Who's more evil-NRA or PETA?


PDA






basicblur
August 13, 2008, 02:34 AM
Not sure about the topic (I've seen conflicting advertising) but if you enjoy a heavy dose of satire, Comedy Central's "Lewis Black-Root of all Evil" topic for Wednesday 10:30pm is "NRA vs PETA"! (according to the teaser from last week's show).

'Course, those of you familiar with the show? will know the debate is always about which of the two week's entities is the most evil.
Based on the reaction of many regarding Steven Colbert's Better Know a Lobbyist segment on the Gun Control Lobby, if your head easily explodes, maybe you shouldn't watch, or should at least have a roll of duct tape handy! :D

NOTE: This may have been pre-empted by the topic "Olympic Games vs Drinking Games"-they may have moved the NRA vs PETA segment back and are running the "Games" story since the Olympics are ongoing.
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/root_of_all_evil/index.jhtml

If you enjoyed reading about "Who's more evil-NRA or PETA?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RobNDenver
August 13, 2008, 03:17 AM
Wow, Interesting question. I don't think either are evil. An association of like minded persons interested in influencing the populace and our elected officials is as American as apple pie. While I think that PETA ought to stand for People Eating Tasty Animals I have to respect their point of view.

brigadier
August 13, 2008, 05:31 AM
You have got to see the one on boob jobs VS steroids. It was hilarious without getting too nasty an they actually made a few good points.

evan price
August 13, 2008, 05:42 AM
IBTL, and define evil?

Flame Red
August 13, 2008, 10:12 AM
I am one of those People Eat Tasty Animals in the hopes I will have a topless demonstration in front of my house to entertain me while I eat some ribs.

4v50 Gary
August 13, 2008, 10:18 AM
NRA supports a right as natural as that of breathing, namely, self-defense. PETA defies normal human conduct (consumption of animal flesh) and is out of touch with reality.

unspellable
August 13, 2008, 10:23 AM
It's not just that PETA would have us all be vegetarians and be nice to the fuzzy little animals. If you have followed their conduct at all, you will have found that they are no friend to the fuzzy little animals. It's basically a front organization, although it's difficult to define just what they are a front for. Something between Anarchy and Communism confounded with New Age and who knows what else. I'm not convinced they know themselves. Bottom line; I do regard them as an evil.

crushbup
August 13, 2008, 10:48 AM
All I will say about PETA is to watch the episode of Penn & Teller about it. You'll realize that they are more than just animal-lovers.

Gun related: He probably means the NRA is evil because it opposes gun control, but I'm sure there are many on here who think they're evil for not opposing it enough. Funny, isn't it?

streakr
August 13, 2008, 10:52 AM
Both are primarily marketing and fund-raising organizations. Their exist to keep themselves existant.

s

Deanimator
August 13, 2008, 11:15 AM
Maybe I missed it, but I've never seen the NRA equate Jews murdered in the Holocaust with the chickens they cook at KFC.

NAMBLA and PETA are the cross we have to bear for having 1st Amendment rights.

Ric
August 13, 2008, 11:17 AM
Doesn't PETA kill over 90% of the animals they "save", I read an article about that somewhere.

Deanimator
August 13, 2008, 11:27 AM
Wow, Interesting question. I don't think either are evil. An association of like minded persons interested in influencing the populace and our elected officials is as American as apple pie. While I think that PETA ought to stand for People Eating Tasty Animals I have to respect their point of view.
I think that PETA is consummately evil. I've talked to lots of those types in usenet, and seen them in the media for years. They don't love animals, they hate people, and it's in large part self-loathing turned outward.

There's a difference between respecting someone's right to speak and respecting what they say, or them for saying it.

I respect the right of PETA, NAMBLA and the neo-Nazi National Alliance to (within the law) freely associate and attempt to "influence" the populace and our elected officials. I do NOT however respect what they say, nor them for saying it.

If what you say is stupid or evil, there's NO reason AT ALL for me to respect your "point of view". Nor should I respect YOU for having it. You have the right to (within the law) be as stupid or evil as you please. I in turn have the right to despise you and to publicly revile you for your evil and stupidity. Anything else would be a violation of MY right to free conscience and self-expression. And if you don't like that, you can hate my guts and tell everybody that you do and why. And it's only the Catherine MacKinnons and Andrea Dworkins of the world who don't or won't understand this. I poke my fingers in their eyes every chance I get too.

