too...

Meh. I'll continue to chew willow bark. ;)

Is it weird that When i read about the Breast Milk Ice Cream that I thought.....

Id totally buy that, lol...

Seriously?

Because the recipe was devised for meat, applying it to a vegetarian dish makes the vegetarian hypocritical?

You don't quite understand the conditions it seems.

If someone goes "using animals in any form is bad, and anything that might come from using them is also bad" then the moment they use anything that might have come from animal use, be it medicine, clothes or even recipes, they become hypocrites.

So yes, anyone using insulin, even artificial ones (artificial insulin was only made after research into animal based ones), and holds the above view, is a hypocrite.

You don't quite understand the conditions it seems.

If someone goes "using animals in any form is bad, and anything that might come from using them is also bad" then the moment they use anything that might have come from animal use, be it medicine, clothes or even recipes, they become hypocrites.

So yes, anyone using insulin, even artificial ones (artificial insulin was only made after research into animal based ones), and holds the above view, is a hypocrite.

Except the recipe - while 'discovered', if you like, with meat - has never contacted meat when you apply it to your spinach and potatoes.

Except the recipe - while 'discovered', if you like, with meat - has never contacted meat when you apply it to your spinach and potatoes.

So what? If you want to make absolute rules and then wriggle around them just because you want to eat something or you want to not die, it still makes you a hypocrite.

So what? If you want to make absolute rules and then wriggle around them just because you want to eat something or you want to not die, it still makes you a hypocrite.

Again, we come back to retrospectivity... you can't change what has gone before. You can't 'discover' insulin.

It's not that they're changing position, so much as looking for an ethical (to their perspective) way to do something already done 'un-ethically'.

If we're going to follow your logic to it's absolute - a vegetarian who eats soy burgers is hypocritical, because burgers were originally made of animal...?

Again, we come back to retrospectivity... you can't change what has gone before. You can't 'discover' insulin.

It's not that they're changing position, so much as looking for an ethical (to their perspective) way to do something already done 'un-ethically'.

If we're going to follow your logic to it's absolute - a vegetarian who eats soy burgers is hypocritical, because burgers were originally made of animal...?

My logic? Since when is it my logic? It's their logic. PETA's specifically. They're saying one thing and doing another, the very definition of hypocrisy. If they want to wriggle like worms and not be caught, they should change their stance, but until they do, they're hypocrites.

My logic? Since when is it my logic? It's their logic. PETA's specifically.

is it? where has this been laid out?

Let's recap some of PETA's greatest exploits:

Offered Veggie burgers for a year to Hamburg residents if they would change the name of their town to Veggieburg.

Tried to get the term "fish" replaced with "sea kittens". In this vein, also tried to get Spearfish High School to change its name to Sea Kitten High School.

Tried to get the Green Bay Packers to change their name to either Green Bay Pickers or Six Packers - apparently the current name supports the meat packing industry.

Given pamphlets to children (without parents' permission) entitled "Your Daddy Kills Animals", urging children not to let their parents near their cats/dogs until their parents stop killing fish and cows and... whatever.

Created a logo for "Murder King", which was amusing.

And, let us not forget PETA encouraging human dairy farms. I want to get the job as the milker. *nods*

And of course, Ingrid Newkirk actually declaring the poultry industry worse than the Holocaust.

is it? where has this been laid out?

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

Look up what they have to say about medical results from animal experimentation. It's rather well documented.

Interestingly, since all practically medical science is directly sourced from animal experimentation, human or otherwise, that means no PETA member can ever take any form of medication.

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

Look up what they have to say about medical results from animal experimentation. It's rather well documented.

Interestingly, since all practically medical science is directly sourced from animal experimentation, human or otherwise, that means no PETA member can ever take any form of medication.

Except the leadership of course, who are obviously vital to the cause of "Animal Liberation".

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

Look up what they have to say about medical results from animal experimentation. It's rather well documented.

