PETA for Killing Over 14,000 More Animals than Michael Vick [Archive]

DougP

09-11-2007, 05:10 PM

Here's some more from the site:

http://www.PETAkillsanimals.com .
1) PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group’s overall goal as “total animal liberation.” This means no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing, and no pets (not even seeing-eye dogs). PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of animals.

2) Despite its constant moralizing about the “unethical” treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, PETA has killed over 14,400 dogs and cats at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. During 2005, PETA put to death over 90 percent of the animals it collected from members of the public.

3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing recommendation, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime. And PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich told an animal rights convention in 2001 that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”

4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, often waiting outside their schools to intercept them as they walk to and from class-without notifying parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” PETA brags that its messages reach over 2 million children every year, including thousands reached by e-mail without the permission of their parents. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”

5) PETA has used a related organization, the PETA Foundation, to fund the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a deceptive animal rights group that promotes itself as an unbiased source of medical and nutritional information. PCRM's president also serves as president of the PETA Foundation.

6) PETA runs campaigns seemingly calculated to offend religious believers. One entire PETA website is devoted to the claim-despite ample evidence to the contrary-that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs “died for their sins.” PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn't be allowed. And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign crassly compares the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide with farm animals.

7) PETA has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, because they support animal-based research that might uncover cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.”

09-11-2007, 05:18 PM

Cool story. I followed the link. :D Interesting.

Found this little bit on it: 7 things you didn't know about PETA (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/article_detail.cfm?article=134).

Only, I knew a few of the things on it. One fact reminded me of why I never much liked PETA:

http://media-carnell.macrobyte.net/animalrights/images/01_06_2004_your_mommy_kills.jpg

http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/yourdaddykills.jpg

Gotta love those tactics.

09-11-2007, 05:18 PM

Punk, you beat me to the list of 7 things. :D

P_chan

09-11-2007, 05:20 PM

“even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.”

I love this part! I hope she contracts aids and dies.

“blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”

This is another good one.

“Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”

I like this one to. I wonder who the real child is?

Number seven also makes me laugh, what a bunch of crazy assholes.

I know this sounds horrible, but I have to say it. I wonder what would happen if the next 15 year old know-it-all vegan who preaches to me about how my way of life is cruel, would get a horrible disease, or close family member get some type of horrible disease. Maybe if they experience real human suffering, they would change their views on what really is 'cruel' and decide to help their fellow human rather then some animal. Animals are below humans (yes I know humans are a type of animal) and there is no changing that, no matter how many of your emotions you project onto them to try and make it look that way.

DougP

09-11-2007, 05:26 PM

I don't see how PETA is any different then the Hamas Terrorists when it comes to tactics and two-faced story telling. My whole thing is if animals are no different than humans and humans are animals then why do they exploit children and harm other humans?

09-11-2007, 05:28 PM

DougP

09-11-2007, 05:34 PM

I too am anxiously awaiting... perhaps I should grab a beer and some popcorn:)

lumpia

09-11-2007, 05:35 PM

One of the VP's of PETA is diabetic, and relies on insulin. Yet PETA is totally againist any and all animal testing. They are absolutely right, if it wasn't for animal testing, we would still have the joy of things like small pox.

PETA Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland on her use of insulin, which was tested on animals:

"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."
--Glamour, January 1990

Not to mention that I wish everyone had as nice of an office as this non-profit organization.

http://www.american-partisan.com/images/gibson/PETA-Headquarters.jpg

Now I will agree, we don't need to do animal testing for cosmetics. Whether they believe it or not, women will not die if they leave the house without a layer of make-up on that could make a clown blush.

DougP

09-11-2007, 05:57 PM

Speaking of synthetic insulin
http://www.iddtinternational.org/campaigning/gmvsanimalinsulin.htm

Animal derived insulins have been used to treat people with diabetes since insulin was first discovered and since the 1970s it has been highly purified. Genetically produced so-called ‘human’ insulin was introduced in 1982 and now the vast majority of people requiring insulin treatment are prescribed synthetic GM ‘human’ insulin or their successors, insulin analogues. However, after 20years there is still no evidence that synthetic GM insulins have any clinical advantages for patients and they cost the NHS significantly more than animal insulins.

A significant minority of people experience adverse reactions when treated with synthetic insulin and these adverse reactions often disappear with a change to natural animal insulin. The adverse reactions affect the ability to satisfactorily control blood glucose levels, the ability to recognise low blood glucose levels [hypoglycaemia] so preventing remedial action being taken so increasing the risk of coma and even death. The other reported adverse reactions include a clearly defined of category of symptoms - large weight increase, extreme tiredness, memory loss, behavioural changes, joint and muscle pains. Many patients that have reported adverse reactions have not been believed by their doctor and/or healthcare professionals.

People are rarely given a choice of insulin treatment with information about risks and benefits and so are denied the informed choice of treatment to which they are entitled. For no good clinical reason, some patients are even denied their request to be transferred to animal insulin while others are given misinformation about the claimed superiority of ‘human’ insulin and the lack of availability of animal insulin.

‘Human’ insulin was originally thought to have advantages over natural animal insulin but research has since demonstrated that it has no clinical advantages for patients over animal insulin and there is no long-term safety data. The Patient Information Leaflets and the Medicines Control Agency confirm that a small number of people are more suited to treatment with animal insulin. Despite this the major insulin producing companies are systematically discontinuing animal insulins from countries in Europe and the rest of the world and it has been confirmed that this is their intention in the UK. This will leave people that need animal insulin without the treatment that they know from experience suits them best and the treatment they need to maintain their health and quality of life.

I'm sure PETA would be more than happy to deny human animals the right to treatment they need in order to supposedly save other animals.

hardplayer

09-11-2007, 06:19 PM

Haveyou heard that Peta means People eating tasty animals? lol.

But I really havent read much about them or animal rights.

Those comic covers look scary.

Muku

09-11-2007, 06:45 PM

And if animals are no different than humans, why not euthanize our own homeless? Based on the above article, it's better to be dead than homeless.

But anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing views from our local AR activist on this. This should be a fun topic.
How much do you want to bet?

For he does____________?

For he doesn't__________?

Actually you should probably PM me with the amount because, well you know how "he" is:rolleyes:?

Any takers?:D

TheNoNamedOne

09-11-2007, 07:41 PM

I think I have addressed some of the stuff you guys have posted in this thread here (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13153&postcount=52), and probably more on pages 3, 4, 5, and 6 of that thread.

I am not the PETA mouthpiece that is for sure. You have to remember, PETA has two heads -- one an animal welfare head, and the other an animal rights head. Many PETA members and supporters often bicker amongst themselves because campaigns will take one of the two as their strategy. When that happens, PETA AW members will be pissed at PETA for going on their AR swing, and when PETA AW campaigns come about PETA AR members will get pissed at the AW part of PETA.

To use another analogy, there is one United States, but there are two main political parties within the U.S. Those different political parties as they come into control of the congress and office of the president, exert influence on policy.

However, if some of those policies are questionable as to the good of the country, then that does not automatically make the whole country, or both parties wrong -- or bad. There is a pendulum that swings back and forth and there are even factions within each party that lose out in trying to influence their party. Peta is no different.

But, they continue to grow and continue to win victories in the area of AW and AR. Mistakes are made in all orgs and none are perfect. The standard of perfection need not be put up against PETA as it is not put up aganst other orgs. If it were, and then that were cause to leave that org, then why hasn't everyone abandoned the U.S. for its failures?

The answer is that no orgs, like people, are perfect. We can only hope to at least zig zag our way to the goal in the right direction.

DougP

09-11-2007, 07:59 PM

Unfortunately the overall goal of that organization seems to be more detrimental to humans. If the United States is under scrutiny, which it is all the time, then I don't see why PETA can't be as well. Many people choose not to support the military because of current flaws in foreign policy and the decision that was made to go into Iraq. Yet the overall goal of the military is to defend America. That goal hasn't changed. So its ok to support a movement that self contradicts and is down right wrong in its methods sometimes becuase of an overall goal.

You're right AR groups like other groups and people alike are not perfect.
They do a fair amount of tooting their own horn acting like they are in right 100% of the time and criticize normal citizens for their choice of diet.(see pictures on the first page) I feel that such a group should be more carefull to walk on the straight and narrow if they're to appear so altruistic in their endeavors.

TheNoNamedOne

09-11-2007, 08:18 PM

Unfortunately the overall goal of that organization seems to be more detrimental to humans.

Key word here is "seems," for to a large number of people that is not the case. They view their goal as to help animals, and bringing animals up in standard of treatment does not necessarily mean bringing people down in how they are to be treated.

If the United States is under scrutiny, which it is all the time, then I don't see why PETA can't be as well.

We agree. I want PETA to remain under scrutiny, too. All NPOs and governments should remain under scrutiny. The spotlight on PETA continues to get their message out. They admit they are publicity whores and that has worked well for them -- just as some seem to think being a beer whore or car whore does good for their person.

Many people choose not to support the military because of current flaws in foreign policy and the decision that was made to go into Iraq. Yet the overall goal of the military is to defend America. That goal hasn't changed. So its ok to support a movement that self contradicts and is down right wrong in its methods sometimes becuase of an overall goal.

You and I agree again, Doug. Well said. We are all in the same analogy boat. Politics, be they outside the org with other orgs, or internal amongst the members, make strange bed fellows. No getting around that when the actors become many.

You're right AR groups like other groups and people alike are not perfect.

More agreement.

They do a fair amount of tooting their own horn...

Not sure if that is the right characterization, but... all orgs that seek social change should believe in it enough to proudly espouse it. Why should they hide it or be ashamed of it if they think they are right? If they do not believe passionately 100% in their social struggle, then why should they want to change society?

...acting like they are in right 100% of the time and criticize normal citizens for their choice of diet.(see pictures on the first page)

I try to criticize the diet without making it personal. Some see that as personal. But it is not. They are just connecting the dot from meat, to stomach, to finger pointing at them. I say, "A meat diet is unethical." I do not say "You are unethical for eating meat." I drop the pronoun. If I have used the pronoun and it is pointed out to me, I will retract that and apologize. I am well aware that the difference is subtle, but I think it is important. BECAUSE a diet does not define a person in their totality as being either ethical or unethical. It is a small part of their whole.

I feel that such a group should be more carefull to walk on the straight and narrow if they're to appear so altruistic in their endeavors.

To the overly critical, many as yourself do so. But, many allow for some zig zagging on the matter. If many did not, then PETA never would have grown to its size, power, and influence in legal, corporate, and popular culture -- not only national, but international as well.

Fonze

09-11-2007, 08:27 PM

The problem with this org is one big it cowers behind the non profit banner yet is trying to change the american way of life.
Yes there are many who do this non prof deal and it's wrong, liberal and coservative groups have the right to voice there want in change, but not as a non profit org.

09-11-2007, 08:33 PM

Yes there are many who do this non prof deal and it's wrong, liberal and coservative groups have the right to voice there want in change, but not as a non profit org.
Ok, I pretty much dislike PETA, but wtf? Why?

Muku

09-11-2007, 08:34 PM

They do a fair amount of tooting their own horn...

