PETA ad is back (Display likens animal cruelty to slavery)

[Moloch]

RICHMOND, Va. — One month after suspending a provocative display comparing animal cruelty to slavery, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is resuming the traveling show on the West Coast.

PETA came under fire after a man began yelling that the exhibit was racist during an Aug. 8 showing in New Haven, Conn. The incident outraged national civil rights groups, who said it demeaned blacks.

But after weeks of reviewing e-mail and conducting an online poll, PETA officials are confident the exhibit should continue, said spokeswoman Dawn Carr.

"What we kept seeing is that the complaints always boiled down to not wanting to be compared to animals — which is the very bias we're trying to challenge,'' she said in an interview Tuesday.

http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/09/14/news/the_west/wedwst02.txt

[marshall]

1. Tacky and tasteless

but maybe it'll go over better in Virginia than the rest of the country.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

226. PETA can be contraversial-Words like "tacky" ? it's not a gay fashion show

TACKY?
protecting those who can't protect themselves?

Animals deserve rights too---period-
and nearly anything it takes to wake people up out of "IGNORE"-ance is great!!
GO PETA !!!!!

[shamanstar]

336. gay fashion show!!

HA!! i was thinking the same thing...
go peta... controversy gets issues talked about.

[arwalden]

342. No... It Gets PETA Talked About... But It Doesn't Persuade People.

More people are likely to turn AWAY and pay NO ATTENTION to anything PETA cries-wolf about. Their reputation precedes them. Basically, if the PETA kooks are involved, then there's probably a LOT less to the story than they claim.

PETA is diluting the issues by attaching their kooky name and their wacko reputation to opportunistic publicity stunts, assault, vandalism, breaking and entering, and trespassing.

[aikoaiko]

343. Its true, I hear stuff like this, shake my head, and go to school to ....

rats through the operant chambers.

[donheld]

351. It's deeds like these that give PETA a bad name

It's really wrong of them.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

2. Oh, no, not this again.

Who the hell does the marketing for PETA?

[Lilith Velkor]

10. "appeal to paternalistic racism"

I'm sure it's in the marketing manual somewhere. :crazy:

[expatriot]

13. What the fuck ever. Have you seen the online exhibit?

Look at it before you comment.

Animal Liberation Project

The analogy to human slavery is not the only analogy made, it also compares the plight of animals to the struggle for women's rights, to the exploitation of child labor, to the atrocities against Native Americans, etc.

The critics of this display cherry pick the slavery comparison so people think we are only comparing animal suffering to the suffering of blacks under slavery and Jim Crow, but in fact we are comparing animal suffering to the suffering of all humans and the suffering of all humans.

[BikeWriter]

34. Animal suffering is to human suffering as apples are to oranges.

This is asinine. Free your cats if you truly believe in equality among the species!

[expatriot]

45. First of all, I think you misunderstand the concept of "equality"

Humans are vastly intellectually superior to other animals. No one is arguing that animals should have the right to vote or to drive or anything like that. All we are saying is that animals suffer under human exploitation and that they have the right to be from that exploitation.

Varying degrees of intellectual capacity do not diminish or intensify the degree of suffering.

Our cats are our children, they came to us as strays and the bond between us is one of companionship and fulfilling eachother's needs.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

56. THANK YOU Expatriot

You are giving me a reason to not give up on most democrats. After reading DU for the past weeks, I have long since distanced myself from any party due to a lot of the disguisting attitudes and opinions. People scream racism here, then think that, after the treatment of animals during the hurricane katrina disaster (hell DU's advertisement on the greatest page was how police officers were shooting dogs rather than rescuing them) was the most apalling display of incompetant use of 'superior intellect'.

It's people like you expatriot who keep me going when things look bleak, when even the most intelligent in our country can be so callous they'll take their arrogance as justification to allow suffering and turn a blind eye and a blind ear to the needy.

DEMOCRATS, for christ's sake! Democrats are the ones who are supposed to care about equality and help for minorities :dilemma: What has happened to our country? Where republicans no longer stand for republic and democrats no longer care about the exploited minority groups like homosexuals and the care of the most vulnerable of all, animals?

Thank you, expatriot, for showing me as strong a disguisting opinion I can see on these boards sometimes...there are still the good ones out there.

[MalibuChloe]

89. Yes, thank you, indeed

Just shocking, some of the comments on this board...sometimes I have to look at my url line to see which website I'm actually on.

For those who actually take the time to examine it, that ad is right on the money.

[expatriot]

137. dont give up on ANYBODY...

I like to think that the people who are sincerely offended and outraged by PETA's controversial exhibits and ads suffer from a denial and a over-defesiveness not completely unlike what they say causes homophobia.... you know the whole thing where they say the more homophobic someone is the more they feel like they have to over-compensate for their feelings of homoeroticism with anti-homosexual zealotry.

The same I feel is true with a lot (not all) of these anti-PETA folks (some have legitimate concerns about their strategy), many jump at the chance to blur their objections to PETA's tactics with the underlying message of living a compassionate life.They RAGE against PETA for having the GALL to make such a comparison because they need to desperately to justify their support of the industries of cruelty.

[flvegan]

149. Agreed.

Oftentimes, people see things how they want to, or want the outcome to be.

[MalibuChloe]

214. absolutely true...

meat eaters love their filet mignon, but would rather not think about how the cow was treated or slaughtered. my co-worker cheers for the war in Iraq, but she'd rather not see the photos of the dead bodies.

you're exactly right.

[BikeWriter]

59. Stop dominating those kitties, free them, and I'll stop eating meat!

See? Both facets of that statement are stupid, aren't they?

[zanne]

69. Try to act with compassion....

Even if you don't have any. You're not coming across as reasonable and intelligent... You're coming across as cruel.

[BikeWriter]

76. That's your opinion. In my opinion using animals is...

a biological need we evolved with. I have no desire to cause them pain, but I accept the fact without guilt I will use them.

[flvegan]

82. It's a want, not a need.

[BikeWriter]

95. Want, need, whichever.

I will continue to eat animals and use leather.

[flvegan]

99. I understand that. My point is that your point that

animals are "a biological need we evolved with" is crap. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[BikeWriter]

105. You don't see cats eating tofu. It's against their nature.

[flvegan]

112. You're not a cat. A cat is a carnivore, and you aren't.

You're an omnivore. You eat meat because you want to.

There are vegan cats, btw.

[expatriot]

117. For someone that was so offended by PETA's analogy

between animal and human suffering now wants to justify his behavior with the behavior of cats! :ROFL:

[BikeWriter]

167. I am an an omnivore. Even chimps hunt for meat.

Any vegan cats with long lives? Make the cats eat tofu, just keep it away from me.

[expatriot]

116. oh, so you are comparing yourself to an animal?

Some animals eat their own babies. Certainly you are not justifying humans do this.

Listen, we have the cognitive ability to make choices. Animal rights activists are not in denial of the existence of natural predation. As Tennyson said, "Nature is red in tooth and claw."

But we have the presence of mind to make the choice to opt out of this cycle and not to cause suffering.

If you choose to support the industries of cruelty and the habits of exploitation I think you owe it to yourself to accept responsibility for your choice and to stop blaming it on your "animal nature."

[Qibing Zero]

127. With the fury you seem to be posting at elsewhere in the thread,

it's amazing you missed my posts from much earlier. =P

[BikeWriter]

173. I accept and embrace my own nature...

I evolved as an omnivore. You deny yours.

[expatriot]

257. I take responsibility for my own evolution

I have evolved from an omnivore into an herbivore. It is my nature to me compassionate.

[LostinVA]

136. Cats CAN'T eat tofu, although dogs can live on it

Cats must get their protein from animal-based protein.

And, this is a way to raise and slaughter livestock in a much more humane way than most companies do it now.

[BikeWriter]

175. At a much higher cost to me becase you want it that way.

[LostinVA]

188. Presumptuous, aren't you?

You're saying I condone higher prices,e tc. The only reason they ARE higher prices for free range, etc., is supply and demand. That's it. Like anything.

You are just attacking everyone on this thread, even if they aren't arguing with you, which I wasn't. Relax a little bit. I was just saying cats can't eat tofu although dogs can, and that there is a more humane way to raise livestock, and it doesn't have to cost one cent more.

Jeez... am putting this thread on ignore...

[expatriot]

101. As long as you are accepting full responsibility for the choices you make

as consumer. You can't blame your biology since millions with the same biology have chosen to go 100% herbivore.

[BikeWriter]

108. So claim tofu is natural to you...

S'okay by me. I'm tolerant that way, but don't try to tell me I can't eat meat!

[flvegan]

114. Nobody is telling you that you "can't"

Nobody is trying to take away your right to choose your diet, including meat. It's your choice. We'd rather you made a more compassionate one.

[BikeWriter]

162. Then your aims and PeTas are different!

Their ultimate aim is no utilization of animals.

[Qibing Zero]

122. You make the correct argument

This isn't about what's natural, despite the arguments for such. It's about the fact we now have the technology to ensure that we don't go hungry, that we can have a balanced diet without animal products, and that we don't need their skins for clothing and what not anymore. Those facts added to the facts that many animals do indeed feel some sort of pain, and many are intelliegent (my example of the parrot that understood the concept of zero), actually help prove a point. Do some research on animal cognition.

Sadly, the only argument you ever get from PETA et al. is a preachy, shock value 'speak to your compassion only' rant.

[expatriot]

129. Wow. thank you very much. you're the real deal :)

And let me add a caveat, excuse me if I do zealously dismiss anyone who publicly disses PETA as an "enemy" of animal rights. I think you'd really like the Humane Society of the United States. Their philosophy is right on the line between animal welfare and animal rights.

[expatriot]

123. Are clothes and airplanes natural to you?

We are naturally naked and naturally flightless, but innovation has aided our adaptability and allowed us to be clothed and to fly.

I am not telling you that you can't eat meat. I am just asking you that you accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions to eat meat.

Go get yourself a free DVD
http://www.meetyourmeat.com

[zanne]

144. It's very difficult to come to terms with this.

I ate meat until I was in my mid 20's. It took alot of painful soul-searching to admit to myself that I just liked the taste of it. To give myself an "out", I used to characterize vegetarians and animal lovers as "kooks" and "idiots". And I wasn't at all shy about it. I know now that it was just some kind of emotional self-defense. After all, nobody likes to think of themselves as cruel, so they'll lash out at the accusers. I'm really glad that I went through the process, though. I feel alot better now, and so do the animals.

[Qibing Zero]

97. Only in certain terms.

It was a need in the past, but nowadays it's a want for some of us. Personally I think fighting hunger in the world is more important at the moment, evidenced by the fact we won't even help our own poor, let alone the starving peoples of the world, so I don't push the meat thing that hard (not to mention the fact a lot of less developed animals, especially sea critters, most likely can't even feel pain).

[flvegan]

102. I agree that fighting hunger is very important.

People are starving here and abroad. Another reason why I don't eat meat. Meat production is the most inefficient way to turn crops into calories.

[expatriot]

98. It is not a "need" for me and I have the same biology you have

Yes, we are anatomically omnivores but when you eat meat, you have to accept responsibility for making the choice to eat meat and not blame it on your "nature."

If you choose to eat meat, you should accept that you do voluntarily as a result of your own decision-making process and this decision was made fully aware of the industry and the practices it supports and the alternatives you have to eating meat.

It's that simple. If you accept responsibility for the consequences of your choice to purchase and consume meat that is one thing, but don't blame your biology when millions of others with your same biology have opted out or make a conscious effort to opt out.

[expatriot]

87. Beyond the philosophical arguments, it is about compassion.

Beyond all the philosophical arguments, it is very simple.

We are responsible for the consequences of our actions. Animal rights advocates are driven by the principle that it is immoral of us to cause the suffering of animals. Every choice we make is guided by this principle. If we buy meat, we are supporting the industries of cruelty.
With every decision as a consumer, there is a more compassionatg choice one can make.

It is this principle that guides us and it is this principle that we advocate. To us, there are no "losers" with an ad that compares animal suffering to human suffering. Of course we realize that it will be controversial but the fact that it will be controversial proves that it is necessary.

As for my companion animals, you seem to have an overly-simplistic view of the animal rights movement. Would my kicking my cats out be in their best interest? They enjoy a quality of life right now that they would be hard pressed to find anywhere else. For one thing, cats are very schedule-oriented animals. They are used to being able to go for "walks" every other night and sometimes opt out of it when it is too hot but always decide when to come in.


With animal rights it is all about the reduction/elimination of human caused suffering. PETA is a strong proponent of euthanasia of unwanted, suffering and neglected animals. If, for example, PETA was given complete control of the livestock industry tomorrow, we would not just open up the gates and be like "go! you're free!" Obviously that would be insane. There would be mass, humane, euthanasia of the millions, billions of livestock animals in the United States. Nor are we so impractical to think that animal control and wildlife management is not needed. Obviously. I think you are of the opinion that animal rights activists are complete non-realists, believe me we are very painfully aware of reality. Of course you have the delusional zealots in the animal rights movement as you do with any movement. But most of us are pragmatists. Passionate, but pragmatists.

[BikeWriter]

119. It is arrogant of PeTa to believe your killing...

is more humane than mine. PeTa places itself against some very basic instincts of mine. That's damned arrogant and rude.

[flvegan]

126. Instincts?

Your "instincts" are taught/learned desires at this point. Many desires can be damned arrogant and rude, yes?

[BikeWriter]

147. Yes, and PeTa gets in my way they won't like it.

They only think they have the corner on arrogance and rudeness.

[expatriot]

140. Our "killing" is to end the cycle of suffering, yours perpetuates it.

"PeTa places itself against some very basic instincts of mine. That's damned arrogant and rude."

Society and social causes have long accepted its role to "place itself against some very basic instincts" of individuals. I could give some examples but I don't want you to give you the pleasure of being able to say "How dare you compare meat-eaters to rapists and pedophiles!"

[BikeWriter]

142. Suuuuure, your killing is so much better than mine!

:rofl:

[expatriot]

148. yes, it is. your not making a very good argument as to why it isn't.

an emoticon is not a sufficent argument.


Let's just use the hypothetical (not realistic, of course) case that the United States moved to a plant based diet overnight. We euthanize all the livestock. Billions of animals put down. No more suffering.

Your killing. Not only are these animals live and are slaughtered byh the millions in horrible conditions every day, they are bred by the millions to support your meat consumption. So instead of billions of aniimals being put down to end their suffering, billions are slaughtered every year and new generations are bred and raised for the next generation of slaughter, an undending cycle of cruelty. So "your killing" is worse than "our killing"

[BikeWriter]

155. Neither is your saying your killing is better than mine.

:rofl:

[expatriot]

168. So you are making it clear you have no counter-argument

:rofl:

[SomewhereOutThere424]

93. What is intelligence?

You say that only humans are capable of intelligence, then you turn around and say that human beings are stupid for saying things.

Which is it? You're beginning to bore me.

[BikeWriter]

124. I bore you? Put me on ignore and don't post to me.

[LanternWaste]

291. I agree with you, Expat, but sometimes...

Sometimes, you should accept that there are many people who, knowing that they have no valid argument, will fight all the more harder to prove (to themselves?) that they actually do have one.

Or, to put it another way-- is the person involved in the discussion to learn new points of view or merely to defend a pre-existing point of view because they feel threatened? The first is a pleasure to debate, the latter merely an irritant.

Just some advice that may help you when talking to a brick wall...

Edited: Response directed to post #168

[zanne]

53. Unlike animals,

People have the choice to be ignorant and cruel.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

103. The only thing asinine here

Is the one who insists on talking with a shit faced grin instead of holding a serious debate with anyone.

You rush in, show no form of fact, talk arrogantly, then decide automatically you win because you value the importance of your opinion alone.

Tell me: if it's comparing apples to oranges, then why is it the only thing that devided human beings from animals is 2% of DNA? You at DU go on and on about stupidity in america and the world, then you cry that humans aren't revered as intelligent. Animals shriek in pain and you assume it's just an instinct. You assume they can't fear, they can't feel, they can't think.

