PDA

View Full Version : PETA does it again! *smacks head*


Dennis's Mom
06-01-10, 19:26
How on earth can you put the First Lady in your ad without asking? Talk about balls the size of Alpha Centauri. :mad:

http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2010/01/06/peta-uses-an-unauthorized-image-of-michelle-obama-in-latest-ad/

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2010/stylewatch/blog/100118/peta-300x400.jpg

I don't know why I'm surprised. They seem to feel it's OK to trample on anyone and anything to make their point.

I'm so disgusted. :cen:

TRhalloween
06-01-10, 19:28
Don't worry, I'm sure Oprah won't mind.

Jack Croft
06-01-10, 19:29
Tyra Banks looks awful there!

T-Sex
06-01-10, 19:31
PETA are cool.

remote91
06-01-10, 19:33
Lol Tyra

y u such a freak?

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 19:36
PETA are cool.Again, no, just no.

PETA are scum.

dream raider
06-01-10, 19:37
The cause is good so, no harm done.

Again, no, just no.

PETA are scum.

Of course you'd say that, their causes don't benefit YOU.

Lee croft
06-01-10, 19:37
Pink trys to help PETA what ever way she can but tell me...whats PETA's story?

Catapharact
06-01-10, 19:38
How on earth can you put the First Lady in your ad without asking? Talk about balls the size of Alpha Centauri. :mad:

Or just simple lack of morals, simple disregard for others, and simple stupidity.

But they do make one good point though... I shouldn't be hunting animals down... Nah... I rather hunt me some vegans; They probably taste better.

T-Sex
06-01-10, 19:38
Again, no, just no.

PETA are scum.

Have fun kicking your football into small animals or whatever

TRhalloween
06-01-10, 19:39
Or just simple lack of morals, simple disregard for others, and simple stupidity.

But they do make one good point though... I shouldn't be hunting animals down... Nah... I rather hunt me some vegans; They probably taste better.

Didn't you leave the forum at some point?

Catapharact
06-01-10, 19:40
Didn't you leave the forum at some point?

Awwws! Missed me that much?

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 19:41
Of course you'd say that, their causes don't benefit YOU.No, I don't agree with their methods. It's got nothing to do with their cause.

Have fun kicking your football into small animals or whateverI don't agree with a vicious "animal rights" group so that makes me an animal killer?

No.

Too cold for football anyway.

T-Sex
06-01-10, 19:42
I don't agree with a vicious "animal rights" group so that makes me an animal killer?

No.

Too cold for football anyway.

I wasnt being serious.

dream raider
06-01-10, 19:44
No, I don't agree with their methods. It's got nothing to do with their cause.

Their methods are the only way to get people's attention, otherwise people wouldn't even look their way.

T-Sex
06-01-10, 19:45
Their methods are the only way to get people's attention, otherwise people wouldn't even look their way.

I laughed when they poured paint all over people at a fur clothing catwalk thing :D

I didnt really agree with them doing it, but at least it got peoples attention

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 19:45
Their methods are the only way to get people's attention, otherwise people wouldn't even look their way.No, they're just down right disgusting. All it does is discredit their cause.

T-Sex
06-01-10, 19:47
No, they're just down right disgusting. All it does is discredit their cause.

Since anyone with an IQ over 3 should agree with their cause anyway, it isnt discredited. It discredits them as a group, but not their cause.

asherz
06-01-10, 19:48
I like PETA but I'm not anti-fur/leather etc, soooooo...

dream raider
06-01-10, 19:49
No, they're just down right disgusting. All it does is discredit their cause.

No, 'disgusting' is what the people do to the animals PETA fights for.

Catapharact
06-01-10, 19:49
Their methods are the only way to get people's attention, otherwise people wouldn't even look their way.

Now I wonder why is that... Could it be that their cause has no logical merit to it? Or that the WWF itself has debunked their loony theories time after time? When the largest animal preservation organization has labled you a dimwitted moronic group, a lightbulb should go off in your head telling you that your methods are idiotic and your ideals moronic.

