Peta protest


PDA






KriegHund
January 5, 2006, 08:36 PM
Seeing as many of us pro-gunners are anti-peta, and many anti-gunner are pro-peta and that the hippocrisy of such groups is always of interest, i hope this post isnt deleted.

Anyways, this was amusing. Penn and Teller BS.
http://www.wimp.com/petaprotest/

If you enjoyed reading about "Peta protest" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CentralTexas
January 5, 2006, 08:52 PM
with a dead horse on it? ;)
CT

Sindawe
January 5, 2006, 09:41 PM
You mean like this?
http://www.accboards.com/UBB/horse.gif

Penn and Teller BS

Zooty! zoot zoot zoot (http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/guide/096.html):D

Well, even when I was rabid pro-PETA in the early '90s, I was never anti-gun, nor were the majority of the veg-head PETA members I hung around with in life or on the the local BBSs. Of course, those kinds of folks don't make the big headlines or media appearances. Its the foamy mouthed ranters that make good media who get the air time.

I wish PETA would confine itself to actual ethical issues on animal treatment. No torture; decent living conditions while being raised; humane slaughter methods; and providing rational arguments against the eating and wearing of animals. But then, they'd be the Humane Society (the real ones, not the PETA wannabes).

shermacman
January 5, 2006, 09:58 PM
Anyways, this was amusing. Penn and Teller BS.


Nope. Not amusing.

Bust a gut howl pee yer pants, yes!

CentralTexas
January 5, 2006, 10:18 PM
Anyone have a full transcript? I was actually very dissapointed in P&T over this show as to a casual observer it was "scandalous" but to a person in the know there was much to pick apart I don't even remember now.
CT

White Horseradish
January 6, 2006, 01:20 AM
Anyone have a full transcript? I was actually very dissapointed in P&T over this show as to a casual observer it was "scandalous" but to a person in the know there was much to pick apart I don't even remember now.
CT

Oh, like what? PETA does euthanise animals (see recent dumping scandal), does oppose pets (I have looked it up, it's in a Newkirk interview) and does support ALF. That alone is enough to justly call them hypocritical terrorist supporters.

BTW, I'm sure you know tire manufacturing uses animal fat. Somehow I doubt PETA leadersip, or even the majority of members walk everywhere.

trueblue1776
January 6, 2006, 01:41 AM
priceless, I love it when it is brought to my attention that there are people waaaaaaaaaaaaay dumber than me!:D

slzy
January 6, 2006, 02:01 AM
whats wrong with People Eating Tasty Animals?

.45Guy
January 6, 2006, 02:08 AM
That just made my day! Thanks for posting that link:D

Berek
January 6, 2006, 02:22 AM
"The Holocaust On Your Plate"??? How the *$&# can you equate animal rights to the rights of the humans slaughtered during WWII??? ARE THESE PEOPLE NUTS??? (rhetorical :D )

And that hypocrite with diabetes! AND ALL OF THE WOMEN WERE WEARING MAKEUP!

Oh, man... People like this can wind me up for hours. BTW, did ya catch the ending when she said fighting pro-rights groups is futile, "we'll only get stronger"? Aren't we a pro-rights group? Aren't they one of the biggest anti-gun/anti-hunting group there is? Isn't it hypocritical, then, to fight us? Should we bring this to their attention?

RANT RANT RANT!!!

I'm better now... for now...

strambo
January 6, 2006, 02:51 AM
That was great, thanks. What is sad is they did more in depth investigative reporting than any "news" program I've seen in a long time:D . Sure it was one sided, but it was a editorial piece.

I love how they equate the current animal situation to the Holocaust...and gas (er, "euthanize":rolleyes: ) animals in their own shelters at a far higher percentage than other shelters. Talk about "slavery" and 'holocaust', an animal better pick a Humane Society "death camp" over one run by PETA if they get a choice.

Nimitz
January 6, 2006, 03:16 AM
great movie

Chad

Dragun
January 6, 2006, 03:42 AM
just saw a T-shirt on another thread that said "if god didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them taste like MEAT!" i laughed so loud that my wife was giving me the "huh?" look. so i showed her the shirt. she laughed louder than me. she is a born-again and her good book tells her that animals are here (provided) to eat and wear. i forget the verse but it goes something like this, "by the blood of innocents, you shall be fed and clothed". er, something close to that. eat and wear = tastey and warm. yes, i am carniverous, just look at my fangs.

Cosmoline
January 6, 2006, 04:13 AM
LOL! A freezer for cadavers.

The history of human-animal interation goes back to the dawn of our species. The original dogs were wolves who got used to hanging around human camps and eating bits of scrap. Humans benefited from their superior hearing and noses, and dogs benefited from the human's ability to kill large amounts of game (by for example running a herd off a cliff)--more than the tribe could eat. In rough times, guess what? The humans also benefited by eating the dogs. Eating your dogs in a pinch or feeding them to other dogs was accepted practice until recent times. Nansen and the sensible Norwegian explorers did it, just as mushers did here. But in the long run the dogs genetics survived through their alliance with humans and that's all that matters. We forged similar relationships with herd animals, using them for transportation or food as needed. Along comes modern man, a product of the luxuries of the 20th century. And having never spent a day around any animals aside from a small dog or house cat, he gets insane ideas that these ancient relationships are "unethical" or "unfair." And you get idiots trying to "liberate" dogs from trucks or "free" chickens.