Interestingly, since all practically medical science is directly sourced from animal experimentation, human or otherwise, that means no PETA member can ever take any form of medication.

see, the thing is, you haven't actually established that that is the logical outcome of their actual position, given that they appear to say something very different from what you say they do. didn't s already quote the faq on this, actually?

“Should we throw out all the drugs that were developed and tested on animals? Would you refuse to take them?”

Unfortunately, a number of things in our society came about through the exploitation of others. For instance, many of the roads that we drive on were built by slaves. We can’t change the past; those who have already suffered and died are lost. But what we can do is change the future by using non-animal research methods from now on.

see, the thing is, you haven't actually established that that is the logical outcome of their actual position, given that they appear to say something very different from what you say they do. didn't s already quote the faq on this, actually?

That was the logical outcome of their earlier statements. If that quote is true, it means they still want to thump their message, aren't willing to die for it, but are willing to have others die for it.

Of course, given that medical research cannot proceed without animal testing whatsoever, humans or otherwise, they still have to die without medicines if they want to prove that they're not hypocrites.

Unless of course, they mean, it's perfectly fine for them to use medicines that benefit them, but for those who are still waiting for cures, tough luck. More hypocrisy.

That was the logical outcome of their earlier statements. If that quote is true, it means they still want to thump their message, aren't willing to die for it, but are willing to have others die for it.

Of course, given that medical research cannot proceed without animal testing whatsoever, humans or otherwise, they still have to die without medicines if they want to prove that they're not hypocrites.

Unless of course, they mean, it's perfectly fine for them to use medicines that benefit them, but for those who are still waiting for cures, tough luck. More hypocrisy.
You really just can't get what they're actually saying, can you?

PETA can be made fun of easily enough without strawmanning them.

You really just can't get what they're actually saying, can you?

PETA can be made fun of easily enough without strawmanning them.

Actually, I do. They're saying "We don't know nuts about medicine, but we know better!" and "Do as we say, not as we do!"

Seriously, how do you expect to do any sort of medical development without some form of animal testing?

PETA is to the rest of the animal rights movement what radical Wahhabism is to Islam.

Seriously, how do you expect to do any sort of medical development without some form of animal testing?

1. I'm not sure why you find this prospect so incredible. There may be no equally effective alternatives, but there are certainly alternatives.

2. PETA doesn't care. You're still missing its point, like most of those who mock its anti-animal testing stance. Just as we shouldn't test unwilling humans whatever the medical benefits that might be derived from it (which might well be quite considerable), PETA doesn't think we should test animals, either, for the same reason: the ends do not justify the means.

the ends do not justify the means.
Do you agree with PETA's stance?

Actually, I do. They're saying "We don't know nuts about medicine, but we know better!" and "Do as we say, not as we do!"

Seriously, how do you expect to do any sort of medical development without some form of animal testing?

PETA is to the rest of the animal rights movement what radical Wahhabism is to Islam.

For the most part, animal testing is little or no use. Toxicity, for example... commonly tested by giving doses to rats.

Problem? Humans ingesting poison vomit. Rats can't.

Conclusion: testing poisons on rats is somewhere between infinitely little... and no... use.

Drug testing is actually almost irrelevent now anyway - the main reason to do it is to test things like uptake rate, how quickly it is metabolised, etc... and because of regulatory reasons. Most of the work tracking symptoms - can actually be modelled and predicted.

Actually, I do. They're saying "We don't know nuts about medicine, but we know better!" and "Do as we say, not as we do!"
No, still not what they're saying. Try again.
Seriously, how do you expect to do any sort of medical development without some form of animal testing?
"How do you expect to do any sort of medical development without stem cells?"

I don't deny - and neither do they - that eliminating animal testing will slow - although not halt - the forward progress of pharmaceutical science. Human trials - usually the last step of research - will become more risky, at a minimum. Computer simulation and tests on tissue samples can only go so far.
PETA is to the rest of the animal rights movement what radical Wahhabism is to Islam.
Gives dirtbags a flimsy excuse to behave in a reactionary fashion?