Maybe publizing their own propaganda would be a better term.:D

Plus I find it hypocritical of them to condem others when they have slaughtered so many animals on their own.

Their propaganda is so much like anything else these days targeted towards the most vunerable children. That is in my opinion a form of terrorism as well.

If their agenda was just they should be able to just put their information out there and allow people to make their own decisions, but who would listen?:rolleyes:

I look forward to the day that a PETA Terrorist or AR Terrorist to show up at my front door, they just might end up as the main course for my pets!:D

09-11-2007, 08:36 PM

Their propaganda is so much like anything else these days targeted towards the most vunerable children. That is in my opinion a form of terrorism as well.
To be fair, even churches use this tactic, but you won't find many people calling the Christian church a form of terrorism.

Fonze

09-11-2007, 08:45 PM

You do hear them calling them tons of names. Who atheist amongst others.

DougP

09-11-2007, 08:48 PM

I try to criticize the diet without making it personal. Some see that as personal. But it is not. They are just connecting the dot from meat, to stomach, to finger pointing at them. I say, "A meat diet is unethical." I do not say "You are unethical for eating meat." I drop the pronoun. If I have used the pronoun and it is pointed out to me, I will retract that and apologize. I am well aware that the difference is subtle, but I think it is important. BECAUSE a diet does not define a person in their totality as being either ethical or unethical. It is a small part of their whole.

I know you don't make things a personal issue when it comes to this debate. PETA and they're propaganda-like advertising(see pics on first page) is personal. Anytime an org targets a young child like that its awfully hard not to view it as personal. I view it a down right wrong. Reminds me of old cigarette advertising stategies.

Bottom line is they want people to get on board with them regardless of the cost. Without regard for other peoples personal welfare or wishes. They are trying to persuade people into adopting their beliefs in a very forcefull manner at times.

Key words their beliefs which means it does not make what they are doing right. They believe their cause is just but it does not mean that it is.

Since they like to use analogies like the holocaust to describe animal exploitation here's one for them.

PETA and other AR movements are reminessent of the Crusades in the name of Christendom.

DougP

09-11-2007, 08:50 PM

To be fair, even churches use this tactic, but you won't find many people calling the Christian church a form of terrorism.

I would:D I feel that way about all organized religion:thumbdown:

TheNoNamedOne

09-11-2007, 09:08 PM

I know you don't make things a personal issue when it comes to this debate. PETA and they're propaganda-like advertising(see pics on first page) is personal. Anytime an org targets a young child like that its awfully hard not to view it as personal. I view it a down right wrong. Reminds me of old cigarette advertising stategies.

Sensational? Yes. Personal? No.

I think it was dk who pointed out that churches and religions do similar things -- scaring them with the devil, eternal damnation, hell. Does that excuse them if in fact it is a wrong personal attack? No. But, I don't think it is a personal attack, eventhough it may upset the parents.

Look at the message analytically -- not emotionally:

Your Mommy Kills Animals

"Your" in this case is clearly the whole group of mothers who create the demand through their shopping and cooking that pulls animals through the killing system. If Bin Ladin said, "Your forefathers burn in hell" is that a personal attack? Or a sensational statement? Do you think he is talking just to you? I don't think so.

So, is it that the target is children that it becomes personal? That is strange. I always thought it was the intimate and direct nature of words that made them personal.

Now, if you ask me my personal opinion about those comic campaigns we are discussing, if I were a part of the inner circle and the concept came up for that, I would have voted against it, as I am sure there probably were some who thought it best to not persue that, but that faction surely lost in this decision. I think that time spent on that could have been better used, and PETA has not made those comics the 99% of the total of their outreach programs to kids. It is a very small percentage, so to condemn PETA wholey for a small percent from a program that isn't really being pushed, to me is off the mark. But some people have only a few pegs to hang their hat on, and this is one peg they want to keep.

No biggy. PETA keeps rolling on and getting bigger despite a vocal small number of people who drag those comics up. Their screaming has done nothing to diminish PETAs growth and reverse it.

Muku

09-11-2007, 09:22 PM

Look at the message analytically -- not emotionally:

Your Mommy Kills Animals

"Your" in this case is clearly the whole group of mothers who create the demand through their shopping and cooking that pulls animals through the killing system.

This comment and the attempt to justify it smells so much like the nightshade of a well fed ox.

Try and explain that to a 5 year old that is just learning to read. You actually think that it isnt going to effect them emotionally:thumbdown:

There is no justification to terrorize children of any age.

lumpia

09-11-2007, 09:23 PM

At least animals can run away. Plants cannot fight off the harvester. And they are in fact living.

Not to mention that if everyone was eating vegetables, we would run out of food pretty quick. Because you have to fertilize to get a good crop, either with animal products (which PETA is against, it is in fact an animal product), or chemicals, which in turn poison the environment (so Al Gore cries about the ozone).

Also if you take hunting out of the scenario, most animals will starve to death due to over population. Plus the animals that survive would be starving, who in turn would be getting in the crops and eating food that is intended for humans, and we can't put up fences or try to keep them out, because those animals have a right to be there (According to PETA).

So lets say we do liberate these animals, where are the cows going to live? It's not as if we can release them back into the wild cow herds of North America.

What about the chickens? They going to migrate south for the winter? Going to be a long walk, or a whole hell of a lot of short flights.

Dogs? Take a look at all the "liberated" dogs on Okinawa alone. If you have never been to the "stray dog island" down around Itoman, I would recommend a visit, it's a real eye opener to how "free" animals live.

So please, do your part, and be a vegetarian if you like..... It keeps the cost of beef reasonable for me.

09-11-2007, 09:25 PM

This comment and the attempt to justify it smells so much like the nightshade of a well fed ox.

Try and explain that to a 5 year old that is just learning to read. You actually think that it isnt going to effect them emotionally:thumbdown:

There is no justification to terrorize children of any age.
On this, I agree with you entirely.

TheNoNamedOne

09-11-2007, 09:29 PM

At least animals can run away. Plants cannot fight ...

Lumpia, your whole post is not really addressing the topic of PETA. You are going off on the vegetarian topic. There are threads for that. Do a search and you will find them, and some of the points you have brought up have been answered there. No need to repeat them here when there is a separate thread specifically made for that.

Let me know if you have trouble finding them. I think the one that most answers your points is the "Vegetarianism for moral and ethical reasons" thread. Let me know if you can't find it -- or to save you from reposting your post over there, I can just move it for you and we can pick up there.

Let me know.

TheNoNamedOne

09-11-2007, 09:32 PM

Try and explain that to a 5 year old that is just learning to read. You actually think that it isnt going to effect them emotionally

Well, do you have any evidence or data that shows a large number of children have been affected by it negatively? I have yet to see any but maybe you have, and I would welcome seeing that information.

Well?

09-11-2007, 09:34 PM

lumpia

09-11-2007, 09:38 PM

The whole post has to do with PETA, and giving detailed reasons why their logic is flawed. The first sentence was in fact directed at vegetarians, and was very fitting into the rest of the post.

Now if you have problems making the connection between PETA, and their animal liberation movement, I don't know what to tell you.

Your logic of there's 2 sides of PETA is ridiculous, that's like saying (and this is a PETA tactic through and through) that not all NAZIs were bad, some of them were just for getting the Jews out of Germany, and the surrounding area, and not about trying to extinguish an entire religion from the face of the planet.

PETA is 2-faced. They are also one of the worst terrorism supporting Non-Profit Organizations in the country.

Muku

09-11-2007, 09:48 PM

Who cares. It was obviously targetting young children. It was a pretty screwed up tactic, and PETA was responsible last I heard.

I've seen some pretty screwed up religious propoganda too. I'm not asking for an apology, just a "yeah, that's pretty messed up."
I agree with you here too.

Well, do you have any evidence or data that shows a large number of children have been affected by it negatively? I have yet to see any but maybe you have, and I would welcome seeing that information.

Well?
Is that your response? This also sound like a major cop out because there isnt anything that you can say to justifiy it. Well let's see your evidence to prove that it doesnt terrorize a child.

Who knows maybe there is maybe there isnt any data.

What the hell do you think a young child is going to think when they see a poster like that and think their mommy or daddy are cold blooded killers?

Give me a break:rolleyes: a person would have to be either naive, ignorant, or have been locked up in a cave with an AR/PETA terrorist to think that it wouldn't terrorize a child.:rolleyes:

I have and am raising three kids of my own I know wtf terrorizes and scares a child.

Do you? Well?

09-11-2007, 09:50 PM

lumpia

09-11-2007, 09:57 PM

I don't have kids, but I'm pretty sure if you put the idea in their head, it's taken a little differently then an adult would take it.

It's kind of like the old joke of going to Disneyland with a kid, and seeing a sign that says Disneyland left. To me, that means its on the left side of the road, to a child, it may be taken differently, as in it vacated the state of California.

TheNoNamedOne

09-11-2007, 09:58 PM

The whole post has to do with PETA, and giving detailed reasons why their logic is flawed. The first sentence was in fact directed at vegetarians, and was very fitting into the rest of the post.

So, lumpia, basically you want me to start debating vegetarianism here, right? You want me to repeat just about everythign that is multiple pages on the other thread specifically for that, right? Is that what you want? I don't think that the others who are following this thread who have lived through that other thread would really like to see me repeat myself. We would all benefit if theis thread could stay clear from going over the points of plants being alive and some of the other points you brought up (only hunting I think I have not yet made a thread for).

Like I said, a lot of the answers I would provide to your questions or comments already exist on another thread. Why not just click over and view them and save us from repeating multiple pages on the same point.

Your logic of there's 2 sides of PETA is ridiculous,...

Nothing ridiculous about it. They most certainly do. AR and AW. Do you know what the differences are between them? I don't think you do.

...that's like saying (and this is a PETA tactic through and through) that not all NAZIs were bad, some of them were just for getting the Jews out of Germany, and the surrounding area, and not about trying to extinguish an entire religion from the face of the planet.

So, are you saying "I am saying that not all PETA people are bad"? Or are you saying PETA is saying something? Please clarify this. Thanks in advance.

PETA is 2-faced.

I thought you just said they can't have two faces. Are you confused on the point?

They are also one of the worst terrorism supporting Non-Profit Organizations in the country.

lol. You know, funny rants without any basis in reality really does nothing for your argument. But, hey, I will bite. --- Ok, so tell me how they can retain their NPO status and are closely scrutinized and on top of that be "one of the worst terrorism supporting orgs" there are? Why haven't the FBI swooped down on their HQ and halled all those vegetarians off to jail yet? Surely PETA's HQ isn't so camouflaged that the feds can't find them is it?

Perhaps they have one of those Klingon Cloaking devices and everytime the FBI and Homeland Security comes to haul off all those vegetarians, they employ it and the Feds just keep driving right by it.

Mystery solved!

lol.

TheNoNamedOne

09-11-2007, 10:06 PM

<insert "you don't need to prove a negative" BS here>

You got that right, dk. <wink>

But, why do you think that is BS? Perhaps that could be a whole new thread topic because it could be applied to anything like:

Taro: Jesus is God.
Kenji: No he isn't.
Taro: Yes, he is. Prove that he isn't. Until you do, then it is true that he is.