In the real world, chopping your dog's bits off and killing his genetics or having her womb removed is far more cruel than eating them for emergency food. Our part of the ancient pact requires us to continue their lines. And if we fail to do this, we are breaking the pact and dogs will cease to be. This is what PETA wants--the fruitcakes.

Berek
January 6, 2006, 04:49 AM
just saw a T-shirt on another thread that said "if god didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them taste like MEAT!" i laughed so loud that my wife was giving me the "huh?" look. so i showed her the shirt. she laughed louder than me. she is a born-again and her good book tells her that animals are here (provided) to eat and wear. i forget the verse but it goes something like this, "by the blood of innocents, you shall be fed and clothed". er, something close to that. eat and wear = tastey and warm. yes, i am carniverous, just look at my fangs.

Well, let's see. The Christian Bible says:
Genesis 9
God's Covenant With Noah
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

And the Koran Says:
[5.3] Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up (for idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression. This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Luckily, the Koran was translated, but I had a problem navigating the online Torah, otherwise I would have quoted it. I did find where the limitations were (as with the Koran above) but ...

Anyhoo... that's the best one I found yet. Genesis and all... If anyone has any others, let's get all of the various beliefs involved.

CentralTexas
January 6, 2006, 09:45 AM
Oh, like what? PETA does euthanise animals (see recent dumping scandal), does oppose pets (I have looked it up, it's in a Newkirk interview) and does support ALF. That alone is enough to justly call them hypocritical terrorist supporters.

BTW, I'm sure you know tire manufacturing uses animal fat. Somehow I doubt PETA leadersip, or even the majority of members walk everywhere.

Where is the dead horse icon? I take it you will post the same thing every PETA thread eeven though it has been explained 100 times huh?

Here let me use your sense of spin and make this about hunters fault as it seems you think every PETA member is evil:evil:
Please note this is satire/sarcasm for those on the short bus. I don't actually imply this is representative of all hunters.

1-Euthanise animals- True, it's economics baby! It's hunters fault, they say they really love animals but won't send PETA the millions it would need to house every animal they take in until adopted if ever. Same goes for 99% of shelters in America who can't afford the money needed to never kill adoptable animals.

2-Recent dumping scandal- yes 2 idiots that work for PETA= ALL PETA members are killing and dumping animals:rolleyes:
Right up there with the study where they prove that since one male hunter beats his wife ALL hunters are wife beaters:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

3- Newkirk interview- please produce it, the whole thing so if it exists I can see the statement in context

4- Please show where there is documented "recent" support via interview etc. from someone in PETA's management not someone on the periphery?
Would you agree that if a person in the gun community thinks fire bombing abortion clinics with workers inside it doesn't mean everyone in the gun community does? Or is that enough to justly call them hypocritical terrorist supporters?

5-Tires, sorry can't find proof of your claim in modern manufacturing process info.

CT

CentralTexas
January 6, 2006, 09:56 AM
Well, let's see. The Christian Bible says:
And the Koran Says:
Luckily, the Koran was translated, but I had a problem navigating the online Torah, otherwise I would have quoted it. I did find where the limitations were (as with the Koran above) but ...

Anyhoo... that's the best one I found yet. Genesis and all... If anyone has any others, let's get all of the various beliefs involved.

I can safely say not everyone beleives the same even in their own religion. Every major religion seems to have folks who believe their god wants them to be vegetarians.

But speaking of almost as funny as making fun of compassionate people....

CentralTexas
January 6, 2006, 10:01 AM
whats wrong with People Eating Tasty Animals?

Besides the unecessary death of an animal and the long term effects of eating meat that results in colon cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease etc.,?
CT

CentralTexas
January 6, 2006, 10:12 AM
"The Holocaust On Your Plate"??? How the *$&# can you equate animal rights to the rights of the humans slaughtered during WWII??? ARE THESE PEOPLE NUTS??? (rhetorical :D )

These campaigns do what they are supposed to do, draw the media into covering PETA. THen they can reach a larger audience.
Remember Heston and the "From my cold dead hands" statement? Press where all over it, remember his statement on how many ways guns are used in a positive manner? Didn't think so....

"And that hypocrite with diabetes! "

1- Uses synthetic insulin now
2-How is surviving hypocritical? It's the year 1687 and a hard winter is approaching, you and one other family share your mountain top. You wouldn't take the last deer on a piece of property to insure your families survival through the winter knowing the other family won't make it if you let your family survive? Puhhhleeeese.

"AND ALL OF THE WOMEN WERE WEARING MAKEUP!"

You are aware not all makeup is made or tested on animals? Uh, I guess not...

Oh, man... People like this can wind me up for hours. BTW, did ya catch the ending when she said fighting pro-rights groups is futile, "we'll only get stronger"? Aren't we a pro-rights group? Aren't they one of the biggest anti-gun/anti-hunting group there is? Isn't it hypocritical, then, to fight us? Should we bring this to their attention?

RANT RANT RANT!!!

