NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Ya. I know. (Chemist by education, scientist by inclination and trade).

The 'active ingredient' has been touted as a herbal remedy for centuries, at least. It's one of the things that annoys me about the pharamceutical industry - it's dishonest. It'll simultaneously rubbish herbal alternatives, and charge you for a chemical originally found in willow bark.

Is there a compromise, however?

No.

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

No.

If PETA wants a complete cessation of animal trials in drug testing, why don't they volunteer themselves for experimental drug testing instead?

Why should they have to? There's no hypocrisy in saying "No one should be forced to do x, and I don't want to do x, either."

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

I'm not going to spend time and effort teaching you the way non-consequentialist moral theories work in a thread that's about PETA, but, briefly, self-defense (against humans or animals) is in a separate category altogether.

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.

Blah, blah, blah... you people don't even care how many times these claims are refuted, do you?

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.

Others and themselves. Different case (preventable mistreatment to animals v. mistreatment that has already happened), different position.

So you hold animal lives equal to human lives? I for one am sincerely glad most people don't agree.

Ya. I know. (Chemist by education, scientist by inclination and trade).

The 'active ingredient' has been touted as a herbal remedy for centuries, at least. It's one of the things that annoys me about the pharamceutical industry - it's dishonest. It'll simultaneously rubbish herbal alternatives, and charge you for a chemical originally found in willow bark.

Medicine is an industry.:tongue:

pretend this thread is about something other than peta and read through it again.

Ok.

[FS's fantasy]
Amnesty International: Gitmo abuses are bad! They are tortured and murdered there!
Evidence: You raided the camp, kidnapped the people, and killed them!
Amnesty International apologists: It's better than being in Gitmo!
[/FS's fantasy]

It's still hypocritical.

Ok.

[FS's fantasy]
Amnesty International: Gitmo abuses are bad! They are tortured and murdered there!
Evidence: You raided the camp, kidnapped the people, and killed them!
Amnesty International apologists: It's better than being in Gitmo!
[/FS's fantasy]

It's still hypocritical.

I suspect there's the slightest trace of logical fallacy...

I suspect there's the slightest trace of logical fallacy...

Hardly, especially when PETA officially sanctions killing animals in their hands.

http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-nokillshelters.asp

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549/

They make some blather about limited resources, but then when you look at their absolutionist stances on killing animals, it's nothing but hypocritical dodging.

Hardly, especially when PETA officially sanctions killing animals in their hands.


Whether or not we're going to argue that... making random shit up and attributing it to your opponent bears more than the slightest tang of logical fallacy.

Why should they have to? There's no hypocrisy in saying "No one should be forced to do x, and I don't want to do x, either."

But then they go on and use the things that were made from x, but tell you that you can't do x. So why not have them undergo x then?

You can argue all you want about how it's "all done already", but they've got what they want to prolong their worthless lives, so what do they care about other people? It's not like PETA is anything but anti-human anyway.

If any of PETA leadership came down with a disease of which there is yet a cure but is being researched on with animal testing, you can see how quickly they'll turn about.


I'm not going to spend time and effort teaching you the way non-consequentialist moral theories work in a thread that's about PETA, but, briefly, self-defense (against humans or animals) is in a separate category altogether.

You've already placed your own importance above that of the animal. And PETA puts the importance of animals above that of human lives anyway. Inuit communities for example, rely on meat eating to survive. And what does PETA tell them to do? Indirectly, "Go die. We don't care about you, so long as cute and cuddly animals don't die."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/04/12/iqaluit-peta.html

But that's fine isn't it?


Blah, blah, blah... you people don't even care how many times these claims are refuted, do you?

Because the only times they've been refuted has been in PETA and PETA apologist imaginations. PETA kills animals, directly and indirectly. No two ways about it. It's a matter of public record.


Others and themselves. Different case (preventable mistreatment to animals v. mistreatment that has already happened), different position.

How convenient. How very, very, convenient. They're in the clear, but everyone else is screwed. I say we infect PETA leadership with AIDs and see what they say then hmm?