09-11-2007, 10:12 PM

http://www.snowboardshop.no/user_images/******%20Now.jpg
Newb. :first::p

Muku

09-11-2007, 10:14 PM

Newb. :first::p
Actually the pics were too large...but thanks anyway.:thumbup: I FU here!

09-11-2007, 10:15 PM

hahahahahaahaha...

*comedy break over* lol

Muku

09-11-2007, 10:16 PM

PETA is 2-faced.

I thought you just said they can't have two faces. Are you confused on the point?

This is your brain;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2005/01/050111165229.jpg

This is your brain on PETA

09-11-2007, 10:19 PM

Try downloading and attaching the picture. Is there a bad word in the URL?

Muku

09-11-2007, 10:20 PM

Try downloading and attaching the picture. Is there a bad word in the URL?
Thank you, it never occured to me that the "word" would be censored for a link.

09-11-2007, 10:22 PM

Thank you, it never occured to me that the "word" would be censored for a link.
Yeah I've never seen that happen before...

DougP

09-11-2007, 10:46 PM

The article addressed the fact that PETA an organization who's campaign centers around being ethical uses unethical methods. They are against animal exploitation yet they are ok with exploiting children. Their connection to terrorist groups like ALF and ELF have been noted in the first page of this thread.

3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing recommendation, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime. And PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich told an animal rights convention in 2001 that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”

This is a radical group that wants to impose their ideals on other people. Just like radical religious groups. Each one believes that their way is the right way. They believe that what they are doing is ethical and for the benefit of everyone. Shouldn't people have the right to choose?

I for one don't want my children or my children's children to be subjected to a world where other's ideals and beliefs are imposed on them. A world where their rights have been stripped from them because of another radical movements beliefs. Be it because of religious or AR groups.

TheNoNamedOne

09-11-2007, 11:09 PM

This is your brain;

This is your brain on PETA

I liked that, too, Uchi. Funny.

lumpia

09-11-2007, 11:30 PM

So, lumpia, basically you want me to start debating vegetarianism here, right? You want me to repeat just about everythign that is multiple pages on the other thread specifically for that, right? Is that what you want? I don't think that the others who are following this thread who have lived through that other thread would really like to see me repeat myself. We would all benefit if theis thread could stay clear from going over the points of plants being alive and some of the other points you brought up (only hunting I think I have not yet made a thread for).

Let me sum it up for you, I don't want to argue about vegetarianism with you, that's your choice, just as much as eating meat is mine. So stop with the trying to turn my words on me, PETA is for Animal Liberation, if all animals were liberated, we would have no choice other then to be vegetarians, or vegans to put it better.

Nothing ridiculous about it. They most certainly do. AR and AW. Do you know what the differences are between them? I don't think you do.

As a matter of fact, I do know the difference between Animal Rights, and Animal Liberation, let be break it down for you barney style, so there is no doubt in your mind that I know what you, and I are talking about.

Animal Rights: The right for animals to not be treated inhumanly. Like beating your dog. Here is a classic example of what the animal rights movement is all about. Warning, this video is very graphic.

PETA Video of a Fur Farm in China (http://a805.v9135e.c9135.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/805/9135/0029/peta.download.akamai.com/9135/downloads/fur_farm_med.wmv)

Now, that is what animal rights are all about. Animals should not be treated like that, there is no reason for it.

Now, on with the show

Animal Liberation: The total and complete liberation of all animals, no pets, not seeing eye dogs, no animal research, no farm animals, no eating meat, no animal products of any type.

So I think I might have at least an idea about the difference between animal rights, and animal liberation. Please clarify if I missed anything.

So, are you saying "I am saying that not all PETA people are bad"? Or are you saying PETA is saying something? Please clarify this. Thanks in advance.

Now, I gather, from your posts here, and on a couple of other threads here on this forum, that you are in support of PETA. Do you donate money to them? Let me know on this one, thanks in advance.

I thought you just said they can't have two faces. Are you confused on the point?

Now, I know it may be difficult to understand. But 2 sides and 2 faced are 2 toally different things. 2 faced by my definition is: hypocritical, like bitching at someone for driving an SUV..... From your Hummer. Also when you say one thing and do another. Oh, I'm a vegetarian, and then going and eating prime rib. Let me know if you need me to break it down for you some more.

lol. You know, funny rants without any basis in reality really does nothing for your argument. But, hey, I will bite. --- Ok, so tell me how they can retain their NPO status and are closely scrutinized and on top of that be "one of the worst terrorism supporting orgs" there are? Why haven't the FBI swooped down on their HQ and halled all those vegetarians off to jail yet? Surely PETA's HQ isn't so camouflaged that the feds can't find them is it?

Now for the grand finale. A great portion of this information comes from an episode of a television program on Showtime called, "Penn & Tellers BULLSHIT!". I would reccomend you take a peak at it, at least the episode about PETA.

PETA is a non-profit organization, so their finances are a matter of public record. They have made donations to other Animal Rights / Animal Liberations “groups” who in turn, have set fire to animal testing facilities, as well as killed people because of their views on the matter. Scare tactics and murdering people to try to deter them from doing something that you feel is wrong is terrorism. You are terrorizing them, trying to make them see things your way.

In 1994, Rodney Coronado burned down a Michigan State University Animal Research Lab, as well as admitting to 6 other Arson’s. It just so happens he accepted a donation (for the Rodney Coronado Support Committee) from PETA, to the tone of $45,200. Oh, not to mention the $25,000 loan to Ray Coronado, he happens to be Rodney’s dad, who said they never paid the money back, it wasn’t a loan. Over $70,000 going to a known animal rights activist, or as I see him, a terrorist. He encourages other animal rights activists to do the same, blow things up. He teaches them how to make bombs, such as “Crude Incendiary Devices” (sounds like a breed of IED to me) which are moltov cocktails in a milk jug. And Ingrid Newkirk calls this guy a “fine young man”.

Members of PETA, and their sister groups, have made statements such as, “You can justify, from a political standpoint, any type of violence you want to use…… I don’t have any doubt in my mind, that there will come a time that we will see violence against animal rights abusers……I think violence, and non-violence are not moral principles, they are tactics.”

They have threatened to kill Ted Nugent’s kids on their way to school because they eat pheasant.

They support felons, people who have spent time in maximum security prisons for violence revolving around Animal Liberation / Animal Rights. They send them into schools to talk to children, to try to influence young minds.

Now, in my eyes, if you support money to known terrorists, that makes you a terrorists as well.

Is your money going to pay someone who wants to kill Ted Nugents kids because they eat pheasant? Let me know.

TheNoNamedOne

09-11-2007, 11:37 PM

Because it's equally impossible to prove that Jesus is God in the above example, just as you won't find documented cases of a child being terrorized by these pamphlets, which isn't even the case I was making. My whole case was that these are pretty messed up tactics, and I stand by that.

Ok, that is cool. I understand what you are sayingn here. I can respect that people think that, and perhaps to a degree I can agree with the point about this comic, and I think I have already done so in a reply to Doug.

However, I don't think you guys really want MY take on it, do you? Eventhough I am not the mouthpiece for PETA, I am just trying to explain it from their perspective or how the inner workings of their decisions may be and how the parts of their two heads work.

Because of that I have to, hell it is my duty, to explain it in as strong as way as possible. Or unless you guys just want me to agree and not go any further in answering questions?

I think there are a lot of PETA members out there but only very few poke their heads up to take heat and stick around and debate the points or PETA themselves. I don't mind simply because I like debate, and hell, even if I completely disagreed with PETA I could still play the Devil Advocate for them because there is another animal org that is actually the bigger threat to the animal status quo than PETA.

You guys should at least appreciate you have someone here who is fielding these questions from a PETA perspective if you actually are curious about the answers to your questions.

Here is the thing, so many who are against the animal rights agenda are focused on PETA that they are not even aware of the Trojan Horse that PETA has been giving cover for. The HSUS has gotten so strong, actually eclipsing PETA in influence, that they are the actual main players in getting change. That is why I really don't mind the PETA bashing and even PETA doesn't mind, because they know they are the lightning rod and energy is being spent on them while the HSUS is chugging along. And the HSUS is savy enough to avoid a few things that PETA does not avoid.

But, don't let the fact that the HSUS doesn't refer to themselves as an AR group full you. That is the thing about Trojan Horses. They get amongst you and open up their goodies that were not expected. The problem is, you won't find the clinks in their armor that are more easier to find in PETA's (if PETA has any).

Damn, sorry dk. Got off point. Oh, ok about the negative proof point. I know you weren't making a major point on that, that is why I spent only a few lines quickly dealing with it. It was more aimed at Uchi, but you had given the best quote to launch it.

It's pretty screwed up to use these pamphlets to drive a wedge between a kid and his parents--which is what I can imagine happening. "Your mother is a monster who kills cute harmless bunny rabbits". What is a 6 year old girl (or boy) supposed to think if she's given a pamphlet like that?

So, you are saying the intent is wrong -- regardless of whether there was actually any success that came out of that attempt, right?

Hmmm...perhaps. But again, I don't think that condemns the whole org simply because a small percent of their activities at one time in the past did that. I explained prior how that probably went down with the inner circle of PETA, and because that has not been PETA's main outreach to children, that shows that some decision makers have exerted influence so that it would not be.

The U.S. has had the intent and follow through to use soldiers for chemical and nuclear testing o them in the past with ACTUAL REAL DOCUMENTED RESULTS(unlike undocumented phantom results from the PETA comics) without informing them of those tests. Clearly wrong. However, that is only a small percent of all U.S. activities. Does that condemn the whole U.S. in its entirety as bad and makes it not worthy of support? No. Bad decision. Learn from it. Try to minimize it. And move on.

This is the real world and how all real world orgs operate.

09-11-2007, 11:51 PM

So, you are saying the intent is wrong -- regardless of whether there was actually any success that came out of that attempt, right?

Hmmm...perhaps. But again, I don't think that condemns the whole org simply because a small percent of their activities at one time in the past did that. I explained prior how that probably went down with the inner circle of PETA, and because that has not been PETA's main outreach to children, that shows that some decision makers have exerted influence so that it would not be.

The U.S. has had the intent and follow through to use soldiers for chemical and nuclear testing o them in the past with ACTUAL REAL DOCUMENTED RESULTS(unlike undocumented phantom results from the PETA comics) without informing them of those tests. Clearly wrong. However, that is only a small percent of all U.S. activities. Does that condemn the whole U.S. in its entirety as bad and makes it not worthy of support? No. Bad decision. Learn from it. Try to minimize it. And move on.

This is the real world and how all real world orgs operate.
This is basically what I was getting at. Every country, every organization, every person in the world makes mistakes. Leadership changes. People change. A mistake years ago, if remedied, should be forgiven.

I went to the PETA kids section today just to see how they were doing their marketing to children these days. They've cleaned up their act DRASTICALLY.

My biggest beef (pun intended) with PETA is that, in the grand scheme of things, they're trying to force me to change my eating habits, and there is NOTHING I enjoy more than a perfect steak. Nothi.... wait. One thing.

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 12:02 AM

So stop with the trying to turn my words on me,...

lol. What are you talking about? Of course I am not going to stop using or turning your words on you if you put them forth in a way that that doesn't keep them from being so. Don't blame me if your writing or debate skills are not up to snuff. Work on it.