Well guess what buddy? I've stared into the eyes of a dying fox, bloodied and beaten by one just as insensitive as you. Eyes are a gateway to intelligence, they are a window to the soul, and I've seen more soul in an animal than I've seen in MOST human beings. What they feel, what they think...the ones who cry because they miss them. If you can think that's right, then pack your bags and head over to bushco because you're JUST the type of person they want.

[arikara]

224. Apples and oranges are both fruit

And causing deliberate suffering to any living being is wrong.

[alarcojon]

37. Why assume they haven't seen the exhibit?

It's perfectly possible to see it (I have) and feel it is totally counterproductive.

[Lilith Velkor]

68. "paternalistic condescension"

That's it. Lump together the cultures of the oppressed (who kill and eat animals) with that of the oppressors. Why should it matter that humans treat each other like animals if they treat animals like animals?

[rinsd]

203. So its an equal opportunity offender...(nt)

[marshall]

248. PETA and Katrina

Where has PETA been with the hurricane relief? Are they going to step up and equate the very real animal suffering with human suffering? That would be a very bold move if they were to do that, especially if they did it RIGHT NOW when everyone is so emotional about it.

[MADem]

283. Probably some GOP operative--talk about "designed to backfire"

They lose the message when they do this stupid shit. There is a point when the "spell my name right" attitude to get press no longer works. Why don't they go back to having naked people in unlikely situations, like say, GOP fundraisers or churches or whatever?

Denigrating a segment of the population with a painful, still resonating history does nothing for their cause. Yet they do it anyway....

Stupid. I'm waiting for the release of the record "PETA DON'T LIKE BLACK PEOPLE"....

[MaineDem]

3. I think it's in poor taste (nt)

[alarcojon]

4. They don't learn

or don't want to learn. They have a tin ear for anyone who is not already in the choir.

Wonderful cause, terrible PR.

[pitohui]

5. always in bad taste

always there to make kind-hearted ppl look like shitheads

always there to cause pain & to divide ppl who should be pulling together

i've said it before, i'll say it again

peta is black ops

in a few decades when it doesn't matter any more the truth will come out abt who funded & dreamed up this crew of haters

[Robb]

6. Some people don't need any help to look like shitheads.

Fine cause run horribly.

[expatriot]

9. Because it compares human suffering to animal suffering?

The following quote from the article says it perfectly:

"What we kept seeing is that the complaints always boiled down to not wanting to be compared to animals — which is the very bias we're trying to challenge.''

[expatriot]

11. "haters?" wtf? comparing animals to humans makes us haters?

I sincerely do not understand why it offends people so much to be compared to animals.

People do not mind being biologically compared to animals in science class.

Researchers use nuerological testing on chimpanzees for research that will be applied to human nuerology.

People defend meat-eating with saying we have the anatomical features of a predator.

But god forbid we admit that animals are sentient creatures that suffer horribly from our lack of compassion towards them and exploitation of them.

[SemperEadem]

80. Why it offends me, as a black person

I sincerely do not understand why it offends people so much to be compared to animals.

IN the first place, we're not talking about "people"--we're talking about African Americans and if you have to ask "Why?", that means that you have no grasp (or you plain old just don't give a damn) of the indignities African American slaves went through.

"Why?" is the fact that my ancestors, not yours, were taken against their will from their country of origin, packed down in the smelly, unclean holds of slave ships to lie in their urine and feces for months on end during the voyage into the Diaspora until they got to America only to be sold on an auction block to the highest bidder (that is if they didn't happen to be so unfortunate to be on a slave ship carrying too many slaves and if they were, some were chained to an anchor and tossed overboard into the ocean so the ship was in 'compliance' when it got to port), and then robbed of their personhood, their humanness, treated worse than the family pet--they were branded like cattle; they could be beaten, raped, tortured, disfigured, their children taken and sold off like they were no better than a litter of kittens or puppies at the master's pleasure because they were property.

That is why it offends me.

animals are sentient creatures that suffer horribly from our lack of compassion towards them and exploitation of them.

Then PETA should have said THAT instead of sticking with the fcking comparison they did, knowing that it offended black people... but just like in NOLA, PETA doesn't care because it's black people complaining and black people don't matter in this country.

[flvegan]

110. That's not what they did.

PETA is comparing the intent, the mindset behind those that abused people, as well as they way they abused them to the intent and mindset of the people that do the same to animals, as well as how the animals are abused. At no point is PETA comparing a pig, cow, chicken or other nonhuman animal to an African American, or anyone else.

[Lilith Velkor]

115. I think that's why they brought the ad back

They saw how little the opinions of black people matter after Katrina. :cry:

[replacement]

134. I think your cynical use of the Katrina tragedy

and the social problems it revealed in order to baselessly smear an organisation you dislike completely undermines your objections to this campaign and is an insult to the human and animal victims of the hurricane.

[Lilith Velkor]

146. I didn't tell them to bring the ad back

But the timing of bringing it back is especially insulting. Pointing that out is not "baseless."

[expatriot]

145. It is anti-PETA spin that is a comparison of animals to blacks

if you watch the exhibit, it is an analogy between animals suffering and human suffering. It makes comparisons between the exploitation of animals and the exploitation of women, Native Americans, child laborers, etc. NOT just blacks. Look at the exhibit.


http://www.peta.org/AnimalLiberation/

[SemperEadem]

152. that part of history must not have been taught

when exactly were women, Native Americans, child laborers slaves in this country?

[expatriot]

227. they weren't slaves, they were exploited.... exploitation of humans

and exploitation of animals is what is being compared and the suffering incurred by this exploitation.

[MADem]

285. Valid points, I'm with you n/t

[pitohui]

301. agreed, thanks for yr post

my experience is peta doesn't give one tiny damn how hurtful & what bad memories are brought up by some of their ads

they just don't care

[bitchkitty]

18. Peta is black ops?

hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha!

Thanks for the giggle. I wouldn't go around saying that in public - people might think you're mentally challenged.

[replacement]

138. But remember, it's PETA that are the fringe lunatics--

--not the paranoids that obsess over and concoct bizarre fantasies about them...:eyes:

[expatriot]

7. Analogy:Similarity in SOME respects between things that are otherwise

dissimilar.

Again, here is the definition 1a. of an analogy: Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.


Here is one similarity between exploitation of animals and exploitation of humans: Both animals and humans have the capacity to suffer.

Here is another: Both animals and humans become commodified by their exploiters.

Here is a dissimilarity: Humans have a far greater intellectual capacity than any other known animal.

Like all analogies, metaphors and similes... the device is used to compare certain things that are similar but they are not saying it is the same thing.

[Qibing Zero]

19. PETA has issues though

Instead of putting out ads that immediately turn people off to the idea and make them dismiss it as completely insane, perhaps they could try and base their campaigns off of the facts and discoveries in studies of animal cognition. Maybe they could challenge what they so despise by arguing that humans' domain over animals came about because of a mix between survival instincts and displays of power, as well as the fact religions in positions of power have controlled thought to believe that man was oh so superior to other animals, and now that we're so enlightened, we should try to embrace the facts. Hell, wasn't it just recently that someone taught a parrot to understand the concept of zero? That's crazy!

But no, they'd rather play the weakest card they have in the most controversial way. Yes, animals are capable of suffering, and unnecessary suffering should never be allowed, but PETA also tells me my house cat suffers by being in captivity. Beside the fact my cat would not survive 15 minutes in the wild, I can guarantee you she's not suffering by being loved and waited on hand and foot. It would help if they practiced what they preach, as well.

[expatriot]

24. PETA is not opposed to responsible and compassionate animal companionship

The social relationship we have with dogs and cats was born from a mutual, "symbiotic" relationship. Essential to this is a focus on the idea of "companionship."

As for your other points, how is a visual analogy linking humans suffering from exploitation and animals suffering from exploitation "the weakest card."

What do you mean by this? "It would help if they practiced what they preach, as well."

[Qibing Zero]

51. Correct me if I'm wrong,

but the end result of PETA's world vision is the absence of even 'companionship' as you call it, and to do that, just how many dogs and cats must be spayed and neutered? Correcting the 'wrongs' by committing more 'wrongs' doesn't seem like the same mentality that tells me I can't boil a lobster, regardless of whether or not it feels pain.

The comparison in suffering is the weakest card because of the actual comparisons being made. As I noted in my last post, PETA decides it would rather use shock value than science, and that fact leaves them resigned to their 'press slut' status, and nothing more. Remind me, are they still doing the shots comparing animal suffering to the Holocaust?

Their always-present readiness to use tactics like that one, as well as terrorism, really paints an image of compassion on their utopian ideals. It's also worth noting that PETA actually puts down animals themselves, while berating humane societies for doing so. I guess they'd rather spend money on ad campaigns and research lab bombings than science or keeping the animals they take in alive. Also - what of the PETA members that take drugs like insulin that came about through animal research? I just ask - why so much indignation toward others when you can't even live (or die) by your own standards?

[BikeWriter]

78. Indeed.

[misha227]

297. And isn't spaying/neutering a cat or dog analagous to

forced sterilization? Where does PETA fall on that issue, BTW? Should we spay/neuter to prevent suffering of unwanted animals, or is that an infringement of the animals' civil rights?

I agree with some of PETA's immediate goals, but their vision seems to be that animals should have the same civil rights as humans, and I can't see myself supporting that.

[bitchkitty]

39. Could you please provide a link?

I wasn't aware that PETA thinks that cats should roam wild. I'm tending toward disbelief here, help me out.

[Qibing Zero]

57. It's slightly vague, but from what I understand,

either they want domesticated cats and dogs to roam the wilderness, or to be elminated from the pool completely by spaying/neutering them until they all die off.


"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.

[bitchkitty]

232. Okay, a couple of points:

She is not PETA, she is the Vice President of PETA. She may very well hold that opinion. I belong to a medical marijuana patient/caregiver advocate group. Most of the board, including me, thinks that the war on drugs should end. But that is certainly not our official position.

1989? That's one statement from 16 years ago - if that's all you've got for evidence, I have to tell you that is very weak.

[yewberry]

223. Actual statement from PeTA here:

PeTA makes no such assertion, but that idea is endlessly repeated.

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

[LizMoonstar]

8. sometimes people really make me wonder.

the antiabortion people making signs comparing abortion to the Holocaust, and now this - do people just not get that this is a BAD way to get people to listen to you?

I guess in the end, radicals are similar regardless of cause. Though, as BnR always says, Dems don't let our 'nuts' run the party!

[alarcojon]

40. Funny you mention the Holocaust

because PETA earlier had to apologize for an ad campaign analogizing slaughterhouses to the Holocaust.

Please forgive me if this image offends, but I want to emphasize what is going on.

[arwalden]

12. PETA = KOOKS

They do more harm than good when it comes to animal welfare advocacy.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

14. Too heavy-handed IMO n/t

I agree they will do damage to their cause.

[expatriot]

20. The "cause" IS to link animal and human suffering.

I don't see how an ad creating a visual analogy between animal suffering under exploitation and human suffering under exploitation hurts the cause of comparing animal and human suffering.

[Qibing Zero]

22. See post #19. nt

[expatriot]

25. See post #24 nt.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

273. Because it implies a moral equivalence between the two.

Whether that was PETA's intent, I don't know, but that's how it comes off.

[zanne]

21. Animal welfare activists can't afford to be "polite".....

I know what you're saying; that some aspects of the PETA organization are radical. The reason I'm a member of PETA is because I don't believe that we can sit around and patiently wait for people to "understand" that animals should be treated humanely. Some people will never understand that, because they don't want to. For the millions of animals who are euthanized every year to the species that will go extinct because of human activity, to the animals who are being tortured in laboratories as we speak, PETA, with all its faults, feels the urgency that many people do not. PETA alsos recognizes that when we use the word "animals", we are speaking of the human race also. As humans, we're not "better" than animals, and we don't feel more pain than they do. Slavery resulted from a misguided, self-serving and bible-quoting "belief" that black people did not have souls. It's the same belief system at work now. That's how animal cruelty can be compared to slavery. Besides, it sure got our attention, didn't it? Would politiely handing out pamphlets get that much attention?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

27. You are right that it

got our attention and we sure are talking about it! But they are probably preaching to the choir with most people here.

I agree with everything you say about animals. Everything.

And I personally do see an analogy of a sort with slavery.

But to me it is like trying to teach calculus to grade schoolers. They aren't ready. If the folks we are trying to reach have a worldview that has animals and people in completely different spheres, then we need to convince them that there is not so much difference after all. But making the leap to slavery has a couple of problems, in my opinion. One big problem is with the African American community. We were discussing this in the faculty lounge and 10 of my colleagues are African American. All then of them resented the concept and felt it cheapens the pain of their ancestors. So right there you alientate a large segment of the population.

The major problem, though, (IMO) is that this is just too huge a leap in thought processes. Maybe a spot showing the similarities between all mammals: showing nursing mother, parents raising children, etc. Then show the conditions the animal faces. No pamphlets, just persuasion.

In advertising, I think subtlety works better than face slapping and I think this otherwise well done commercial is a bit of a slap and will shut down more minds than it convinces.

Thanks for discussing this with me. I raise my own chickens and this is an important issue to me.

[arwalden]

30. "Getting Attention" Is Not The Same Thing As "Persuasion".

The folks at PETA are widely regarded as opportunistic self-serving kooks. They are vandals and criminals and they defend and advocate the same.

[expatriot]

16. For one, we are not animal welfare advocates....

we are animal rights advocates. Secondly, I do not believe making comparisons between humans and animals is "kooky," scientists do it all the time. Alice Walker, the famous African American novelist, compared the plight of animals to that of blacks under slavery, "The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men." Is she kooky too?

[arwalden]

26. Animals Are NOT People. Animals Do Not Have "RIGHTS".

Yes... Alice Walker is kooky too. Her attempts to elevate animals to the same status as people was idiotic. It was an absurd comparison.

<< Secondly, I do not believe making comparisons between humans and animals is "kooky," scientists do it all the time. >>

In what context do scientists "do it all the time". Can you explain what you mean by that? How does making basic biological comparisons elevate animals to the same status as people?

[expatriot]

35. The fundamental principle of the animal rights movement....

Here is an excerpt from an AR FAQ

The fundamental principle of the AR movement is that nonhuman animals
deserve to live according to their own natures, free from harm, abuse, and exploitation. This goes further than just saying that we should treat animals well while we exploit them, or before we kill and eat them. It says animals have the RIGHT to be free from human cruelty and
exploitation, just as humans possess this right. The withholding of this
right from the nonhuman animals based on their species membership is
referred to as "speciesism".

As for scientists comparing humans and animals, let's start with this...

[arwalden]

42. Animals Are STILL Not People.

The fact that humans evolved from apes does NOT make apes the same as people. It does not ELEVATE animals to the same status as people.

<< As for scientists comparing humans and animals, let's start with this... (evolution graphic) >>

Okay, let's start with that. Exactly how does your comparison--or such a comparison from scientists (oooo!)--demonstrate that animals are the same as people?

<< It says animals have the RIGHT to be free from human cruelty and
exploitation, just as humans possess this right. >>

Actually, they do NOT have any rights at all. Rights are for people, not animals.

<< The withholding of this right from the nonhuman animals based on their species membership is referred to as "speciesism". >>

So by virtue of the fact that I will not elevate animals to the same level as people, then I'm a bigoted "speciesist" :rofl:

[zanne]

52. This was the slaveowner's argument.

All you need now is a couple of bible quotes to round out your self-serving, self-righteous rationalization. Well, whatever balm you need for your conscience so you can sleep at night.... (And PLEASE don't try to tell me now that you "love" animals)

[arwalden]

63. Oh Good Grief, Zanne ... Give Me A Fucking Break!!

<< "This was the slaveowner's argument." >>

What are you talking about?

<< All you need now is a couple of bible quotes to round out your self-serving, self-righteous rationalization. >>

What are you talking about? How is my opposition to PETA "self-serving"? In order to be "self-serving" I would have to benefit somehow. How do you think I benefit?

"Self-righteous"?? Please try to avoid making it personal. I haven't attacked you.