Seancass
August 13, 2008, 11:52 AM
I don't think either are evil.
define evil?

this show is not for you. I hope i get to watch it.

misANTHrope
August 13, 2008, 12:02 PM
I believe that PETA would happily ban the consumption of all animal products in this country if they could. That, to me, is where the difference comes in. PETA wants to force me to adhere to their behavior.

However, we as gun owners just want to be left alone.

OOOXOOO
August 13, 2008, 12:27 PM
NRA= protecting US Constitution
PETA= attacking a way of life humans have enjoyed since we lived in caves wrapped in dead animal skins eating dead animals

SSN Vet
August 13, 2008, 12:35 PM
It's not just that PETA would have us all be vegetarians and be nice to the fuzzy little animals. If you have followed their conduct at all, you will have found that they are no friend to the fuzzy little animals. It's basically a front organization, although it's difficult to define just what they are a front for. Something between Anarchy and Communism confounded with New Age and who knows what else. I'm not convinced they know themselves. Bottom line; I do regard them as an evil.

you hit the nail on the head with this one.....and I agree wholeheartedly.

My sneaky suspicion is that they are an organization that plays on the emotions of pet lovers and vegans, to make their hierarchy filthy rich.

SuperNaut
August 13, 2008, 12:35 PM
I love PETA people, they are unarmed, slow, corn-fed and delicious.

feedthehogs
August 13, 2008, 12:40 PM
Since it is for entertainment what value does it have?

Pretty easy in factual terms. Never seen the NRA advocate violence against humans as does PETA.

I'm sure many gun owners will watch it, pretty much the same ones who think Jon Stewart does a real news show.

The Tourist
August 13, 2008, 12:46 PM
One of the things "younger men" must learn is that just about every aspect of the world puts a spin on their position.

For example, I've reached a point where there's a burden to lying or even telling tales. But I must admit freely, most of you (and I mean this politely) will never be able to handle a Harley--and in the demographic of those who can, just about no one will be able to live the lifestyle. And I mean that in terms of enjoyment and survival.

However, I enjoy the fun of the bike "spin." Ask Biker and Bikerdoc, we love the lives we lead.

Both the NRA and PETA tell ouright lies, and they know it. And I don't mean little white lies.

The NRA knows as well as we do that there's a relatively new younger urban demographic that is deadly and foolhardy with any firearm.

PETA also knows that many people (not counting athletes and healthy weekend warriors) find that meat is an essential component in numerous diets.

In fact, most of the old hands here know which of us are bald-faced liars, and we seek the higher existence as a group.

Then again, there are tales of 175 MPH Sportsters told at campfires at Buffalo Chip...

Deanimator
August 13, 2008, 12:52 PM
The NRA knows as well as we do that there's a relatively new younger urban demographic that is deadly and foolhardy with any firearm.
You can say the same thing about being "deadly and foolhardy" with the vote.

Got a solution to either that doesn't threaten EVERYBODY'S rights?

hankdatank1362
August 13, 2008, 12:54 PM
But I must admit freely, most of you (and I mean this politely) will never be able to handle a Harley--and in the demographic of those who can, just about no one will be able to live the lifestyle.

Is that a premonition of the economic positions you see us acheiving (or failing to) in the near future, or something else? Just curious.

NRA= Better than nothing, at least they're on the right side

PETA= Ignorant hippies, at least they have some really hot chicks for publicity

NAMBLA= Only exist because it's illegal to shoot them

RP88
August 13, 2008, 12:59 PM
my favorite radio station has an annual fishing tournament that launches and weighs in right next to the PETA building. You can guess what kind of antics occur in an attempt to spite them, both actively and passively

redneckdan
August 13, 2008, 01:01 PM
No contest. PETA encourages domestic terrorism. Don't think so? Ever heard of Earth Liberation Front? They were torching subdivisions out west, til some contractor got one with a shotgun. ELF gets a major portion of their funding from PETA

arjppj
August 13, 2008, 01:06 PM
North American Man Boy Love Association?
National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes?
Sorry, those you watch south park get it. Peta is worse becuase they want you to believe what they believe. NRA just wants rights kept as rights.