PETA is for Animal Liberation, if all animals were liberated, we would have no choice other then to be vegetarians, or vegans to put it better.

Yes, that is right. If the AR fight (which includes or is even synominous to Animal Liberation) wins out in the future then meat consumption would not be a legal option. Like the Abolitionist movement. They won in their fight and southerners no longer had the choice to live off of slave work. The whole evolution of law throughout civilization has been a battle of changing, limiting, expanding, and defining rights. Nothing new and it takes no master of the obvious to understand that.

As a matter of fact, I do know the difference between Animal Rights, and Animal Liberation,...

FUNNY! You quoted my question specifically asking you the difference between AR and AW and what do you do!!?? YOu answer with telling me you know the difference between AR and AL. OMFG! Do you need glasses?

...let be break it down for you barney style, so there is no doubt in your mind that I know what you, and I are talking about.

Obvious you don't. Look above.

Animal Rights: The right for animals to not be treated inhumanly. Like beating your dog. Here is a classic example of what the animal rights movement is all about. Warning, this video is very graphic.

PETA Video of a Fur Farm in China (http://a805.v9135e.c9135.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/805/9135/0029/peta.download.akamai.com/9135/downloads/fur_farm_med.wmv)

As much as I appreciate you posting that video, it is clear you don't know what the diff is between AR and AW is. Eelecurb and I were discussing this on the "Why Animal Rights?" thread the other day. Go look it up.

Now, that is what animal rights are all about. Animals should not be treated like that, there is no reason for it.

If you are saying dog ownership is going to always be ok forever into the future for as long as dogs and men are here on the earth, but that they do not warrant treatment like that and laws should be set in place to prevent that, then that is not AR -- that is clearly AW. Because, AR is against exploitation of animals in anyform, and that includes ownership.

Now, on with the show

Animal Liberation: The total and complete liberation of all animals, no pets, not seeing eye dogs, no animal research, no farm animals, no eating meat, no animal products of any type.

Yes, but you are not aware that AL is AR in its purest form when AR has been ultimately realized. Man, perhaps someone on your side of the debate here (one who is even against PETA) could take a moment to point this out to you. IF you won't accept it from me, then perhaps someone else you may accept clarification on this from could step forward and do so for your benefit.

So I think I might have at least an idea about the difference between animal rights, and animal liberation. Please clarify if I missed anything.

Just did! Go back and review your schooling from me on it.

Now, I gather, from your posts here, and on a couple of other threads here on this forum, that you are in support of PETA. Do you donate money to them? Let me know on this one, thanks in advance.

Yes. As a matter of fact the whole yearly budget of PETA of about 35 million dollars comes from me. I am the only donor. Now, what point about my person changes anything about PETA in this debate because you know I supply their whole budget? I am the evil mastermind, kinda like Bin Ladin, sitting in my cave in Okinawa with my computer getting ready to send out another video any day now to send horror through the spines of all flesh eaters. Get ready! Here I come!!

BOO!

DougP

09-12-2007, 12:11 AM

The fact that larger AR orgs like PETA embrace and condone such malicious "tactics" as they were called is something that bothers me.
I'm sure there is a lot of good in the movement. Just like there is some good in religious movements. There are some goals that are ethical in their own right.

Using propaganda and exploitation to scare people into taking their(AR activists') side is no better than Bush exploiting a nation's fear of terrorism to persuade America into invading Iraq. Even if the ultimate goal is to rid the world of the dangers that threatened our country 6 years ago it doesn't justify such "tactics"

Once again the AR agenda is not everyone's agenda no more than Bush's agenda is.

If any group has to resort to such barbaric tactics such as the one's ELF and ALF have used (backed by PETA) it says a lot about that groups overall goal. It says that maybe its not in the best interest of everybody. If it were than maybe they wouldn't have to force people to see things their way.

Oh yes one more thing. Not all movements are progressive and in the best interest of everyone. Not all are right and just.
Like the Nazi movement.

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 12:15 AM

I went to the PETA kids section today just to see how they were doing their marketing to children these days. They've cleaned up their act DRASTICALLY.

Ok, so I think this quote, and the whole post I took it from is something we can agree on. And because of that, you acknowledging about past mistakes being parts of orgs and now the whole area you checked out is cleaned up drastically, that the kid issue and those comics of the past can be put down and moved on. We've dealt pretty conclusively with that. Agreed? Fair enough?

My biggest beef (pun intended) with PETA is that, in the grand scheme of things, they're trying to force me to change my eating habits, and there is NOTHING I enjoy more than a perfect steak. Nothi.... wait. One thing.

OK, fair enough, dk, on the meat issue. I think we have gone head to head on that in the past, and am not really sure what new ground we can cover there.

Basically, I say the meat diet is unethical, you say no it isn't, I say we have obligations to animals, you say we don't. Really we can't get around that in discussing just flesh at this point. I think the only way we MAY (if even) would be to discuss animal rights, because that takes us to a different part of the whole animal usage issue which vegetarianism is just a subset. Other than that, all I can say is that I hope to see you come up on the "Why Animal Rights" thread so that we can discuss some points separate (but related) to animals and rights (if even they should be allowed any). That whole issue is larger than PETA, and PETA is merely one of many messengers for that philosophy of AR. This thread I think we agree is about PETA.

And, I got it loud and clear why you have issues with PETA i.e. wanting to keep you from eating steak. But the AR issue, not PETA, is what drives the future goal. Or better yet, AR philosophy is the engine, and PETA is merely the driver. The whole hardware of the car are all the volunteers working.

09-12-2007, 12:32 AM

Well, don't mind me. I'm just hanging around waiting patiently for the OP to be addressed, throwing out comments here and there as something hits me. My only input in this thread so far has been that I haven't been in agreement with PETA's tactics. It pretty much ends there. Aside from that, it's all been popcorn and cola for me all night (and yes, I actually am eating popcorn right now...)

As far as the OP is concerned, any comments? Did you address this elsewhere? If so, which post in which thread? A link would be nice if possible.

And I'm enjoying the hell out of reading some of our member's posts. Especially DougP and Lumpia. :D

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 12:41 AM

The fact that larger AR orgs like PETA embrace and condone such malicious "tactics" as they were called is something that bothers me.

Doug, you are going to have to show some official up to date PETA literature that shows they condone malicious tactics. And besides, you are going to have to define what are malicious tactics. I don't know if you can, because it sounds like a pretty subjective sandhill you are standing on there. Just because you don't like it, does not mean it is not fair game. Playing hard ball with direct action has never been against the rules of fighting for social change that one believes in. If you are going to say it is ok to do so for human rights social movements and not animals, well then, you are just resorting to prejudice and drawing a line in the sand that makes you feel comfortable.

You are just falling back on anthropocentrism which we had discussed before. I am not sure if you answered to that in the other thread when I pointed that out to you.

I'm sure there is a lot of good in the movement. Just like there is some good in religious movements. There are some goals that are ethical in their own right.

But then you condemn the whole PETA org. If you think there is a lot of good then why condemn the whole org? I surely don't believe in Jesus or the Christian God or the Bible or even their ultimate goal, but I do not condemn the whole infrastructure of Christian Groups that work in parts of society to help end suffering.

Using propaganda and exploitation to scare people into taking their(AR activists') side is no better than Bush exploiting a nation's fear of terrorism to persuade America into invading Iraq.

Well, I think the numbers count, don't you? You said "a lot of good" so what good are you talking about? There should be a lot and a lot with acurate and truthful information you do believe they are using to do their "lot of good." So, what is that? Let's line up the good and bad and count where the majority is. Count every truth or falsehood and look at the ledger.

Once again the AR agenda is not everyone's agenda no more than Bush's agenda is.

Every social movement group that has worked to alleviate suffering has in the beginning or during their fight never had the luxury of being able to claim their agenda is everyone's. You aren't suggesting PETA is saying so, are you? If not, then to even mention that is pointless. It is obvious. Freeing the slaves was the agenda of the Abolitionists. It surely was not everyone's or of southerners, but that was irrelevant for the fight to continue.

If any group has to resort to such barbaric tactics such as the one's ELF and ALF have used (backed by PETA) it says a lot about that groups overall goal.

Answer me this Doug, if PETA has supported through their efforts the committing of illegal efforts by ELF and ALF, then why are they still permitted to operate as a NPO? Why hasn't the PETA org been sued by those victims of ELF and ALF if PETA backed them?

In our litigous society, they most definitely would have, and no prosecutor or federal agency has levied those accusations at PETA. Why? What does that tell you? It should be telling you that those web sites which some of you have been using to post snippets from here and there are taking things out of context and that you are not looking deeply enough into the techicalities that are there that do not warrant the charge you are leveling.

So, again, if PETA has supported through their efforts the committing of illegal efforts by ELF and ALF, then why are they still permitted to operate as a NPO? Why hasn't the PETA org been sued by those victims of ELF and ALF if PETA backed them?

Oh yes one more thing. Not all movements are progressive and in the best interest of everyone. Not all are right and just.
Like the Nazi movement.

Agreed. Any movement that is based on exploitation as policy is not just. Those that seek to eradicate it are. The Nazis were the embodiment of the former, and the antithesis of the latter.

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 12:45 AM

And I'm enjoying the hell out of reading some of our member's posts. Especially DougP and Lumpia. :D

Doug is cogent and coherent. I enjoy discussing with him despite our differences in beliefs.

Lumpia does not have a grasp on some basic concepts important to the discussion.

But yes, it has been enjoyable.

Hold on. Let me check out the OP and see if I had answered that or some of that somewhere else. I may have done so in another thread, and hence I skipped over it. BRB.

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 12:59 AM

Well, don't mind me. I'm just hanging around waiting patiently for the OP to be addressed, throwing out comments here and there as something hits me. ... As far as the OP is concerned, any comments? Did you address this elsewhere? If so, which post in which thread? A link would be nice if possible.

Yes, dk. I think I did address that here a little and I refer it to another thread where I had briefly discussed it. Start here (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16537&postcount=14) and follow the linnk in there and the few pages there.

Man, not on this forum, but on other forums have covered that OP point before -- many times. Actually, tired of doing so, so when I do now, I tend to answer it in very general terms. It is just an astroturf job by the CCF, and besides the inappropriate dumping of those dead animals, PETA has always had a euthanasia policy as part of their AW arm of their org.

A lot of their AR members do not like that, and neither do ARists from other groups. The reality of the situation is, shelters are just overflowing and there just are not enough people going to them to adopt.

This is a tough thing.

But let's put some of the numbers into perspective. Over many years PETA kills 14,000 animals. Still too high for me, that is for sure. But, in just one day animal exploitation industries in the U.S.alone will kill millions. Now, multiply that by 365 days per year, then that by the number of years over which these 14,000 animals were killed. Geesh! You are talking like mole hill to Mt. Fuji.

Yes, PETA does euthanize, but they do so in order to try and alleviate suffering. Animal exploitation orgs kill in order to satiate pleasure.

The good ol' CCF, though, they are always good for not putting things in perspective. Funny, they are against Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, too.

Well, maybe I could talk about them a little more in the future, too.

