PeTA = ************

[jonutarr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgRvYrYwrrQ

And trust me, what Penn & Teller revile about them is only the tip of the iceberg

Makes me think of of some primitive Religion that worships animals like gods :rolleyes:

I think im gong to buy steak and a leather jacket today to show my unsupport of these double standard peta freaks

[Foxglove9]

I love that Penn and Teller episode! I love that whole show, it's a shame it's not on anymore.

[clayj]

It was particularly funny/ironic when a PETA chapter here in NC got caught euthanizing animals they'd rescued from local animal shelters and then dumping the bodies in restaurants' dumpsters.

I'm all for ethical treatment of animals, but let's remember who's at the top of the food chain and who's more important. Most PETA members would tell you that it's wrong to sacrifice even one chimpanzee, even if doing so would help you develop a cure for some form of cancer.

[spicyapple]

Most of the protesters have no idea what they wear and the products they use everyday come from animals or produced with animal labour.

P&T make a good point about animal rights. Once you grant them rights, they are required to follow rules (set by man, no doubt) and pay taxes.

[sierra oscar]

...but let's remember who's at the top of the food chain and who's more important...

That's the sort of thinking that is the crux of the argument. We are all animals and humans are NOT the top of the foodchain (this is still highly contested). All depends on ones spiritual and ethical position. All living creatures are equal according to my way of life - I don't understand how ppl can disrespect living beings for one, and secondly why ppl who don't agree feel they need to disrespect each other (others beliefs).

I really like this - don't know who the person is - but it's pretty cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24

[MarkCollette]

Most people who have pets love their pets and feed them well and take care of them, and even pay for operations etc. Nice to know PETA wants to rescue pets from that kind of horrible situation.

[clayj]

Most people who have pets love their pets and feed them well and take care of them, and even pay for operations etc. Nice to know PETA wants to rescue pets from that kind of horrible situation.Heh.

New rule: If you join PETA, you have to leave modern civilization and live out in the wilderness... because there is virtually NO aspect of our civilization that doesn't adversely impact on animals (including the animals known as homo sapiens) in some way.

The reality is that PETA is the sort of thing that's only possible because of the relative decadence of our society. People nowadays are allowed to bitch about EVERYTHING, even the stuff that allows them to live in the manner to which they've become accustomed.

[sierra oscar]

Most people who have pets love their pets and feed them well and take care of them, and even pay for operations etc. Nice to know PETA wants to rescue pets from that kind of horrible situation.

ohh..you sound like such a sweetheart :)

[spicyapple]

All living creatures are equal according to my way of life - I don't understand how ppl can disrespect living beings for one
I don' think it's a matter of disrespect. If I was living in the wilderness and I was really really hungry dying of starvation, I wouldn't hesitate to eat you.

People don't kill their own food; it happens mainly out of sight, so our modern living shields us from what some consider cruel. But it isn't. Should we put lions on trial for killing gazelles?

As for animal testing... would peta prefer people testing? Without animal testing for drugs and cures for diseases, we wouldn't live past the age of 40 and women would walk around looking very homely. :o

[sierra oscar]

I don' think it's a matter of disrespect. If I was living in the wilderness and I was really really hungry dying of starvation, I wouldn't hesitate to eat you.

People don't kill their own food; it happens mainly out of sight, so our modern living shields us from what some consider cruel. But it isn't. Should we put lions on trial for killing gazelles?

As for animal testing... would peta prefer people testing? Without animal testing for drugs and cures for diseases, we wouldn't live past the age of 40 and women would walk around looking very homely. :o

This isn't the point I am making, you are mixing a number of different issues here - it's about intent.... survival is one thing, testing human medicines on animals for human benefit is also another. It's a bit hard to really discuss an issue I brought up in my earlier post, with now new issues on top of that - with you quoting my original post. These things are complex (like anything) - to further cross issues sort of defeats the purpose.

[dpaanlka]

My uncles liked to shoot squirrels from their back porch.

Totally inappropriate post!

:eek:

[pseudobrit]

PETA is an organisation with good intentions horribly executed.

[Ugg]

Most people who have pets love their pets and feed them well and take care of them, and even pay for operations etc. Nice to know PETA wants to rescue pets from that kind of horrible situation.


Then why are the animal sheters filled to overflowing?

[dpaanlka]

Then why are the animal sheters filled to overflowing?

How do you know that represents most people?

[elfin buddy]

PETA is an organisation with good intentions horribly executed.