So what do they do? They resort to public harrasment, vandalism, defamation, and any other given dirty trick their braindead heads can come up with.

T-Sex
06-01-10, 19:49
No, 'disgusting' is what the people do to the animals PETA fights for.

:tmb:

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 19:51
Now I wonder why is that... Could it be that their cause has no logical merit to it? Or that the WWF itself has debunked their loony theories time after time? When the largest animal preservation organization has labled you a dimwitted moronic group, a lightbulb should go off in your head telling you that your methods are idiotic and your ideals moronic.

So what do they do? They resort to public harrasment, vandalism, defimation, and any other given dirty trick their braindead heads can come up with.Once again, Cat has brought sense and logic into a thread all but devoid of it.

Drone
06-01-10, 19:55
if they shot one poacher or two down it'd make much more sense ... whatever

miss.haggard
06-01-10, 19:57
Of course you'd say that, their causes don't benefit YOU.

I think what he is trying to say is that while PETA is trying to do the right thing, they go about it in the worst way possible. Making big deals about tiny things, and sounding like pompous ass holes.

Lemmie
06-01-10, 19:57
Hmmm...I do agree with their attitude towards fur generally. I think it's unnecessary to use fur in clothing, and if a designer says that they absolutely MUST use fur, they aren't being creative enough. The fur farming industry is one of the least well-managed and cruel, particularly in China, Russia and (I think to a lesser extent) in the USA. In some European it's a bit better because of EU restrictions on mink farming.

I do think they can be very extreme and don't agree with their methods; however, I read an article in the Observer magazine earlier this year where the head of PETA (Ingrid Newkirk) was interviewed where she said something to the effect that the new, and more extremist tactics that they use now are being used because they've tried so many other avenues without feeling that they have made sufficient progress.

Dumping a dead raccoon on Anna Wintour's plate at the New York Four Seasons is a little bit amusing though.

dream raider
06-01-10, 20:00
Now I wonder why is that... Could it be that their cause has no logical merit to it? Or that the WWF itself has debunked their loony theories time after time? When the largest animal preservation organization has labled you a dimwitted moronic group, a lightbulb should go off in your head telling you that your methods are idiotic and your ideals moronic.

So what do they do? They resort to public harrasment, vandalism, defamation, and any other given dirty trick their braindead heads can come up with.

The general public is too selfish and ignorant to give a damn about any living creature other than themselves. They restort to extreme measures because that's what gets the public's attention. Simple as that. They open people's eyes to see the truth behind the walls of slaughterhouses.

I recommend you watch the documentary 'Earthlings.'

Trigger_happy
06-01-10, 20:05
PETA are just insane. They actually, truthfully suggested that everyone should drink beer instead of milk. even very young children. And that milk had only very negative health benefits.

dizzydoil
06-01-10, 20:06
No, 'disgusting' is what the people do to the animals PETA fights for.
:hug:.

dream raider
06-01-10, 20:08
PETA are just insane. They actually, truthfully suggested that everyone should drink beer instead of milk. even very young children. And that milk had only very negative health benefits.

Considering the amount of hormones and antibiotics in commercial milk, beer would probably be a better alternative. :p

However, if you want healthier milk, go for organic. :)

:hug:.

:):hug:

T-Sex
06-01-10, 20:09
Considering the amount of hormones and antibiotics in commercial milk, beer would probably be a better alternative. :p


I don't think so.

Dennis's Mom
06-01-10, 20:09
I read an article in the Observer magazine earlier this year where the head of PETA (Ingrid Newkirk) was interviewed where she said something to the effect that the new, and more extremist tactics that they use now are being used because they've tried so many other avenues without feeling that they have made sufficient progress.

I see. So much for respecting other people's opinion and beliefs. It's our way or we'll smear you with blood, mock your religion and harass you until you convert to our belief system.

Monty Python was right. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition because they're currently arriving under the name PETA.

It's wrong to steal someone's image for your own cause. I don't care what you're selling.