DougP

09-12-2007, 01:09 AM

If you are going to say it is ok to do so for human rights social movements and not animals, well then, you are just resorting to prejudice and drawing a line in the sand that makes you feel comfortable.

Hands down it is not ok. Using terrorist tactics and nazi war machine like propaganda to fuel a movement is not right in my book. Just so you know.

Doug, you are going to have to show some official up to date PETA literature that shows they condone malicious tactics.

This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats

2001 is more than recent enough for me. That year is pretty fresh in many peoples minds for a few reasons.

some more

In 2001, three masked SHAC members brutally bludgeoned a medical researcher outside his home in England. The lead attacker was arrested and sentenced to three years in prison. A few months later, SHAC attacked another research industry employee on his doorstep with a chemical spray to his eyes, leaving him temporarily blinded and writhing in pain. The following year, Newkirk was asked her opinion of SHAC in the Boston Herald. Her response? "More power to SHAC if they can get someone's attention."

This next one, well... its just funny to read
PETA's leadership has compared animal farmers to serial killer (and cannibal) Jeffrey Dahmer. They proclaimed in a 2003 exhibit that chickens are as valuable as Jewish Holocaust victims. They announced with a 2001 billboard that a shark attack on a little boy was "revenge" against humans who had it coming anyway. They have branded parents who feed their kids meat and milk "child abusers." In 2002 PETA organized a campaign to sabotage a popular Thanksgiving hotline, which provides free advice about cooking turkeys. The group has even contemplated (literally) dancing on the grave of Kentucky Fried Chicken's Colonel Sanders. And in 2003, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wrote to Yasser Arafat, pleading with him to make certain no animals are harmed in Palestinian suicide-bombing attacks.

PETA's website for kids puts a skull and crossbones next to the logo of Disney's Animal Kingdom and tells the horror story of a fast food restaurant employee who "had taken a patty into the potty with her, then returned and said she had peed on it." It hands out trading cards to kids that allege drinking milk will make them fat, pimply, flatulent, and phlegm-ridden. PETA also has a child-themed website, and a kiddie-oriented magazine, called GRRR! Kids Bite Back. The name is significant, as it is intended to prep children to identify with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which has long-used the phrase "bite back" in its promotional materials. In fact, as early as 1991, convicted ALF arsonist and PETA grantee Rodney Coronado was calling his own crime spree "Operation Bite Back." PETA also sends "humane education lecturer" Gary Yourofsky into high schools -- and even middle schools -- to promote the "animal liberation" agenda. Yourofsky is a convicted ALF criminal who has said he would support burning down medical research labs even if humans were trapped in the flames.
Not sure if you could get any more supportive of illegal efforts by ELF and ALF. Hiring one of the convicted criminals from ALF. Yup.

Alleviating suffering animal suffering by forcing humans into a certain life style is no more right than forcing another race back into slavery. In a sense AR is attemping to force others to abide by their beliefs therefore making others slaves to their agenda.

one more post to break this up after this...

stay tuned

DougP

09-12-2007, 01:11 AM

And here it is. All of it was way to much for one post. This gives another peak into the long standing friendship between PETA, ELF and ALF.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals provides aid and comfort for the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The two groups are responsible for more than 600 crimes since 1996, causing (by a very conservative FBI estimate) more than $43 million in damage. ALF’s “press office” brags that in 2002, the two groups committed “100 illegal direct actions” -- like blowing up SUVs, destroying the brakes on seafood delivery trucks, and planting firebombs in restaurants.

The FBI calls ALF and ELF the nation’s “most serious domestic terrorism threat.” Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s “vegan campaign director” and third-in-command, didn’t seem to care when he addressed the Animal Rights 2001 convention in Virginia, telling a crowd of over 1,000 activists that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”

“It would be great,” he added, “if all the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow.”

PETA’s connections to ALF and ELF are indisputable. “We did it, we did it. We gave $1,500 to the ELF for a specific program,” PETA’s Lisa Lange admitted on the Fox News Channel. PETA has offered no fewer than eight different explanations of what the “specific program” was, but law enforcement leaders have noted that since the Earth Liberation Front is a criminal enterprise, it has absolutely no legal “programs” of any kind.

For instance, in 2003, ELF set fire to an unfinished, 200 unit condominium complex near San Diego. The arson caused $50 million in damage, and according to a San Diego Fire Captain: “It could have killed someone.” ELF left its calling card in the form of a twelve foot sign that read: “If you build it -- we will burn it -- the ELF’s are mad.”

PETA also has given $2,000 to David Wilson, then a national ALF “spokesperson.” The group paid $27,000 for the legal defense of Roger Troen, who was arrested for taking part in an October 1986 burglary and arson at the University of Oregon. It gave $7,500 to Fran Stephanie Trutt, who tried to murder the president of a medical laboratory. It gave $5,000 to Josh Harper, who attacked Native Americans on a whale hunt by throwing smoke bombs, shooting flares, and spraying their faces with chemical fire extinguishers. All of these monies were paid out of tax-exempt funds, the same pot of money constantly enlarged by donations from an unsuspecting general public.

PETA president Ingrid Newkirk is also an acknowledged financial supporter of a publication called No Compromise. This periodical operates on behalf of the radicals of ALF, and often publishes underground “communiqués” and calls to arms from ALF leaders.

Most ominously, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk was involved in the multi-million-dollar arson at Michigan State University that resulted in a 57-month prison term for Animal Liberation Front bomber Rodney Coronado. At Coronado’s sentencing hearing, U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer said that PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk arranged ahead of time to have Coronado send her a pair of FedEx packages from Michigan -- one on the day before he burned the lab down, and the other shortly afterward.

The first FedEx, according to the Sentencing Memorandum, was delivered to a woman named Maria Blanton, “a longtime PETA member who had agreed to accept the first Federal Express package from Coronado after being asked to do so by Ingrid Newkirk.” The FBI intercepted the second package, which had been sent to the same address. It contained documents that Coronado stole before lighting his firebombs, as well as “a videotape of the perpetrator of the MSU crime, disguised in a ski mask.” Since Coronado was convicted of the arson, we now know that he himself was that masked man. “Significantly,” wrote U.S. Attorney Dettmer, “Newkirk had arranged to have the package[s] delivered to her days before the MSU arson occurred.” (emphasis in the original)

A search warrant executed at Blanton’s home turned up evidence that PETA’s other co-founder, Alex Pacheco, had also been planning burglaries and break-ins along with Rodney Coronado. The feds seized “surveillance logs; code names for Coronado, Pacheco, and others; burglary tools; two-way radios; night vision goggles; [and] phony identification for Coronado and Pacheco.”

Shortly after Coronado’s arrest, PETA gave $45,200 to his “support committee” and “loaned” $25,000 to his father (the loan was never repaid and PETA hasn’t complained). Now free from jail, with an expired parole, and with the benefit of an expired Statute of Limitations on his many earlier arsons (to which he readily confesses in his standard stump speech), Coronado stood before a crowd of hundreds of young people at American University in January 2003 and demonstrated how to turn a milk jug into a bomb. A few days later, ALF criminals tried to burn down a McDonald’s restaurant in Chico, California, using a firebomb that matched Coronado’s recipe.

The following month, Ingrid Newkirk told ABC News that Rodney Coronado is “a fine young man.”

Newkirk wrote a book called Free the Animals! The Untold Story of the U.S. Animal Liberation Front and Its Founder, ‘Valerie.’ In it she writes: “The ALF has, over the years, trusted People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to receive copies of the evidence of wrongdoing … I have also become somewhat used to jumping on a plane with copies of freshly purloined documents and hurriedly calling news conferences to discuss the ALF’s findings.” Indeed, PETA has held such press conferences just hours after ALF arsons and other break-ins.

PETA has published a leaflet called “Animal Liberation Front: the Army of the Kind.” In another pamphlet, “Activism and the Law,” PETA openly offers advice on “burning a laboratory building.”

“I will be the last person to condemn ALF,” says Newkirk. And in another interview: “I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.” In ALF’s publication Bite Back (yes, this terrorist group has a newsletter), Newkirk has said: “You can’t have all politeness and patience, all potlucks and epistles … Some people will never budge unless [they are] pushed to budge.”

Perhaps Newkirk’s most telling comment, though, came in a 2002 U.S. News & World Report feature. “Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective,” she admitted. “We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.”

DougP

09-12-2007, 01:15 AM

“I will be the last person to condemn ALF,” says Newkirk. And in another interview: “I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.” In ALF’s publication Bite Back (yes, this terrorist group has a newsletter), Newkirk has said: “You can’t have all politeness and patience, all potlucks and epistles … Some people will never budge unless [they are] pushed to budge.”

I don't see how one can read this and think that PETA and ALF are not connected in some way. And when you openly say that you will not condemn one's actions you are in fact condoning them

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 01:19 AM

Doug, to all that, again, if PETA has supported through their efforts the committing of illegal efforts by ELF and ALF, then why are they still permitted to operate as a NPO? Why hasn't the PETA org been sued by those victims of ELF and ALF if PETA backed them? Why hasn't the PETA leadership been thrown behind bars or even indicted or tried?

Why hasn't Homeland Security or the FBI shut them down? You think you have come upon all this info and that your view of it is so accurate, but still not require action by the Feds is on target? Obviously you are missing something in all that which you think is damning to PETA but the government in their terror paranoia (domestic and international) does not.

How do you explain this disconnect between your view and the government about PETA?

Are you taking all that from a CCF site? I think you are, or perhaps Wiki where the CCF has edited the hell out out of AR and Peta listings.

newvalor

09-12-2007, 01:25 AM

I don't see how one can read this and think that PETA and ALF are not connected in some way. And when you openly say that you will not condemn one's actions you are in fact condoning them

Well if PETA gives a "donation" to ALF, and ALF does work for PETA then I don't see what connection they could have. (sarcasim)

I like this thread, it's another one posted with more than enough proof and stats posted and the ARist has lost out.

I like how TP quoted Lumpia that he was off topic back on page 3, but TP links another post of his on page 1. Wouldn't that seem to be going off topic cause it had nothing to do with this post, just going off of past posts that have been put out to pasture.

Ammoyankee

09-12-2007, 01:26 AM

When I go io Korea at the end of the month, I'll take a bite of Kagogi and raise my glass of OB to wash it down in honor of PETA!

DougP

09-12-2007, 01:31 AM

Homeland security and the FBI aren't without their flaws. The ALF and ELF have been identified as actual domestic terrorist groups but they haven't been shut down either.

As far as to why they haven't I wish I knew.

Now whether you find what I have posted to be credible or not I have supplied what I see to be some writing that draws a connection between the different AR orgs.

Do you on the other hand have anything to offer that might clear PETA of such accusations other than the fact that Homeland Security and the FBI haven't shut them down? Can you please provide something that states that PETA does in fact condemn the actions of the ALF and the ELF? Have they separated their ties?

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 01:52 AM

Homeland security and the FBI aren't without their flaws. The ALF and ELF have been identified as actual domestic terrorist groups but they haven't been shut down either.

And the ALF and ELF are not PETA.

As far as to why they haven't I wish I knew.

Think of Occam's Razor, and perhaps that will give you a clue. Not too hard. Simplicity is a hint.