Ah, so that makes them like Greenpeace, eh? ;)

I think PeTA would do a lot more good if they were less "in your face" with respect to their campaigning. Almost comes off as smug and holier-then-thou. Actually, that's exactly how they come off.

[zap2]

Most PETA members would tell you that it's wrong to sacrifice even one chimpanzee, even if doing so would help you develop a cure for some form of cancer.


Yes....I don't think animals should be tested on for make up , body wash ect, but for things like cancer and AIDS research, it has to be done. Its basic math(even assuming humans are equal to other animals) test 100 monkeys, but cure AIDS and safe millions, possibly billions. It doesn't take a a genus to make the right move

[Chundles]

Then why are the animal sheters filled to overflowing?

Because they're too small. If they were bigger they'd have more room. Same with prisons - they're too small and we haven't figured out that the answer is to make a bigger prison. Trust me, I know all about big prisons ;) .
Wonder how many fish I'll catch with this?

[zimv20]

It doesn't take a a genus
nice pun.

[poppe]

I thing the biggest problem is that any extremest group is that they don't try to educate facts, they expect domatic followings. And that is the biggest problem. They have pre written letters (as many organizations do) to be given to government officials, and inform readers of such views in ways of not open to take as your own judgement, but as you are not a good person unless you do. --- This goes for really any extreme organization though...

What time and what channel is Bullsh^it on? That was really funny

P.S. I'm down with saving any animals from being wrongly treated! But I'm not down for bending the truth like PETA has done to make what is factual look completely worse... I especially hate the Milk Cows debate about how Milk Cows can't move, can't lay down, can't do anything at all what so ever. Now thats Bullsh^t... How do I know because I grew up on a farm!!!

Thats not to say that some are wrongfully treating animals, but on my farm and the few hundred of farming families I knew, I know aren't! And I dont see the logic/validity behind most of PETA's claims.

[elfin buddy]

Yes....I don't think animals should be tested on for make up , body wash ect, but for things like cancer and AIDS research, it has to be done. Its basic math(even assuming humans are equal to other animals) test 100 monkeys, but cure AIDS and safe millions, possibly billions. It doesn't take a a genus to make the right move

If we are assuming that humans are only equal to other animals, then how does it make sense for us to do testing on them to cure one of our diseases? Rather than sacrifice 100 monkeys to save millions of humans, why not sacrifice 100 humans?

[Desertrat]

Ingrid Newkirk is reputedly dragging in a few tens of millions of dollars per year with her PETA shtick. Nice work if you can get it. Anybody bright enough to put that sort of PR deal together is way too bright to actually believe such an idiocy as, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."

Waynbe Purcelles with Humane Society of the Uninted States (HSUS) isn't much better, although he comes across as believing his BS.

'Rat

[poppe]

Yes....I don't think animals should be tested on for make up , body wash ect, but for things like cancer and AIDS research, it has to be done. Its basic math(even assuming humans are equal to other animals) test 100 monkeys, but cure AIDS and safe millions, possibly billions. It doesn't take a a genus to make the right move

Just curious. What happens when they are testing body wash or detergent on a say a dog? Do they just pour, lather, rinse and repeat? And if so would that not make the dogs happy? My dogs love any bath that you can throw at them

[The Mad Kiwi]

Just curious. What happens when they are testing body wash or detergent on a say a dog? Do they just pour, lather, rinse and repeat? And if so would that not make the dogs happy? My dogs love any bath that you can throw at them

Typically the testing would involve injecting the agent (wash soap whatever) directly into the bloodsteam, rubbing the wash into the eyes repeatedly for days with the eyes held open so the animal can't blink to wash the agent away, forcing ingestion, of course the animal would be strapped down the entire time, then when the testing has finished the animal will be destroyed.

[Sun Baked]

I'll give money to PETA when they can finally teach dogs to use condoms.

[poppe]

Typically the testing would involve injecting the agent (wash soap whatever) directly into the bloodsteam, rubbing the wash into the eyes repeatedly for days with the eyes held open so the animal can't blink to wash the agent away, forcing ingestion, of course the animal would be strapped down the entire time, then when the testing has finished the animal will be destroyed.

Oh interesting...

[AP_piano295]

Typically the testing would involve injecting the agent (wash soap whatever) directly into the bloodsteam, rubbing the wash into the eyes repeatedly for days with the eyes held open so the animal can't blink to wash the agent away, forcing ingestion, of course the animal would be strapped down the entire time, then when the testing has finished the animal will be destroyed.