<< Well, whatever balm you need for your conscience so you can sleep at night.... (And PLEASE don't try to tell me now that you "love" animals)>>

Again... you're attacking the messenger instead of the message.

[zanne]

66. You'll keep rationalizing...

I find your attitude as shocking as you find mine. I didn't realize there were still people with your mindset. I know I won't change your mind, because that would involve alot more than you are willing to give. And yes, I do mean "give". As long as you ignore the fact that animals feel the suffering we impose upon them, you're free not to care. One less thing for poor, misunderstood little you to have to feel guilty about. Good luck.

[Qibing Zero]

72. And until you stop the Ad Hominem,

and back up what you're saying with examples, facts, evidence (something!), how could anyone even attempt to understand where you're coming from?

[zanne]

83. You're going out of your way

to avoid dealing with the truth. After five years of the Bush administration, we all recognize a dodge when we see it. No, I'm not subtle, and as long as I'm still living, I'll defend animals with everything I've got. You only make me more determined. If you can't help with the situation, then don't cause more harm.

[Qibing Zero]

88. And now you attack someone who wasn't even in your conversation!

Are you arguing or attacking here? What's your point?

[bitchkitty]

250. Curious - where' s the attack?

I see disagreement, but not an attack.

[arwalden]

91. No... It Is YOU, Madam, Who Is Going Out Of Her Way

to engage in personal attacks against the messenger rather than to argue against the message.

[zanne]

94. Okay, arwalden...

You win. You've won me over completely, and if this isn't my last post, you'll be typing until tomorrow to try to get the last word. OK?

[arwalden]

111. I'm Not Trying To "Win You Over"

What evidence do you have that this is what I'm trying to do?

<< ...and if this isn't my last post... >>

But I can always hope.

[arwalden]

106. Zanne... Exactly What Am I Supposed To Be "Rationalizing"?

You make an accusation, but it's empty. You haven't followed up to show what I've done, or to explain what you mean.

<< I find your attitude as shocking as you find mine. >>

Actually, I'm sorry to tell you that I have no opinion one way or the other about you.

<< I didn't realize there were still people with your mindset. >>

Another personal attack. Please stop, Zanne. Try to argue the message instead of against the messenger.

<< I know I won't change your mind, >>

Well... first you actually have to TRY TO MAKE A RATIONAL ARGUMENT for your position instead of attacking me.

<< because that would involve alot more than you are willing to give. >>

Really? How do you know how much I'm "willing to give"? You continue with the ad hominem attacks on me personally. Why?

<< And yes, I do mean "give". >>

Okay. But what do you mean by "give"? Give money? Give away rational thought?

<< As long as you ignore the fact that animals feel the suffering we impose upon them, you're free not to care. >>

Please show where I've done or said such a thing. Please show how you've come to the conclusion that I do not care about animal welfare.

<< One less thing for poor, misunderstood little you to have to feel guilty about. Good luck. >>

You're not even TRYING to stay within the DU rules are you?

[expatriot]

55. animals do not have any rights?

Humans are a type of animal. Through evolution, they have an intellectual capacity unmatched in the animal kingdom. Are intellectual accomplishments have truly set us apart from the rest of animalia.

Now, just because non-human animals do not have the same intellectual lives as humans.

Animals have certain rights but not the same rights as humans, just as all humans do not all have the same rights. A mentally disabled human may not have the right to vote or the right to possess a driver's license.

It comes down to this.

We believe that animals are capable of suffering.
We realize that suffering is unavoidable in the natural world but that does not justify causing additional suffering through our exploitative industries.
We believe we have the moral obligation to advocate alterantives to the industries of cruelty and to teach and work for compassion in this world.

[arwalden]

85. People Have Rights. Animals Are Not People. Animals Do Not Have Rights.

<< Humans are a type of animal. Through evolution, they have an intellectual capacity unmatched in the animal kingdom. >>

They? So you exclude yourself from the human race? (Now THAT's what I'd call "revealing"!)


<< Are intellectual accomplishments have truly set us apart from the rest of animalia. >>

Deep. (I assume you meant "our".)

<< Now, just because non-human animals do not have the same intellectual lives as humans.>>

An unfinished thought? (Just because this... then something else. Or just because this, then NOT something else.) It appears that "something else" is missing.

<< Animals have certain rights >>

You keep saying that they have right, but they don't. What rights do they have? Who has given them these rights? On whose authority are these rights granted? Who enforces these rights?

<< We believe that animals are capable of suffering. >>

I do not disagree.

<< We realize that suffering is unavoidable in the natural world but that does not justify causing additional suffering through our exploitative industries. >>

Who gets to define "suffering"?


<< We believe we have the moral obligation to advocate alterantives (sic) to the industries of cruelty and to teach and work for compassion in this world. >>

So how does vandalism and assault and telling lies to children fit in with that philosophy? I'm reminded of the anti-abortion folks showing bloody abortion photos to children.

So no more milk? No more burgers? No eggs? No fried chicken? No down-stuffed pillows? No more crab-cakes? No more leather shoes? No more zoos? No circuses? No stupid pet tricks? No pets? No seeing-eye-dogs? Who gets to decide what's cruel and what's not?

[LanternWaste]

295. I think the argument, boiled down is this

I think the argument, boiled down is this:

"People are the only animals that have rights because we are superior and 'invented' the concept of rights."

The rest of it is justification and window-dressing.

Ask yourself if you're talking to a person who is even slightly open to a different perspective re: the particular conversation or if you're talking to a brick wall (regardless of how indignantly they may claim to be open-minded).

One's a waste of time, one isn't. It's saves me a LOT of time.

[old blue]

125. Replace "animals" with "blacks" in your post, ....

...and you would get statements that were used to defend the slave trade. That's precisely the point of PETA's ad.

(While I do think the analogy is valid, I agree that people are probably not ready for it)

[arwalden]

130. Here's An Idea... Replace Reason With Hyperbole In YOUR Post!

<< "Replace "animals" with "blacks" in your post, ...."...and you would get statements that were used to defend the slave trade. That's precisely the point of PETA's ad. >>

But animals are not people. Period.

<< (While I do think the analogy is valid, I agree that people are probably not ready for it) >>

Then it's obvious that your standards for judging the validity or appropriateness of analogies and other comparisons are exceedingly low.

[expatriot]

240. Animals are not people, women are not men and blacks are not white

There is obviously a crucial difference in the struggle for animal rights and civl rights for disenfranchised groups of humans. The struggle for civil rights for a disenfranchised group of humans you are not only arguing for "humane" rights but the legal recognition that these people have the same intellectual capabilitites and interests to be represented as full citizens in the eyes of the law.

Similirities: Resistance to civil rights movements came from a conservative mindset that resisted bestowing certain "rights" upon this class of beings because to do so they feared would force them to forego privileges they enjoyed over this class. It is not surprising that so many people refuse to recognize that because animals suffer and display an obvious intention to avoid this suffering that they therefore have the right to be free from this hell of exploitation, change is scary to people and people do not want to let go of the comforts and tradition of the industries of cruelty.

There is a huge disconnect that I do not see any argument bridging: while nearly everyone believes animals suffer under our exploitative industries of cruelty... so many people still believe we have that our continued exploitation of animals as commodities for our use is not immoral despite their understanding that it causes suffering.

[arwalden]

243. Oh Good Grief... Not This Shit Again!

<< "Animals are not people, women are not men and blacks are not white" >>

:eyes:

<< There is obviously a crucial difference in the struggle for animal rights and civl rights for disenfranchised groups of humans. >>

Ya think?

<< The struggle for civil rights for a disenfranchised group of humans you are not only arguing for "humane" rights but the legal recognition that these people have the same intellectual capabilitites and interests to be represented as full citizens in the eyes of the law. >>

More complex than that... but okay.

<< Similirities: Resistance to civil rights movements came from a conservative mindset that resisted bestowing certain "rights" upon this class of beings because to do so they feared would force them to forego privileges they enjoyed over this class. >>

Well... okay. See above comment.


<< It is not surprising that so many people refuse to recognize that because animals suffer and display an obvious intention to avoid this suffering that they therefore have the right to be free from this hell of exploitation, >>

Do you make this up as you go along? Do you honestly believe this crap? Astounding.

<< change is scary to people and people do not want to let go of the comforts and tradition of the industries of cruelty. >>

Horse shit. I'm not buying the Dr. Phil act.

<< There is a huge disconnect that I do not see any argument bridging: while nearly everyone believes animals suffer under our exploitative industries of cruelty... >>

You're making assumptions that are questionable and not yet proven.

<< so many people still believe we have that our continued exploitation of animals as commodities for our use is not immoral despite their understanding that it causes suffering. >>

Again, you're demonstrating that simply because someone disagrees with you (or PETA) then "naturally" (??) they must be "in favor of" cruelty to animals... and that they "want" animals to suffer.

[expatriot]

254. yes and no... it depends on what you disagree with "us" on.

If you disagree with us that animals have the right to be free of human exploitation then yes... you are "in favor of" cruelty to animals since we consider the breeding, raising and harvesting of animals for food, for clothing, etc. as inherently "cruel."

I mean that is a non-negotiable, it is the crux of the movement. Just as if you did not support equal voting rights for blacks you were automatically "in favor of" racist policies according to civil rights activists.

[arwalden]

263. I Maintain That Animals Have ABSOLUTELY NO Rights.

<< If you disagree with us that animals have the right to be free of human exploitation then yes... you are "in favor of" cruelty to animals since we consider the breeding, raising and harvesting of animals for food, for clothing, etc. as inherently "cruel." >>

You have a very broad definition of "cruel". I suspect that you'd also accuse me of 'exploiting' my dog every time I make her do a trick for me, or when I keep her on a leash. Keeping her in a kennel is 'cruel' too, eh? :shrug:

Do snakes "exploit" mice? Do eagles "exploit" rabbits? How "cruel" they are for suffocating their prey by squeezing it. How "cruel" to rip it open with razor talons and eat its beating heart while it still squirms! :eyes:

You've still never explained to me why you think animals have RIGHTS. Who gives them these "rights"?


<< I mean that is a non-negotiable, it is the crux of the movement. Just as if you did not support equal voting rights for blacks you were automatically "in favor of" racist policies according to civil rights activists. >>

This argument and comparison does not hold water. It carries no weight with me because people and animals are not the same. You can repeat it until you are blue in the face... and the only thing you will have accomplished is looking like a Smurf.

[The Straight Story]

346. Does this extend to spiders and fetuses???

Just wondering really where one draws the line.

There is a line somewhere eh? Where is it?

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

229. ALL CREATURES deserve rights- ALL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Racism- Specie-ism--both ism's describe a superiority complex---
"Separate-ism" is more likely word for what you describel--

have you ever heard the expression"we are all one"?
a pretty "liberal" concept isn't it !!

What's the difference between an animal and a human??
Give you a clue--
Invading Iraq with Shock and Awe was a real "human" act--

Would you want to start enslaving the mentally disabled a start eating the "non-functional" members of society-?

-Human DNA is no better than other animals' DNA-(in fact it's very similar)

Key word= "COMPASSION"
Can't be described "intellectually"-nor is it something that someone can be "persuaded" into --
It something that must develop on its own--

Good luck to us all in our development and our evolution as a "SPECIES"!!

[arwalden]

238. But People ARE Superior To Animals

<< Racism- Specie-ism--both ism's describe a superiority complex--->>

People are superior to animals.

<< "Separate-ism" is more likely word for what you describel-- >>

Animals are not people. Yes, they are separate. I cannot "describel" it any better than that.

<< have you ever heard the expression"we are all one"? a pretty "liberal" concept isn't it !! >>

Whatever point you're trying to make with that escapes me. Have YOU ever heard of the expression "we are the world"... but in reality we are NOT the world. The world is the world and we are people. :eyes:

<< What's the difference between an animal and a human?? Give you a clue-- Invading Iraq with Shock and Awe was a real "human" act-- >>

Again... what's your point? And how do you think it applies to this discussion?

<< Would you want to start enslaving the mentally disabled a start eating the "non-functional" members of society-? >>

:spray: Oh brother! Give me a fucking break! :eyes:

<< -Human DNA is no better than other animals' DNA-(in fact it's very similar) >>

So? What's your point? -- That doesn't make animals the same as people.

<< Key word= "COMPASSION" >>

Another key word... REASON. And another... "RATIONALITY".

<< Can't be described "intellectually"-nor is it something that someone can be "persuaded" into -- It something that must develop on its own-- >>

Some people may have difficulty, but frankly, I think it *can* be described intellectually.

<< Good luck to us all in our development and our evolution as a "SPECIES"!! >>

Indeed! Especially when we have a group of wacko kooks who want to elevate animals to the same plane as people and give them RIGHTS for Pete's sake. Amazing.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

253. says who? ??? You?? the bible???the pResident?? Who says this?

A very non flowing mind set would match a very non-flowing writing style like that--

<< enough of these brackets eh!<<
think about what I said--animals deserve rights-period l

[arwalden]

265. Dear Night Tripper... Here Is Your Reply.

<< "says who? ??? You?? the bible???the pResident?? Who says this?" >>

Who says WHAT? There were many statements in the previous post. Which one do you want me to elaborate on?


<< A very non flowing mind set would match a very non-flowing writing style like that-- >>

That would be a personal attack on me. Instead of arguing ideas, you choose to attack the messenger by making cheap shots like that. Nice.

<< enough of these brackets eh! >>

You know exactly what the brackets mean. If you don't like the way I format my responses, then don't engage me in a conversation. Otherwise... learn to COPE. Get over it.


<< think about what I said--animals deserve rights-period l >>

Animals should not be tortured or tormented or starved... but animals do NOT deserve "rights". Animals do not HAVE "rights". Animals are not people.

[kahleefornia]

303. has this been worked out already?

Maybe I didn't see it. You think animals are not people, even though people are animals? Or do you think that humans are not animals? I don't see how it can be one way and not the other. Either we are all animals or we are not. Saying "animals are not people" is the same as saying "animals are not dolphins". You can say that dogs are not dolphins...but you can't say that either is not an animal.

You also posted that "people are superior to animals". In what way? If you question who gets to decide what rights animals have, then I will question you who gets to decide what makes people superior.

In my opinion, people, who get to decide how animals are treated, therefore get to decide what rights they have. And,:

<Animals should not be tortured or tormented or starved...

...they have the "right" to not be tortured or tormented or starved then. We have decided. Most people agree.

<but animals do NOT deserve "rights". Animals do not HAVE "rights". Animals are not people.>

To me, you have not made clear your definition of "rights". Do you think a "right" is a sort of metaphysical thing that just exists? Or is a right something that people decide on, like a law?

[Name removed]

310. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lilith Velkor]

239. It something that must develop on its own--

I wonder why so many people think they can bully and ridicule others into compassion...? :shrug:

Oh I get it! :think: It can't be described "intellectually"! Nevermind....

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

256. It is something that must develop on its own--compassion=keyword

have faith- keep trying--Compassion is bound to manifest in an incarnation at some point--

[The Stranger]

179. Of course that is wrong. Animals are protected under law in every

jurisdiction. Sad seeing the need to assert that animals have "no rights", as if it somehow heightens oneself.

The reptilian vestige of the human brain (in some) still feels threatened by animals, as if we who dominate the planet must compete with them to survive. In reality, we are exterminating them. It is our moral responsibility, as stewards, whether we like it or not, to see to other species' survival and prosperity.

[arwalden]

242. Yes... There Are Laws And Ordinances That Prohibit Cruelty...

... but they are NOT RIGHTS! Animals do not have RIGHTS.

<< Sad seeing the need to assert that animals have "no rights", as if it somehow heightens oneself. >>

Nice ad hominem attack there. You're attacking me by suggesting that I (personally) have a need to "heighten" myself when I say that animals do not have rights. As if that's the ONLY reason I'd say such a thing... only a person who has such a low self-esteem would EVER say such a horrible, hateful and angry thing, right? :eyes:

I guess it's easier to take personal cheap shots instead of arguing your own point or arguing against my point. Stick to the message.

[Name removed]

302. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

311. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[misha227]

298. Thanks for the distinction...rights vs. welfare

I'm definitely in the animal welfare camp, then. (Not trying to be snarky, honestly didn't know there was a distinction.)