.cheese.
August 13, 2008, 01:08 PM
I will watch, and will have some Percoset ready for the ensuing headache.

Soybomb
August 13, 2008, 01:13 PM
PETA is fairly well known to use violent tactics that put lives at risk. I don't think its any contest.

The Tourist
August 13, 2008, 01:24 PM
Is that a premonition of the economic positions you see us acheiving (or failing to) in the near future, or something else? Just curious.

I want to address another aspect of the OP's question, but I'd like to answer hankdatank1362 first.

I believe--and have witnessed--many aspects of human endeavor in my lifetime, I'm a baby-boomer. Obviously I've known bikers. But I've also gotten a chance to meet real-deal Spec Ops guys, real hippies on campus, protestors, and all ranks of LEOs, both good and bad.

For some reason (and I joke that bikers are born, not made) I easily and seamlessly slipped into the world of bike clubs. And yet--and please read this over again if there's any question--the pressure of finance and imagined failure was so great and cumulative it broke me. So bad I needed professional help.

In modern clubs we now have the "prospect system." That's a period of months and/or years where prospective bikers are evaluated for formal entry into the club of their choice where they "patch." And it's a rough life. I joined about the age of 19 or 20 and just about every seam and decorative patch on my colors has been re-sewn and repaired. And there was a human body inside there at the time.

Trust me, I doubt I could find one guy here who could do that.

Having said all that, my heart is softening to the plight of animals. Much of that thought is from my association with family pets and some witnessing their deaths and my wife's utter sadness.

I believe I have quit hunting, and I know for certain that I will never hold a varmint rifle again to thrill kill.

Yeah, I know of all the arguments. I wear leather, I eat meat, I know that South Dakota ranchers must protect livestock. Yada, yada.

However you rough tough guys, consider this. My SIL is a professional Red Cross nurse. How many of you can stick a needle into a human being. And I've watched my doctors cut into me. I watched as my "bone guy" slit my wrist wide open to retrieve a fancy-schmancy ten-penny nail that had slid under my skin, became hidden against bone, and needed a duck-billed pliers to remove by aggressive yanking.

You know that scene in The Terminater where Schwarzenneger fixes his forearm? Well, a real arm is bloodier, and filled with a lot more stuff.

I look at my little dog and I dread her trips to the vet--the needles they poke her with for legitimate reasons, and remember her cries.

You can fire a deer rifle, but you'll never be a biker. Different strokes.

hankdatank1362
August 13, 2008, 01:31 PM
My SIL is a professional Red Cross nurse. How many of you can stick a needle into a human being.

My wife just got a job in nursing. Before that she was a phlebotomist. I was her walking practice pincushion for months.

But, at least she's really good at what she does now, and can get almost every draw on even the hardest veins on the first stick.

myrockfight
August 13, 2008, 01:44 PM
I would say it is "interesting" that they chose the NRA against PETA, but it is more predictable than anything else. I would also say that they have the opportunity to paint the NRA as a organization justified in supporting the right of humans to exist through self-defense. However, they have already said they are both evil - it is just a matter of which one is more so.

Personally, I think it the person who dislikes humans more, will be apt to condemn the 2nd Amendment lobby no matter what the name of it is. Think about it. In practice, as evidenced in the past, the removal of the right/ability to defend oneself or other rights has usually been met shortly thereafter with the removal of other rights or outright death (as it was in the Jews case under the Nazi government).

In virtually every case in history, the removal of weapons signaled the consequential confisacation of other rights. Every dictator from Caeser to Stalin has used the power levered with the removal of that right to kill those dissenting or exact some terrible laws against which the happiness of the people ruled against.

So the 2nd Amendment, or any right to keep and bear arms, is essential to and the foundation of the basic human right - the pursuit of happiness. The writers of the Constitution understood and secured the foundation and defense of our rights as a whole. They knew the RKBA was essential to our success as a people. Otherwise, we would just be setting ourselves up for failure and creating a cornicopia of wealth and resources to simply give away to the first unscrupulous domestic "leader" from within or foreign power.

Essentially, the NRA is a humanist organization which supports every right essential and known to man, outlined (notice I didn't say granted), enumerated and protected by the words written in our Consititution.