Mind you, PETA held this stance long before things like artificial insulin were anything but research goals and limited exposure experimental drugs.

Whether or not we're going to argue that... making random shit up and attributing it to your opponent bears more than the slightest tang of logical fallacy.

F/S said that if we swapped out PETA for another organization, the argument wouldn't hold water. Obviously, that didn't happen.

A bit prudish, I think. But PETA had it comming. What with telling kids fish are sea kittens and all that... That organisation's crazy.
o.o Actually, I'd prefer campaigns like the "sea kittens" thing (which granted I don't know much about) to campaigns like "the Holocaust on your plate"; I think comparing everyone who eats meat to the Nazis is much more objectionable than questioning the socially established preconception of what is "cute"; which is ultimately a rather superficial thing to begin with, and one of my main objections to the animal rights movement was that it focused more on "cute" animals than "ugly" ones, and for whatever reason I find it refreshing to see PETA challenge this.

Anyway, yeah, those commercials were unapologetically sexual, and as others have pointed out, the reaction to the Janet Jackson incident indicates that standards on the superbowl are rather high. I'd need to know which arguably sexual ads were superbowl-approved, the circumstances behind them and their approval, and whether or not any previous PETA ads were accepted, before accepting that that's their reason.

As for PETA's claims that ads for greasy fast food or whatever were approved, that's just comparing apples and oranges. I don't agree with our society's emphasis on censoring sexuality in entertainment, but so long as society has that fixation, it's not contradictory for society to be consistent about it.

You can argue all you want about how it's "all done already", but they've got what they want to prolong their worthless lives, so what do they care about other people?

Um, you do realize that PETA members have just as much chance as anyone else to benefit from future medical advances? And that non-PETA members have just as much chance as PETA members to benefit from already-existing medical treatments?

You've already placed your own importance above that of the animal.

Nonsense; if I were attacking the lion instead, the lion would be justified in defending itself, too (though only in a hypothetical sense, because the lion is not a moral agent and justification does not really apply to it.)

But that's fine isn't it?

If you had bothered to read your own article:

"The Canadian government has been trying to hide behind the Inuit in pursuing this commercial seal hunt and they're two separate issues," Rice said Wednesday. "No one, not even PETA, has a quarrel with native people who truly have no choice but to hunt in order to survive. But that's really not what's going on here."

Of course, even the strawman position you attribute to them does not amount to placing animal lives above human lives: if murder and cannibalism of other human beings were the only way for human beings to survive, that would not be right, and to acknowledge this in no sense infringes upon the equality of value in human life.

PETA kills animals, directly and indirectly.

But (obviously) that is not the issue.

How convenient.

Not particularly.

Mind you, PETA held this stance long before things like artificial insulin were anything but research goals and limited exposure experimental drugs.

And people opposed ethnic cleansing and genocide long before North America was stolen from its indigenous population. So? Right now it is still done and over with.

Um, you do realize that PETA members have just as much chance as anyone else to benefit from future medical advances? And that non-PETA members have just as much chance as PETA members to benefit from already-existing medical treatments?

But they don't need it right now. So they don't care about potential medical benefits. Just like anti-choicers who scream "Abortion is murder!" and then quietly go into clinics asking for abortion while saying:

"I'm unique! I'm a special case! It's alright for me because I have special circumstances! Everyone one is still evil!"


Nonsense; if I were attacking the lion instead, the lion would be justified in defending itself, too (though only in a hypothetical sense, because the lion is not a moral agent and justification does not really apply to it.)

So? Are you saying if you attacked the lion and it got the upper hand and was about to kill you, you'd lie down and die?


If you had bothered to read your own article:

"The Canadian government has been trying to hide behind the Inuit in pursuing this commercial seal hunt and they're two separate issues," Rice said Wednesday. "No one, not even PETA, has a quarrel with native people who truly have no choice but to hunt in order to survive. But that's really not what's going on here."


It's ass covering for the response they got by the Inuit community. Like claiming "Negroes are criminals" and then going "I'm not racist because I have black friends".

They're still trying to get them to stop seal hunting though.