I'm better now... for now...

Well maybe the comments I inserted can get your blood pressure back up! :neener:
CT

Zundfolge
January 6, 2006, 10:22 AM
... I had a problem navigating the online Torah, otherwise I would have quoted it...
The Torah IS the Christian Old Testament (where Genesis is) so by quoting the Old Testament of the Christian Bible you've also covered the Torah :)



Yes those peta folk are a kooky bunch ... but I'm comforted by the fact that if the S hit the F most of them couldn't survive.

Berek
January 6, 2006, 11:57 AM
Well maybe the comments I inserted can get your blood pressure back up! :neener:
CT

Well, not exactly, however:

In her statement, she admitted that her insulin contained animal "stuff" and that her life was important to fight for the rights of other animals.

Also, there have been some press conferences with Heston that I do not agree with. Yes, I remember the "cold dead hands" and the uses of the tool speech. I do not remember any point in which he relates our pro-rights movement to any major tragedies or holocausts.

I am aware that there is synthetic make-up.

BTW, that deer would be mine and I never stated anything to indicate otherwise as, in 1687, deer and such were not as scarce as they were in say, 1901 with market hunting. So 1901 would be a different story (sarcasm) :rolleyes:

Or maybe I would contact PETA and tell them that I'm ready to listen. And when, in a month or so, that representative was devoured, um... I mean failed to arrive, I would contact them again to send another one. Maybe a fatter one... I mean one with ... never mind. I'd eat the PETA lobbyist and think nothing of it... That would save that last deer...

Berek
January 6, 2006, 12:25 PM
The Torah IS the Christian Old Testament (where Genesis is) so by quoting the Old Testament of the Christian Bible you've also covered the Torah :)



Yes those peta folk are a kooky bunch ... but I'm comforted by the fact that if the S hit the F most of them couldn't survive.

Yeah... I was just hoping to have a direct translation/quote from it... I actually had a person of the Jewish faith get upset because I once quoted Old Testament Christian and nothing from the Torah. Just trying to be PC and shtuff...

Cosmoline
January 6, 2006, 01:49 PM
Besides the unecessary death of an animal and the long term effects of eating meat that results in colon cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease etc.,?
CT

If I want to eat the meat, the animal's death is necessary. Humans are not herbevores. Try eating what a cow eats and see how you feel when it hits your gut! Your real complaint lies in eating TOO MUCH PROCESSED MEAT. The long term effects of eating meat have put us at the top of the food chain.

White Horseradish
January 6, 2006, 02:14 PM
Where is the dead horse icon? I take it you will post the same thing every PETA thread eeven though it has been explained 100 times huh? Really? I've posted this before? Funny, I do not recall that...

Here let me use your sense of spin and make this about hunters fault as it seems you think every PETA member is evil:evil:
Please note this is satire/sarcasm for those on the short bus. I don't actually imply this is representative of all hunters. I never said every PETAn is evil. I haven't even said the organization is evil. So, are you building a strawman or did you just not understand what I said?

1-Euthanise animals- True, it's economics baby! It's hunters fault, they say they really love animals but won't send PETA the millions it would need to house every animal they take in until adopted if ever. Same goes for 99% of shelters in America who can't afford the money needed to never kill adoptable animals. I really could not care less why they do it. I just know that when one part of PETA protests city shelters euthanising animals and another part of it euthanises animals itself, that is hypocritical.

2-Recent dumping scandal- yes 2 idiots that work for PETA= ALL PETA members are killing and dumping animals:rolleyes:
Right up there with the study where they prove that since one male hunter beats his wife ALL hunters are wife beaters:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Once again, either you do not understand what I wrote or you are purposely building a strawman. I never expressed any opinion as far as dumping. I only brought it up because the news coverage of that scandal contains proof that PETA euthanises animals. I most certainly DID NOT say that all PETAns do it.

3- Newkirk interview- please produce it, the whole thing so if it exists I can see the statement in context I read it a while ago. I will see if I can find it.

4- Please show where there is documented "recent" support via interview etc. from someone in PETA's management not someone on the periphery?
Would you agree that if a person in the gun community thinks fire bombing abortion clinics with workers inside it doesn't mean everyone in the gun community does? Or is that enough to justly call them hypocritical terrorist supporters?This is not a valid comparison. The gun community is not an organization with a president, a staff and a budget and an official position. Perhaps a better comparison would be to the NRA. Now, if the NRA tax return showed a contribution to the McVeigh defense fund, I would call them terrorist supporters as well. I really don't see what the date of this has to do with anything since I do not recall seeing any information on PETA radically altering in any way.

5-Tires, sorry can't find proof of your claim in modern manufacturing process info.

CTOnce again, I haven't actually looked that up in a couple of years. I'll see what I can do.


As far as insulin, even if the actual product is synthetic, it still owes its existence to research done on animals. Just think, if ALF came into existence a bit earlier, we would not have it. But the animals would be safe.

Justin
January 6, 2006, 02:15 PM
My stance on the PETA issue is well documented (http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?searchid=990030), and it's patently obvious that the facts pretty much show PETA to be composed of a bunch of spotlight-grubbing, cretinous hypocrites at best, and spotlight-grubbing, cretinous hypocrites who happily fund quasi-terrorist organizations at worst.