Whether the NRA operates perfectly and without err (ie. trampling our other rights) is important and essential to the success of the organization. But to compare it to PETA is a joke - as every one knows because it is on the Comedy Channel.

PETA, however, does not support any human rights. I believe, as Deanimator said, "They don't love animals, they hate people, and it's in large part self-loathing turned outward." Whether it is a subconcious goal or not, many members would be happy to give up their own rights to help their furry friends. I have no problem if they want to do that, they can do anything they want as long as it relates to their personal situation.

The problem with PETA exists as it is trying to trample the rights of others. The organization is extremist and paints the rest of us as morally inferior. If you use or harvest animal products in any way - you are unacceptable and are considered "uncivilized".

PETA is therefore, an elitist organization whose express mission is to grant animals the same rights afforded to us as humans. This mission is often executed by breaking laws which are written for the purpose of protecting our rights as humans. But PETA doesn't care about human rights. They care about animal rights.

PETA's actions to punish those who abuse animal rights are understood. However, they actively try to mislead the public from the top down. For example, they target KFC because of the way chickens are raised and harvested.

What they don't tell people is that KFC has no more to do with bringing chickens to market than McDonald's, Public's, or you do. KFC, just like every other user of the resource, purchases chicken in the open market, just like every other entity who purchases poultry. KFC has little or nothing to do with bringing poultry to market.

However, PETA knows that most people don't know that and are knowingly and actively misleading their members and the public because KFC is the most recognizable consumer of the resource. In doing so, they make their members out to be ignorant and assume that you, as a consumer, are too ingnorant to figure that out for yourself.

PETA, actively and knowingly misleads the public and its members and is willing to trample, undercut, and otherwise diminish the rights of people to execute its mission.

The NRA's mission is to support the human right which acts as the mortar which holds together our rights as a whole. They do not actively work, as an organization, to mislead the public or put under foot our other rights to accomplish their goals. While this may happen at the hand of individual members of the NRA, the organization as a whole does not try to manipulate us by lying or otherwise misleading us.

Hopefully the Comedy Central show will have the same perspective and the goal of that particular episode is to draw people in and make them see and understand the point of our RKBA. In the meantime, I won't be holding my breath.

Thanks for the heads up!

SuperNaut
August 13, 2008, 01:52 PM
You guys are aware that this is a comedy program right? Quite funny too. When Greg Geraldo, Patton Oswald, and Lewis Black are on the show together it is pure gold.

bogie
August 13, 2008, 01:54 PM
I suspect that most PETA members have not been in close contact with non-pet animals.

I have been bit, kicked, stomped, butted, and **** upon by malevolent creatures.

I take great joy in a good steak.

SuperNaut
August 13, 2008, 02:01 PM
I suspect that most PETA members have not been in close contact with non-pet animals.

I have been bit, kicked, stomped, butted, and **** upon by malevolent creatures.

I take great joy in a good steak.

I spent no small amount of time on a pig farm and also derive much joy from a good chop. People just don't understand how big and truly malevolent (good descriptor bogie) a full-grown hog can be.

basicblur
August 13, 2008, 02:11 PM
You guys are aware that this is a comedy program right?
HUSH…I’m rather enjoying reading this thread from what was intended as simply an informational post! Some folks just don’t get satire…
I’m still expecting someone to flame me for suggesting the NRA (or PETA) is evil!

Quite funny too.
Then you, sir, are obviously a sick, demented individual…
I like that in a person! :D

BTW…since the comedy writers often look at things from a completely different angle, don’t be surprised if there’s not a line or two that make you laugh at it's simplicity when each side presents their case. If history’s an indicator, I expect a few chuckles from the PETA is evil lawyer in defense of the NRA.

Also, it never hurts to see what’s influencing the “other” side’s viewers that also don’t understand satire, and thinks the NRA is truly evil.

Deanimator
August 13, 2008, 02:12 PM
However you rough tough guys, consider this. My SIL is a professional Red Cross nurse. How many of you can stick a needle into a human being.
I stick a needle into MYSELF every day.

Until a few months ago, I stuck a needle into myself FOUR times a day.

I guess I really AM a "rough tough guy", huh?

telomere
August 13, 2008, 02:13 PM
Neither group is evil.
More like disingenuous, and hypocritical, but not evil.