Of course, even the strawman position you attribute to them does not amount to placing animal lives above human lives:


When they destroy medical research that can be used to benefit human lives, they place animal lives above human lives. When they fund extremist groups that harm human lives supposedly to "save animals", they place human lives lower than animal lives. Don't try to pretend otherwise.


But (obviously) that is not the issue.


It is the issue, central to the crap that PETA likes to pump out everyday and then turn around and do what they castigate others for doing.

If UN Disaster relief set up aid camps and started dishing out poisoned Kool Aid, would you believe them if they said they were only interested in humanitarian aid?


And people opposed ethnic cleansing and genocide long before North America was stolen from its indigenous population. So? Right now it is still done and over with.

Of course in this scenario, it would be people opposing it well after they've made themselves comfortable on the very thing they wanted to stop.

Maybe you'd believe Bush too if he had turned around and denounced foreign invasions, destroying the constitution and ruining the economy in 2007-2008.

When you're interested in making a real argument, I'll be happy to reply.

When you're interested in making a real argument, I'll be happy to reply.

Oh? A real argument? How novel. And here I was thinking that was what I was doing all this while.

How about this then?

PETA says that killing animals, for just about any reason, is bad. Yet PETA runs shelters where they euthanize animals. Explain to me why this isn't hypocritical.

Or is this somehow "not a real argument"?

PETA says that killing animals, for just about any reason, is bad.

source?

source?

"PETA believes that animals ... are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use — for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other reason."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA#Profile

A variant of that shows up on PETA's own FAQ.

http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp

You might argue that use != killing, but PETA's protests don't leave anything to the imagination.

It also puts paid to Soheran's claim that they don't mind Inuit hunting to survive.

You might argue that use != killing,
... which is true, and cuts that branch of your argument off at the root. So you can leave that one off as well.

The idea behind euthanasia, whether of humans or animals, is to relieve suffering.
And here I was thinking that was what I was doing all this while.
You've been strawmanning PETA with just about every other line.

As I've said earlier, it's quite easy enough to find actual issues with PETA...

... but for the most part, that's not what you're doing. You're constructing strawmen. And for what purpose? To make yourself look less rational than PETA? If that's your goal, you're succeeding.

The idea behind euthanasia, whether of humans or animals, is to relieve suffering.

Except euthanasia in most legal cases must happen with the permission of the patient. Did PETA employ Dr Doolittle when we weren't looking? Furthermore, PETA's use of euthanasia precludes attempts at finding environments or homes where the animals they are supposed to care for would be capable of thriving.

Also, if the idea is to relieve suffering, I question the idea behind supporting the destruction of laboratories and farms while releasing animals into alien environments which they simply do not survive in. What sort of relief is that supposed to be?


You've been strawmanning PETA with just about every other line.

As I've said earlier, it's quite easy enough to find actual issues with PETA...


Alright, fine, what sort of issues would you go with? Their connections to criminal and terror organizations like ALF, Earth First and SHAC? Or something else?

You might argue that use != killing

Yes.

And if it's sufficiently obvious that even you saw it round the pile of logical fallacies you've decided to take refuge behind, it must be neon-target-in-a-sea-of-black obvious.

Yes.

And if it's sufficiently obvious that even you saw it round the pile of logical fallacies you've decided to take refuge behind, it must be neon-target-in-a-sea-of-black obvious.

Alright, I'll concede this point. But what sort of answers do you have for the allegations here (http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21)?

Query:
why do threads like this always quickly turn into "PETA are hypocritical terrorists blablabla" topics and does the actual message concerning the maltreatment of animals in various industries get almost no attention ?

Do people dislike thinking about what they buy ?

Query:
why do threads like this always quickly turn into "PETA are hypocritical terrorists blablabla" topics and does the actual message concerning the maltreatment of animals in various industries get almost no attention ?

Do people dislike thinking about what they buy ?

Answer: PETA's method of message delivery and past history is obnoxious to the point where any content it might have had is dismissed out of hand.

If you want to talk about humane treatment of animals or anything like that, never mention PETA.