The Peta org does not condone violence as any part of their organization's platform. Never once have they been indicted or tried for violence against anyone. No suit for violence with merit has ever gone forward against PETA. It is simple. You questioning yourself why the FBI or Homeland Security has not shut down PETA or hauled their leaders off to jail should be a good place for you to start questioning some of the things you have listed and wonder what the contexts they were in. For, if they stand as they are on their own, then surely the FBI and Homeland Security would have moved against them after these years.

But, from PETA's site:

Does PETA advocate the use of violence? (http://www.askcarla.com/answers.asp?QuestionandanswerID=268)

PETA maintains a creed of nonviolence and does not advocate actions in which anyone, human or nonhuman, is injured. We are a legal activist organization that works to educate the public about the horrors of animal cruelty through peaceful, nonviolent means. No one has ever been killed through animal rights activity in the United States. To the contrary, when you take a body count, you'll find that it's the animal protectionists who have been harmed: Dian Fossey, Chico Mendez, George Adamson, and park rangers all over the world have been shot or beaten to death because of their work for animals.

DougP

09-12-2007, 02:16 AM

Well I guess since we have both cited quotes, writing etc from different sources we're both in the right.

Stating the obvious about the FBI's inaction towards PETA proves nothing as well. Several other questionable groups persuing questionable goals and lifestyles are still out there, free in America. Take the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for example.

First Lady Newkirk says that PETA’s “mission is a profoundly human one at its heart.” That phrase would seem to offer the possibility that she, at least on some level, in fact recognizes that there is something profound about humanity, that animals are not in fact people. So her usual moral equation of animals and humans seems to lose some ground in my eyes.

lumpia

09-12-2007, 05:45 AM

Whatever, I'm not going to argue with you about it. We have our differences of opinion. I fail to see the logic in yours, but maybe I'm biased.

I see you avoided the whole terrorist thing for the most part. We have given countless examples of PETA supporting ALF and ELF. If you are funding groups that perform terrorist acts, that makes you a terrorist (in my eyes at least).

Cut and dry, your AR, AL, AW, whatever movement will never, never come to light as reality. You know why? People eat meat. Trying to stop them from that is like the war on drugs, or the prohibition of alcohol. By trying to make eating meat a crime, you are just creating criminals. How about we worry about ending world hunger before we start regulating what people can and cannot eat.

I have you figured out already there TP. You like to argue because you like the fact that someone is paying attention to you. Well, I refuse to give you what you want, so I'm going to not reply to anything you say anymore, simple as that.

PS: A&W does have some tasty burgers.

newvalor

09-12-2007, 06:04 AM

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

09-12-2007, 08:49 AM

Yes, PETA does euthanize, but they do so in order to try and alleviate suffering. Animal exploitation orgs kill in order to satiate pleasure.

That's the whole thing in a nutshell right there. Killing for profit and/or pleasure (as the first and only resort), versus killing for necessity (to alleviate suffering, as a last resort).

Fonze

09-12-2007, 09:21 AM

But if it wasn't for TP the forums would be so quite and dead, not that I think we spend enough time overrunning his post to get the point across that we don't care. (Enter Sarcasim Here)

I have to disagree, although I do believe he has started many threads I don't believe he's the only one with that power or that could have. Someone else wouldv'e stepped up.

Coverts to PETA = 0
people told their lifestyle is wrong = countless.

Muku

09-12-2007, 11:11 AM

I have to disagree, although I do believe he has started many threads I don't believe he's the only one with that power or that could have. Someone else wouldv'e stepped up.

Coverts to PETA = 0
people told their lifestyle is wrong = countless.
A bit off topic, but in reply here;
I agree with you here too. While he has started countless threads on his favorite topics the majority of the posts on those threads are his alone.

At least while the board is still in the growing stages his posts bring many divisive and controversial replies, it gets people participating, which is necessary for a small messgae board like this.

However imo as the board here grows with more people participating his footprint will not be as obvious as it is right now. Also as more people start looking here for information and help I am fairly confident that the other members will step forward more often and assist people in their search for information, rather than participate in a head butting excersize of futility with him.

Back on topic;
At least so far he seems to be the only one here that is an advocate of AR and PETA, along with his vegan ideas as well.

Many of his replies are tedious to read, even on this thread as well, as he disects his responses to people into too many individual quotes and manages to twist peoples words against them. His replies are similar to the "wall of text"

Many of the replies that he makes are taken well out of context and similar to the activists that he obviously supports, taking only bits and parts of a persons replies to gain the conclusion that he wants.

There is really nothing anyone can do about it either, as he has the anonimity of the internet to cover himself.

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 02:25 PM

That's the whole thing in a nutshell right there. Killing for profit and/or pleasure (as the first and only resort), versus killing for necessity (to alleviate suffering, as a last resort).

That's right, Eelecurb. It is a big difference. Thanks for underscoring that point.

P_chan

09-12-2007, 05:54 PM

That's the whole thing in a nutshell right there. Killing for profit and/or pleasure (as the first and only resort), versus killing for necessity (to alleviate suffering, as a last resort).

Well then how come PETA members protest once human societies euthanize animals? They surely aren't doing it out of profit or to cause animals deliberate suffering (they try to help animals).

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 09:02 PM

Well I guess since we have both cited quotes, writing etc from different sources we're both in the right.

It does kinda seem like a fair compromise, huh? Only problem is; two opposing viewpoints contradicting one another just cannot be true.

I will accept your gracious statement that I am right. The other half about you, too, being right, sorry to say Doug, I have to reject (mind you nothing personal -- I enjoy discussing with you).

PETA is clearly not a terrorist organization and has no responsibility for any terroristic act. The question I posed to you ealier about the FBI and Homeland Security is a good indicator.

Accusing someone or some org of terrorism is an accusation to an extreme crime. Extreme accusations call for extreme evidence. No credible evidence has been brought forth. All those long postings of quotes snipped out of places and references to cases and speeches need to be put in context if you or anyone thinks those are going to stick. Of course, you can't put those in context by providing the previous or following para or page because all that is lifted from a PETA smear page. You surely wouldn't believe the quotes and info lifted out of context from a U.S. smear page put up by Al Quaida, would you? I sure wouldn't.

Stating the obvious about the FBI's inaction towards PETA proves nothing as well.

It need not prove anything, for that is asking to prove that PETA is not a terrorist org. You or those who assert it is, must prove that they are. The fact that the FBI and Homeland Security have not moved against PETA after all these years is a strong indicator that there is no proof.

First Lady Newkirk says that PETA’s “mission is a profoundly human one at its heart.” That phrase would seem to offer the possibility that she, at least on some level, in fact recognizes that there is something profound about humanity, that animals are not in fact people.

Of course. She recognizes that PETAs mission is rooted in humanity with the desire to stop suffering and to extend compassion. Animals in fact are not people, but people can choose to forego their selfish passion for their own group and reject the exploitation that is built on the same principles of racism or sexism i.e. reject speciesism. I think this is what she means by her quote above.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

09-12-2007, 09:47 PM

Well then how come PETA members protest once human societies euthanize animals? They surely aren't doing it out of profit or to cause animals deliberate suffering (they try to help animals).
I think it's been mentioned that there are different branches, wings, or organizations within PETA. It's probable that there is not total agreement between these groups on how to deal with homeless, abandoned animals. Likely some of the members are realists who understand that although they'd rather not, they have no further options than to euthanize some animals instead of stuffing more and more into cages. Other members may not be so realistic, but idealistic, and protest something that cannot always be helped.

It's a little like human euthanasia. A loved one is in terrible, constant pain from terminal cancer. Some family members will want to allow the patient to decide when and how to meet death, and others will not agree. But even the ones who support euthanasia would not want human death matches for sport legalized. An imperfect solution for an unfair, tragic situation. But maybe the best of a bad lot.

P_chan

09-12-2007, 10:38 PM

I think it's been mentioned that there are different branches, wings, or organizations within PETA. It's probable that there is not total agreement between these groups on how to deal with homeless, abandoned animals. Likely some of the members are realists who understand that although they'd rather not, they have no further options than to euthanize some animals instead of stuffing more and more into cages. Other members may not be so realistic, but idealistic, and protest something that cannot always be helped.

It's a little like human euthanasia. A loved one is in terrible, constant pain from terminal cancer. Some family members will want to allow the patient to decide when and how to meet death, and others will not agree. But even the ones who support euthanasia would not want human death matches for sport legalized. An imperfect solution for an unfair, tragic situation. But maybe the best of a bad lot.

I know the motives for euthanizing animals, that's not what my question is about. My question is why would a member of PETA protest a local humane society for euthanizing strays because they're out of room and supplies, yet PETA does the exact same thing for the exact same reasons? You think you'd protest your own organizations methods before you protest and criticize the practices of others.

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 10:53 PM

P, where has PETA protested at a local humane society for the mere purposes of euthanasia? Note, for the mere purpose of euthanasia. It is important you note that clearly and what it means.

PETA has protested certain METHODS of euthanasia, but they have not protested merely for euthanasia.

Now, we are awaiting your examples on the clear point I have pointed out to you.

P_chan

09-12-2007, 10:58 PM

I've seen the protests myself. Our area had a large number of stray animals and the PETA members believed that they were killing to many and should be working harder to try and get them adopted.

It was actually the first time I ever heard of PETA.

DougP

09-12-2007, 11:00 PM

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 11:05 PM

TheLastDon

09-12-2007, 11:11 PM

Not to harp on what I posted before but you said you were taking care of 3 to 4 dogs. What exactly are you feeding them?

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 11:13 PM

I have questions in ref. to the "two heads" of PETA.

which one is in control? They both seem like they might have different limits and goals. If one side's goals and decisions go too far for the other side what happens. Which one comes out on top?

Good question, Doug. I am not sure which one is in control at any given moment. I would presume that like a pendulum they swing back and forth and knowing which one is in control can only be known by the campaigns that are being pushed hard at any given moment.

It also may depend on regional offices as well. PETA is large and quite complex. Even when one is in control for a short while, the other one just does not go to sleep. They are set up, like all large animal protection orgs are, to multi-task on different campaigns and issues simultaniously.

While they are going against the fur trade, they do not let up on spaying or neutering campaigns, as well as their outreach programs for vegetarianism... just to name a few.

PETA, though, is a firm believer in direct action, and if that means being held for misdameanor crimes, then they will do the time and pay the fines for them if that what it takes to get attention and awareness to their cause. Their formula has worked for them well the last plus 20 years. 1.6 million members and growing every year. Offices, in UK, Germany, Belgium, India, Australia, China etc... to name just a few.

P_chan

09-12-2007, 11:16 PM

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 11:20 PM

Not to harp on what I posted before but you said you were taking care of 3 to 4 dogs. What exactly are you feeding them?

Dog food.

But perhaps this should go into TheProsecutor thread. Not really about PETA.

DougP

09-12-2007, 11:22 PM

Do you know the method of the euthanasia that your shelter was using? I don't think you know the whole details of that protest, P, to be honest with you. Since you say that was the first time you ever heard of PETA, then I would presume that you weren't really familiar with the details of the protest.

Not every one holding a sign in protest know the whole details of what they are protesting.