People Eating Tasty Animals
Wow that's a good one guys, did you come up with that yourselves?
Everybody knows PETA is hypocritical, so what? Are all hypocrites evil? Or just the ones you don't agree with? Tsey are a welfarist machine, too often in it for the money. If they really wanted people to stop mistreating animals, why are they lavishing praise on KFC for being less horrible to chickens? If you let people get away with being slightly more humane, why would they stop the abuse altogether. Use slavery again as the example. Would being nicer to slaves be better? Of course. But then how could you talk them out of slavery altogether?

4v50 Gary - Just because something is normal does not make it right, slavery being the most obvious point. Would you make the argument that slavery abolitionists were "defying normal human conduct and out of touch with reality." ? I would love it if you would try.
Also, the right to bear arms, and your supposed right to self defense are not the same thing. Your right to bear arms lets you legally kill animals, not in self defense. In most cases firearms are not necessary to defend yourself.

Deanimator - "They don't love animals, they hate people, and it's in large part self-loathing turned outward."
That is total bull**** and you know it. Before you make obviously inflammatory statements, you had better be able to back them up. What evidence/ratioanle do you have for saying PETA(I am assuming you probably mean any animal rights advocate actually) hates people?

The Tourist - The NRA knows as well as we do that there's a relatively new younger urban demographic that is deadly and foolhardy with any firearm.
True. People got away from guns, and now can't teach their kids how to safely handle them.
PETA also knows that many people (not counting athletes and healthy weekend warriors) find that meat is an essential component in numerous diets.
False. Meat is not an essential part of a diet, unless you live in the Arctic or some impoverished nation. In any industrialized society, a completely healthy diet can be easily obtained with the use of no animal products.

myrockfight - PETA is therefore, an elitist organization whose express mission is to grant animals the same rights afforded to us as humans.
Elitist, possibly.
Granting animals all the same rights as humans, not true. No matter how many times people like you say that, it does not make it true. Do you really think the right to bear arms is trying to be extended to primates, or any other animal. You know thats crap, so why do you make false statements eluding to this?

Deanimator
August 13, 2008, 02:13 PM
People just don't understand how big and truly malevolent (good descriptor bogie) a full-grown hog can be.
I've seen Rosie O'Donnell on TV.

MakAttak
August 13, 2008, 02:13 PM
You guys are aware that this is a comedy program right? Quite funny too. When Greg Geraldo, Patton Oswald, and Lewis Black are on the show together it is pure gold.

My next comedy program will be about how YOU (dear reader) are a child molester!

HILARITY will ensue.

Do you find this idea offensive?

Then perhaps you should reconsider what you call "comedy."

Drgong
August 13, 2008, 02:18 PM
Hogs can be evil if they set there mind to it.

There IS a major disconnect from food production to the majority of the people who buy food, they have no idea how it comes about except they "get it at the supermarket..."

Joe Demko
August 13, 2008, 02:20 PM
You can fire a deer rifle, but you'll never be a biker. Different strokes.

Right. Different strokes. In my case, I love motorcycles and the riding of them. I got my first when I was 11 and I've owned a bunch. OTOH, I am indifferent to "bikers" and their "lifestyle," at best.
My enjoyment comes from riding the machine alone; not from dressing like one of the Village People or being around other people on motorcycles.
YM obviously does V.

jackdanson
August 13, 2008, 02:24 PM
I'm a vegetarian and I hate peta, they are a bunch of left wing loons.. you eat what you want to eat, I'll eat what I want eat, this is America! (I'll live longer and healthier than you anyway, heh had to throw something in there)

The one thing I don't like is that RKBA is always mixed up in hunting... the 2nd amendment ain't about deer hunting or sport shooting.

Deanimator
August 13, 2008, 02:27 PM
Deanimator - "They don't love animals, they hate people, and it's in large part self-loathing turned outward."
That is total bull**** and you know it. Before you make obviously inflammatory statements, you had better be able to back them up. What evidence/ratioanle do you have for saying PETA(I am assuming you probably mean any animal rights advocate actually) hates people?
It's total truth. I used to spend a LOT of time in usenet talking to those dolts. You've probably never even heard of usenet talk.politics.animals. PETA fanatics are every bit as maliciously dishonest as any Holocaust denying neo-Nazi or NAMBLA member. It's not just that they have a disdain for the truth, they have an incandescent HATRED for it as a concept. No deception, sophistry or outright lie is too stupid for them to pass up. They're despicable cowards who scream at and frighten small children who want to sing the Oscar Mayer hotdog song in commercials. They equate the 6,000,000 murdered Jews of the Holocaust with frying chickens. In short, they are every bit as much the filthy degenerates as the NAMBLA members who provided the pedophile literature to the two freaks who murdered the Curley kid in MA.