Trigger_happy
06-01-10, 20:11
Considering the amount of hormones and antibiotics in commercial milk, beer would probably be a better alternative. :p

However, if you want healthier milk, go for organic. :)





You know that there is like no difference between normal and organic food don't you? Its just a marketing thing.

And in no way is it healthier for small children to drink beer instead of milk. They'll all get rickets. PETA actually tried to go into schools to "teach" this rubbish.

dream raider
06-01-10, 20:12
I don't think so.

All I know is that commercial milk contains many hormones and antibiotics. You can do a little google search.

Lemmie
06-01-10, 20:12
I see. So much for respecting other people's opinion and beliefs. It's our way or we'll smear you with blood, mock your religion and harass you until you convert to our belief system.

Monty Python was right. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition because they're currently arriving under the name PETA.

It's wrong to steal someone's image for your own cause. I don't care what you're selling.

I'm not defending any of their tactics or all of their causes, and definitely in this case they should have sought permission; there, I'm with you. But their anti-fur position is definitely one I can understand and get behind, that's all I'm saying.

T-Sex
06-01-10, 20:13
All I know is that commercial milk contains many hormones and antibiotics. You can do a little google search.

Better than alcohol. Seriously, giving a small child beer can kill them.

Catapharact
06-01-10, 20:14
Hmmm...I do agree with their attitude towards fur generally. I think it's unnecessary to use fur in clothing, and if a designer says that they absolutely MUST use fur, they aren't being creative enough. The fur farming industry is one of the least well-managed and cruel, particularly in China, Russia and (I think to a lesser extent) in the USA. In some European it's a bit better because of EU restrictions on mink farming.

On the contrary, every large "commercialized" fur harvest is usually overseen by independent groups such as WWF to ensure that the harvest follows regulation and a set quota:

http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/faq/response.cfm?hdnQuestionId=11320030954082


the head of PETA (Ingrid Newkirk) was interviewed where she said something to the effect that the new, and more extremist tactics that they use now are being used because they've tried so many other avenues without feeling that they have made sufficient progress.

By what? Video taping Pochers and posing them off as legitimate hunters? Notice that none of these "brave" individuals have ever approached a hunter that they video taped and asked him/her for the government issued permit... Now wouldn't that solidify their proof and their cause?

Oh wait... I am assuming that they HAVE a LEGITIMATE cause... How silly.


The general public is too selfish and ignorant to give a damn about any living creature other than themselves. They restort to extreme measures because that's what gets the public's attention. Simple as that. They open people's eyes to see the truth behind the walls of slaughterhouses.

I recommend you watch the documentary 'Earthlings.'

Dream Raider... I seriously am having a hard time believing that a smart girl like you actually watched that load of crud. The last person who recommended that movie to me happened to be an unemployed pot smoking moof who happened to be 32 years old, lived with his parents and actually proposed the idea that he should be paid to just sit there, and spew out his garbage laden thoughts :p.

T-Sex
06-01-10, 20:15
On the contrary, every large "commercialized" fur harvest is usually overseen by independent groups such as WWF to ensure that the harvest follows regulation and a set quota:

http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/faq/response.cfm?hdnQuestionId=11320030954082

Dont worry everyone. The animals are being pointlessly killed with REGULATIONS IN PLACE! Hooray!

TheBloodRed
06-01-10, 20:15
Have fun kicking your football into small animals or whatever

I love this quote!! xD

People don't like PETA because a lot of times their campaigns are pretty ridiculous.

remote91
06-01-10, 20:16
Without fur Wilhelmina Slater wouldn't look so awesome :(

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/imageBank/cache/v/vanessa-williams-lp-news.jpg_e_b531446b815d841fa57ff7ac29559923.jpg

RAID
06-01-10, 20:16
No, 'disgusting' is what the people do to the animals PETA fights for.
Exactly :tmb:

T-Sex
06-01-10, 20:17
Without fur Wilhelmina Slater wouldn't look so awesome :(

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/imageBank/cache/v/vanessa-williams-lp-news.jpg_e_b531446b815d841fa57ff7ac29559923.jpg

She looks particularly un-awesome.