Any reason that keeps PETA from detracting from my enjoyment of the Super Bowl, or any other broadcast, with their idiocy is a good reason.

I feel like a late-night KFC run now :p

If you want to talk about humane treatment of animals or anything like that, never mention PETA.

But then the other party will.
Seriously. If someone starts a debate about humane treatment of animals, it will take only a short time to get the "PETA is pathetic" line. It is like arguing for nationalised healthcare and then being called communist, followed by a long tirade why Stalin was evil.

But then the other party will.
Seriously. If someone starts a debate about humane treatment of animals, it will take only a short time to get the "PETA is pathetic" line. It is like arguing for nationalised healthcare and then being called communist, followed by a long tirade why Stalin was evil.

I can't make guarantees, but if you don't mention PETA, I'll try not to.

But then the other party will.
Seriously. If someone starts a debate about humane treatment of animals, it will take only a short time to get the "PETA is pathetic" line. It is like arguing for nationalised healthcare and then being called communist, followed by a long tirade why Stalin was evil.

Because PETA severely lacks credibility as an animal rights organization. The distinct discontinuity of their "official" statements as compared to the actions and statements of its individual members up to and including the leadership displays a pattern of endemic hypocrisy in the group's history. Add to that the incessant insistence of "Do As We Say, Not As We Do" typically found in vocal conservative movements from PETA and its supporters/apologists and you have a reason that many people respond to the effect of "PETA is pathetic."

That they also serve as mouthpiece for ecoterrorist groups like ALF and even fund the defense of ecoterrorists like Rodney Coronado without facing the same degree of government scrunity and clampdown anyone merely suspected of supporting Islamic terrorism will inevitably go through is another thing that people find disgusting about PETA.

Because PETA severely lacks credibility as an animal rights organization. The distinct discontinuity of their "official" statements as compared to the actions and statements of its individual members up to and including the leadership displays a pattern of endemic hypocrisy in the group's history. Add to that the incessant insistence of "Do As We Say, Not As We Do" typically found in vocal conservative movements from PETA and its supporters/apologists and you have a reason that many people respond to the effect of "PETA is pathetic."

That they also serve as mouthpiece for ecoterrorist groups like ALF and even fund the defense of ecoterrorists like Rodney Coronado without facing the same degree of government scrunity and clampdown anyone merely suspected of supporting Islamic terrorism will inevitably go through is another thing that people find disgusting about PETA.
Well said. PETA contributed money to arsonists who fire-bomb labs where they do experiments on animals (something that led to many treatments for many diseases) and there doesn't seem to be near as strong a reaction to that as to those who even dare suggest that Islamic terrorists have reasons outside of envy for attacking...

Alright, I'll concede this point. But what sort of answers do you have for the allegations here (http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21)?

I looked at it quickly, and saw a lot of stuff 'about' what someone apparently thinks of PETA, including what looked like their analysis of PETA aims and objectives, etc... but it all seemed to be 'analysis', rather than actual source material.

Which kind of makes it an opinion piece. What do you want me to say about what appears to be an opinion piece?

Answer: PETA's method of message delivery and past history is obnoxious to the point where any content it might have had is dismissed out of hand.

If you want to talk about humane treatment of animals or anything like that, never mention PETA.

That's a fake answer.

I've met some pretty offensive anti-fascists, and yet that's never managed to stem my opposition to the various ideologies of neo-nazi groups, etc.

I won't confuse the message with the messenger.

It also puts paid to Soheran's claim that they don't mind Inuit hunting to survive.

Well, no, it actually doesn't, chiefly because meat-eating for survival is clearly a special case in societies where almost no one need eat meat to survive. There's nothing unreasonable about making an exception to a general no meat-eating rule in such a context; indeed, that's precisely why you used it as an example, to show PETA's evil extremism.

In any case, as I reviewed before, even if you were right about this position of theirs, it would neither be absurd nor hypocritical.

Because PETA severely lacks credibility as an animal rights organization. The distinct discontinuity of their "official" statements as compared to .<.....SNIP.....>.