In any regard, they are irrational authoritopian luddites in the worst sense of the word.

White Horseradish
January 6, 2006, 02:21 PM
"I don’t use the word "pet." I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

From http://www.animalrights.net/quotes.html, second quote down under "Pets"

Sure sounds like she wants to abolish the whole concept of pets.

White Horseradish
January 6, 2006, 02:28 PM
CentralTexas, here is the animal-derived chemical used in rubber manufacturing. http://www.sin-sa.ro/eng_dfafaf.html

Synthetic rubber means shoes and tires to me.

Cosmoline
January 6, 2006, 02:42 PM
From http://www.animalrights.net/quotes.html, second quote down under "Pets"

Sure sounds like she wants to abolish the whole concept of pets.

Yup. And what she advocates would doom all the domesticated lines that have allowed us to survive and flourish as a species. Without goats, dogs, horses and other domesticated animals we'd still be living in holes and getting eaten by short faced bears and saber toothed tigers. I'm all for humane treatment of animals, but ending their lines is no different than driving them to extinction. And we OWE them. Not only that, but they're still incredibly useful and I'm not sure how long we'd survive without them over the next 10,000 years. Dogs and goats don't need oil to keep working.

The PETA types are mentally ill--the product of a culture that no longer understands what the real world is like. My dog understands the real world, and he will gladly endure hardships and risk his life to ensure his bloodlines continue. It is the only thing that matters in the long run.

shermacman
January 6, 2006, 02:51 PM
Take PETA's agenda to its logical extraction: If we end meat eating then all cows, sheep, chickens and pigs will die. End pet ownership and all dogs, cats and goldfish will die.

Sounds like PETA just plain hates animals and wants them all dead.

CentralTexas
January 6, 2006, 03:15 PM
From http://www.animalrights.net/quotes.html, second quote down under "Pets"

Sure sounds like she wants to abolish the whole concept of pets.

Her opinion, Not a PETA agenda plank from what I see there.
What she advocates is a long timeline where society as a whole changes in their view of animals bred as pets. Not the same as they are coming for you kids bunny on Tuesday...
CT

White Horseradish
January 6, 2006, 03:25 PM
Her opinion, Not a PETA agenda plank from what I see there.
What she advocates is a long timeline where society as a whole changes in their view of animals bred as pets. Not the same as they are coming for you kids bunny on Tuesday...
CTNobody said they were coming Tuesday. I said they "oppose pets". Nothing more, nothing less, no mention of a timeline. Not that it matters, anyway. And she opposes more than breeding. That quote indicates she wants to abolish pet ownership completely.

She is president and founder of PETA. I'd say her opinion is pretty much the same as a "plank", not that I can find an official listing of PETA planks.

CentralTexas
January 6, 2006, 03:26 PM
CentralTexas, here is the animal-derived chemical used in rubber manufacturing. http://www.sin-sa.ro/eng_dfafaf.html

Synthetic rubber means shoes and tires to me.

Great a Romanian company says it uses a fat in their process. Animal fat? Coconut fat? Kennedy fat?
Regardless I realize there is no way I can exist without accidently running over a bug etc. All one can ever do is live to the best of their ability of not harming others. It's foolish to say a vegetarian taking a maintenance med from animal testing is a hypocrite. They should live and continue to lobby for alternatives. When you see those movies where only one of the soldiers can go on the rescue plane/boat etc and the rest will perish- you know "Let's let the kid/newlywed/new father live. Does that offend you as well? Wearing leather products etc IS easily avoidable, deciding to live is another matter.
I'm sure there are a million hero's out there that will let their children die before they use anything medically derived from stem cell research either:rolleyes:
CT

CentralTexas
January 6, 2006, 03:31 PM
Take PETA's agenda to its logical extraction: If we end meat eating then all cows, sheep, chickens and pigs will die. End pet ownership and all dogs, cats and goldfish will die.

Sounds like PETA just plain hates animals and wants them all dead.

I was going to reply to this but I realized it was sarcasm as nobody could possibly believe what you wrote. That was close, I almost wasted 5 minutes of my life....
CT

Art Eatman
January 6, 2006, 03:37 PM
Newkirk wants to change thousands of generations of human interaction with animals, in this "changing of society". I don't. I find her reasoning to be specious and irrational. Wayne Purcelle (Pacelle?) of HSUS is no different.

They have the freedom to promulgate their ideas. That creates no obligation for anybody to give them any credence.

That somebody plays the game of picking and choosing from among various statements from PETA and HSUS and ignoring the main thrust of their agenda is no different from picking and choosing from among those Amendments of the Bill of Rights with which he agrees.

Art

shermacman
January 6, 2006, 03:39 PM
Central Texas:

Waste more of your life.

If we stop eating beef what will happen to the cows? They will be killed, all of them. Immediately by a rancher who doesn't want them to suffer or have them drag him into bankrupcy. Or they will die of disease, age, whatever Nature has in store for them.

Ditto with pets.

Tell me where I am wrong.