Catapharact
06-01-10, 20:17
Dont worry everyone. The animals are being pointlessly killed with REGULATIONS IN PLACE! Hooray!

I wonder as to how many people here would actually have bleeding hearts for the unfortunate humans...

dream raider
06-01-10, 20:17
Better than alcohol. Seriously, giving a small child beer can kill them.

Oh I know, I was just emphasising that commercial milk is actually bad. I'm sure that there are worse beverages out there, however.

You know that there is like no difference between normal and organic food don't you? Its just a marketing thing.

And in no way is it healthier for small children to drink beer instead of milk. They'll all get rickets. PETA actually tried to go into schools to "teach" this rubbish.

That's an irrational statement, don't you think? There is a difference. Though the quality varies from different brands.

Well, they didn't go to schools to teach children that beer is good for you, that's for sure.

Punaxe
06-01-10, 20:19
Now I wonder why is that... Could it be that their cause has no logical merit to it? Or that the WWF itself has debunked their loony theories time after time? When the largest animal preservation organization has labled you a dimwitted moronic group, a lightbulb should go off in your head telling you that your methods are idiotic and your ideals moronic.

So what do they do? They resort to public harrasment, vandalism, defamation, and any other given dirty trick their braindead heads can come up with.

I'm interested in reading what the WWF has said about PETA, but couldn't find anything. Do you have a source?

PETA are a hypocritical bunch spreading lies and terror (I think we can call it that), expecting to be respected because it's "for those poor animals". It's a good cause in general, but not as represented by PETA. There is absolutely no sense of reason or perspective in their statements, actions, suggestions, policies, and whatever else they may be doing.

TheBloodRed
06-01-10, 20:21
Considering the amount of hormones and antibiotics in commercial milk, beer would probably be a better alternative. :p

Beer might not be an exact alternative but I know that commercial milk is pretty bad.

www.notmilk.com

A site with facts and lots of evidence! :jmp:

Love2Raid
06-01-10, 20:22
It seems the PETA people think they can get away with anything.

remote91
06-01-10, 20:23
She looks particularly un-awesome.
Just because you couldn't pull those shoes off :pi:

jackles
06-01-10, 20:24
Hmmm lets keep in mind that this is a discussion forum and not let our emotions on this obviously emotive subject lead us down the path of attacking each other.

Discuss not war!



:)




and after having read back...keep on topic please! :)

dream raider
06-01-10, 20:24
Dream Raider... I seriously am having a hard time believing that a smart girl like you actually watched that load of crud. The last person who recommended that movie to me happened to be an unemployed pot smoking moof who happened to be 32 years old, lived with his parents and actually proposed the idea that he should be paid to just sit there, and spew out his garbage laden thoughts :p.

Why don't you have a look, then? Watch the whole video and make up your own assumptions. It won't be a waste of your time, I promise.
About the last person who recommend that movie to you... I have no comment to make about that.

Catapharact
06-01-10, 20:25
I'm interested in reading what the WWF has said about PETA, but couldn't find anything. Do you have a source?

There was an excellent article on the subject printed in my University's Newspaper. If I can fish it out of the archives, I'll post the text version up for you :).

PETA are a hypocritical bunch spreading lies and terror (I think we can call it that), expecting to be respected because it's "for those poor animals". It's a good cause in general, but not as represented by PETA. There is absolutely no sense of reason or perspective in their statements, actions, suggestions, policies, and whatever else they may be doing.

Couldn't have said it better.

January_Snow*
06-01-10, 20:26
Fur is fabulous and glamurous, I love fur... but its one of those things that are wonderfull but forbiden, Im very against kiling animals for fur... its horrible....

remote91
06-01-10, 20:28
I'd love it if fur was only taken from animals that were already dead, but it isn't, either way, I'm not entirely against it

Lemmie
06-01-10, 20:28
On the contrary, every large "commercialized" fur harvest is usually overseen by independent groups such as WWF to ensure that the harvest follows regulation and a set quota:

http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/faq/response.cfm?hdnQuestionId=11320030954082

That link deals with the Canadian seal cull, which is not first and foremost about seal-fur and it is also not an example of farming, merely population control to preserve fish-stocks (which the WWF says that it sees no compelling evidence for) and also a healthy, stable population of the seal itself. It then points to other groups who would oversee and enforce regulations for the cull.