Were you trying to prove The Alma Mater's point?! Or is that irony? :p

The fact the PETA is pathetic, still isn't a good enough reason in itself to bring the fact up just because the subject is an ethical discussion about animals.

It's not necessarily relevant to such a discussion, and even distracts from it.

Unless the discussion is meant to be specifically about PETA, of course.

I looked at it quickly, and saw a lot of stuff 'about' what someone apparently thinks of PETA, including what looked like their analysis of PETA aims and objectives, etc... but it all seemed to be 'analysis', rather than actual source material.

Which kind of makes it an opinion piece. What do you want me to say about what appears to be an opinion piece?

Let's go with a bit of news (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/index.html) then that supports one of the supposed opinions.

PETA's own FAQ gives clear support for the violent actions of the extremist groups, who have expressed intent to not only destroy property, but grievously injure/kill people, both of which has been done already.

That's a fake answer.

I've met some pretty offensive anti-fascists, and yet that's never managed to stem my opposition to the various ideologies of neo-nazi groups, etc.

I won't confuse the message with the messenger.

That's because you're already opposed to neo-nazism. If someone came along and tried to persuade you to support a dictatorship/anti-choice/torture, you'd be far less inclined to listen no matter what reasons are given if it is delivered PETA style, just as you aren't inclined to believe anything NM says.

Well, no, it actually doesn't, chiefly because meat-eating for survival is clearly a special case in societies where almost no one need eat meat to survive. There's nothing unreasonable about making an exception to a general no meat-eating rule in such a context; indeed, that's precisely why you used it as an example, to show PETA's evil extremism.

In any case, as I reviewed before, even if you were right about this position of theirs, it would neither be absurd nor hypocritical.

So you'll make special exceptions about survival when it comes to eating. How quaint. But when someone else needs that research to produce medicine for their survival, you oppose it.

And that is somehow... not hypocritical.

Do you also oppose abortion on general principles, but allow it for yourself because you're a "special case"?

Let's go with a bit of news (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/index.html) then that supports one of the supposed opinions.

PETA's own FAQ gives clear support for the violent actions of the extremist groups, who have expressed intent to not only destroy property, but grievously injure/kill people, both of which has been done already.


Inhofe alleges PETA link

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

Emphasis mine.


That's because you're already opposed to neo-nazism.


Ah. So you are NOT opposed to the needless torture of animals?

Emphasis mine.

And this (http://the-aps.org/pa/action/news/peta.htm)?


Ah. So you are NOT opposed to the needless torture of animals?

You know what the problem is? PETA using that particular line of thought, and throwing it at everything they dislike.

Like New Mitanni declaring everyone who isn't a radical republican is a Tolkein-esque Uruk Hai (orc). Or Deep Kimchi/Whispering Legs/Hotwife/etc painting every Muslim as a bomb flinging extremist. Or how both declare that every enemy, real or imagined, of the United States is a terrorist and should be treated in violations of the constitution.

By asking me this sort of question, you're using their methods.

And this (http://the-aps.org/pa/action/news/peta.htm)?


NAIA... that's still not PETA, is it?

What do you want me to say? You're presenting sources that make claims about PETA, but you're not presenting any evidence that those claims are in any way founded.


By asking me this sort of question, you're using their methods.

Here's what you said:

"That's because you're already opposed to neo-nazism".

and my reply:

"So you are NOT opposed to the needless torture of animals?"

Your assertion: you say I accept the message because of a pre-existant bias.

I take your own phrasing, and use it to ask a question about your own pre-existant bias that MUST exist if your assertion is true.

If I'm using their methods... so are you.

NAIA... that's still not PETA, is it?

Read a bit further down. 4th Paragraph. It also points out where to look.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications.htm

That one appears to have problems loading though. This one (http://www.archive.org/details/TerrorismInTheUnitedStates1999) might work.

And just to re-iterate, PETA's public stance (http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp) on ALF.


Here's what you said:

Your assertion: you say I accept the message because of a pre-existant bias.