CentralTexas
January 6, 2006, 03:41 PM
Okay, I'm tired of the same arguments over and over and note- there isn't anyone left on the planet that hasn't heard the People Eating Tasty Animals joke already. If it makes everyone happy you are all right! All people that care about animals and want humane treatment and avoid eating them are in league with the devil, that's correct "hail lord satan" I eat carrots and worship darth vader. I arrived at this point myself, and that's the only way you will if you ever do. I do hope if nothing else you see that PETA is not much of an effective enemy to hunters and that they are being used by the NRA as a boogeyman to get more $$$ out of your pocket. There are a lot of forces working against us daily but it's that story about PETA in your NRA-ILA email that get's you going ain't it?
CT

White Horseradish
January 6, 2006, 03:45 PM
Great a Romanian company says it uses a fat in their process. Animal fat? Coconut fat? Kennedy fat?
Regardless I realize there is no way I can exist without accidently running over a bug etc. All one can ever do is live to the best of their ability of not harming others. It's foolish to say a vegetarian taking a maintenance med from animal testing is a hypocrite. They should live and continue to lobby for alternatives. When you see those movies where only one of the soldiers can go on the rescue plane/boat etc and the rest will perish- you know "Let's let the kid/newlywed/new father live. Does that offend you as well? Wearing leather products etc IS easily avoidable, deciding to live is another matter.
I'm sure there are a million hero's out there that will let their children die before they use anything medically derived from stem cell research either:rolleyes:
CT

Right at the top of that page it says in bold capital letters "DISTILLED FATTY ACIDS FROM ANIMAL FATS". Coconuts are animals now? Also, this company does not make rubber, so we are not talking about it's proprietary process. It's fairly obvious that it makes this product for the use of the rubber industry. This link was one of many I found. How many would it take to convince you that it is indeed a common component? What countries would you prefer the links from?

We are not talking about merely a vegetarian. We are talking about someone that vehemently opposes animal research, yet uses a product of it. She sees the benefit to herself, but wants to prevent further research that has potential to benefit others. Fine, she's not a hypocrite. She is a selfish ignoramus.

I am not sure where you are going with that analogy. Are you saying that the life of an animal-rights activist is worth more than the lives of others? That would offend me, yes. If you realize that you cannot exist without harming something, I don't see where the opposition to research comes from. Yes, it is harm, but it is done for our survival. Destroying labs hinders that work. How about a catchy slogan? I got one: "Lab destruction is murder".

Trip20
January 6, 2006, 03:47 PM
Until the end of time, animals will be consumed by the human race for victuals and other purposes. Some people really need to come to grips with this.

I say this as I dine on some venison lunch meat from this past season. She died quickly, and I said a prayer for her.

White Horseradish
January 6, 2006, 03:55 PM
Okay, I'm tired of the same arguments over and over and note- there isn't anyone left on the planet that hasn't heard the People Eating Tasty Animals joke already. I totally agree. Every time I see that it makes me cringe. It was worth a mild chuckle the first five times, but now it's kinda like a nail on glass.


If it makes everyone happy you are all right! All people that care about animals and want humane treatment and avoid eating them are in league with the devil, that's correct "hail lord satan" I eat carrots and worship darth vader. "All people that care" does not equal PETA.

I arrived at this point myself, and that's the only way you will if you ever do. PETA does not see it that way. They seem to think it's possible to make people take their side by handing out scary pamphlets to children and putting up billboards implying Santa Claus is impotent.

I do hope if nothing else you see that PETA is not much of an effective enemy to hunters and that they are being used by the NRA as a boogeyman to get more $$$ out of your pocket. There are a lot of forces working against us daily but it's that story about PETA in your NRA-ILA email that get's you going ain't it?
CTOh, this is rich. A PETA supporter says we're wasting time on trivial matters. If it's so trivial, why do you waste your time on supporting them?

Justin
January 6, 2006, 04:03 PM
What she advocates is a long timeline where society as a whole changes in their view of animals bred as pets. Not the same as they are coming for you kids bunny on Tuesday...

So what? In the end, the effect is the same.

CentralTexas
January 6, 2006, 04:06 PM
Right at the top of that page it says in bold capital letters "DISTILLED FATTY ACIDS FROM ANIMAL FATS". Coconuts are animals now? Also, this company does not make rubber, so we are not talking about it's proprietary process. It's fairly obvious that it makes this product for the use of the rubber industry. This link was one of many I found. How many would it take to convince you that it is indeed a common component? What countries would you prefer the links from?

We are not talking about merely a vegetarian. We are talking about someone that vehemently opposes animal research, yet uses a product of it. She sees the benefit to herself, but wants to prevent further research that has potential to benefit others. Fine, she's not a hypocrite. She is a selfish ignoramus.

I am not sure where you are going with that analogy. Are you saying that the life of an animal-rights activist is worth more than the lives of others? That would offend me, yes. If you realize that you cannot exist without harming something, I don't see where the opposition to research comes from. Yes, it is harm, but it is done for our survival. Destroying labs hinders that work. How about a catchy slogan? I got one: "Lab destruction is murder".

Missed the animal fat part. I still doubt it is widely used in tires, even if it is, what would you like to see? Vegetarian cars with "hypocrite" painted down the side? Mass suicide of all car driving vegetarians to uphold the integrity of their position????