Notice it does not mention anything about fur-farming in Europe, China, Russia or the USA. I had a quick look for any other information on the website about fur-farming in particular, but as WWF is a conservation group rather than one protecting and enforcing animal rights, I couldn't find any. Do you have any other links about this? I'll check the other group the link mentioned, the International Fund for Animal Rights.

By what? Video taping Pochers and posing them off as legitimate hunters? Notice that none of these "brave" individuals have ever approached a hunter that they video taped and asked him/her for the government issued permit... Now wouldn't that solidify their proof and their cause?

Hunted and poached fur accounts for a smaller proportion of overall fur production. Targeting fur farming and designers and celebrities that use fur is more high profile and will garner more support than going after individual hunters or trappers - how many high profile hunters or trappers can you think of? Substitute that for designers or celebrities who endorse the fur industry and there are plenty of targets.

It wouldn't make sense from their point of view to target hunters/trappers/poachers.

Trigger_happy
06-01-10, 20:29
Beer might not be an exact alternative but I know that commercial milk is pretty bad.

www.notmilk.com

A site with facts and lots of evidence! :jmp:

I wouldn't exactly call any of that "evidence: the first link I clicked on said we're all addicted to milk basically because its all full of heroin, and that companies use this drugged milk to make us addicted to dairy products?!Or that milk companies are working with Oprah to brainwash everyone. Or milk products enslave black children?

Lemmie
06-01-10, 20:32
Better than alcohol. Seriously, giving a small child beer can kill them.

Actually, beer used to be a staple in the diets of many cultures in Europe for everyone in society; if the water wasn't safe to drink, you just added fermented grain and yeast to kill the bacteria. Apparently Europeans are more used to alcohol genetically than other races.

Minty Mouth
06-01-10, 20:33
Beer might not be an exact alternative but I know that commercial milk is pretty bad.

www.notmilk.com

A site with facts and lots of evidence! :jmp:

If they can't afford someone decent to do their web-design, they can't afford my attention :ohn:

Zebra
06-01-10, 20:35
It seems the PETA people think they can get away with anything.

You could say the same about humanity in general, no :rolleyes:?

Trigger_happy
06-01-10, 20:36
If they can't afford someone decent to do their web-design, they can't afford my attention :ohn:

Do it minty! Its the most fun I've had all day.

Now I've just read an article saying that God's curse upon mankind was milk from cows.

EDIT: or that America is discriminating against black and Native Indian people by drinking cow's milk.

remote91
06-01-10, 20:36
Now I've just read an article saying that God's curse upon mankind was milk from cows.
So that sly bugger DID manage to get us

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 20:37
You could say the same about humanity in general, no :rolleyes:?Is that a reference to humans eating meat?

Minty Mouth
06-01-10, 20:38
I think I may actually be addicted to milk, but that is something I can live with.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 20:39
I'm drinking hot chocolate right now. Milk is great.

Trigger_happy
06-01-10, 20:40
The site now says that drinking milk is the same as rape. This site is blatantly set up by a very clever troll.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 20:41
The site now says that drinking milk is the same as rape. This site is blatantly set up by a very clever troll.What, seriously?

Those people need to get their heads sorted out. They also compared meat to the holocaust. ****ing loons. All of them. I hate it when groups like this use events like that to try and further their organization.

Zebra
06-01-10, 20:42
Is that a reference to humans eating meat?

No. Not at all. Meat is an essential part of the human's natural diet.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 20:43
No. Not at all. Meat is an essential part of the human's natural diet.So what was you referring to then? :confused:

miss.haggard
06-01-10, 20:43
I think I may actually be addicted to milk, but that is something I can live with.