[Arkana]

279. No kidding. PETA is a detriment to their own cause.

They need to tone down the rhetoric.

[arwalden]

314. Ever Noticed How PETA Supporters Think That The Rules Don't Apply To Them?

Whether they engage in ad hominem personal attacks on this forum (which is against DU rules) or whether they are vandalizing, or assaulting, or slandering, or invading people's privacy, or trespassing... they are ALL above-the-law, and above-the-rules.

And then they wonder "why-don't-people-like-us"?

[Arkana]

335. Yeah...I mean, showering yourself with pig blood is going to get

the cameras to flock to you, but it's just going to freak a lot of people who might be interested in your cause out.

[T Wolf]

15. I find it sad that people who consider themselves progressive or liberal

(why else would you be on DU) seem to think that animal cruelty is okay.

The PETA ad states nothing but the truth - that message being that cruelty toward any creature is wrong. PETA does not say that humans and other animals are the same. They say that we should not abuse any of the creatures, including ourselves, that share this planet.

The defense of abuse of non-humans shown by posters here indicates to me that in many instances, we (libs) are not that much different from the pukes. If something does not affect us directly, we do not care.

[expatriot]

17. thank you, very true. people just have a knee-jerk reaction against

anything that compares the qualitive essence of the sentient awareness of animals and humans. People need to believe that there is "exceptional" difference betweeen the experience of animal suffering and human suffering so they can continue supporting the industries of cruelty. They can not admit that humans and animals both suffer, they need to distinguish between the two. It reveals just how relevant this ad is.

[K-W]

29. I find it sad that you would use such a blatent straw man.

seem to think that animal cruelty is okay.

Feel free to point out the post that argues that animal cruelty is ok.

It would be nice if we could all at the very least discuss the issue honestly.

[expatriot]

38. I am not the original poster but I would say

that those who get so upset by a visual analogy comparing human and animal suffering are dismissing the fact that animals suffer similarly from exploitation as humans do. You are offering an excuse for the legitimacy of the industries of cruelty.

[K-W]

46. Except that is rediculous.

So getting upset at an analogy comparing human and animal suffering is the same as desmissing the fact that animals suffer is the same as excusing animal cruelty?

Give me a break. I guess its ok to torture logic.

There are many honest rational arguments for this exhibit, casting those who dont like it as defenders of animal cruelty is not one of them. That is vicious and dishonest rhetoric that only serves to discredit legitimate arguments.

[arwalden]

33. Opposing PETA KOOKS Does Not Also Mean That I Support Cruelty To Animals..

what an absurd thing to suggest. :eyes:

<< The defense of abuse of non-humans shown by posters here indicates to me that in many instances, we (libs) are not that much different from the pukes. >>

Oh brother! :shrug:

[expatriot]

36. Then what makes us "kooks?" nt

[arwalden]

48. Self-Serving Opportunism That Draws More Attention To The Organization...

... than it does to any problems that exist. Are they so STUPID that they don't realize their own reputation for being KOOKS and CRIMINALS and LUNATICS? Do they not realize that their reputation precedes them and any mention of PETA has the effect of IMMEDIATELY causing people to turn up their noses and ignore whatever it is they are advocating for? Everyone knows that when PETA gets involved, it's nothing more than exaggeration and hyperbole.

If you send them money... they are wasting it.

[expatriot]

64. your post is very revealing.

-Are they so STUPID that they don't realize their own reputation for being KOOKS and CRIMINALS and LUNATICS?-

We realize that many people think this of us.

-Do they not realize that their reputation precedes them and any mention of PETA has the effect of IMMEDIATELY causing people to turn up their noses and ignore whatever it is they are advocating for?-

Do you realize how quickly PETA membership is growing and how large their budget is growing every year?

-Everyone knows that when PETA gets involved, it's nothing more than exaggeration and hyperbole.-

Everyone who believes animal suffering is "nothing more than exaggeration and hyperbole" I suppose.

[arwalden]

73. HUH? ~ Your Response Puzzles Me....

<< "your post is very revealing." >>

What does it supposedly "reveal"? Other than your insightful "ah-ha" announcement, you never actually say or point out what it is that was "revealed" to you.


<< We realize that many people think this of us. >>

So obviously they really don't CARE about animals, only about perpetuating the reputation they have. Self-serving.


<< Do you realize how quickly PETA membership is growing and how large their budget is growing every year? >>

Yes... I thought I had already mentioned that PETA is self-serving. Thanks for pointing that out and helping to reiterate my point.


<< Everyone who believes animal suffering is "nothing more than exaggeration and hyperbole" I suppose. >>

Show me the post here that SUPPORTS animal suffering. You fail to recognize the fact that opposition to PETA is not the same as SUPPORTING cruelty to animals.

Pointing out the fact that animals do NOT have rights... and pointing out the fact that ONLY people have rights is not the same thing as supporting cruelty to animals.

PETA supporters are so myopic... tunnel vision... all they think about are themselves and the organization. Not the cause... not how to BEST advocate for the cause. Not how to win hearts and minds. Just on how to make a splash and make a show.

That's a pretty foolish way to waste the money.

[expatriot]

109. Responses

<< We realize that many people think this of us. >>

<So obviously they really don't CARE about animals, only about perpetuating the reputation they have. Self-serving.>

No, many people thought abolitionists were criminals, lunatics, etc. that did not stop them.

<< Do you realize how quickly PETA membership is growing and how large their budget is growing every year? >>

<Yes... I thought I had already mentioned that PETA is self-serving. Thanks for pointing that out and helping to reiterate my point.>

I guess any organization is self-serving in this respect in the fact it has an interest in expanding. PETA is not the only animal rights organization nor is it the only one expanding rapidly.


<< Everyone who believes animal suffering is "nothing more than exaggeration and hyperbole" I suppose. >>

<Show me the post here that SUPPORTS animal suffering. You fail to recognize the fact that opposition to PETA is not the same as SUPPORTING cruelty to animals.>

"I will continue to eat animals and use leather." Post #95

[arwalden]

121. Oh Brother...

<< No, many people thought abolitionists were criminals, lunatics, etc. that did not stop them. >>

That's an evasive response. Actually, it's non-responsive. Instead of answering my question, you dodge and again attempt to elevate animals to the level of people.

<< I guess any organization is self-serving in this respect in the fact it has an interest in expanding. PETA is not the only animal rights organization nor is it the only one expanding rapidly.>>

Yet they still fail to realize that they only draw attention to THEMSELVES and not to their CAUSE. Worse yet, the attention the garner is NEGATIVE attention... so even FEWER people are likely to care about their cause.

That's pretty KOOKY by any measure.


<< "I will continue to eat animals and use leather." Post #95 >>

Oh give me a fucking break, Mary! What the hell are you talking about? Eating animals and wearing leather is not advocating cruelty to animals.

But then again... there are people in this thread who have tried to suggest that because I oppose PETA then I somehow "support" cruelty to animals. So I suppose that you using that post as an example ought not be entirely unexpected.

[flvegan]

132. It enables it.

Specifically to your statement: "Eating animals and wearing leather is not advocating cruelty to animals."

[arwalden]

141. Enables, Advocates...Silly Word Substitution Games Do Not Interest Me...

... and do very little to advance whatever point you are trying to make.

When PETA starts to DILLUTE what the TRUE meaning of animal cruelty is, then they've lost. Fewer and fewer people will understand or even CARE.

That's pretty KOOKY.

-- Allen


I'll continue to eat meat, fish, eggs, cheese. I'll enjoy wool, horsehair paintbrushes, badger hair shaving cream brushes, leather seats, leather shoes, leather belts. I'll continue to give my dog pigs ears and rawhide chews whenever she performs tricks for me.

[flvegan]

143. But it does enable cruelty to animals.

I was making a point, not trying to entertain you. I stated a fact, as did you. You will continue to enable cruelty to animals.

What kind of dog do you have? I have several, myself, different breeds and sizes.

[arwalden]

156. ~

<< "But it does enable cruelty to animals." I was making a point, not trying to entertain you. >>

Yes, you were playing word games.

<< I stated a fact, as did you. You will continue to enable cruelty to animals. >>

What "fact" would that be? Who defines what "cruelty" is? Are we using your definition? PETA's definition? Who gets to frame the argument? Who sets the standards? Peta? :eyes:

<< What kind of dog do you have? I have several, myself, different breeds and sizes. >>

Some other time.

[flvegan]

163. No, I wasn't.

I'll let you define cruelty. Let's use your definition.

BTW, dictionary.com says:
# The quality or condition of being cruel.
# Something, such as a cruel act or remark, that causes pain or suffering.

Too enraged to answer a simple question? I found common ground for us. No wonder, we, as a party, are on the wrong track.

[arwalden]

178. Yes You Were.

<< "No, I wasn't." >>

And I have no interest in "arguing" with someone who has little intention of doing nothing more engaging in a never-ending series of contradicting statements. If that's your game... I'll pass you along to my 8 year old neice... she loves that crap.

<< I'll let you define cruelty. Let's use your definition.>>

BTW, dictionary.com says:
# The quality or condition of being cruel.
# Something, such as a cruel act or remark, that causes pain or suffering.

That's nice. Now who gets to decide WHAT's cruel and what's not. How is such a definition applied?


<< Too enraged to answer a simple question? >>

I'm not sure what you're referring to. If it's referrign to my response to THIS post of yours... you can hardly fault me IN your post for not responding promply. Unless you're a mind reader, how would you know?

But again... your preoccupation with trying to label me as being "enraged" or "hateful" puzzles me. :shrug:

<< I found common ground for us. >>

:spray: Not bloody likely.

<< No wonder, we, as a party, are on the wrong track. >>

Woe are we! The sky is falling! :eyes: I guess I'm just one of those "angry", "enraged" and "hateful" Democrats you hear so much about.

[420inTN]

215. I guess that some people equate attacking the message to be the same...

as attacking the messenger.

Just because we disagree with this ad doesn't mean that we support animal cruelty. That would be akin to someone saying that if we disagree with capital punishment, we support the raping and murdering of innocent civilians.

Rationality and Reason are dying tortured deaths.

[arwalden]

245. Heh heh!

I like your examples.

[Dave Reynolds]

287. Yeah, I've been waiting for the ever-popular

"babies-are-animals-so-you'd-eat-them-too?" argument.

[arwalden]

319. Oh Please... Don't Remind Them.

LOL... I was hoping that they would forget that one.

[LizMoonstar]

62. so

my cat, who is terrified of the outdoors, having been raised indoors all his life, is being treated cruelly by being kept indoors?

so I'm supposed to sacrifice my health and eventually my life by not eating meat (I cannot safely eat soy, and cannot get the additional protein I need simply through legumes etc.) so that I'm not being cruel to animals?

Damn it all, we breed cows for food. These animals are so far domesticated that they don't really 'do' anything else. I am definitely for animal welfare, but not animal rights as you define it. And I don't think that's cruelty. Cows aren't people. Cows aren't cats. Cows are cows. Cows are in the food chain, and so are people.

I wouldn't think it's morally offensive if a person gets eaten by a tiger. It'd be a tragedy to their loved ones, but it's the food chain. The only reason humans eat cows and not the other way around is that the cows can't catch us. If they could, that would be fair game.


Fine, I'm a horrible animal hating freeper-in-disguise. Are you happy? You eat plants, don't you? MY GOD, WHAT ABOUT THE PLANTS?!?!

I HATE ANIMALS, THERE ARE YOU HAPPY?

Why has this deteriorated into this sort of namecalling? This is the sort of thing that hurts me to the point that every time I come to DU, I think I should never come back, just because nothing is ever good enough for anyone, and everyone hates each other.

[SemperEadem]

100. I'm about there with you, Liz

every time I come to DU, I think I should never come back, just because nothing is ever good enough for anyone, and everyone hates each other.

It has devolved dramatically since the election.

[zanne]

113. I'll second that.

I think it shows us who the real progressives are.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

235. GREAT POST !! WELL STATED!! rite on T Wolf !!!

it is truly disgusting that those who consider themselves "progressive" and open-minded
have consistently turned out in droves to bash PETA--
WTF?

Liberals in general want to protect and help those who are unable to protect or
provide for themselves---the handicapped, the poor, the cannon fodder for Iraq--
Why do some so called "liberals" want to stomp those who want to help animals????

I have no idea why they can't just pleasantly allow PETA to go about their business-
-after all PETA is merely trying to wake up our society--and isn't that a "liberal" and "progressive" thing?

[Mizmoon]

23. I love PETA

This group single-handedly made animal rights a real issue in modern America. They did it by pushing the envelope. Another fine show! People complain about them, but they get their message out!

[expatriot]

28. People have to realize (at least) two things about PETA

For one, their controversial ads and crazy publicity stuns are just a small facet, albeit a highly visible one, of their entire operation.

They do so many other things and are effective.

Why else would the industries of cruelty be spending so many millions of dollars to try and undermine their cause? (i.e. www.centerforconsumerfreedom.com

[K-W]

31. PETA has powerful enemies

who are trying to discredit them by focusing on certain messages and distorting them and taking them out of context.

Its stigatization, and far too many people on DU seem happy to play along because it allows them to look down on PETA.

Its the story of the left. Everyones more interested in padding and protecting their own ego's than supporting each other.

[Mizmoon]

32. That site is hilarious!

What a thin veil ...

[bitchkitty]

44. No shit -

From their About Us page:

"The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by restaurants, food companies and more than 1,000 concerned individuals".

The 1,000 concerned individuals probably work at meat packing plants.

[replacement]

41. Well said! n/t

[arwalden]

58. What Message? Who Actually Cares About Their Message?

<< This group single-handedly made animal rights a real issue in modern America. >>

They did? A "real issue"?? Really? -- I think they made themselves the issue.

<< They did it by pushing the envelope. Another fine show! >>

You mean breaking the law, assaulting people, trespassing, and being vandals and criminals is merely "pushing the envelope"? Wow.

<< People complain about them, but they get their message out! >>

If the message is supposed to be "HEY EVRYONE! LOOK AS US, WE'RE LAWLESS OPPORTUNISTIC SELF-SERVING KOOKS!" then they are quite successful. If the message is intended to persuade people to think as they do and to care about how animals are treated, then they are COMPLETE FAILURES.

[flvegan]

Do you feel better now that you got that out?

A rant can be cleansing, regardless of the error of it's content.

[arwalden]

128. Hey Flvegan... Do You Have Something Substantive To Add?

Would you like to refute my message? Would you like to argue a point of your own? --- Or is it just easier to snipe at and take cheap-shots about the messenger by asking if I "feel better"?

[flvegan]

139. Wasn't a cheap shot.

I figured that you couldn't be serious, what with the "complete failures" aspect of your ending rant.

25 years
850,000 member/supporters
An ad on DU's front page
Billions of animals eased
Changed mindsets and values of countless people
A household word

Yeah, complete failures. Such failures, that every time the word "PETA" is uttered here (again, on a liberal discussion board) threads like this happen.

Yeah, complete failures.

[arwalden]

151. Yeah Right...

<< "Wasn't a cheap shot." >>

A hollow denial. I'm not buying it.


<< 25 years 850,000 member/supporters >>

That's all?

<< An ad on DU's front page >>

Oooh! Baby, they've arrived! Eh? :eyes:

<< Billions of animals eased Changed mindsets and values of countless people >>

By whose count?

<< A household word >>

So is Nazi. So is Bush. What's important (and what's so sad) is the fact that the "household world" has such NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS to it.

<< Yeah, complete failures. Such failures, that every time the word "PETA" is uttered here (again, on a liberal discussion board) threads like this happen. >>

I would consider them to be successful if people reacted the same way to ACTUAL instances of animal cruelty. That doesn't seem to be their goal or concern. When will they get a clue that people hate THEM more than animal cruelty itself. They ought not be the center of attention, but they are... why? Why don't they make their CAUSE the center of attention? --- Fools. Dolts. Kooks.

I'm confused as to why you needed to point out the fact that this is a "liberal discussion board". Do you think that liberals should not be so critical of PETA?