...yeah...i'm not really cool with that

important and completely necessary medical testing i can live with shampooing the dog in they eye for two weeks is not cool.

[Agathon]

It was particularly funny/ironic when a PETA chapter here in NC got caught euthanizing animals they'd rescued from local animal shelters and then dumping the bodies in restaurants' dumpsters.

I'm all for ethical treatment of animals, but let's remember who's at the top of the food chain and who's more important. Most PETA members would tell you that it's wrong to sacrifice even one chimpanzee, even if doing so would help you develop a cure for some form of cancer.

Really?

Most animal rights activists I know don't mind so much about us treating worms and beetles badly. They only care about sentient animals.

Frankly, chimpanzees and gorillas are probably more sentient than human neonates. Ought we to allow medical testing to be conducted on newborn children?

Being prejudiced against animals seems no different than being prejudiced against black people or Jews. As we learn more about animals, we discover that many of them possess faculties much like our own.

I'm personally quite reluctant to allow the mistreatment of animals like chimpanzees or orangutans. If you have interacted with such animals, it becomes painfully obvious that they are persons, albeit not very bright ones. Last week it was revealed that elephants are self aware.

I haven't seen one sensible argument against this that doesn't come down to "they aren't human". But sharing human DNA does not rights confer. A severed hand has no rights, and neither do dead bodies. People in persistent vegetative states probably don't either.

[MarkCollette]

Then why are the animal sheters filled to overflowing?

Because most pets breed in litters. So it only takes one irresponsible person to result in 6+ unwanted animals. And if those breed, then you conceivable have 36+ unwanted animals, all in just a matter of months.

Two solutions to this problem:

A. Bring down costs and effort to neuter/spay pets. This could be done by focussing R&D on animal birth control measures.

B. People have pets which reproduce in single units, and not large litters. This could be done by encouraging sales of pets already like this, or using artificial selection to breed small litter animals. Note that breeders probably won't want this, and it would be difficult for market forces to support this.

[Sdashiki]

IF YOU OWN A PET, ANY PET, BE IT FURRY, SCALY OR FEATHERED, AND YOU ALSO "BELONG" TO PETA, THEN PLEASE TURN IN YOUR PETA MEMBERSHIP.

PETA members are NOT supposed to have household pets, ever, none.

If you gave money to PETA because YOU like animals, and are an "animal person", you were deceived.


If you breed your dog or cat, shame on you. There are bazillions of animals already here that need homes, you selfish bastards (not just breeders but the at home "ooooh my dog is so cute i want more of em", people)

[hulugu]

I'm all for ethical treatment of animals, but let's remember who's at the top of the food chain and who's more important.

That's right and all the animals know it, except for those renegades like tigers, bears, lions, alligators (crocs, too!), sharks, etc. Hey, wait a minute.

In the right situation, in other words armed, human beings are at the top of the food chain. However, naked and faced with a hungry predator we're kibble.

Also, remember that food chain means something feeds on us eventually, even it means the worms and bacteria at our death.

PeTA was a good organization that has been overtaken by idiots and nutcases. Arguing for ethical treatment of livestock is a good thing. Arguing for specific and reasonable controls on the use of animals for testing drugs and medicines is a good thing.

[hulugu]

I'll give money to PETA when they can finally teach dogs to use condoms.

:eek: :D


I'd be happy if PeTA could teach most humans to use condoms. ;)

[The Mad Kiwi]

B. People have pets which reproduce in single units, and not large litters. This could be done by encouraging sales of pets already like this, or using artificial selection to breed small litter animals. Note that breeders probably won't want this, and it would be difficult for market forces to support this.

The pet breeding industry is quite a nasty one, most pet shops get their animals from people who breed the animals in their homes or garages without permits, in the most appalling of conditions etc.

I think PETA do a pretty good job, which is raising awareness of how animals are treated and where products we purchace come from. Foie Gras for example or mulesing spring to mind.
If they weren't so extreme I think the main stream media would just ignore them.

I certainly don't agree with everything they do but I'd class myself as a supporter of theirs. I don't agree with everything the people I vote for do, and neither do I agree with all the things the companies I invest in do. You've got to be somewhat pragmatic about these things.

[jelloshotsrule]

IF YOU OWN A PET, ANY PET, BE IT FURRY, SCALY OR FEATHERED, AND YOU ALSO "BELONG" TO PETA, THEN PLEASE TURN IN YOUR PETA MEMBERSHIP.