Same here, I drink about 3 glasses a day :D

Punaxe
06-01-10, 20:44
Concerning milk: I don't know how it is in the other parts of the world, but the European Union has fairly strict regulations concerning the quality of milk (PDF (http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sfp/mr/mr03_en.pdf)). If anything that's being said in this thread was true, it wouldn't be sold. Please always check the (actual) facts.

Catapharact
06-01-10, 20:45
That link deals with the Canadian seal cull, which is not first and foremost about seal-fur and it is also not an example of farming, merely population control to preserve fish-stocks (which the WWF says that it sees no compelling evidence for) and also a healthy, stable population of the seal itself. It then points to other groups who would oversee and enforce regulations for the cull.

The link specifically states that it does not support a "cull" but supports a regulated seal hunt by the indeginious population of the area. You probably know that PETA's prized target for smeer campaigns happens to be the Seal Hunt and how its not "regulated" enough. When you have the WWF, and the Animal Welfare group looking over the hunt, then you know that the eyes of the world is watching.

Hunted and poached fur accounts for a smaller proportion of overall fur production. Targeting fur farming and designers and celebrities that use fur is more high profile and will garner more support than going after individual hunters or trappers - how many high profile hunters or trappers can you think of? Substitute that for designers or celebrities who endorse the fur industry and there are plenty of targets.

It wouldn't make sense from their point of view to target hunters/trappers/poachers.

No it won't. If you are going to boycott them, then probably yes but vandlizing them?! Harrassing them?! You are earning a one way ticket to being placed on the terror watchlist. Basically you are targeting the symptoms rather then the problem. Clearly a black market for poaching exists. So, toughen up the laws on poaching. Campaign for those laws rather then throwing paints on people.

Trigger_happy
06-01-10, 20:45
What, seriously?

Those people need to get their heads sorted out. They also compared meat to the holocaust. ****ing loons.

Yeap, let me give you a few choice quotes from the section entitled "statutory rape":

Adults teachers having sex with their students are predators. So too are magazines promoting pedophilia, or
Internet sites selling child pornography. The same sanctions that make the promotion of child/adult sex should be applied to the National Fluid Milk Predators.

STATUTORY RAPE SELLS MILK

The dairy industry message was that it is acceptable for children to attract and have sex with older adult teachers.

The dairy industry committed the same crime, but on a much larger scale. They told my three children and your sons and daughters that the world in which they live welcomes secual acts between children and adults.

Enjoy!

Zebra
06-01-10, 20:45
So what was you referring to then? :confused:

I was referring to humanity's general ignorance and cruelty towards nature and all sorts of life forms.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 20:46
I was referring to humanity's general ignorance and cruelty towards nature and all sorts of life forms.Nature is a resource for us to use though.

Catapharact
06-01-10, 20:47
I was referring to humanity's general ignorance and cruelty towards nature and all sorts of life forms.

Wonder if this is an after effect of watching James Cameron's Avatar... The poor guy is now gonna get blamed to influencing support for the moronic PETA organization.

Zebra
06-01-10, 20:48
Nature is a resource for us to use though.

:vlol:
Are you being serious? Wow...if that's the case you're the best example for the ignorance I've just mentioned. Do you even have any idea how nature works? How ecosystems work?

Wonder if this is an after effect of watching James Cameron's Avatar... The poor guy is now gonna get blamed to influencing support for the moronic PETA organization.

I have not watched Avatar yet and I've had that opinion long before I even knew about that film being made :p.

touchthesky
06-01-10, 20:49
Again, no, just no.

PETA are scum.

I completed agree...does anyone remember the ads they did for kids?

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/mommykills.jpg

http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/peta.jpg


Honestly.

remote91
06-01-10, 20:50
^Lmao, that would have created some messed up kids

Love2Raid
06-01-10, 20:50
^ (the pictures)
Now that's disturbing.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 20:50
:vlol:
Are you being serious? Wow...if that's the case you're the best example for the ignorance I've just mentioned. Do you even have any idea how nature works? How ecosystems work?I hope you aren't this intolerant of other people's opinions all the time.

jackles
06-01-10, 20:51
That has freaked me right out!