<< Yeah, complete failures. >>

Indeed, you are correct.

[flvegan]

160. In your opinion

Anything in my post, and this subsequent post of yours can be spun by and towards one's own opinion. "Compared to what?" is the question, I would say.

You hate PETA, and it shows. You have that right, and I respect that. I support them and animal advocacy, so you and I are always going to do this very thing in these threads.

PETA has had great successes with heavyweights like McDonald's et al, which has brought less suffering to billions of animals. That's a fact.

Complete failure is a hateful term. You can't have this longevity and support and be a complete failure...unless your last name is Bush.

[arwalden]

169. Your Responses...

<< "In your opinion" >>

Well, yes.

<< Anything in my post, and this subsequent post of yours can be spun by and towards one's own opinion. >>

Ya don't say!

<< "Compared to what?" is the question, I would say. >>

Really?

<< You hate PETA, and it shows. >>

You assume far too much about me.

<< You have that right, and I respect that. >>

Yeah right.

<< I support them and animal advocacy, so you and I are always going to do this very thing in these threads. >>


<< PETA has had great successes with heavyweights like McDonald's et al, which has brought less suffering to billions of animals. That's a fact. >>

By filing nuisance lawsuits and abusing the legal system. That's not great success... that's harassment. Right up there with vandalism, personal assault, trespassing, etc etc.

<< Complete failure is a hateful term. >>

I fail to understand your fascination with trying to determine and label what's in my heart, or what my emotions are, or what motivates me.

<< You can't have this longevity and support and be a complete failure...unless your last name is Bush. >>

Or unless one has EXCEEDINGLY LOW STANDARDS for what they would consider to be a "success".

[flvegan]

172. That's what you do

"I fail to understand your fascination with trying to determine and label what's in my heart, or what my emotions are, or what motivates me."

You seem terribly angry.

[arwalden]

183. I'm Not The Subject Matter...

... nor are any imagined emotions you desperately want to ascribe to, or as being the cause of, my opposition to PETA.

It's not about me... no matter how fixated you are on making it about me... it's just not going to happen.

[jobycom]

70. PETA has been around since 1980. Animal rights has been an issue

for much longer. Google "animal rights" or Henry Salt or vegetarianism or "all heaven in a rage." PETA is the rooster claiming credit for the dawn. And with all their noise, the rate of vegetarianism in America has barely budged. It's still locked at around 10%, and more of that can be attributed to several popular books that had nothing to do with PETA.

[Mizmoon]

192. I am familiar with the old anti-vivisection groups

and I'm frankly not sure about the vegetarianism stuff, however I would argue that PETA made wearing fur unfashionable in these modern times.

I know we could talk about the old anti-bird plume people but the only point I'm trying to make is that PETA made fur unfashionable in my lifetime.

[jobycom]

43. PETA gets in the way of honest animal rights awareness

They are all about their own elitist egos. How anyone can buy into their shock and awe and insult crap and think it helps to change anyone's mind is beyond me. Imagine if we had a genuine animal rights group instead of PETA running commercials and exhibits showing the true plights of animals without trying to piss off every living human in the process. We might actually make some progress.

Anything good PETA has done could have been done by a more civilized and respectful group. Everything bad PETA has done has led to a gut reaction rejection of animal rights. When I tell people I'm vegetarian, often their first response is some anti-PETA rant. They may not even call it PETA, they just say things like "You animal rights freaks!" But they are reacting to PETA.

PETA makes it harder for true animal rights progress. They do as much good as the American Beef Council. I know all the lobbying and legislative stuff they do, but a more civilized group could do that without pissing off the public in the process. To me, PETA is a right-wing organization with a left-wing agenda. They have no respect for humanity, and that means humanity rejects their message. They preach only to the choir, and many in the choir tune them out.

[arwalden]

49. Well Said.

:tip of the hat:

[jobycom]

50. Maybe

But I bet I get beaten up for it. :-)

Thanks.

[Qibing Zero]

61. Agreed completely. nt

[BikeWriter]

67. I am for exploiting animals, but I agree with you about PeTa.

[jobycom]

75. FOR exploiting animals?

Even most hunters I know would say they do what thy do out of necessity, not that they are trying to exploit animals. A person who can't at least respect the life of an animal--even if they believe that animals lives have less value than human lives--is a short step fromnot respecting human life, either. Barring religious dogmatism, humans are animals and therefore the life we have is the same as the life another animal has. The big difference is that we are self-aware in our own way, and for some reason seem to believe that only our type of self-awareness matters. To me, that's a short step from not respecting human life, which is a short step from voting Republican.

I hope you were using hyperbole, much as PETA does, just to shock. I like to think of DUers as enlightened, decent people. You've shaken my faith in DU humanity! :cry:

Maybe we need an intervention, BW! We can save your soul yet, because we care! :-)

[BikeWriter]

92. ROFL! I doubt an intervention would help, Jobycom.

I'm a bloodthirsty old carnivore. I have exploited (used) many animals. My horses, dogs, and exotic birds have all seemed content with their treatment, and I see no reason to feel guilt.

[jobycom]

209. Uh oh. Denial.

But that's okay. You have friends here. We care. We can help! :-)

The ones you leave alive aren't the ones most likely to be upset with their treatment, you do realize.

[RebelOne]

133. No, most hunters do not hunt out of necessity.

Believe me, I know. I copy-edit hunting and fishing articles for outdoors magazines that are distributed in 48 states. I read word for word enough hunting stories to know what I am talking about. They hunt mostly for trophies and the excitement of the hunt and then the adrenaline rush of the kill. All of them consider hunting a "fun" sport.

[expatriot]

71. "They have no respect for humanity..."

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. What the fuck do you mean by that? I don't have any respect for humanity?

"Imagine if we had a genuine animal rights group instead of PETA running commercials and exhibits showing the true plights of animals without trying to piss off every living human in the process. We might actually make some progress."

Why does comparing animal suffering to human suffering piss people off? It sounds like people being a bit overly-defensive to me. It seems a bit like the argument against gay marraige that goes something like this "If gays are allowed to get married, traditional marriage won't mean anything anymore!" By admitting that human and animals both are capable of suffering does not diminish human suffering or human history one iota.

[Qibing Zero]

86. They are not the same thing

Just because animals and humans both suffer, does not mean that animals in captivity suffer to the extent that the slaves or the Jews in the Holocaust did. Even animals that are killed in less humane ways do not suffer for months and years, nor do they have nervous systems to the extent humans do, nor the same emotional awareness. That's not even CLOSE to being a good argument to present to those people who actually listen to you, and you are indeed diminishing those peoples' suffering by arguing it.

And consequently, comparing anyone who disagrees with PETA to the people who attack gay marriage is beyond Ad Hominem. Try to argue your points rather than insult, if you want to be taken seriously.

[jobycom]

90. Saying that animals and humans both suffer

is fine. I agree, completely. Saying that the suffering is equivalent is not going to win you any support. And no one will believe you believe it. You've heard the arguments about insecticides, antibiotics, etc. The idea that all life is exactly equivalent is an extremism most people aren't going to believe, so when you start saying that slavery is the exact equivalent of animal slaughter or that the Holocaust is the exact equivalent of the beef industry, you are going to lose your audience. AND it proves that you have no respect for your audience, because you are in essence--no, in fact--saying that the people you are trying to convert are in fact filthy murderers no different from Auschwitz gaurds or slave owners. That will not win you many converts.

And yes, it does show a lack of respect for humans, and humanity. By telling humans that their suffering is no different than that of the animals they have eaten their whole lives, you don't raise the plight of animals, you lower the plight of humanity. Do you really thing you have converted anyone with this crap? You've driven them further from your message. You've gotten your loyalists to cheer, maybe. It's all for ego and elitism, not for animal rights.

[zanne]

118. "Animals they have eaten their whole lives"...

You just proved my point. If you admit that animals are just as worthy as humans, you have to STOP killing and eating them. You have to stop hunting them for sport, and you have to stop experimenting on them. That's the hard, hard truth. Hard to face, isn't it?

[jobycom]

191. I didn't say the suffering was equivalent

I said they both suffer. I don't believe killing a human and killing an animal is an equal wrong. I think they are both wrong, but I would be more upset if I ran over a child than an opossum.

Regardless of what you believe, telling someone they are the equivalent of Adolph Hitler for eating fig newtons is not going to win you any arguments or converts. It might stroke your ego, but you are just going to drive them away from your message and cause more animal suffering.

As I said, it's all about ego, and not about the cause. That's exactly why I hate PETA.

[expatriot]

131. Analogies do not use equal signs

"Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."

Analogies do not use equal signs.

A historical analogy between Bush and Hitler is not saying Bush has opened up death camps that have slaughtered 9 million inmates. They are saying Bush is like Hitler "in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."

[jobycom]

195. You aren't familiar with PETA, then

They aren't drawing analogies, they are explicitly using equal signs. Read the post above this one if you need proof.

[zanne]

164. The argument against evolution is the same.

People who deny the scientific truth about evolution cannot bring themselves to admit that animals are equal to humans. Admitting that Darwin's theory was right is too humbling for them. So goes the argument here. Sure, it's a good thing to be kind to animals, but, hey, let's not get carried away with this "compassion" stuff, right? After all, we rule the world and we can do what we want with it. Animals only live here, and there are quotes from the bible we can use to make ourselves feel better. But, if you can bring yourself to admit that we're descendants of animals, you'll have to admit to yourself, someday, in a quiet and introspective moment, that human and animal suffering is, indeed, the same thing.

[jobycom]

200. We are also descended from single cell organisms in sea water

So taking an antibiotic is equivalent to murdering a child, I guess.

And if you say no, then you are admitting there is a hierarchy of life, you are just choosing to draw lines where you want them.

[Catchawave]

79. Unfortunately, the "more civilized and respectful" groups

don't get nearly the attention that Peta does.

Not many know that Peta put a full bench press on Congress this past week to allow animal rescuers into the NOLA areas. Amazing how fast a politician moves with "Peta, line one" or his fax machine blows up, whichever comes first !

From email:

Urgent From PETA: Ask the Government to Allow PETA to Testify at Katrina Hearings; Plus, Updates From the Field
Dear Friend,

Please take a moment right now to send an e-mail to Rep. Tom Davis and Rep. Henry Waxman of the House of Representatives Government Reform Committee, which will hold hearings this Thursday, September 15, on the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina.



Please ask the committee chair, Rep. Davis, to allow PETA to testify about the plight of animals affected by disasters such as Katrina during their hearings. Let him know that the suffering of human hurricane victims was only heightened by the federal blockades that prevented humane agents from rescuing animals and by evacuators' insistence that animals be abandoned to die. Please also urge Reps. Davis and Waxman to ensure that the well-being of animals be included in any local, state, or federal disaster response plan. It is absolutely crucial to call or send an e-mail today and tell your neighbors to do the same.

E-mail Rep. Davis or call him today at [phone].
E-mail Rep. Waxman or call him today at [phone].

News From the Front Lines

On Monday, another 10 PETA staff members and volunteers flew to New Orleans to help in the massive animal rescue and care efforts there. PETA's team of experienced rescue workers has been toiling around the clock to rescue stranded animals still suffering in the city. Listen to our team leader's reports from the field as they become available and read accounts of the team's life-saving efforts at PETA.org.

"It's a surreal environment" where PETA's team is working, reports team leader Laura Brown. On Friday, the team found a terrified dog missing his left eye and hiding in sewage under his guardians' crushed home. He was very frightened but was finally lured out of the wreckage with wet food and taken to one of our rescue vans, where he was given a comfortable, air-conditioned place to rest and take his first drink of fresh water in over a week.

After saving 18 dogs on Friday, the team battled floodwaters on Saturday for more than 12 hours. They rescued a severely matted and bony Chow dragging a broken chain from her neck and running at large. She was loaded into our van and, after a meal, quickly fell asleep.

The team later made a heartbreaking discovery in an abandoned house-crates full of dehydrated lovebirds and finches stacked atop one another and suffering next to the rotting remains of their cagemates. Fifty "terribly stressed" survivors quickly flocked to the water dishes that the team placed inside their enclosures. The team then waded through waist-deep water for seven blocks to rescue a dog who had been left behind with only chicken eggshells and rotten corncobs for nourishment. Soon she had fresh food and water and enjoyed a "water-taxi ride" to our air-conditioned van, where she got her share of belly rubs and scratches and joined the Chow in a nap. The scene was repeated countless times over.

Animals Will Now Be Evacuated With Their Families!

At PETA headquarters, an official with the Federal Emergency Management Agency told us Friday afternoon that the agency had received many phone calls about the forced abandonment of animals in New Orleans and that such orders are no longer followed or issued. Congratulations—this is your victory! That same day, Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, commander of the First U.S. Army and the official in charge in New Orleans—who PETA asked on September 6 to allow animals to be evacuated with their families—announced that his agents will have animal carriers to facilitate evacuating cats and dogs as they evacuate the city's remaining human residents.

Your Help Is Still Urgently Needed

Please help us turn up the pressure on those who have the ability to ensure better plans for animals caught in future disasters, including President George W. Bush and Congress.

Thank you for your time and your compassion for animals.

Sincerely,



Ingrid E. Newkirk
President

P.S. Your efforts on behalf of animals in Louisiana have truly made a difference, but there is still so much work to be done for the thousands of dogs, cats, and other animals that remain in harm's way. Please take a moment to donate to PETA's Animal Emergency Fund and help us ensure that no animal will ever endure the tragedy of the last two weeks again.

P.P.S. Please send this e-mail to your friends, family, colleagues, and anyone else you can think of who might lend their voice and support to these vital efforts!
********

[jobycom]

96. See? You prove my point

A respectfully worded letter gets results. A shock and insult campaign just generates anger. Now, take a respectable group who uses the same tone of informing and respect on the general public as PETA uses on Congress, and maybe we'd see some progress.

BTW, I was rescuing animals from the hurricane region even without PETA's letter, as were many people. PETA may have helped mobilize some response, but the efforts were well under way from the beginning. I'm not even sure this isn't more of PETA's attempt to take credit for the work of others. At best, they pitched in to help those already doing the work.

[Catchawave]

217. "shock and awe" is sometimes effective, no?

It's been my experience that "respectable", while respectable, is sometimes ignored also?

Thank you for what you did for the animals, I'm surprised you got through the red tape, with or without a Peta letter! Most rescue orgs couldn't get through with Peta/HSUS/EARS going through the roof with congress. Even so, they weren't letting animal lovers enter the diaster area without animal control or other animal rescue training, otherwise, I'd be down there in a heartbeat.

:sigh: They ALL just wanted my money! And I was happy to help that way.

[Lilith Velkor]

221. Look how effective "shock and awe" was in Iraq

That made us lots of friends and allies, didn't it? :nuke:

[JackieO]

225. You equate "shocking" ads with mass murder

Interesting.

[Lilith Velkor]

236. I was replying to Catchawave

in a way that carried on an inappropriate metaphor. It's called, "irony."

[Catchawave]

228. It made me more compassionate for collateral damage

victims also. Which I think animals are in corporate America. Think about it :)

[Lilith Velkor]

275. Keep digging.

<expletives self-deleted>

[flvegan]

81. Untrue. They pave the way.

It'd be tough to suggest that it's about "ego" with them, when you can't even come to a liberal discussion board and not be confronted with the PETA-hating crowd. If it were about ego, they'd not choose to be the oft-kicked org that they are.

You broad stroke the "anything good" and "everything bad" and miss the point, I think. PETA is effective. Too many folks focus on the antics, maybe because that's all they're exposed to.

PETA's been around for 25 years, have tons and tons of support. They've made things better for animals. They help smaller groups to be effective in their locales, with their campaigns.

I won't deny that I don't like some of the stuff they do, but I can't deny that they are effective. Hell, they're a household word, and for such a fringe movement, that's an achievement.

[jobycom]

104. Completely misses my point

Any of the good PETA does can be done by other groups. PETA does nothing magical to motivate legislation, they do simple lobbying that a more respectful group could just as easily do. But the whole effort of lobbying relies on public opinion--you convince a politico that people will hate them if they don't get involved, basically. A respectful group who didn't try to alienate everyone who disagreed with them would have more public support, and thus more effectiveness.