PETA members are NOT supposed to have household pets, ever, none.


got a link? just curious..

[benthewraith]

IF YOU OWN A PET, ANY PET, BE IT FURRY, SCALY OR FEATHERED, AND YOU ALSO "BELONG" TO PETA, THEN PLEASE TURN IN YOUR PETA MEMBERSHIP.

PETA members are NOT supposed to have household pets, ever, none.

If you gave money to PETA because YOU like animals, and are an "animal person", you were deceived.


If you breed your dog or cat, shame on you. There are bazillions of animals already here that need homes, you selfish bastards (not just breeders but the at home "ooooh my dog is so cute i want more of em", people)

Having a pet, according to PETA, is enslavement. Therefore, it's not ethical or right to have pets (according to them). One wonders what ever happened to "man's best friend". And what happens if an animal takes a liking to you? Cats have been known to force themselves on new homes because they take a liking to you and you are nice and friendly to the animal.

[jelloshotsrule]

Having a pet, according to PETA, is enslavement. Therefore, it's not ethical or right to have pets (according to them). One wonders what ever happened to "man's best friend". And what happens if an animal takes a liking to you? Cats have been known to force themselves on new homes because they take a liking to you and you are nice and friendly to the animal.

actually, you need to read their statement on the matter a bit more closely, both of you.. i don't see enslavement at all. in fact, i see that they have a problem with the practice as it encourages breeding. however, given that many animals are without proper homes and have over time lost ability to survive on their own in the wild, they encourage adopting, in 2s if possible...

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

[devilot]

actually, you need to read their statement on the matter a bit more closely, both of you.. <snip>

http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.aspThanks for finding that link. I'll quote the part I found most relevant: Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world. I am glad that I adopted two cats (a brother and sister) together because they really do keep each other company when I'm not around. And I did get both of them fixed (I would have anyway, but it was also part of the adoption contract I signed).

[Desertrat]

devilot, that's a change from Newkirk's early years, here, after she came from England. Back then, she was publicly stating her opposition to ownership of pets, the livestock industry in its entirety, and any other aspect of "animal slavery". If "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" is to have any consistency as regards human actions, then no more eating of meat, or having pets. You can't have it both ways. And them's her words.

That's a helluva lot different from not approving of the testing of cosmetics on animal's eyes and other non-disease-related research. But Newkirk is on record as opposing such research as has led to anti-venin for snakebite, or insulin for diabetes.

The main reason I've paid attention to her is that of keeping a wary eye out on idiots in general. I'm a hunter, and I guess you could imagine how horrible she thinks that us nasty Bambi-killers are.

But I'm a natural-food freak.

'Rat

[solvs]

PETA is an organisation with good intentions horribly executed.
As are a lot of hypocritical pro-environment organizations.

Which is why all environmentalism is bad, somehow.

[thewhitehart]

I tend to disagree with the ideological reasoning of groups like PETA, who tend to try and apply a broad and objective definition of 'equality' between humans, and beings that are incapable of understanding such concepts, or incapable of enjoying the potential freedoms of such concepts on a scale that only we as humans can define. Animals do not have 'rights', because the concept of having 'rights' is an entirely human invention. Can we ethically grant rights to creatures that have no capacity to understand them? I agree, however, that self-awarness breeds empathy, and empathy is what drives our species to even display any tendency to care for the welfare and 'happiness' of other animals. If certain species possess a propensity for empathy, it is natural for humans to feel obliged to want to grant primates, elephants, and dolphins the 'rights' that we enjoy.

To cut this short, I feel that the concept of 'equality' depends on both species understanding the others' right to equal treatment under the terms defined. As a human being, I deplore the idea of causing harm to another creature for profitable gain. I wouldn't use a product if I knew it was rubbed into a dog's eye for a week. But reason dictates to me that no animal other than a human has the 'right' to live, because they have no intelligent capacity to grant us the same favor. We all know that humans kill each other, but even the severely mentally challenged human, absent of the specific fault that caused his or her unfortunate situation, would be capable of understanding the 'right' for another human to live. As empathetic as primates or dolphins are, they cannot understand that, so they cannot have 'rights'. They may share our love, though, and in my opinion should, as they are empathetic beings. Yet they are not deserving of 'rights.'

And keeping dogs is considered slavery? The domestic dog has been domesticated for thousands of years. I'd wager that most breeds are genetically disposed to rely on us for survival.