As far as animal "rights", there's no such thing. Only humans have rights. We PROTECT certain animals for our own purposes... just as Federal law protects mailboxes. Neither have rights.

As for other animal "rights" people, if you don't want to eat meat or wear leather, DON'T. I simply don't care. Just don't attempt to interfere with my wearing proper shoes, eating a proper meal, or my hunting every twenty years or so, since you can AT BEST expect scathing mockery.

bogie
August 13, 2008, 02:28 PM
Sticking needles is easy.

What I hate is changing dressings, feeding tubes, cleaning drains, etc... I'm just glad it's not what I do for a living - I do training and graphics.

BTW, if any nurses are interested... www.woundcareconference.com

SuperNaut
August 13, 2008, 02:28 PM
Then perhaps you should reconsider what you call "comedy."

Perhaps not.

I tend to not align everything in my life along ideological lines.

myrockfight
August 13, 2008, 02:49 PM
Granting animals all the same rights as humans, not true. No matter how many times people like you say that, it does not make it true. Do you really think the right to bear arms is trying to be extended to primates, or any other animal. You know thats crap, so why do you make false statements eluding to this?

Uh. Animals can't shoot back?

I usually try to assume some intelligence and have some respect for the general audience which will be reading what I am writing. Therefore, I assume virtually everyone reading it can make the jump and figure out which rights animals can realistically assume and which they cannot.

I am not going to spell out the obvious for those who cannot figure it out. It is demeaning, disrespectful, and ignorant of those who post on this board, which I believe are of higher intelligence than most due to their understanding of the RKBA and the assumptions which go along with that understanding.

Even if you are just writing replies in threads, you have an audience as a writer. You may find it useful to assume a good portion of intelligence on the part of the audience also.


It's total truth. I used to spend a LOT of time in usenet talking to those dolts. You've probably never even heard of usenet talk.politics.animals. PETA fanatics are every bit as maliciously dishonest as any Holocaust denying neo-Nazi or NAMBLA member. It's not just that they have a disdain for the truth, they have an incandescent HATRED for it as a concept. No deception, sophistry or outright lie is too stupid for them to pass up. They're despicable cowards who scream at and frighten small children who want to sing the Oscar Mayer hotdog song in commercials. They equate the 6,000,000 murdered Jews of the Holocaust with frying chickens. In short, they are every bit as much the filthy degenerates as the NAMBLA members who provided the pedophile literature to the two freaks who murdered the Curley kid in MA.

As far as animal "rights", there's no such thing. Only humans have rights. We PROTECT certain animals for our own purposes... just as Federal law protects mailboxes. Neither have rights.

As for other animal "rights" people, if you don't want to eat meat or wear leather, DON'T. I simply don't care. Just don't attempt to interfere with my wearing proper shoes, eating a proper meal, or my hunting every twenty years or so, since you can AT BEST expect scathing mockery.


Deanimator, I couldn't have said it better myself.






I do hope the show is entertaining though, at least. Otherwise, it will be a complete waste of time. I'm a little biased against PETA, if you couldn't already tell, since I grew up on a farm. If they had it their way, we wouldn't have any farms that produce animal products at all. I have little patience for them and are quite willing to point out their flaws.

highlander 5
August 13, 2008, 03:20 PM
let's see IIRC a hunter was stabbed with a ski pole by a PETA member several years ago,they've pour paint on people wearing fur coats. In Boston,a couple of years ago they were terrorizing children when their fur wearing parent refused a comic book by screaming that the parents were murderers.
Understand I love animals and not necessarily to eat but when some long haired flea infested dolt tells me that an animals life is equal to a human I gotta scratch my head and wonder what planet is he from. If it weren't for animals a lot of people would be dead. Medical science has learned a lot from using animals for vary things. I do not condone some of the testing using animals but if a test on an animal could bring a cure for a life threatening illness the animal looses.

bogie
August 13, 2008, 03:22 PM
IMHO, they should insist that PETA members not use any medications developed since around 1900.