When you said
Only problem is; two opposing viewpoints contradicting one another just cannot be true.

It made me think that neither side may be right. After all this is more or less a movement based on beliefs no different than christianity.

AR supporters will often resort to using the analogy of Animal right and various human rights movements. Much like religious movements resort to using the word faith to dispute "non-believers".

The fact is that all human rights movements throughout time have had one vital thing in common. From slavery to the issue of genocide they were all about humanity. That common string that combines them all is no where near pressent in the AR movement. There are many other human like and biological similarities that are often used to try and draw a line between the two. But for everyone of them there are several more differences that point out how different Human rights and AR truely are.

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 11:26 PM

I never said I knew all the details. I knew the person who was at our college trying to spread the news about the protest. I asked her why they were protesting the humane society, and she said exactly what I just told you. She then said I should look into PETA and that she was already a member. So it wasn't PETA sponsored, it was organized by a member of PETA.

Ok, so your innitial question on the topic was misleading because you asked it about PETA. Sure, members of PETA can go off and do their own thing, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with the policies of PETA, anymore than a Catholic supporting the death penalty has anything to do with the Catholic Church supporting the death penalty.

Glad we clear that up. But you should be more clear on saying you may have given the wrong impression with your choice of words in your post that brought the point up. IN that case, the whole thing is a moote point against PETA.

She never told me what the type of euthanasia they were using, but I'm almost positive it was some sort of injection.

Well, hard to verify. You had talked so factual in a way that such a way deserves to be supported.

DougP

09-12-2007, 11:27 PM

Good question, Doug. I am not sure which one is in control at any given moment. I would presume that like a pendulum they swing back and forth and knowing which one is in control can only be known by the campaigns that are being pushed hard at any given moment.

It also may depend on regional offices as well. PETA is large and quite complex. Even when one is in control for a short while, the other one just does not go to sleep. They are set up, like all large animal protection orgs are, to multi-task on different campaigns and issues simultaniously.

While they are going against the fur trade, they do not let up on spaying or neutering campaigns, as well as their outreach programs for vegetarianism... just to name a few.

PETA, though, is a firm believer in direct action, and if that means being held for misdameanor crimes, then they will do the time and pay the fines for them if that what it takes to get attention and awareness to their cause. Their formula has worked for them well the last plus 20 years. 1.6 million members and growing every year. Offices, in UK, Germany, Belgium, India, Australia, China etc... to name just a few.

You may or may not agree with me when I say that while they have these two heads it will be more difficult for them to continue to progress. Its hard to follow two leaders and when one watches those who are in the lead fuss and complain it makes it harder to take the movement serious. Long story short they need to get on the same page if they are going to accomplish anything.

Also on the subject of Gary Yourofsky, is he or has he been actually employed by PETA?

TheLastDon

09-12-2007, 11:32 PM

Dog food.

But perhaps this should go into TheProsecutor thread. Not really about PETA.

Maybe and maybe not but for a person who holds the utmost respect for what PETA is doing and wants animals to be treated with the utmost respect. UH where does dog food come from?

09-12-2007, 11:35 PM

Storks bring it. No wait.

TP answered this question a few times already. Maybe he should post the link if he knows where it is. I forgot which thread it's in. Or post the link in his TP thread. Whatever. Beats typing the whole thing up again.

DougP

09-12-2007, 11:43 PM

Maybe he feeds his dogs soy products don't be so quick to judge :D

TheNoNamedOne

09-12-2007, 11:51 PM

Not every one holding a sign in protest know the whole details of what they are protesting.

Agreed. Still changes nothing about Ps post on the point of him not being able to verify that PETA protests merely against euthanasia.

It made me think that neither side may be right. After all this is more or less a movement based on beliefs no different than christianity.

Well sure, Doug, everything is subjective after all. That is why abolishing slavery, too, may not be right. Moral relativism, though, which is what subjectivity leads to is a nasty philosophy to embrace. IF this world is not real and we are all imagining this with no anchor to guide us, then we should just cease trying to change anything. Let anarchy rule.

I don't buy that. Suffering is real, and the animals have all the same biological components that we have to let them experience it, and there is no basis to say that anthropocentrism is the correct view -- other than arbitrary prejudice for one's group -- and that has been breached in many ways within the human species. After that has been complete, there is no hard rule for saying that the species barrier cannot be breached next. Indeed, it is being done so.

AR supporters will often resort to using the analogy of Animal right and various human rights movements. Much like religious movements resort to using the word faith to dispute "non-believers".

Nothing wrong with that. It has been working. And it has been playing itself out. Has not been rejected. The trend shows that those examples strike an intuitive tone with people and people grow the AR orgs through the AR campaigns that use those analogies.

The fact is that all human rights movements throughout time have had one vital thing in common. From slavery to the issue of genocide they were all about humanity.

Of course. That is why they are called human rights. Actually, to be more precise, the legal elites in the "AR" movement who have been laying down the phylosophy that has been making the strongest inroads, do not even refer to it as AR. The refer to it as The Rights movment. While animals are included in that, so are humans. It is an umbrella term encompassing human and nonhumans but has yet to really be taken on in the vernacular by the general populace.

With that term the "human" part of the struggle for comprehensive rights for beings is merely the first half of the law book. Nothing more.

That common string that combines them all is no where near pressent in the AR movement.

What are you talking about!? The common string is oppression and exploitation and suffering. That is why humans struggled to gain rights for protection from the strong. Because we reject the phylosophy of might makes right amongst ourselves. And animal rightists who support The Rights View are marching the "mights makes right" phylosophy out the door with concerns to animals. That is why someone like Vick, just because he has the power/might to do to animals what he did, is rejected. Battling that phylosophy has crossed over from human to animals.

There are many other human like and biological similarities that are often used to try and draw a line between the two. But for everyone of them there are several more differences that point out how different Human rights and AR truely are.

The biological differences have not prevented the successes of animal rights. AR has not won in one final swoop, and no movement to change the status quo to alleviate suffering ever has; it has always been a slow progression of baby steps. Our baby steps have clearly been taken.

TheLastDon

09-12-2007, 11:53 PM

DougP

09-12-2007, 11:57 PM

Well then I wish you and those on the AR side a good fight. God speed as it is often said. Time will tell. At least you have the common decency to debate this topic where as some other AR supporters do not. To clarify you resort to using words as your infantry and cited sources as your CAS(close air suppport). If the burning of clinics and the violent acts that result from the movement sometimes were not occur I might give more credibility to the cause.

09-12-2007, 11:57 PM

This forum is about whatever people want to talk about. Pretty much.

TheNoNamedOne

09-13-2007, 12:08 AM

Oh Dam, I is so sorry. I thought tis was the forum about Okanawa. Didn't mean to but my butt into the Vegan or PETA forums. What can I say. I thought this forum ws abot Okinawa or maybe even Japan. BUT it seems all it has to do with is how many people like TP or don't like TP. However TP is an interesting character to say the least.

Don, there is no reason to apologise whatsoever. Your question while off topic didn't bother me. I'll answer it. Just, would rather not do it here. Don't want any hard feelings with you -- especially since you and I haven't even debated.

Believe me, you are more than welcome to butt into any thread, animal, vegan related or not. Yes, there are sections for Okinawa and Japan, too. The forum is pretty wide and encompasses the whole world. I like it that way because we donn't have to go offsite for specific topics. All one stop shop for discussion.

I, too, wish that not so many people would make it about me. Though, after some get used to following a certain persona all the time, it is hard for them to break the habbit.

I am kind of like the uniter of many. Like the U.S. is the Great Satan that will unite all the public when they feel threatened.

Anyways, I hope no slight on my part was given to you. Sure didn't mean any. We cool?

TheLastDon

09-13-2007, 12:26 AM

TP we are cool. I am not trying to be offensive to anybody. I really hope this forum can last the test of time. I wish it could be informative and help new people coming to Okinawa. I would like to start posting informative threads about Okinawa to help people. However, I feel that this forum is intimidating at times and to the newbie I don't want it to become as such. I really admire your posts as well as DK, DR. P, P chan, Doug, Uchinamuku and a couple of others. I am really addicted to reading these forums now.

TheNoNamedOne

09-13-2007, 12:29 AM

Great, Don (Ok to call you that?). I look forward to reading your posts about Okinawa and Japan in the future. I will try to add to your discussions there. Glad you joined.

DougP

09-13-2007, 12:34 AM

Woot, thanx!:D

There are some areas of this forum that are very helpfull to newcomers.
Its also a great place for okinawa residents of long ago to come and reminisce
as we have seen recently.

I feel at home here just like I do on ZY :)

P_chan

09-13-2007, 07:03 AM

thanks for the kudos!

Don't feel shy! If you want to ask a question about japan or okinawa, or want to post some usefull information, just go right ahead and do it.

Fonze

09-13-2007, 09:53 AM

I am kind of like the uniter of many. Like the U.S. is the Great Satan that will unite all the public when they feel threatened.

What do you mean?

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

09-13-2007, 11:02 AM

Someone (maybe "P") was talking about different types of euthanasia. An overdose of barbiturates is generally viewed as a humane way to do it. Gassing became common years back when dealing with a lot of animals at once. Problem was, by using pure CO2 the animals were suffocating and suffering before going to sleep for good. That sort of method should be protested. It is more humane to use a CO2/O2 mix and gradually remove the oxygen that to just hit them with pure carbon dioxide. If and when euthanasia becomes necessary, it must be be done as humanely as possible.

TheNoNamedOne

09-13-2007, 12:05 PM

If and when euthanasia becomes necessary, it must be be done as humanely as possible.

The most humane procedure and drug for euthanasia is the administering through injection of sodium pentobarbital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentobarbital#Veterinary_Euthanasia). That is what most veterinarians use. It is basically also the same drugs used for doctor assisted suicide, such as what is done in Oregon. Sodium pentobarbital is what PETA recommends when euthanasia is to be utilized.

Other methods are more prone to cause stress, anxiety, pain, suffering and discomfort. PETA calls on shelters and veterinarians to use sodium pentobarbital when euthanasia is the final decision.

P_chan

09-13-2007, 12:12 PM

Other methods are more prone to cause stress, anxiety, pain, suffering and discomfort. PETA calls on shelters and veterinarians to use sodium pentobarbital when euthanasia is the final decision.

This is what I don't get. They are killing the animals anyway so why would they care if the animal was stressed or suffered slightly before death? It's going to die, so the stress and suffering it goes through right before death isn't that important IMO. If they died in a natural way they would still go through suffering and stress.

Now I'm not saying drown the animal, but what if they used a different injection that caused suffering, just not major suffering.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

09-13-2007, 02:16 PM

The most humane procedure and drug for euthanasia is the administering through injection of sodium pentobarbital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentobarbital#Veterinary_Euthanasia). That is what most veterinarians use. It is basically also the same drugs used for doctor assisted suicide, such as what is done in Oregon. Sodium pentobarbital is what PETA recommends when euthanasia is to be utilized.

Other methods are more prone to cause stress, anxiety, pain, suffering and discomfort. PETA calls on shelters and veterinarians to use sodium pentobarbital when euthanasia is the final decision.
Yes, I've used both the barbiturate method and the gas method. Option one is best. But, when euthanizing large numbers of lab rodents at once, gas is the common method.