I take your own phrasing, and use it to ask a question about your own pre-existant bias that MUST exist if your assertion is true.

If I'm using their methods... so are you.

That's not the method I was talking about!

The method I'm talking about is taking a highly emotive language and implication and slapping it on everything you oppose regardless of factual accuracy. That was what I meant when I responded to your question as to whether I didn't oppose "needless torture of animals."

Not pre-existing bias!

And to answer your question, I don't see the point of torture on animals, but I don't see any issue with raising them as livestock for consumption either. PETA doesn't make that distinction.

So you'll make special exceptions about survival when it comes to eating. How quaint. But when someone else needs that research to produce medicine for their survival, you oppose it.

Um, as far as I'm aware we're speaking of PETA's position, not mine.

In any case, the circumstances are not necessarily comparable, for at least two reasons: first, Inuit hunting is natural, it behaves toward seals in a manner roughly comparable to the way other animals behave toward seals, and second, hunting, while the actual death can be quite painful, does not involve prolonged imprisonment and misery for the animals targeted.

And I'm not sure what you mean to prove. Would you suggest that PETA ought to be less tolerant of Inuit hunting? Perhaps you mean to suggest that PETA does not really mean what it says? But even if it is true that this stance is hypocritical, the far more likely explanation is that PETA is disinclined toward appearing culturally intolerant, so....

That one appears to have problems loading though. This one (http://www.archive.org/details/TerrorismInTheUnitedStates1999) might work.


I wonder if that link links to what you think that link links to.

What do you think?


And just to re-iterate, PETA's public stance (http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp) on ALF.


Their entire FAQ. O....kay. What specifically did you want me to look at, because the only bit I saw on there about ALF said that their actions were illegal, and didn't actually claim that PETA supports it.


That's not the method I was talking about!

The method I'm talking about is taking a highly emotive language and implication and slapping it on everything you oppose regardless of factual accuracy. That was what I meant when I responded to your question as to whether I didn't oppose "needless torture of animals."


'needless torture of animals' isn't emotive. It's accurate. If I said 'do you think we should harm animals?' it's such a meaningless broad question the answer can't be a yes or no... yes, for medical reasons... maybe? No, not for shits and giggles.. maybe?

So - I specify 'torture' - which suggests extreme harm, and I specify 'needless', so that we can ignore things like slaughterhouses.

I'm actually being REALLY specific, so you can give a good answer... but you think it's emotive language.


Not pre-existing bias!

And to answer your question, I don't see the point of torture on animals, but I don't see any issue with raising them as livestock for consumption either. PETA doesn't make that distinction.

So you have two different opinions - one that sides with PETA, and one that opposes them. Are those both evidence of pre-existant bias?

Could you be swayed on either issue by acidic rhetoric OR by a well-spoken presentation?

Um, as far as I'm aware we're speaking of PETA's position, not mine.

Alright.


In any case, the circumstances are not necessarily comparable, for at least two reasons: first, Inuit hunting is natural, it behaves toward seals in a manner roughly comparable to the way other animals behave toward seals, and second, hunting, while the actual death can be quite painful, does not involve prolonged imprisonment and misery for the animals targeted.


Just a minor nitpick, but prolonged misery for lab animals is counter-productive to most kinds of medical tests on them.


And I'm not sure what you mean to prove. Would you suggest that PETA ought to be less tolerant of Inuit hunting? Perhaps you mean to suggest that PETA does not really mean what it says? But even if it is true that this stance is hypocritical, the far more likely explanation is that PETA is disinclined toward appearing culturally intolerant, so....

If they were disinclined towards appearing culturally intolerant, they wouldn't be attacking people in their homes and churches Phelps style would they?

They can't directly attack the Inuit communities without appearing to be bigger asses than they already are. So they put pressure on the state government by claiming that it's the state government doing it, and guess who suffers then?

And if we buy that pack of codswallop about allowing special circumstances for survival but nothing else, and then they turn around and don't allow it for medicines related survival, then it IS hypocrisy.

Claiming "Cultural acceptance" for a group that is going around the globe selling their brand of unaltered bullshit is ridiculous.