That'll take care of the problem.

Deanimator
August 13, 2008, 03:25 PM
I'm a vegetarian and I hate peta, they are a bunch of left wing loons.. you eat what you want to eat, I'll eat what I want eat, this is America!
I don't think that they even correlate to any right/left political spectrum. It's like trying to put Jeffrey Dahmer's or Ed Gein's cannibalism into some sort of political context. It's just a very focussed misanthropy and self-loathing cloaked in cynical platitudes about animals. By my observation of their chosen tactics, some not inconsequential percentage of them simply derives gratification from purely offensive and transgressive behavior, like the idiots of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Maplicito
August 13, 2008, 03:54 PM
False. Meat is not an essential part of a diet, unless you live in the Arctic or some impoverished nation. In any industrialized society, a completely healthy diet can be easily obtained with the use of no animal products.

It's not as easy as you make it sound. There are essential amino acids that you don't receive from an entirely vegan diet, so no, without adequate supplementation, you don't get everything you need. There are also things such as iron you have much more difficulty getting from a vegan diet - yes, there are non-meat sources that are rich in iron - but try researching heme vs non-heme iron to get a fuller understanding of what you get from different foods.

Yes, vegans often are healthier than the general population at large - but if you compare health concious vegans vs health concious people who use meat in appropriate moderation, I think you'd be surprised.

This isn't a hate on for vegans - a vegan lifestyle can be done - but it's not as simple as most people think. On the flip side - I see no reason for vegans to have a hate on for those that DO see meat as an essential part of the diet either.

I'm at work, so I'll leave the other comments for others to work on.

Rachen
August 13, 2008, 03:59 PM
It should be really:

"Whos more evil: Falun Gong or PETA?"

I think they are on the same terms, although the recent murder of an American coach in Beijing by a crazed FLG cult member really exposed the true nastiness and malignant intentions of the FLG.

How could anyone even THINK about comparing the NRA, a society of sunlight and truth, with PETA, one of the most pestilential and corrupt organizations in the world.

JohnBT
August 13, 2008, 04:25 PM
Is this the same PETA that kills THOUSANDS of animals and even throws the carcasses in dumpsters?

"Added to PETA's earlier numbers, these new figures tell us that since July 1998 the group has killed over 14,400 cats, dogs, and other pets in Virginia."

YES, it is.
__________

from consumerfreedom.com, but widely available. Try Google - 'peta kills animals'

Posted On March 3, 2006



PETA (Still) Kills Animals

2005 Virginia Records Show That PETA Killed Over 90% Of The Adoptable Animals In Its Care

Washington, DC -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has just updated its animal-control statistics for 2005, and the numbers aren't pretty. According to the Virginia state veterinarian, PETA killed 1,946 cats, dogs, and other pets last year, in addition to 141 wild animals. In 2005 PETA managed a startling 90 percent kill rate (worse than the 86 percent the year before), adopting or transferring out only 215 animals. Added to PETA's earlier numbers, these new figures tell us that since July 1998 the group has killed over 14,400 cats, dogs, and other pets in Virginia.

“Pet lovers should be outraged,” said Center for Consumer Freedom Director of Research David Martosko. “PETA relies on the good will of compassionate Americans who will be shocked at its hypocritical angel-of-death routine. There are hundreds of worthwhile animal shelters that deserve Americans’ support. PETA is not one of them.”

Virginia isn't the only place where PETA is killing animals. In neighboring North Carolina, two PETA staffers have been charged with felony animal cruelty and obtaining property (the animals) by false pretenses. Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook allegedly killed cats and dogs in the back of a PETA-owned van, stuffed their bodies into trash bags, and threw them into a dumpster. The pair is currently awaiting trial.

Martosko continued, “PETA’s president is on record saying that her organization is dedicated to ‘total animal liberation.’ And her employees are following through by liberating adoptable animals from life itself. In September, PETA bragged about bringing 32 stray dogs back to Virginia from the Hurricane Katrina disaster area. I’m guessing at least 28 of them have already been put down.”