Also, as sodium pentobarbital is a highly controlled substance and expensive, some places want to conserve when possible.

TheNoNamedOne

09-13-2007, 05:39 PM

Now I'm not saying drown the animal, but what if they used a different injection that caused suffering, just not major suffering.

Geuss we could do that for doctor assisted suicide in Oregon, too, huh? and find no problem with using the lesser effective drug injection, calming the family's nerves by telling them:

"Yea, he suffered, but not in a major way. Sure, there was a better injection that would allow less, or even no suffering, but what the heck. A little suffering is no difference to no suffering. No biggy. Don't worry about it. He was gonna die anyways -- if not by the needle then natureally."

That reasoning is not accepted P_chan, because suffering is the point of consideration prior to death. If you have choices that cause varying degrees of it, then it is only reasonable that if one wants to avoid suffering, then one should choose the one that alleviates it the most or eliminates it.

That is why shelters have progressively moved on the spectrum of choices available. Sometimes they do not do so voluntarily and that is when pressure is put on them to do so.

Muku

09-13-2007, 06:16 PM

Geuss we could do that for doctor assisted suicide in Oregon, too, huh? and find no problem with using the lesser effective drug injection, calming the family's nerves by telling them:

It is faulty logic however compare humans and animals.

TheNoNamedOne

09-13-2007, 06:34 PM

It is faulty logic however compare humans and animals.

Well then, you had better inform that to all the courts and legislatures which have been hearing court cases and bills debated before them for the protection of animals, because those promoting AR and AW are use suffering -- that which humans can empathize with -- as a large part of their arguments.

Man, how often have I heard Jews use the comparison?:
"We were thrown on to cattle cars and shipped out like animals."

"We were tattooed as dogs were and as cattle were branded."

Where have I heard blacks themselves recall:
"Our ancestors were chained, whipped, and worked like beasts."

The comparison has been well made by humans themselves who were exploited.

The comparison is not lost on many, even if it is on you, and it has been working. Sorry, Uchi, you lose again.

Fonze

09-13-2007, 06:43 PM

The comparison is not lost on many, even if it is on you, and it has been working. Sorry, Uchi, you lose again.

NO You win Your own point of View. which % of the world believes like you or AR groups. If you think really hard you'll probably find the answer and see that the real loser is in the mirror when you look in to it.

TheNoNamedOne

09-13-2007, 06:47 PM

Yes, Fonze. AR has not won out yet. We are all masters of the obvious. However, the ability to suffer and understanding that from our human experiences of suffering, allows for the comparison and that has been being used for quite some time now in literature and law as AR and AW trends keep ticking of battles won -- one by one.

In due time. In due time.

Muku

09-13-2007, 06:48 PM

Well then, you had better inform that to all the courts and legislatures which have been hearing court cases and bills debated before them for the protection of animals, because those promoting AR and AW are use suffering -- that which humans can empathize with -- as a large part of their arguments.

Man, how often have I heard Jews use the comparison?:
"We were thrown on to cattle cars and shipped out like animals."

"We were tattooed as dogs were and as cattle were branded."

Where have I heard blacks themselves recall:
"Our ancestors were chained, whipped, and worked like beasts."

The comparison has been well made by humans themselves who were exploited.

The comparison is not lost on many, even if it is on you, and it has been working. Sorry, Uchi, you lose again.
This has nothing to do with what I was replying to, it was in regards to euthanizing animals and your using the analogy comparing the suffering of the two, humans an animals.

And if you are so childish to think that you won something here, be my guest. Life is not a competition, maybe to you it is, but once someone learns to see through all your bs, hiding behind a computer screen, you are easy to figure out.

You don't bother me anymore, because now I truly know who and what you are.:D Feel free to write what you want, I've out grown you.

If you want to equal yourself with the animals be my guest, if by chance you ever get hit by a car please ensure that in your wallet on your organ donor card that you write, dont prosecute the person who ran over me, I am just road kill.

TheNoNamedOne

09-13-2007, 06:50 PM

That last part about road kill was funny.

This has nothing to do with what I was replying to, it was in regards to euthanizing animals and your using the analogy comparing the suffering of the two.

No, it does have a lot to do with it. Suffering is the common denominator that links the two.

Muku

09-13-2007, 06:54 PM

That last part about road kill was funny.

No, it does have a lot to do with it. Suffering is the common denominator that links the two.
Only to people like you, even a horse owner will shoot it in the head if it breaks it leg. Should we treat you the same?

TheNoNamedOne

09-13-2007, 06:56 PM

Only to people like you,...

No. To people like judges, politicians, and many citizens who have been fueling the trends.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

09-13-2007, 06:58 PM

Muku

09-13-2007, 07:15 PM

This ties in neatly with the revenge killing thread. Ever notice that when killing a criminal (or anyone, for that matter) for revenge, in the movies the person doing the killing wants the one they are dishing out vengence upon to suffer. Not die right away, but suffer first. Suffering is tied directly into power over the victim, a feeling of superiority and extremely degrading and dehumanizing. Hmmmm

Depending on the situation it is rather easy from my point of view and experience to understand that emotion very well. And it isnt anything like the movies either.

I am a strong supporter of the death penalty as well.

P_chan

09-13-2007, 10:57 PM

Geuss we could do that for doctor assisted suicide in Oregon, too, huh? and find no problem with using the lesser effective drug injection, calming the family's nerves by telling them:

Ah but you miss one major point. Those are human beings and animals are...well....animals.

TheNoNamedOne

09-13-2007, 11:25 PM

Ah but you miss one major point. Those are human beings and animals are...well....animals.

No point missed at all. I know, some of you guys are always clinging to the final barrier thinking that stops progress ...yada yada but those are human beings and animals are animals yada yada ad nausium... BUT the thing is, animal suffering and the desire to decrease it as much as possible is what is being used by activists to get their victories and change.

That is why the same drugs for doctor assisted suicide are being adopted for animal euthanasia. Why do you think the same drugs for doctor assisted suicide are being adopted for animal euthanasia, P?

P_chan

09-13-2007, 11:31 PM

They're still just animals.

That is why the same drugs for doctor assisted suicide are being adopted for animal euthanasia. Why do you think the same drugs for doctor assisted suicide are being adopted for animal euthanasia, P?

Because there are nut jobs out there that think animals should have equal rights as humans. Some even think they are better then humans! Just the thought makes me laugh! Show me an animal that is capable of deep thought and inventing technology like humans do, then I'll treat them the same.

Funny story! I had some 15 year old AR girl try to tell me that only humans hurt each other for no reason. Bitch please! Have you ever seen a wild male gorilla get a hold of a baby gorilla. They usually bash it's head on a rock or eat it.

TheNoNamedOne

09-13-2007, 11:44 PM

They're still just animals. Of course they are just animals. We are just humans, too. I don't think you've discovered anything new.

Regardless, more protections are being granted to them all the time.

Because there are nut jobs out there that think animals should have equal rights as humans.

Lots of highly educated people think so. So do some phylosophers. Though, it is conceivable that all those people are the nut jobs you are talking about. Thing is, seems like non animal advocates fill our insane asylums and prisons more than animal advocates. Go figure.

Some even think they[animals] are better then humans! Just the thought makes me laugh! Show me an animal that is capable of deep thought and inventing technology like humans do, then I'll treat them the same.

Not all humans are capable of deep thought or inventing technology. I still try not to hurt them, though.

Mental or technological ability is not what is keeping protections for animals from rolling on. You'd better find a new peg to hang your hat on. Anyways, you will show them the level of respect the judges, courts, and legislatures at any given time deem you to. If not and you get caught, well there could be some jail time for you involved in it -- and perhaps Vick would be your cell mate.

He is paying the price for not showing them the level of respect at this point in time our society as a collective whole has deemed right to do.

Funny story! I had some 15 year old AR girl try to tell me that only humans hurt each other for no reason. Bitch please! Have you ever seen a wild male gorilla get a hold of a baby gorilla. They usually bash it's head on a rock or eat it.

Male silverback gorillas are for the most part very paternalistic to the group's babies. Your use of the word usually tells me you really don't know what you are talking about here -- again.

Though, I'd retract that latter sentence if you could cite some reputable link sources.

P_chan

09-14-2007, 12:04 AM

Watched it on a national geographic special A WHILE AGO*. Not sure what kind of gorillas/monkey/chimp they really were, but they sure were doing just what I said. Just because I don't have 50 links to different sources, doesn't mean I'm making it up. I saw the speical, saw it happen at a zoo too. Nice little story to go along with that one too, but I'll save it for later.

Why should I go to jail again? I've never said anything about me personally harming animals or beating my dog. Oh wait, you ASSumed I did that.

Oh and someone could be a nut job but not technically insane, it's a figure of speech. Way to over analyze everything, like you always do.

*I went back and added in that I saw this special a while ago, so my original details (such as what type of primate the special was on) were a tad off. So sorry TP! Next time I post something in reference to my own life (like something I saw on tv) I'll be sure to include a date, time, what I had for dinner, my mother's maiden name, the exact position of the moon in the sky at the time I was doing whatever it was I was doing, and what color underwear I was wearing at the time.

P_chan

09-14-2007, 12:10 AM

oh here it is!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=564321&dopt=AbstractPlus

TheNoNamedOne

09-14-2007, 12:26 AM

Well, we know one thing for sure. P_chan doesn't know the difference between a gorilla and a chimpanzee.

Other than that, it is no secret that chimpanzees have violent conflicts amongst themselves. So do we. Either they seem human like, or we seem beast like. Take your choice, P.

P_chan

09-14-2007, 12:45 AM

Way to take my OP and turn it into something totally different, and try to make me look uneducated in the process.

I know the freaking difference jackass. I said in a previous post that it was a long time ago that I saw it and I DIDN'T REMEMBER!

I never said it was a secret! I was saying it in response to what another AR crack head was saying to me. That animals don't hurt each other for no reason!

Way to try and turn everything I said around on me. Good job trying to insult me in your pussy ass ways. At the end of the day, we know who really is pathetic.

Your the king of ASSumers!

TheNoNamedOne

09-14-2007, 12:44 PM

Way to take my OP and turn it into something totally different, and try to make me look uneducated in the process.

Then choose your words a little more carefully. There is a big difference between gorillas and chimpanzees.

I know the freaking difference *jackass. I said in a previous post that it was a long time ago that I saw it and I DIDN'T REMEMBER!

In your innitial post (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17330&postcount=117) about "Gorillas" you never once said anything about "when" you saw it. And in your second post (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17345&postcount=119) on the point you never once mentioned when you saw it, whether it was far in your past or recent.

Now, where was it that you said "it was a long time ago"? Basically, you are pulling stuff out of your hat (or another orifice); you got caught on the point, and it shows you, or at least leads me to believe that you are not clear on the difference between a gorilla and a chimpanzee. You are simply back pedaling here.

The more appropriate response from you would have just been a simple, "sorry, I mispoke." But you can't bring yourself to even utter such a simple thing as that.

*Don't resort to personal insults. See the rules.

Not an insult: I know, and you speak like a jackass.
Insult: I know the difference jackass.

Not an insult: You speak like an @sshole.
Insult: I know, @sshole.