I wonder if that link links to what you think that link links to.

What do you think?

An FBI book on terrorism in 1999, with ALF in it.


Their entire FAQ. O....kay. What specifically did you want me to look at, because the only bit I saw on there about ALF said that their actions were illegal, and didn't actually claim that PETA supports it.

Praising ALF terrorism isn't in support of it? Oh, and here's what the US Senate has to say about PETA fiscal support for ALF.

http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=247266


'needless torture of animals' isn't emotive. It's accurate. If I said 'do you think we should harm animals?' it's such a meaningless broad question the answer can't be a yes or no... yes, for medical reasons... maybe? No, not for shits and giggles.. maybe?

So - I specify 'torture' - which suggests extreme harm, and I specify 'needless', so that we can ignore things like slaughterhouses.

When PETA compares slaughterhouses to Nazi genocide, and the current direction of the argument, how am I supposed to ignore things like that without a specific disclaimer?


So you have two different opinions - one that sides with PETA, and one that opposes them.


Hardly. I have a positive view on breathing. It's necessary. Likely so does everyone in PETA. Does that mean I side with PETA? Poppycock.

PETA's message taken as a whole, I oppose.

An FBI book on terrorism in 1999, with ALF in it.


Which is helpful, how?

First - you don't explain how that connects to PETA, and

Second - linking to a picture of a book doesn't enable me to investigate your sources, now, does it?


Praising ALF terrorism isn't in support of it?


You'll have to show me where they 'praise' terrorism.


Oh, and here's what the US Senate has to say about PETA fiscal support for ALF.


...which is another non-PETA source.

You post source after source talking ABOUT PETA, but haven't yet actually managed to show PETA saying or doing much of anything.


When PETA...


Trimmed this for irrelevence.


Hardly. I have a positive view on breathing. It's necessary. Likely so does everyone in PETA. Does that mean I side with PETA? Poppycock.

PETA's message taken as a whole, I oppose.

Unless you are equating the instinctive (semi)involuntary process of breathing... with objecting to needless harm to animals, this is just wiggle room.

The question wasn't about 'siding with' PETA. You said that their message was obscured by the messenger - and yet, apparently, your opinions were ALREADY formed, regardless of PETA positions.

Which is helpful, how?

First - you don't explain how that connects to PETA, and

Second - linking to a picture of a book doesn't enable me to investigate your sources, now, does it?

There was a PDF link there, but if you didn't see it, oh well.

http://www.archive.org/download/TerrorismInTheUnitedStates1999/terror99.pdf


You'll have to show me where they 'praise' terrorism.


Terrorism? No. They praise terrorists, and then try to excuse their criminal acts.


Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are examples of movements in which people broke the law in order to answer to a higher morality. The ALF, which is simply the name adopted by people who act illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. ALF members burn empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF “raids” have given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have otherwise been discovered or believed and have resulted in criminal charges’ being filed against laboratories for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. Often, ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs, and some abusive laboratories have been permanently shut down as a result.


...which is another non-PETA source.

You post source after source talking ABOUT PETA, but haven't yet actually managed to show PETA saying or doing much of anything.

Hang on, let me see if I got this right. You will only accept sources from PETA regarding any possible illicit activities?


Unless you are equating the instinctive (semi)involuntary process of breathing... with objecting to needless harm to animals, this is just wiggle room.

Define to me, needless harm, in your understanding. I will answer then.


The question wasn't about 'siding with' PETA. You said that their message was obscured by the messenger - and yet, apparently, your opinions were ALREADY formed, regardless of PETA positions.

I have had opinions about animals as food and medicine long since before I ever heard of PETA, and I certainly have no illusions as to where either come from.

There was a PDF link there, but if you didn't see it, oh well.

http://www.archive.org/download/TerrorismInTheUnitedStates1999/terror99.pdf


Okay. Not funny.

I have read your 68 page source.

It was interesting, I'll agree. Creationism terrorism - something I'd not encountered before.

Know what I didn't find? Any mention of PETA.