She doesn't want further medical research to stop, where do you get such an idea? She wants animals used in medical research to stop- and other ways to research to become the norm. Destroying SOME labs hinders that work, not all. Some labs should be destroyed regardless until they quit beating Beagles for fun at breaktime.Much animal testing is for crap like cosmetic liability even after the product proves safe, etc.
Cosmetic testing may be for your survival, I don't personally know but I'm guessing not. Okay, back to not getting sucked in. This is like arguing politics....
CT

CentralTexas
January 6, 2006, 04:09 PM
So what? In the end, the effect is the same.

If socisty evolves into the point where owning an animal isn't the norm it would be no trauma. That's a big difference to PEAT troops armed taking the kids bunny I think...
Same end result without turmoil, that's a plus.
Me? Life not shared with a dog isn't life....
CT

Justin
January 6, 2006, 04:15 PM
She doesn't want further medical research to stop, where do you get such an idea? She wants animals used in medical research to stop- and other ways to research to become the norm.

Yes, and perhaps with her superior intellect and vast collection of biological, chemical, medical, and mathematical PhD degrees, Ingrid Newkirk will assist science in coming up with new and innovative ways of testing medications for effectiveness and safety that don't involve animal testing.

Why, a Google search (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=50&hs=i0H&hl=en&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=ingrid+newkirk%27s+scientific+publications&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images) for her scientific publications returns just oodles* of results. I mean, the woman has a veritably Einsteinian understanding of medicine, technology and the scientific process.


*By oodles, of course, I mean none at all.

CentralTexas
January 6, 2006, 04:16 PM
is arguing over wording at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CentralTexas
I do hope if nothing else you see that PETA is not much of an effective enemy to hunters and that they are being used by the NRA as a boogeyman to get more $$$ out of your pocket. There are a lot of forces working against us daily but it's that story about PETA in your NRA-ILA email that get's you going ain't it?
CT

Oh, this is rich. A PETA supporter says we're wasting time on trivial matters. If it's so trivial, why do you waste your time on supporting them?

WHere do I say you are wasting time on trivial matters? I say you are being led by the nose with a boogeyman called PETA hiding under the bed.
Not sure who you say I waste time supporting? NRA? I'm a member as anyone who owns a firearm should be.
PETA? I defend some of their actions as I want some of the same goals. I honestly don't want to see laws stopping hunting, but I wouldn't mind a change where it stopped due to personal beliefs of former hunters.
Okay, I'm really done...
CT

Justin
January 6, 2006, 04:22 PM
If socisty evolves into the point where owning an animal isn't the norm it would be no trauma. That's a big difference to PEAT troops armed taking the kids bunny I think...

A world in which I would be unable to eat a steak would be just as pathetic and stupid as a world in which I cannot own a gun.

WHere do I say you are wasting time on trivial matters? I say you are being led by the nose with a boogeyman called PETA hiding under the bed.

Yeah, because Ingrid Newkirk really didn't give several tens of thousands of dollars to Rodney Coronado (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Coronado), who has been convicted of arson in the name of "animal rights" more than once.

Seriously. How many times do you have to be beaten over the head with the facts?

.45Guy
January 6, 2006, 04:29 PM
Since the PETA acronym joke is now passe, here is a link to a humorous image:http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor

.45Guy
January 6, 2006, 04:31 PM
And another:http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

Zundfolge
January 6, 2006, 04:46 PM
I'd like to thank these Peta people for reminding me how glad I am I own guns. :uhoh:

otomik
January 6, 2006, 04:59 PM
PETA and ACLU, both stand for good things fundamentally but are hijacked by crazies.

It's strongly implied that adam and eve were vegetarians or vegans in the garden.

kbheiner7
January 6, 2006, 05:10 PM
The long term effects of eating meat have put us at the top of the food chain.

Good info here.

CT, I kinda understand your point, but too many of us have had first hand run-ins with PETA folks. Needless to say, most of the know more about Disney talking animal movies than they do about biology.

It's not very hard to defeat any PETA argument - human physiology discredits every argument they offer. We're herbivours, plain and simple.

All good PETA members should promptly kill themselves. The very fact that they live in a home or apartment is displacing innocent insect and animal life. Shame on them. :D

RaggedClaws
January 6, 2006, 05:37 PM
It's strongly implied that adam and eve were vegetarians or vegans in the garden.
But we're not in the garden anymore, are we? :)

scout26
January 6, 2006, 05:55 PM
IIRC, Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating fruit, not meat. ;)

.45Guy
January 6, 2006, 06:05 PM
As long as we're on a religious tack, what about Cain and Abel?

Art Eatman
January 6, 2006, 09:24 PM
kbheiner7, typing faster than he wuz thinking, said, " We're herbivours, plain and simple."

In the context of his post, I imagine he meant omnivores. Herbivores are plant eaters and carnivores are meat eaters.

We're along with bears and raccoons and suchlike in being omnivores, happy with lettuce and tomato on our hamburgers.

:), Art

sm
January 6, 2006, 09:30 PM
If I am going to do my part and send a PETA meeting a Meat only Deli tray, they can darn well get provide their own lettuce and 'maters.