PETA paves the graves of many animals with their approach. Animal rights would not suffer if they disappeared, and if they were replaced by a better organization, animal rights would see tremendous progress. They preach only to the converted.

And it is about ego. It's about the ability to say "I'm a puritan far superior to the majority of the slobs I speak to." Puritanism is always about ego.

[flvegan]

120. Okay, then. Who?

HSUS? A behemoth of an organization. They lobby, and do a good job of it. They hack at the roots of the problems, and I love and respect that.

PETA gets into corporate faces. Lots of great big names have been brought to their collective knees by PETA, for better treatment, bigger cages, etc. Also hacking at the roots of the problems, just in a different way.

I didn't miss jack about your point. You just broad-brush with "nothing" and "everything"

Lots of other great groups, operating very much unlike PETA. Why is PETA so damn successful, then?

Your last statement makes no sense. Puritanism? Please.

[jobycom]

176. Someone else

Someone who does more good than harm.

And I stick by my last sentence.

[Catchawave]

47. This part is telling:

"But after weeks of reviewing e-mail and conducting an online poll, PETA officials are confident the exhibit should continue, said spokeswoman Dawn Carr."

Good for them for not letting the Corporate Powers spin this campaign out of sight and mind. In my opinion, mistreated animals are comparable to mistreated slaves. Not too difficult to figure out :)

[Lilith Velkor]

77. Yeah, it tells me they must all be white.

Or brainwashed to the point that they don't see how insulting it is.

[SemperEadem]

107. Thank you

[expatriot]

231. how is this insulting? it uses multiple analogies

comparing the plight of animals to the suffering of Native Americans, child laborers, women, etc. If you keep insisting on making this solely on comparing animals to blacks you either have not seen the exhibit and just repeating what you have read about it or just perpetuating myths for your own agenda.

It is a statement to make an analogy of animal suffer under human exploitation to human suffering under human exploitation. I don't understand how being compared to animals is insulting to anyone. I don't understand how people feel it is belittling. I am a human and I don't feel threatened by the comparison, it does not make me feel insecure.

Can someone tell me _why_ people are insulted by the idea that animal suffering is analogous to human suffering?

[Mari333]

54. If I were in a burning building with Dick Cheney and a cat

Id save the cat.

[K-W]

60. And not just because it would be much easier to carry! EOM

[BikeWriter]

65. Dick Cheney's humanity is questionable.

[Mari333]

84. If I were in a burning building with Bush and a cockroach

Id save the cockroach.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

74. On the behalf of PETA

Their opinions are crude and often unecessary. They, sometimes, make me distance myself from showing myself to be an animal rights' activist because of their harsh display. They sometimes make me question my stance that animals should be protected at any cost. They, as often animal rights groups are, can sometimes go a bit too far.

However, my friends, there was recently a disaster. Some of you may remember? Her name was Katrina, I think she was an old friend of the bush administration but I'm not sure. ANYWAY, this disaster not only caused human and animal suffering (and yes I emphasize animals because some DUers just don't 'get it'), but it showed us a good look at our inner selves, the festering, sometimes decrepit side of us we never wanted to acknowledge. In some of us, it taught us to brush it aside, throw it away, right out the window, and in others, it taught us to feed such a side and become one with the proverbial dark side.

In the PETA, aswell as other animal right groups, it pushed them further. To not the lines of an extremist group who doesn't care about people, but to the lines of some of the only americans who cared about animals for the course of a given week, from september first 2005 through september 8th, 2005. Unlike some animal rights groups, who cowered in fear of such a disaster or aiding the animals therein, PETA was in the front lines fighting in court to protect the animals that we as americans had forgotten.

In the time of greatest need, often, is the time of greatest ugliness that will strike our country. In the times of the civil war, when african americans were slaves: They were abused and mistreated due to the kind of resource necessities we face today, aswell as poverty and a decline in morality. African americans were thought of as lesser, unequal to white human beings. They were given german newspapers and told 'read our language and you can be intelligent'. People purposely thought of callous ways to make them seem unintelligent, to justifiably hurt them, and to convince the masses they should not be cared for.

For the sake of not just animals, but the sickness which can run in any human being, any color, any race, that enbables us to justifiably mistreat something through nothing more than pride and arrogance, PETA should be thought of as heroes for bringing to light the sadistic and unkempt side of americans and humans abroad. If it were not for people like those who are willing to compare animal cruelty to the uncivilized, disguisting way african americans and other races and nationalities were treated, we will long forget the lessons that the said races suffered had taught us, about equality, and caring for that we may not immediately understand .

Coming from someone who, once, and many times, in childhood, was sexually abused, one may think if they were to compare animal abuse to child rape I would be upset. No, I would not. Infact, I would be happy, because one who beats a dog is on the same level as one who concocts a scheme to rape and abuse a young child. Maybe the crime is, categorically speaking, simply different, the evil put into the thought of one who can think of such a thing is on the same level. It is not just right that they compare the animal abuse, which is rightly terrifying and many keep themselves ignorant about, but it is a necessity for those who once suffered. Though there are many who will freak out because they believe the civil rights of humans are a greater cause for concern than an animal: those who have actually undergone torment will see that suffering in anything is wrong and comparing it is not just a justifiable claim but reminds us, as americans, lots of evil goes on. Slavery and animal abuse alike, and all of it should end.

When the many people on DU, here, talked about how animals should be second to human life. How we should rescue people first, it immediately reminded me of what would be said about competant and emotional, just like any other race, african americans just a hundred years ago. It would be socially acceptable to say 'the whites first, then go for the slaves', if there was a disaster. That is wrong. We, as americans, said that about animals or any living thing in a disaster. That is also wrong. If we do not test ourselves, if we do not put our own moral values to the test daily, then we will become no better than the slave drivers of a past time. Who hurt others sheerly through a lack of understanding, through arrogance. No matter what regard you hold an animal, do you really want to wake up one morning and be on the same level as a rich white snob who could use another human being as a slave? Or in any country, ANY snob who would callously abuse a human being for their own needs?

Human being? Animal? They're just titles, just like the color of our skin has begun titles because people refuse to enlighten themselves. If we can discriminate based on title, we have already been stricken with prejaduice. PETA does not use a callous example in us when they compare animal cruelty to slavery, they provoke us into thinking in ways we normally do not. Continue to cry democratic underground, and any other animal hater on the internet who cries about PETA. Because you only show the rest of us you are completely unwilling to observe your actions and scrutinize them: you are unwilling to challenge yourself to see if you really aren't becoming the kind of arrogant, self serving and callous individual you claim to hate. Freeper? DUer? Does it matter? No one's opinions are greater than another's, don't think just because you're a democrat that the things you're saying about animals are any less self centered and mortifying.

To the good ones: to those who stand up for animal equality no matter what has happened. I personally thank you. It's people like you who are the fore-runners to a world where we no longer hate. It's people like you who will raise our children into the kind of world I personally want to see, where we can live in harmony with nature, animals, and other races of human being, rather than construct bombs because we refuse to enlighten ourselves. PETA...it's just a label. A stigmatized one at that. But I respect PETA a lot more than I do: most democrats, most republicans, FEMA, homeland security department, the FBI, the national guard, the NOPD, many police departments, and most national officials serving for other countries. If not for PETA, we would never be able to see the line of what is right or wrong in a given situation. In the hurricane katrina disaster...they were in the right.

If you simply cannot accept that because of the title 'PETA', if you simply cannot accept an animal may be important too...then you have already condemned yourself to the poor attitude which caused african americans and other races so much trouble...and shame on you.

[superconnected]

135. I'm a vegetarian, for animal rights and PETA is nuts.

They have alienated most people into hating them and animal rights people and vegetarians.

They are far too extreme.

The last ad I saw by peta, had a dog in it with the words - never put me in a leash. They're against leashes. What idiots. My moms dog is too stupid when they go for walks, not to get hit by a car.

That ad was only a few months ago.

Peta has embarassed me for well over a decade.

The models who used to say "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" for peta ads were all alienated against them when they got too extreme.

And news flash, a vegetarian who eats fish is still a vegetarian. A vegan is the ones who don't eat fish. Peta alienated a lot of people who didn't give up fish by telling them it was as bad as the cow. That's really a step backward from getting people moving in the right direction. Instead they gave the message they weren't doing anything to save animals so why bother stop eating meat. With them it's all or no. America needs to slide into it, not be be attacked when they go the right direction.

I've yet to see peta do something that wasn't like a rightwing extremist nazi in their way of handling animal rights.

And I just love how 2 peta members who said they were saving dogs a few months back, were killing them and leaving them in a mall dumpster, and then peta came in and defended it and said sometimes they have to KILL animals themselves to make sure it's done humanely.

Uh, sure, Murderers. Why didn't they find them homes like they told the human society they would when they adopted the 17 dogs.

Those people were representing peta every step of the way and peta stood by them. Peta says it will continue killing dogs itself. It was their front page press release when it happened this summer.

FUCKING WACKOS.

[Catchawave]

150. Peta's against leashes ?

Link?

Some of this anti-Peta stuff is really bizzarro. I just like to know my sources, so I'm usually right when it points to Bush Supporting Pet, AKC, and Breeding Agenda Knobs. Protecting profits usually brings out the worse in Peta bashing.

Thank goodness you brought up the NC situation. That's always good for spin :) You do have the details for that too?

[superconnected]

154. do a google search. I'm at work and can't right now, but don't worry

If you want a link and are to lazy to google, I'll get back here and make sure I post 2 - one for the killing the dogs, and one to petas press release.

See below - mind you, I'm dodging my boss to get these. I work in a right wing place - fox on the tv all day in the lounge.

[Catchawave]

184. I'm not too lazy to Google....

I asked about Peta against leashes, which I don't need to Google, because that's a bizzarro claim.

Where you trying to direct me to the NC situation and Bertie " a bullet is only a nickel" County? I don't need to Google that either, the employees were stupid for lying, but humane euthanasia is not a crime against animals. Jeebus.

Sorry about your Right Wing job :hug:

[superconnected]

206. thanks. If you google peta tethering you will find Peta saying

to not tie up dogs at all.

[Catchawave]

212. Has nothing to do with "pet on leash" does it?

Big difference sweetie :)

By the way have you seen the DU Home, Latest and Greatest front pages? Upper right hand corner, Peta ad ?

[superconnected]

261. no, I haven't seen the ad

Sad, I donate to DU. I donate to no kill shelters.

I won't donate to peta no matter how much they consider it "mercy killings"

I guess I'll have to take a second look at DU.

[BikeWriter]

153. Hypocrites, aren't they?

[Lilith Velkor]

161. Big time.

[smbolisnch]

281. Funny seeing you here.

:eyes:

[expatriot]

165. What's hypocritical? The 2 PETA employees illegally dumped

the carcasses of a number of euthanized animals. This was stupidity on the part of the PETA employees and not to be defended but PETA publicly endorses the euthanaisa of unwanted and suffering animals.

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=39

The corporate-sponsorerd Center for Consumer Freedom built this anti-PETA website called www.petakillsanimals.com and it is just so patheticly stupid, trying to claim that PETA's support euthanasia is hypocritical. It is funny to think of how many money the CCF must have spent to "expose" PETA's practice of something I dare say a huge majority of Americans support.

[BikeWriter]

170. Again, you defend PeTa's killing. Ha ha ha ha ha!

[expatriot]

177. Again, you don't explain why euthanasia is hypocrtical to PETA's mission.

nt

[BikeWriter]

207. I kill animals to eat them. None of PeTa's bidness.

[Lilith Velkor]

180. Now now

It's only immoral to eat them.

[expatriot]

186. It's about compassion. Reducing suffering.

Euthanasia: The Compassionate Option
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=39

[Lilith Velkor]

205. Killing animals is OK, but eating them is not.

Roger that.

[expatriot]

249. I am so sorry and saddened that you don't get it.

I don't know if you are just being obstinate or if you truly don't get it and that makes me very sad, either way.

Euthanasia is a very unfortunate necessary evil, it is used to end the suffering of an animal that has been the victim of a cruel world.

"Eating meat" is the feeding of a horrendous industry of cruelty. When you "eat meat" you are not only enjoying the product of untold suffering of an animal but you are financing the affliction of that hellish torment upon another generation of poor, suffering animals.

Life is made up of choices, and part of being a socially responsible consumer and citizen is actively contemplating the consequences of your choices as a consumer. Even if I thought there was a 0.01% chance that animals suffered only a LITTLE BIT as a consequence of my eating meat, I would avoid meat like the plague. I do not understand what benefits to eating meat could overcome the realization that my participation in an industry that inflicts suffering can be easily avoided by seeking alternatives.

Free DVD
http://www.meetyourmeat.com

Good site....
http://www.farmsanctuary.com

[Lilith Velkor]

270. No, I get it.

What you are saying is that killing animals is OK, but eating them after their suffering is over is not.

You can spin it any way you want, (and be sure to add a paragraph of self-congratulation on your high morals!) but that is essentially what you are saying.

[BikeWriter]

202. Hee hee hee! I'll keep trying to understand that.

[superconnected]

157. yes, peta is against leashes, - article about peta killing dogs

From http://www.wavy.com/global/story.asp?s=3482974&ClientType=Printable:

Two PETA Employees Arrested on Animal Cruelty Charges in N.C.

(AP) - Two Hampton Roads employees of Norfolk-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have been charged in Ahoskie, N.C., with animal cruelty after dumping dead dogs and cats in a shopping center garbage bin, police said Thursday.

Investigators staked out the bin after discovering that dead animals had been dumped there every Wednesday for the past four weeks, Ahoskie police said in a prepared statement.

Police found 18 dead animals in the trash bin and 13 more in a van registered to PETA. The animals were from animal shelters in Northampton and Bertie counties in North Carolina, police said. The two were picking up animals to be brought back to PETA headquarters for euthanization, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk said Thursday.

Neither police nor PETA offered any theory on why the animals might have been dumped.

Local officials and veterinarians said they were told that PETA would find homes for the animals, not euthanize them. PETA has scheduled a news conference for Friday afternoon to discuss the charges.

Police charged Andrew Benjamin Cook, 24, of Virginia Beach, and Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, of Norfolk,each with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty and eight misdemeanor counts of illegal disposal of dead animals. They were released on bond and an initial court date was set for Friday in Winton.

Hinkle has been suspended, but Cook continues to work PETA, Newkirk said. Hinkle has worked for more than two years as one of its community animal project employees in North Carolina, PETA spokeswoman Colleen O'Brien said. Cook, who joined a couple of months ago, was being trained.

Newkirk said she doubted Hinkle had ever been cruel to an animal and said if the animals were placed in the bin, "We will be appalled."

PETA euthanizes animals by lethal injection, which it considers more humane than gassing groups of animals, as poor counties are forced to do, O'Brien said.

"PETA has provided euthanasia services to various counties in (North Carolina) to prevent animals from being shot behind a shed or gassed in windowless metal boxes, both practices that were carried out until PETA volunteered to provide a painless death, free of charge," Newkirk said.

But veterinarian Patrick Proctor said that authorities found a female cat and her two "very adoptable" kittens among the dead animals. He said they were taken from Ahoskie Animal Hospital.

"These were just kittens we were trying to find homes for," he said. "PETA said they would do that, but these cats never made it out of the county."

PETA had taken 50 animals from Proctor's practice over the past two years, he said.

PETA also has taken animals from veterinarian James Brown in Northampton County.

"When they started taking them, they said they would try to find homes for them," Brown said, adding that no one checked on the animals afterward.

Barry Anderson, Bertie County's animal control officer, identified nearly all of the dumped dogs as ones that Cook and Hinkle picked up just a few hours earlier Wednesday, said Detective Sgt. Ed Pittman of the Bertie County Sheriff's Office.

Anderson also said that the PETA representatives "told him they were picking up the dogs to take them back to Norfolk where they would find them good homes," Pittman said.

