Peta protest

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ingrid Newkirk said:
"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 said:
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.
 
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.
 
White Horseradish said:
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
 
CentralTexas said:
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
Nobody 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.
 
White Horseradish said:
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
 
shermacman said:
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
CentralTexas said:
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".
 
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.
 
CentralTexas said:
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.


CentralTexas said:
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.

CentralTexas said:
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.

CentralTexas said:
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?
 
White Horseradish said:
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
 
Justin said:
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
 
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 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.
 
Last reply as most of this

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
 
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, 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?
 
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.
 
Cosmoline said:
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top