I mean a feller can only do so much. :)

Berek
January 7, 2006, 03:24 AM
Okay, I'm tired of the same arguments over and over and note- there isn't anyone left on the planet that hasn't heard the People Eating Tasty Animals joke already. If it makes everyone happy you are all right! All people that care about animals and want humane treatment and avoid eating them are in league with the devil, that's correct "hail lord satan" I eat carrots and worship darth vader. I arrived at this point myself, and that's the only way you will if you ever do. I do hope if nothing else you see that PETA is not much of an effective enemy to hunters and that they are being used by the NRA as a boogeyman to get more $$$ out of your pocket. There are a lot of forces working against us daily but it's that story about PETA in your NRA-ILA email that get's you going ain't it?
CT

If it means anything, My position falls under true conservation. Use it, but use it wisely. Revere the animal and all that it gives, cherish the family member PETA calls a "pet". I do have a problem regarding the waste that is produced by the "more supply than demand" on some animals that are raised for consumption, but I'm not going to join PETA and their radical agenda. I feel for endangered species, but I understand the whys and hows and I know that I am not even close to the main cause, thus I'm not going to join PETA and their radical agenda.

On the same token, I despise hunters that have no regard for the animal. I've seen hunters shoot animals and take only the head leaving the carcass. I know of individuals that poach, shooting game just to kill and having no license. I know of individuals that take an animal in one DMP zone but their DMP is for another zone.

Bottom line, there is good and evil on both sides of the pro-hunting/pro-animal rights battle. What we need is even ground. Not radical agendas.

White Horseradish
January 7, 2006, 04:05 PM
Missed the animal fat part. I still doubt it is widely used in tires, even if it is, what would you like to see? Vegetarian cars with "hypocrite" painted down the side? Mass suicide of all car driving vegetarians to uphold the integrity of their position????

She doesn't want further medical research to stop, where do you get such an idea? She wants animals used in medical research to stop- and other ways to research to become the norm. Destroying SOME labs hinders that work, not all. Some labs should be destroyed regardless until they quit beating Beagles for fun at breaktime.Much animal testing is for crap like cosmetic liability even after the product proves safe, etc.
Cosmetic testing may be for your survival, I don't personally know but I'm guessing not. Okay, back to not getting sucked in. This is like arguing politics....
CT

No, what I would like to see is for the animal rights people to drop the holier than thou attitude and admit that we all, no matter what we do, take from the animals in some way.

I keep hearing about these "other ways" of doing research. If they indeed do exist and are viable, why would the scientific establishment resist using them? I have a hard time believing that scientists use lab rats because they, to a man, are evil sadists that enjoy seeing the critters suffer.

Animal rights terorists do not look at the type of research the lab does before trashing it. The Universty of Minnesota does not do any cosmetic testing that I am aware of, yet their labs got trashed not long ago. IMO, this shows callous disregard for lives of potential beneficiaries of this research.

iapetus
January 7, 2006, 04:18 PM
Besides the unecessary death of an animal and the long term effects of eating meat that results in colon cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease etc.,?
CT

If I want to eat the meat, the animal's death is necessary. Humans are not herbevores. Try eating what a cow eats and see how you feel when it hits your gut! Your real complaint lies in eating TOO MUCH PROCESSED MEAT. The long term effects of eating meat have put us at the top of the food chain.


This reminds me of a joke I heard the other day:

An man goes to his doctor:

Patient: "Doctor, will I live to be 80?"
Doctor: "Well, do you eat meat?"
Patient: "No."
Doctor: "Do you eat lots of sweet foods?"
Patient: "No."
Doctor: "Do you drink alcohol or smoke?"
Patient: "No."
Doctor: "Do you have lots of sex?"
Patient: "No."
Doctor: "Do you engage in risky sports such as mountaineering or skydiving or driving fast cars?"
Patient: "No."
Doctor: "They why do you want to live to be 80?"

White Horseradish
January 7, 2006, 04:43 PM
is arguing over wording at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CentralTexas
I do hope if nothing else you see that PETA is not much of an effective enemy to hunters and that they are being used by the NRA as a boogeyman to get more $$$ out of your pocket. There are a lot of forces working against us daily but it's that story about PETA in your NRA-ILA email that get's you going ain't it?
CT

Oh, this is rich. A PETA supporter says we're wasting time on trivial matters. If it's so trivial, why do you waste your time on supporting them?

WHere do I say you are wasting time on trivial matters? I say you are being led by the nose with a boogeyman called PETA hiding under the bed.
Not sure who you say I waste time supporting? NRA? I'm a member as anyone who owns a firearm should be.
PETA? I defend some of their actions as I want some of the same goals. I honestly don't want to see laws stopping hunting, but I wouldn't mind a change where it stopped due to personal beliefs of former hunters.
Okay, I'm really done...
CT

Well, it seems you can't counter my points with much of anything, so you're taking your toys and going home. No wonder these arguments keep repeating themselves...

Brad Johnson
January 7, 2006, 05:14 PM
My question is this....

If humans are not supposed to eat meat, then why has God and nature equipped us with the wrong kind of teeth?

Brad

iapetus
January 8, 2006, 09:25 AM
My question is this....