Peta against tethering dogs
http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050808/NEWS01/508080312/1002

news to peta killing
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/072005/07022005/111781

[expatriot]

159. That ad does not exist. all of their ads are online

Maybe you are thinking of the anti-chain ads.


http://www.peta.org/pdfs/ADchaineddog.pdf

[superconnected]

166. I found it in a magazine, I suppose I can go through my mags

when I get home to night and scan it in.

articles
Peta against tethering dogs
http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050808/NEWS01/508080312/1002

news to peta killing
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/072005/07022005/111781

Peta on why peta kills dogs
http://www.peta.org/mc/InTheNews/index.asp?action=all&ID=0&page=8

The above has a link to my post below where I copied the press release

[expatriot]

174. just as I thought, this is about CHAINING dogs, not leashes

as for the PETA employees illegal dumping of the animal carcasses, there is no hypocrisy in it whatsoever. PETA publicly promotes euthanasia of animals as do most animal shelters in the country.

[superconnected]

199. Gee I didn't read chains in that artical. It said tethering.

I know peta later started speaking against chains too.

Perhaps if you google peta tethering and you can read for yourself.

[yewberry]

241. PeTA advocates leashes for cats and dogs. "Tethering"

is defined as being chained or roped to a stationary object.

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

[superconnected]

260. Perhaps they should be more clear in their news releases.

[arwalden]

266. I "Tether" My Dog When Camping In Unfenced Areas.

HOW CRUEL for me to even take her camping in the first place, eh?

[yewberry]

272. They were using the common dictionary definition of the word.

How would they know that you don't know what it means?

[expatriot]

244. "tethering" is COMPLETELY different concept than "leash"

You said that PETA was opposed to leashes which is COMPLETELY different than tethering. You were making stuff up to make PETA look bad, which is typical of anti-PETA talking points.


Tethering:
"A rope, chain, or similar restraint for holding an animal in place, allowing a short radius in which it can move about."

Leash:
"A chain, rope, or strap attached to the collar or harness of an animal, especially a dog, and used to lead it or hold it in check."

COMPLETELY different concept that you are trying to blur together.

Do you understand the difference?

Tethering for long periods is cruel for an animal that is a social animal that likes, like most mammals, a certain degree of freedom of movement. Leashes are safety devices that let dogs be "out and about" walking around with his caretaker and enjoying the attention of passers by and new smells, etc.

I am sorry for the hyperbole but you should be ashamed of yourself. Think of any dog you have ever known and think whether that dog thinks whether tethering and being on a leash are the same thing. For shame.

[superconnected]

259. I consider tethering a leash.

So what is a leash made up, not rope and not chains then? Is plastic better in your opinion. It's stronger...

I feel sorry for you.

[expatriot]

290. did you read the two definitions? it has nothing to do with the material

tethering is when an animals is tied to a stationary location, the dog can not move beyond a certain radius. A leash is used to "lead" a dog when it is being walked.

[Zynx]

158. Disgusting.

[superconnected]

171. Petas news release on why they kill dogs

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/30/EDGC9DGTNV1.DTL

The dilemma of the unwanted
Daphna Nachminovitch

Thursday, June 30, 2005



The ugly issue of euthanizing dogs and cats -- and the struggle by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals with it -- is in the spotlight. Painful as this is, it's useful to talk about it.

PETA concentrates on exposing the cruelties of the food, clothing, experimentation and entertainment industries on animals. But we couldn't turn our back when we discovered that in North Carolina, pounds in some rural counties were pitiful shacks where dogs drowned during floods and workers killed animals with a .22 rifle or gassed them in a leaky, rusty, windowless metal box. There were no adoptions, giving North Carolina the second highest kill rate in the nation.

While pushing for reforms and even building a cat shelter from the ground up, we reluctantly assumed the role of "shelter of last resort" in northeastern North Carolina, giving a painless, peaceful death in loving arms to sick, injured and aggressive animals who were slated to be killed inhumanely. Some we managed to place (see the condition of euthanized animals and some of the happy endings on www.helpinganimals.com.)

But the most important work we do in North Carolina is promoting and performing sterilization, at no cost, for the dogs and cats that would otherwise be producing litter after unwanted litter. This is what needs to be discussed -- in North Carolina, in California and everywhere. Shelters that accept every dog and cat brought to them don't euthanize animals because we're too cheap to spend money on building more shelters. Building more shelters takes away the resources needed to stem the tide of unwanteds. We're not talking about a few thousand dogs and cats one can scramble to find homes for; we're talking about 3 million to 4 million animals who must be killed every year in the United States because prospective guardians choose to go to pet shops and breeders and still don't sterilize their dogs and cats.

The no-kill shelters, including the San Francisco SPCA, tout the fact that they don't kill animals, but they have awarded themselves the luxury of turning away thousands of animals they deem unadoptable. Where do these "undesirables" go? To those shelters that, like PETA, will do the heartbreaking job of euthanasia. In San Francisco, that place is the Department of Animal Care and Control. In other words, DACC is left to do the area's dirty work. In fiscal year 2003-2004, DACC euthanized 1,436 dogs and cats.

Critics may condemn PETA for supporting euthanasia, but we are not ashamed of providing a merciful exit from an uncaring world to broken beings. We know that we are also working at the roots of a problem, persuading people that buying puppies and kittens from pet stores and breeders means that other animals, literally dying for a home in a shelter, pay for with their lives.

Most important, every time we spay or neuter an animal -- and we sterilized more than 7,600 dogs and cats in southern Virginia and North Carolina last year alone -- we prevent the births of four times its number right off the bat. Three animal generations down the line, that means we prevented the births of nearly half a million animals, which, given the "throwaway rate," means countless thousands were never born only to be euthanized.

We all want to save animals. The way to do that is to prevent the births of more dogs and cats. Leaving euthanasia to someone else solves nothing.

Daphna Nachminovitch is director of the Domestic Animals Issues and Abuse Department for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (www.peta.org).

[expatriot]

182. PETA Factsheet - Euthanasia: The Compassionate Option

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=39

Approximately 6 to 8 million animals are handled by animal shelters in the United States each year. Even though some are reclaimed or adopted, nearly 4 million unwanted dogs and cats are left with nowhere to go.(1) Shelters cannot humanely house and support all these animals until their natural deaths—they would be forced to live for years, lonely and stressed, in cramped cages or kennels, and other animals would have to be turned away because there would not be room for them.


Turning unwanted animals loose to roam the streets is not a humane option. If they don’t starve, freeze, get hit by a car, or die of disease, they may be tormented and possibly killed by cruel juveniles or picked up by dealers who obtain animals to sell to laboratories.

Good and Bad Solutions
Because of the high number of unwanted companion animals and the lack of good homes, sometimes the most humane thing that a shelter worker can do is give an animal a peaceful release from a world in which dogs and cats are often considered “surplus” and unwanted. PETA, The American Veterinary Medical Association, and The Humane Society of the United States concur that an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital administered by a trained professional is the kindest, most compassionate method of euthanizing animals. The American Humane Association considers this to be the only acceptable method of euthanasia for cats and dogs in animal shelters.

(continued)

[superconnected]

190. Peta should not be killing animals.

they should be finding them homes when they take them from the H.S.

The Humane society is already well known as someone who euthanizes animals.

Why didn't Peta take the animals to a no-kill shelter?

I no longer defend peta.

[expatriot]

198. PETA opposes no kill shelters

PETA investigates "no kill" shelters and in 99% of the cases the shelter is able to be "no kill" either at the detriment of the animals quality of life (diminished care as resources are stretched) or because the shetler is very restrictive as to which animals are admitted.

You never did defend PETA so don't act like you have.

[superconnected]

201. I have in the past, here. I haven't in the past several months though.

Defended them that is. I won't anymore.

I know great no kill shelters in my area. I support them. F- peta.

[expatriot]

204. yes there could be great exceptions but as a general rule it is not

practical.

The county humane shelter my wife and volunteer at is forced to put down over 90% of the cats it receives and over 75% of dogs. People have no respect for their animals, they let them breed and the population explodes.

one of the first missions of our local animal rights group that we are starting up is to work to increase the shelter's funding and to promote responsible pet ownership and spaying and neutering.

[expatriot]

181. jesus, I've spent three hours on this thread. I need to go. nt

[arwalden]

187. Goodbye!

:hi:

[bee]

185. I think one only has to read this thread to see

the Peta ad has served its purpose. Theyve got a bunch of people fired up and talking about an issue that they probably otherwise wouldnt. And while the ad it self may not serve to convert anyone per se... conversations like this as result of the ad just might do that very thing. Right or wrong, a less controversial ad would not have had this effect.

As a strict Vegan I normally avoid these types of conversations all together. In my experience most people just dont want to know the truth about things like milk and "meat". Not the FDA, dairy farmers, gov't truth... but the scientifically proven well documented facts. Its nearly impossible to discuss without being accused of forcing views. So I say.. eat whatever you want. I do.

But back to matter at hand, to the people who claim animals "dont suffer" Id like to provide you with a couple of videos that prove otherwise. I know most of you wont watch... its not pretty to listen to living things screaming in pain... but in all fairness maybe you want to have a look at why Peta is so upset.

WARNING. VERY GRAPHIC AND TO MOST OF US... SICKENING.
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=mym2002
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=agri_long

Oh, and heres a great website about slaughter. Just click on the animal you want to see die. No sound here.. not to worry.
http://www.slaughterhousecam.com/cams/index.html

[arwalden]

196. But People Are "Fired Up" About PETA...

... not about the issue of animal cruelty. PETA's purpose is self-serving. It exists to exist.

<< conversations like this as result of the ad just might do that very thing. >>

Not very likely. It just polarizes folks and makes them less willing to compromise.

<< Right or wrong, a less controversial ad would not have had this effect. >>

PETA is like the little boy who cries wolf. After awhile, nobody cares anymore... nobody listens. Their reputation as kooks outweighs and overshadows any legitimate issues.

<< WARNING. VERY GRAPHIC AND TO MOST OF US... SICKENING. >>

Got any aborted fetus photos too? I find heart surgery to be gross too... but I don't oppose it.

[bee]

213. Im sorry... I thought it was about the ad itself.

And I cant speak as to the effect the ad will have on everyone who sees it, Its impossible to know that no productive conversations will result from it... so I was merely throwing it out there as a possibility.

As far as nobody caring or listening I think their amount of members speaks to the contrary. And whether they fail the legitimacy test or not I suppose is a matter of personal opinion. no?

As for the links, I think you misunderstood my intentions for posting them. It was only to answer the posts here that state animals dont suffer. And to perhaps shed some light on the thing that makes Peta, as a whole, so upset.

And its not about being "gross" and has nothing in common with aborted fetus. These are feeling animals who are tortured, have their throats slit, and die slowly from bleeding to death. Nothing at all like abortion as far as I know. Im also sure I never said anything about opposing the slaughter of animals per se. Its simply the manner in which the deed is carried out that causes unnecessary suffering. There are much more humane ways for it to be done. Im not against people who eat meat. Its your choice.


edit to add: I dont know enough facts about Peta to either condone or condemn them... just so we're clear.

[Lilith Velkor]

220. Nobody here claimed that animals don't suffer.

Please find a less lame excuse for posting your gross pics or videos or whatever.

[bee]

222. oh excuse me... animals dont suffer "like humans"

and if you want another "excuse" try reading the post you responded to.... where I clearly said that maybe the videos would help people understand why peta is so upset. Did you overlook that part because you wanted to take a jab at me? Come on. As someone who apparently supports the killing of animals as its now done, I dont see what problem you'd have with watching the clips. But here you call them gross? they bother you? Doesnt even seem like you watched. huh. interesting.

[Lilith Velkor]

233. I see the problem

You presume people don't know why p*ta is upset. They do. Insulting their intelligence won't change that.

OK, so they are upset. Does that mean it's OK for them to engage in race-baiting right after a calamity that disproportionately affected black people? NO (and by that I mean Hell Fucking No).

I mean no disrespect to the cause of animal welfare, and I encourage you to do what you can, through organizations other than PETA, such as the SPCA or Humane Society.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

237. why don't you watch the clips???

If you support the current system then have the guts to look it in the eye.

[Lilith Velkor]

247. Why do you assume I haven't?

Also, why do you imply that I support the current system, which is also dangerous to humans?

Do you think insulting people helps your cause?

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

251. why don't you??? it only takes a minute

1) first of all, asking you to confront the evil you seem to support in the eyes is not an insult ----
and 2) you say" it doesn't help "my cause"???
--
JSYK, I have no affiliation with any organized effort to protect animals.

[Lilith Velkor]

268. Apparently you don't believe me

Therefore, we have nothing further to discuss. Feel free to use this post as a springboard to attack anything you care to make up about me, which I'm sure you will.

[bee]

255. see... thats where youre wrong. I presume nothing.

But I know, for a fact, that many people who defend the current slaughter system have not actually seen what goes on. Believe me, as a vegan Ive had these types of conversations more times than I could ever hope to count. And 9 out of 10 times when asked simply "have you you witnessed with your own eyes the act of animal slaughter" the answer is "no... but". No but nothing. How can anyone defend an act or acts that they are not familiar with? If you feel that providing information is insulting to intelligence then Im not sure what to say. However you didnt even bother to look at the links I posted before you decided to give me a hard time about posting them.

Edit to add: Your statement "for posting your gross pics or videos or whatever" clearly shows you did not watch them.

And now we come back to the ad... which Ive thus far neither condemned nor condoned. But having looked at the exhibit I dont really understand how you perceive it as race-baiting "black people". Are you suggesting that if Katrina hadnt happened the ad would somehow be less offensive? I notice that several other ethnic groups are represented there as well. I can completely understand how someone who's ancestors were victims of these atrocities would be upset at being compared to animals in the manner that Peta has done. But at the same time I highly doubt that any of them have forgotten to the extent that the ad would inspire an anger that doesnt already exist. Black people have been oppressed and abused for the majority of this country's history. Just look at what theyve had to endure and give the group as a whole some credit. Its almost insulting given their history, to single black people out as the group most likely to be "baited" to act in response to an exhibit or ad. Especially in the aftermath of NOLA.

[arwalden]

234. Thanks.

[Qibing Zero]

210. And has anyone's mind changed as a result?

That is what I'd like to know. Whether or not PETA gets people talking is not the issue - we all agree on that. The issue is whether or not PETA gets people talking in a rational, open-minded manner, and I believe the answer to that is that it doesn't.

You DO need to be edgy, but you don't need to be so over the top that people don't even care about your argument.

[bee]

216. fair enough. point made. thank you for posting. n/t

[BikeWriter]

211. If you don't like seeing me eat raw beef, look away.

It's that simple.

[bee]

219. Im not sure what that has to do with anything.

Like I said. I dont care at all what any else eats. But because Im a vegan... people automatically assume I do. I loved eating meat at one time myself... I dont need to "look away", I dont lecture people about it, I just chose not to eat meat anymore. You know, all vegans & vegetarians aren't meat-eater-hating freaks. Its just a stereotype that leads to completely unfounded assumptions.

[DrunkenMaster]

189. Progressivism Eats Itself

Ever wonder why progressives can never seem to make any headway in politics??? This thread is a perfect example. What a waste of time and energy.

[bee]

193. I disagree.

discussions that challenge why and what people think are never a waste of time or energy IMHO. :shrug:

[DrunkenMaster]

197. Fair Enough -- IF change results

I absolutely agree that dialogue can be constructive if it leads to change....when it doesn't it just turns to bickering. This is exactly what happened to the Left in the late 60s.

[bee]

208. we agree.

the bickering is completely self destructive. If people arent open to the possibility of truth being something other than their personal views... then all their effort is spent on defending their beliefs rather than engaging in productive discussion. Fighting and hurling insults is a total waste of time and energy... here in this topic, just as in politics. I couldnt agree with you more.

[superconnected]

194. It needed to be said.

Another group needs to come in and save animals without alientating even the animal activists. And that new group needs to not be killing animals themselves.

[Qibing Zero]

218. Bleh, that's silly.

PETA aren't just progressive, they're exteme to the point they're blind a lot of the time.