Rachen
August 13, 2008, 04:29 PM
Is this the same PETA that kills THOUSANDS of animals and even throws the carcasses in dumpsters?

"Added to PETA's earlier numbers, these new figures tell us that since July 1998 the group has killed over 14,400 cats, dogs, and other pets in Virginia."

YES, it is.


Yes, it is the same PETA. And hopefully, in a conservative near future, PETA would be suppressed with utmost force, just like how we suppressed the Falun Gong in China.

These former PETA killers will hopefully be made to face a tribunal of military judges and sent to their maker by military executioners.

JohnBT
August 13, 2008, 04:30 PM
"The documents we used as a source for the information about PETA employees killing over 17,400 animals can be found at:

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf

These are copies of documents filed by PETA with the Virginia State Veterinarian. They are public records. It may be hard to believe, but we are not making this up."

Rachen
August 13, 2008, 04:33 PM
And in the near future, these documents will be read out to the public, as these heartless killers are being led to the front of the firing squad. And hopefully nobody is going to b*tch about "human rights", as there is only going to be ONE political party, and the heyday of liberal leftists are OVER:fire:

TxState101
August 13, 2008, 04:34 PM
Found this on my preferred radio station's website, thought it was fairly humorous.

PETA: Keep Illegals Out of US By Warning Them About U.S. Fast Food

Proposes posting signs on border fence
By Jim Forsyth
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
If People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has it's way, immigrants legal and illegal coming into the U.S. across the Rio Grande, will get a warning: Avoid U.S. fast food.



PETA today offered to buy ads which would be placed on that border fence now being constructed along the Rio Grande in south Texas, 1200 WOAI news reports.



"The ad would read, 'If the Border Patrol doesn't get you, the chicken and burgers will; go vegan'," said PETA marketer Lindsay Rajt, who made the offer to the Department of Homeland Security.



"Of course, we would have that message in English and in Spanish," she said.



A spokesman for the Border Patrol said no signage of any sort will be placed on the border fence, because it would limit officers' ability to see beyond the fence and watch what's happening on the other side. He also said advertising is generally not allowed on taxpayer-funded government projects.



Rajt urged the Border Patrol to reconsider, saying the money PETA would pay for the signs would offset the costs of building the border fence, and she said the messages alone might do the job the fence is intended to do...convince illegals to stay home.



"The greasy chicken and quarter pounders on this side of the border are packed with greasy fat and cholesterol," she said. "We think that's enough to convince anybody to stay at home.

I think they could all save a lot of money by moving out of the country instead of trying to advertise!

rainbowbob
August 13, 2008, 04:51 PM
And hopefully, in a conservative near future, PETA would be suppressed with utmost force, just like how we suppressed the Falun Gong...And hopefully nobody is going to b*tch about "human rights", as there is only going to be ONE political party, and the heyday of liberal leftists are OVER.

Stop it...yer killin' me! We can always count on you, Rachen, to add some levity to a serious discussion. Priceless!

Oh...one question...when and where did "we" suppress the Falun Gong? I just saw two of them demonstrating downtown.

Rachen
August 13, 2008, 04:54 PM
Oh...one question...when and where did "we" suppress the Falun Gong? I just saw two of them demonstrating downtown.

Sorry, I mean in China.

chris in va
August 13, 2008, 04:56 PM
Re the PETA topic...

Just a thought. Many of the 'rescues' they take in probably have really bad health issues. I suspect they're not able to bring them back up to speed and have to be put down. I don't see that mentioned in the article.

rainbowbob
August 13, 2008, 05:10 PM
And in the near future, these documents will be read out to the public, as these heartless killers are being led to the front of the firing squad.

Sorry, I mean in China.

Can I assume this answer applies to the above quote as well? As far as I know "we" also don't have firing squads for political dissidents - not even animal "rights" fanatics.

Rachen
August 13, 2008, 05:16 PM
Can I assume this answer applies to the above quote as well? As far as I know "we" also don't have firing squads for political dissidents - not even animal "rights" fanatics.

I know, but justice for victims is far more important than "human rights" for perpetrators. After all, "human rights" are to be reserved for respectable members of society only. Once somebody commits despicable acts, they lose all their rights automatically.

Justin
August 13, 2008, 06:13 PM
Done.

If you enjoyed reading about "Who's more evil-NRA or PETA?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!