If humans are not supposed to eat meat, then why has God and nature equipped us with the wrong kind of teeth?

Brad

Arguments like that are lost on the nuttier fringe of the animal rights movement.

A few years ago in England (Hampshire, near where I lived at the time), a bunch of animal rights nuts "liberated" (i.e. released into the wild) a load mink from a fur farm.

Of course, mink being non-native carnivores with no natural predators went on the rampage, munching their way through the local fauna (this in an area with quite a lot of rare species).

When challenged on how this could be viewed as good for animal welfare, one spokesman for the group involved actually claimed that the mink were starting to turn vegetarian!

(No link I'm afraid, but the article, and the statement from the group and quote was in a newspaper).

shermacman
January 8, 2006, 11:06 AM
iapetus
That is because, as any honest PETA member would admit, PETA actually hates animals. They don't care if the mink starved.

If we outlawed pet ownership the only cats that would survive would be feral alley cats, flea-infested, disease-ridden, struggling for survival in the rain and mud, eating scraps from trash cans knocked over by stray rabid dogs.

That would make PETA happy.

1911 guy
January 8, 2006, 12:13 PM
In all seriousness, the best way to ensure the survival of a ny species is to make it food. Here in America, there are more food animals than any non domesticated animals. The bald eagle is protected, so it should be everywhere, right? Wrong, it's still protected because it's relatively scarce. Ows, pigs and chickens, on the other hand, are available at any grocery store and farm in America.

IndianaDean
January 8, 2006, 08:37 PM
Penn and Teller's BS, one of the best programs on pay tv.

Malfader13
January 9, 2006, 12:02 AM
The first part of this video and this discussion so far has got me thinking about Ethical Treatment of Animals throughout our history. I am not quite sure what was going on in Egypt, Sumaria, or ancient China but I do know that some time in Rome there were great games held where animals were set against people and each other strictly for peoples entertainment. I do believe this still occurs in many part of the world (cock fights, dog fights, bull fights), though not nearly to the extent that it did in good old ancient Rome. Oh and the ancient Greeks and Romans were quite well known for their big parties. One of the practices at these parties was binging and purging and binging and purging all night long. I am guessing quite a bit of that binged food was, you guessed it, animals. Seems to me neither of these practices were to terribly ethical in regards to animals.

Now here in the present, in the country that is hated most by PETA and the like, you don't see too terribly much of this behavior. Ok maybe some binging by super models but they shouldn't be eating meat anyway. There are your underground dog fights etc... but for the most part our animals in this country are provided with good care, even if it is to end up on our plate. They certainly get better care than the herds of goats and sheep that were raised in the old days.

Now lets look around the world at lesser developed countries. Many have dogs, cats, and other animals running around loose with no homes having to fend for themselves. They still have their chicken and cattle ranches for raising meat, though not in the same conditions provided here in America. And though I am not sure of it, I am guessing they do not have the veterinary care that we can provide in this country. Who in the third world cares to spend 3k to help a dog that has cancer survive as I have with my dog recently when they are trying to just survive themselves? And yes we do have cats and dogs without homes here, but going out on a limb, I would be willing to bet we have fewer here than the less developed countries.

So what could a group that is for the Ethical Treatment of Animals do? Maybe shut down dog and cock fighting rings. Help rescue animals from the third world and bringing them to the civilized world to adopt. Help get farms and ranches updated so that animals don't have to live in squalor while being raised for food. I am sure there are quite a few other things I have not thought of. But PETA, as a whole, is not interested in the Ethical treatment of animals. They are interested in the "Total liberation of Animals." From slavery, from servitude, from the terrible injustice of living anything but a natural animal life, what ever the hell that may be.

So it seams to me that we horrible humans have become a fair amount more ethical in our treatment of animals as time has gone by as we have became more technologically developed. Helping the rest of the world to develop may even allow them the free time to fire bomb a animal testing lab of their own.

In addition it was stated in this string that PETA in not a credible threat to the NRA. It is my understanding that the NRA has 3-4 million members. PETA has 750k members. 1 fourth to 1 third the strength of the NRA. When do they become a threat. 1.5 million, 3 million, 5 million? Recently I watched a debate in the U.K. between the NRA and PETA on the subject if there should be a world wide ban on hunting. My opinion was that La Pier mopped the floor with the PETA rep (sorry can't remember his name). None the less, PETA was given enough credibility to participate in this debate. In addition to this I have heard more about PETA in the news in the past year than ever before. They appear to be gaining credibility in many places these days. So, if they are not a true threat, and they could become one, why not stop them before they do become so.

Ok here's my two cents worth, feel free to back up or deconstruct my argument at this time. :neener:

RaggedClaws
January 9, 2006, 10:53 AM
Oh and the ancient Greeks and Romans were quite well known for their big parties. One of the practices at these parties was binging and purging and binging and purging all night long.
I wasn't aware that bulimia was rampant in ancient Greece and Rome :rolleyes:

Malfader13
January 9, 2006, 09:41 PM
LOL good one. It wasn't about bulimia but about being able to stuff yourself with food and wine, then get rid of it and do it again durring a day of feasting and revelry.

If you enjoyed reading about "Peta protest" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!