If that quote is true, it means they still want to thump their message, aren't willing to die for it, but are willing to have others die for it.

What nonsense.

PETA members, like everyone else, will be deprived of the future medical benefits of animal testing if animal testing is banned. But PETA, like most other reasonable people, acknowledges that using things derived in part from the mistreatment of others is not in itself problematic--as that mistreatment is in the past and thus is not tolerated or exacerbated by our actions.

We are morally responsible for what we ourselves bring about, or fail to prevent--not for what others have in the past.

Do you agree with PETA's stance?

For what it's worth... yes.

Edit: And, unlike PETA, I am not an advocacy group and have no need to dodge biting the bullet. I don't care how vital animal testing is or how much progress ending it will impede, any more than I care how vital the supposed need is to torture an unarmed prisoner, or to kill an innocent person.

For what it's worth... yes.

I don't think its worth very much, but that's a disagreement I don't care to argue.

So you think that sacrificing animal lives for the purpose of saving human lives is immoral?

I don't think its worth very much, but that's a disagreement I don't care to argue.

So you think that sacrificing animal lives for the purpose of saving human lives is immoral?

I believe that's something of a false dichotomy.

So you think that sacrificing animal lives for the purpose of saving human lives is immoral?

I think treating sentient beings as mere resources that we can sacrifice for our own interests is immoral, yes.

I think treating sentient beings as mere resources that we can sacrifice for our own interests is immoral, yes.

Is there a compromise, however? If you knew that animal X held a very likely cure to human disease Y, would you say ok?

I would also like to point out that, despite what some might say, most animal research is legitimate and purposeful. Scientific, you might say.

Drug testing is actually almost irrelevent now anyway - the main reason to do it is to test things like uptake rate, how quickly it is metabolised, etc... and because of regulatory reasons. Most of the work tracking symptoms - can actually be modelled and predicted.

You can only model and predict so much without any live subject testing whatsoever.


I don't deny - and neither do they - that eliminating animal testing will slow - although not halt - the forward progress of pharmaceutical science. Human trials - usually the last step of research - will become more risky, at a minimum. Computer simulation and tests on tissue samples can only go so far.

Humans are animals too you realize?

But I suppose PETA's anti-human stance allows them to advocate causing harm to human animals so long as non-human animals aren't harmed eh? Except when they're the ones causing harm to non-human animals. Then it's perfectly fine.

How about this? Offer an exchange. For every PETA member who signs up for experimental, potentially fatal, drug trials, a lab will stop using animals instead.? Let them die for their beliefs if they hold them so preciously. Except none will make the attempt. I guarantee it.


Gives dirtbags a flimsy excuse to behave in a reactionary fashion?

It's what PETA does doesn't it? Hiding despicable, reactionary acts under the banner of "it's for the cute animals!"


PETA members, like everyone else, will be deprived of the future medical benefits of animal testing if animal testing is banned. But PETA, like most other reasonable people, acknowledges that using things derived in part from the mistreatment of others is not in itself problematic--as that mistreatment is in the past and thus is not tolerated or exacerbated by our actions.


If PETA wants a complete cessation of animal trials in drug testing, why don't they volunteer themselves for experimental drug testing instead? You'll eventually need human trials, and since animals won't be used, let them be used for the first trials that would normally be used on rats.

You see, PETA leadership isn't about animal liberation. Not since they go around euthanising the animals they seem to care about, or dumping stolen ones in environments where they can't survive. It's about ego feeding.

I think treating sentient beings as mere resources that we can sacrifice for our own interests is immoral, yes.

And if you were in a lions den, with a gun, and the lion was approaching, you'd let yourself be its dinner?


We are morally responsible for what we ourselves bring about, or fail to prevent--not for what others have in the past.

Hence why PETA is morally bankrupt. They can't even live up to their creed when their official policy is to kill the animals directly and indirectly that come into their hands. They're perfectly happy to make use of medicines that prolong their lives but want to prevent others from getting future medicines that will be made the same way to save their lives.