Also, to say progressives don't make headway in politics is nearsighted. Have you looked around the world lately? Progressive thought is blooming all over. You can blame the two-party system and poor education for the failures of progressive thought in this country, though, not the fact progressives like to debate a little. People fear change (especially in their daily life), and it's hard to escape the trappings of 'black and white' partisan politics without extremely drastic events occuring. Also, the system becomes clogged with tradition that builds over time, as evidenced any time someone gives bush the benefit of the doubt simply because he's the president.

Though do tell us what we need to do to start changing things - I'd love to hear what you think that is.

[Catchawave]

230. Question?

Where's the OP in this thread ?

http://www.helpinganimals.com/f-dpetition.asp?c=ha_kat_net

[jim3775]

246. How about we stop human suffering first and then we focus...

on animal suffering. And enact and enforce human rights before we enact and enforce "animal rights". There is a famine in Niger that threatens to kill hundreds of thousands of people, it is cruelty to humans to let this continue.

link

Slavery is still a problem, thousands of women are kidnapped and forced into sexual servitude and some of the women are transported into North America.

humantrafficking.org

I don't want to see one dollar go towards ridiculous campaigns like the one in the OP before what I posted above is resolved and guaranteed to never happen again. I absolutely care about humans more than animals. And don't tell me "we can do both", no we can't. Both of those problems I posted are still ongoing and there is no hope in sight to fix them.

[Qibing Zero]

252. We could do both,

but the issues that 'matter' to our society are bullshit vanity things and dead-ends of political strife. Humanity has had the resources and technology to feed all of the people in the world for a while now, but in the 'real world' it's country versus country, and 'everyone deserves a chance to earn more money than most countries have'.

If we really were caring, compassionate peoples, we'd have the human situation settled, and could move on to issues like this.

[superconnected]

264. I prefer animals to humans. So I care more about animal lives.

The humans will have several currupt ones in their midsts to take over any peace and start up waring and greed again.

[bee]

267. maybe people (in general) are more attracted to causes we feel

we can actually change... and perhaps less likely to take on situations in which we feel powerless and ineffective. Not to defend for a second the actions, your post only prompted me to attempt to understand. When of course, in the points youve made, you are 100% right.

[Kashka-Kat]

258. the animal rights argument that won me over

Havent seen the peta ad- so is it really saying exactly what you THINK its saying?

Years ago, I read an article which pointed out that there is indeed a connection between what's called "animal rights" and preventing cruelty/ oppression of human beings.

Humans can do terrible things to other humans by making them in their minds into "animals" or "less than human." Young children are taught to overlook the body language or verbalizations of an abused or suffering animal and likewise are taught that some people are "less than human."

In my mind humane and loving treatment of animals does not preclude eating some of them for food (sort of the native american philosophy of honoring the animal in *us* which has evolved to be omniverous) but hey that's an argument for another time....

[superconnected]

262. I think we're all for animal rights.

PETA euthanizing pets bothers me though. Profoundly. I don't care how they call it mercy killings because people aren't adopting the animals.

I guess we'll agree to disagree about that organization and how Animal rights it is.

I wouldn't kill people because they are homeless, old, or disabled.

[Moloch]

274. Not to mention the bad apples that killed a bunch of dogs

in Norfolk earlier this year.


Animal rights is indeed a worthy cause, but I really think that PETA should re-evaluate its tactics.

[maxsolomon]

269. I don't like everything they do, but they do it well

stir the pot, you crazy fucks.

seeing animals in the zoo makes me queasy at this point.

[superconnected]

271. "stir the pot, you crazy fucks." ?

[Lilith Velkor]

276. black ops n/t

[Starbucks Anarchist]

280. Kind of like "Shine on, you crazy diamond," I guess.

[maxsolomon]

306. exactly

i have a lot of appreciation for PETA & ELF. but i'm not going to join up.

[Arkana]

277. PETA is full of nutcases.

Seriously. Does anyone even listen to them anymore? Talk about tasteless.

[arwalden]

316. A-a-and HOW! -- You Said It!!

They are loathsome and beneath contempt. Self-serving law-breaking opportunists.

[Redstone]

278. "Human supremacy is unacceptable?" It's stupid statements like that,

that make people dislike PETA.

Sorry, Charlie. NO animal is "equal" to a human, in my book. (And a lot of other people's.)

I detest animal cruelty as much as the next guy, but "animals equal to humans?" That's just absurd.

Redstone

[MarsThe Cat]

282. PETA sucks.

Big Time.

[Catchawave]

284. Link? :)

www.peta.org

[MarsThe Cat]

292. you need a link to know how much PETA sucks?

:eyes:

sheesh...talk about sadly uninformed...

http://www.peta-sucks.com/main.htm

[smbolisnch]

294. Uh yeah.....welcome.

:eyes:

[MarsThe Cat]

296. well then...here's one to get you started.

http://www.peta-sucks.com/main.htm

[yewberry]

315. Whoa, buddy that site is, um, less than credible.

Right off, the #1 thing I "don't know about PETA" is a completely inaccurate representation.

Then, they have links to CCF. Do you know who CCF is? They're a front.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

And did you notice the place where the site you linked says, "The ACLU is my next target when I get this site up"

That's some pretty messed up folks there.

[arwalden]

341. Oh My!

<< "you need a link to know how much PETA sucks?" >>

:rofl: :rofl: :spray:

[Dave Reynolds]

286. Am I too late for popcorn?

Just askin'.

[bee]

300. hmmm... lets see....

nope! :popcorn:

eidted for typo. doh!

[blindpig]

288. we are animals

and denial of that fact is the basis of much misery, for us and the other animals. The problem with PETA is that they raise other critters to the false exalted state which we falsely claim. Rather we should be the animals that we are, Pleistocene hunter gatherers, part of nature and respectful of the creatures we live with. This does not mean a return to the caves but rather adjusting our lives to what our genome dictates. Both us and the Earth would be much happier.

[nvliberal]

289. PETA

can kiss my carnivorous ass.

The executives of the organization, at the very least, are disciples of crackpot utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer, and take his "masterpiece," Animal Liberation, as gospel.

It has little to do with caring about animals but instead has everything to do with the idea people are not any different than any other animal, which is ludicrous.

Singer and PETA are batshit, completely and totally batshit crazy.

[arwalden]

325. If I Could Nominate Specific Posts... I'd Nominate Yours!!

<< Singer and PETA are batshit, completely and totally batshit crazy. >>

Well said!

[smbolisnch]

327. Yes, so eloquently put.

:eyes:
Some of you people seem positively obsessed with attacking PETA. Always the same group. Some things never change.

[arwalden]

328. Obsessed?

<< Some of you people seem positively obsessed >>

"You people"? :spray:

<... with attacking PETA.>>

I can think of no kooky organization that's more deserving of my scorn and ridicule.

<< Always the same group. >>

Who's in this vague nebulous "group" you speak of? I'd like to meet them.

<< Some things never change. >>

Especially the thin skin donned by PETA supporters. You'd think they'd learn... or develop better coping skills. But as you say... some things never change.

[Beaverhausen]

332. yes- because it's so full of intelligent arguments and examples

not to mention facts and figures to back up his/her arguments.

right on! :eyes:

[arwalden]

339. That Would Be Redundant... It's Unnecessary...

... particularly when it's all so self-evident. Arguments weren't being made... nvliberal was just stating the obvious.

:thumbsup:

[Tight_rope]

331. AMEN!

[ContraBass Black]

293. Compare yourselves to animals.

Not us.

[Sterling]

299. They are very much alike.

They are both part of the dark side of human behavior. They both are dare I say "evil". I don't hold one in any more contempt than the other.

People that don't understand this "don't get it" period.

[Tight_rope]

304. OH! THIS IS FUCKING RADICULOUS.....

:grr:As one person put it. "Comparing humans to animals is like comparing apples to oranges."

:rant:
Many people in this country treat their pets better and with more respect then they do black people. Example: George W. Bush, Jr. If his fucking dogs were down in New Orland's drowning...You bet his mothers fat white ass that he would have had help ready and waiting as soon as the winds calmed down.:rant::

Now...Don't get me wrong. No! I don't like animals. But I don't go out and try to run over cats and dogs. If fact, if they run in front of my car I do all I can to stop. Hell! Wheel alignments cost too much. However, I use to work with an white evil fucking human "Devil", who use to get his kicks by telling us stories about how when he was young living in Colorado. He and his friends use to blow up cats and dogs, by all means necessary (the details are just to gruesome to tell). And now a he is a 38 yr old man with a wife, baby, a dog and a cat and he treats them all like pets.:banghead: :beer:

[Sterling]

309. I care about all living creatures.

That is why I care for Blacks as much as my own race. If I started creating levels of compassion I would care less for people of other races than my own. I am shocked that a black person would not understand that the only reason the have freedom is because enough people extended their compassion far enough to include others that were not like them.

With animals it is not even a question of freedom is as much as it is a question about ourselves and what kind of creatures we are. How we treat other creatures says a lot about us.

What many on this thread think about animals tells me much about the state of mind they exist in. I feel sorry for many here as they seem to have little idea of where they really fit in in the universe.

[Sterling]

305. I just sent $300 to PETA because of this thread.

I promise to donate $50 to PETA for every attack thread started by a DUer. This is money that might have gone to the party or Dem candidate. I can't afford to support everyone.

I will start supporting groups that focus on issues that I care about now that I realize what kind of people are included in the Democratic party. I don't want to support their agenda anymore. I have little in common with what passes for a Democrat on this site anymore.

[Tight_rope]

307. See you are a perfect example...

Did you send $300 to the Red Cross or FEMA to help the victoms of hurricane Katrina?...I bet not.

[Moloch]

308. I guess to some people animal lives are more important....

than human lives.


Absolutely sickening.

[Beaverhausen]

312. Maybe some people do- what if they do?

Some people can have compassion for all living things. Some of us realize that treating animals with compassion and care is just as important as treating every human with the same compassion and care.

Its an indication of how civilized our society is when we treat our animals well. Someone far more wise than I said something like that- Mark Twain? Einstein? I can't remember who.

anyway...if you don't feel that way fine - but many of us do.

[barb162]

344. I think you meant Albert Schweitzer

and I agree with you. People can take care of people but who takes care of the animals?

[buzzsaw_23]

317. All life is sacred

Industrial mechanistic societies consider life in only a crude utilitarian manner. Nothing is more reactionary and extreme than such a society.

Slavery is a by-product of such a society, as is wage-slavery.
Animal abuse, be it the slaughterhouse or the cattle yard, is also a by-product of such a commodified society.

PETA's analogy is accurate.

[flvegan]

334. Hello, we haven't met.

Nice post. Well said. Actually, VERY well said.

[buzzsaw_23]

340. Hi

Two Amazing Books

1) Woman and Nature (The Roaring Inside Her) by Susan Griffin

2) The Arrogance of Humanism by David Ehrenfeld

Those who are put out by the PETA's, Earth Firsters! etc... usually have had little first hand relationship with violence in their own lives and/or a blind spot in their minds eye for how deeply violent the texture of the Western Habit of Mind and CULT(ure) are in theory and practice. That's not something one can just 'vote' away and is thusly kept on the margins of the typical liberal consciousness.
Sorry for the broad brush but sadly it seems to be accurate.

Clearcuts-Nursing Homes-Resource Wars-Hierarchy-Wall St.-Dying Coral Reefs-Animal Abuse-Suburbia-Agribusiness

It's all connected

[flvegan]

348. Well stated.

EF! huh? Interesting choice of groups to link together in a thread.

You sound like my kind of people.

PLEASE, stick around. We've got a good Environmental forum, and the Veg/AR forum is the very best here.

I don't know you, but I like you.

Welcome.

[Sterling]

323. I was not aware it was a contest?

Compassion is not a competitive sport. It does not in it's truest form take sides or chose to value one's suffering over another's.

[flvegan]

329. Your quantifier. Your division.

You judge.

Sickening is your original post 'n run...

[Tight_rope]

330. LOVE YOUR DOGS...LOVE YOUR CATS...WHO GIVES A FUCK...

JUST DON'T COMPARE THEM TO THE BLACK HUMAN RACE. (BETTER YET...SINCE PETA WANTS TO USE EXAMPLES...WHY NOT USE THE HOLOCAUST AS AN EXAMPLE OF ANIMAL/HUMAN CRUELTY.

[flvegan]

333. Ummm, I didn't. Neither did PETA.

They've also been accused of using the Holocaust as an example.

Race isn't the issue here. Never was, never will be. Sorry.

[Tight_rope]

337. Ummm...well this proves my point...PETA is a pathetic organization.

It uses human tragedies to try to prove it's point of view.

[flvegan]

338. How does "this prove (your) point" exactly?

[Sterling]

318. Give money to FEMA, your kidding right?

No thanks. Actually I am the kind of person that actual helps people hands on. So thanks for playing but I do my share of helping people and I don't get paid for it.

I am just not limited in terms of who and what I care about. I see the whole picture.

[smbolisnch]

321. FEMA? NOW you are trusting FEMA? Kee-rist.

Some people never cease to amaze me. :banghead:

[shockra]

313. That's great, Sterling!

I joined PETA because of these threads, and people's insane reactions.

Not to mention because of all the new information I learned.

[Sterling]

320. I can see who my allies are when I read these threads.

I can tell I am not really part of whatever these people are interested in.

[smbolisnch]

322. Awesome

:yourock:

[Sterling]

324. I have been making good money lately.

I am happy to be able to give more than I used to to cause I support. I am also being more picky about who I send it to. I tend to want to send it where I think it is needed most. I never sent PETA money because I thought most progressives/dems already gave and supported them.

Now I see I need to focus my efforts need to be more selective as not all self professed Dems or progressives are created equal in terms of grasping basic human kindness.

The more energy I see people on this site use up attacking causes I support the more I feel I need to refocus my money and efforts away from the larger group and target areas I can have the most impact on things that matter to me personally.

[smbolisnch]

326. I wish I had more to give them. Threads like this remind me why.

Compassion for animals is NOT a priority for a lot of dems. I will never understand why.
Great Job, Sterling. ;)

[arwalden]

345. Ptptptptptppppth!

:spray: :rofl:

"Yeah... that'll teach those lousy bastards a lesson. Maybe they'll think twice before they DARE to speak out against PETA! So there!" Eh? :rofl: :eyes:

<< I promise to donate $50 to PETA for every attack thread started by a DUer. This is money that might have gone to the party or Dem candidate. I can't afford to support everyone. >>

That's the funniest thing I've read this week! Do you think this will make folks stop criticizing PETA? Wow!

Curious thing. I do wonder why you feel like you need to make such gestures... or threats... are you trying to "punish" those who dare to speak out against your beloved PETA?

<< I will start supporting groups that focus on issues that I care about now that I realize what kind of people are included in the Democratic party.>>

Oh yeah! Well me too! For every PRO PETA thread I'm going to donate money to the National Cattleman's Beef Association. So THERE! Back at ya! How do ya like THEM apples? Nyah Nyah!



AND... now that *I* know what kind of people are included in the Democratic party... I'm going to EAT a burger! And I'm going to BOIL A LIVE LOBSTER... and then EAT IT! Just because of the pro-PETA messages, they have ONLY themselves to blame for a poor TORTURED cow and lobster that I will MURDER.

<<I don't want to support their agenda anymore. I have little in common with what passes for a Democrat on this site anymore. >>

Really? Okay... goodbye.


WHAAAAAH!

[flvegan]

347. I'm going to go ahead and ask...

What specifically, is your problem with PETA?

I look forward to your answer...

[MrSlayer]

349. Just want to add my obligatory "PETA are idiots" comment.

Obviously I'm not a fan.

[flvegan]

350. Thank you, DUers!!

Once again, some of you rise to the call. This isn't LBN or anything else for that matter, yet you've made it the MOST popular thread/flamefest on the LBN board. PETA's goal: make them talk about it; expose it; show it to the world. I'll just put a big ole checkmark in the spot next to that one.

Marks. Keep posting...it just promotes it.

HUGE thanks to the PETA haters that kept this thread going. You helped more than I ever could have.

I love that you can be counted on. Carry on...

[Moderator]

352. Locking

Seems like all sides have had their say.