Terrorism? No. They praise terrorists, and then try to excuse their criminal acts.


The part you posted doesn't praise terrorists.


Hang on, let me see if I got this right. You will only accept sources from PETA regarding any possible illicit activities?


You keep talking about what PETA think, say and intend... and yet you seem remarkably reluctant to prove that they think, say or intend... anything.


I have had opinions about animals as food and medicine long since before I ever heard of PETA, and I certainly have no illusions as to where either come from.

You realise you've actually contradicted the argument you opened with, yes?

You argued their message STYLE defeats it's content. You've just admitted their style made absolutely NO difference to you.

Okay. Not funny.

I have read your 68 page source.

It was interesting, I'll agree. Creationism terrorism - something I'd not encountered before.

Know what I didn't find? Any mention of PETA.

When you asked me what you would expect to find there, I told you it was an FBI report on terrorism in 1999 with mention of ALF. Both links, assuming the first one worked, would have held the same thing.

The links between PETA and ALF were covered in the Senate hearings.


The part you posted doesn't praise terrorists.


Alright, then what sort of message are they trying to say when with the whole saving lives by destruction bit? But if that won't do, then what about from the founder (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk#On_other_animal_rights_groups)?

"More power to them" hardly sounds like anything other than encouragement/praise.


You keep talking about what PETA think, say and intend... and yet you seem remarkably reluctant to prove that they think, say or intend... anything.


We've gone over PETA's public statements. I will drop anything I've inferred about what they said that they themselves have not specifically said. However, their actions are what's being covered at the moment, and intent can be inferred from action.


You realise you've actually contradicted the argument you opened with, yes?

You argued their message STYLE defeats it's content. You've just admitted their style made absolutely NO difference to you.

Contradicts it how? If you never saw neo-nazis in your life before but knew of naziism, would you be inclined to believe neo-nazis on the superiority of Nazi rule if they used PETA tactics?

Let me make this clear to you. I have opinions, so does everyone else. They aren't set in stone. They can change, just like everyone else. You might be able to persuade me to change them, you might not. But for me at least, if you tried to persuade me to change them with PETA style methodology, I wouldn't even be inclined to give you the time of day for anything but scorn no matter how good you believe your argument is.

I have a great idea for PETA! and a great new-reality show at the same time!

Throw 100 PETA people on an island, where the only source of food for them are livestock. The livestock are kept separate from PETA by a 50-foot tall electric fence, which is de-electrified and open for 1 hour in a 24-hour period of time. The livestock are fed and cared for, as PETA wishes them to be. But (as a reminder) the PETA side of the island has no food sources. and they are kept from the ocean by an 20-foot high electric fence which is never turned off.

My plan is to see how damn long PETA would last before someone would go after any of the livestock during the hour the fence is turned off and open. My bet is 6 days, or that PETA would turn cannibal. Either way, a great reality show in the making.

I have a great idea for PETA! and a great new-reality show at the same time!

Throw 100 PETA people on an island, where the only source of food for them are livestock. The livestock are kept separate from PETA by a 50-foot tall electric fence, which is de-electrified and open for 1 hour in a 24-hour period of time. The livestock are fed and cared for, as PETA wishes them to be. But (as a reminder) the PETA side of the island has no food sources. and they are kept from the ocean by an 20-foot high electric fence which is never turned off.

My plan is to see how damn long PETA would last before someone would go after any of the livestock during the hour the fence is turned off and open. My bet is 6 days, or that PETA would turn cannibal. Either way, a great reality show in the making.

Why keep them from the ocean? Surely you want them to have as much access to the sea kittens as to the other livestock?

I could see that ad backfire. Afterall aren't many of the animals that PETA wants to protect vegetarians. :p

Praising ALF terrorism isn't in support of it?

not really, no. at least not material support, which is what matters.

Oh, and here's what the US Senate has to say about PETA fiscal support for ALF.

http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=247266

anything that comes from inhofe should be immediately written off as nonsense until proven otherwise. anything.

he used his senate position to publish reports 'proving' anthropogenic climate change is a myth, for example.