Mind you, they also fund (http://the-aps.org/pa/action/news/peta.htm) the domestic terror group ALF, but since you support PETA, I guess you approve of using violence to achieve your goals as well?

Does that mean you'll support other terrorist groups as well?

again, is it really so hard to be intellectually honest when discussing peta? i honestly don't get it.

again, is it really so hard to be intellectually honest when discussing peta? i honestly don't get it.

What's there to discuss? PETA says one thing, does another, demonstrates that it doesn't give a damn about the consequences of the act, and we're supposed to do what, pretend none of that happens?

Mind you, they also fund (http://the-aps.org/pa/action/news/peta.htm) the domestic terror group ALF, but since you support PETA, I guess you approve of using violence to achieve your goals as well?

Does that mean you'll support other terrorist groups as well?


Hey there, Non Aligned States. This isn't as much hyperbole as you might like to think. Here are some threads from last August:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=562047

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=562336

I hate PETA and their friends in the ALF. I really, really do. It sickens me that they continue to exist.

I'd like to know how many others share similar sentiments about PETA.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=562336

oh yeah, i had forgotten that thread. pages and pages of nas attempting to claim that an argument whose conclusion is a negative does not constitute a proof of a negative. hilarious.

oh yeah, i had forgotten that thread. pages and pages of nas attempting to claim that an argument whose conclusion is a negative does not constitute a proof of a negative. hilarious.

About as hilarious as firebombing your house for eating chicken?

About as hilarious as firebombing your house for eating chicken?

funnier, really

funnier, really

Laugh all you want then. It doesn't particularly address the issues here.

About as hilarious as firebombing your house for eating chicken?

His house was eating chicken? I wouldn't have firebombed it, I'd have charged admission.

His house was eating chicken? I wouldn't have firebombed it, I'd have charged admission.

Ha, you got me on poor wording of an example. Well done.

But then again, a chicken eating house would probably have been firebombed by ALF as well. They're retarded that way.

Laugh all you want then. It doesn't particularly address the issues here.

i think they do, in a rather obvious way

i think they do, in a rather obvious way

Not at all, because it got sidetracked.

PETA says one thing. PETA does another. The pro-side attempts to twist the usual statements of PETA in order to justify PETAs actions. The literal interpretations of their statements does not justify their actions at all.

That's where we are.

The ads are not hot enough.

Not at all, because it got sidetracked.

PETA says one thing. PETA does another. The pro-side attempts to twist the usual statements of PETA in order to justify PETAs actions. The literal interpretations of their statements does not justify their actions at all.

That's where we are.

It boils down to PETA apologists demanding everyone ignore actions and statements made by people- the founding leadership even- associating themselves with PETA, especially when they contradict the public lipservice/statements made on the Official Website.

Basically "Pretend the bad things never happened and that only sunshiny taste-the-rainbow goodness comes out of PETA."

Which is like demanding everyone accept the Sudanese government's account of the Darfour genocide.

Aspirin is actually a herbal remedy, too...

Salicylic acid, which is part of aspirin, is found in nature, that's true. But aspirin per se was created by a French chemist in 1853 when he combined acetyl chloride with a sodium salt of salicylic acid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin#History

The name aspirin was given in 1899.

I'm pretty sure it's not JUST because it was "too sexy."

They banned PETA ads because it's PETA.

It boils down to PETA apologists demanding everyone ignore actions and statements made by people- the founding leadership even- associating themselves with PETA, especially when they contradict the public lipservice/statements made on the Official Website.

Basically "Pretend the bad things never happened and that only sunshiny taste-the-rainbow goodness comes out of PETA."

Which is like demanding everyone accept the Sudanese government's account of the Darfour genocide.

actually, its more like intellectually honest people not allowing the discussion to proceed on the basis of willful and ridiculous misreadings of rather clear statements, unsourced claims that run directly counter to what can actually be sourced, and logical fallacies.

pretend this thread is about something other than peta and read through it again. it's a fucking trainwreck.