Catapharact
06-01-10, 20:51
I completed agree...does anyone remember the ads they did for kids?

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/mommykills.jpg[/IMG]http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/peta.jpg[/IMG]


Honestly.

Goodness... I swear they remind me of the WW2 Nazi propaganda posters.

Zebra
06-01-10, 20:52
I hope you aren't this intolerant of other people's opinions all the time.

Only if other people's opinions are obviously wrong.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 20:52
Only if other people's opinions are obviously wrong.That's a contradictory statement you know.

touchthesky
06-01-10, 20:52
That has freaked me right out!

And made you hate your parents for killing Thumper, right?

They're so messed up it's not real.

Sgt BOMBULOUS
06-01-10, 20:53
Better than alcohol. Seriously, giving a small child beer can kill them.

Sufficient amounts of anything can kill you. You can die from drinking too much water (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9678573-1.html). So then tell me, exactly how much beer does it take to kill a small child? Or do you just hate the idea of anyone drinking it?

Lemmie
06-01-10, 20:54
The link specifically states that it does not support a "cull" but supports a regulated seal hunt by the indeginious population of the area. You probably know that PETA's prized target for smeer campaigns happens to be the Seal Hunt and how its not "regulated" enough. When you have the WWF, and the Animal Welfare group looking over the hunt, then you know that the eyes of the world is watching.

Right, I get that, just that there's nothing there about farming animals purely for fur - the seal cull and fur farming are separate, though overlapping, areas.

No it won't. If you are going to boycott them, then probably yes but vandlizing them?! Harrassing them?! You are earning a one way ticket to being placed on the terror watchlist. Basically you are targeting the symptoms rather then the problem. Clearly a black market for poaching exists. So, toughen up the laws on poaching. Campaign for those laws rather then throwing paints on people.

I agree with you there, that the prevention of poaching should be something that PETA might rightly focus on. But the public endorsement of fur and products using fur must be something that PETA worries about more - by making fur acceptable it sets back their cause.

Besides, poaching and illegal hunting are not necessarily connected to the fur industry. Poaching often involves the hunting of protected animals like tigers, leopards, bears and so forth. The fur from these animals is an illegal commodity, and fashion designers or celebrities wearing or using it will have it confiscated, and that's only if they're lucky. So poaching and illegal hunting is not really the root cause of fur as a fashion item.

Trigger_happy
06-01-10, 20:54
Sufficient amounts of anything can kill you. You can die from drinking too much water (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9678573-1.html). So then tell me, exactly how much beer does it take to kill a small child? Or do you just hate the idea of anyone drinking it?

I love beer, but the idea of bottle feeding my 2 year old baby a nice pint of fosters is just wrong. PETA actually suggested replacing milk with beer, for everything and everyone.

Dennis's Mom
06-01-10, 20:56
If they can't afford someone decent to do their web-design, they can't afford my attention :ohn:

I dub this the most Excellent Post of the Day! :D

I was referring to humanity's general ignorance and cruelty towards nature and all sorts of life forms.

True, but then that only applies when people fail. When Man succeeds its Intellect and Courage.

Man is far from ignorant or cruel towards all forms of life. I think that's too broad a generalization to be fair. Can we be cruel? Certainly, but no more so than many wildlife events I've witnessed. We also spend a good deal of our money and time appreciating Nature.

Zebra
06-01-10, 20:56
That's a contradictory statement you know.

:D

Could you elaborate on your statement though? Nature is a resource for humans to be used? Maybe we're misunderstanding each other but...if I understood that correctly, you're basically saying that nature is only there for humans to benefit from it. Right?

Sgt BOMBULOUS
06-01-10, 20:57
I love beer, but the idea of bottle feeding my 2 year old baby a nice pint of fosters is just wrong. PETA actually suggested replacing milk with beer, for everything and everyone.

That's ludicrous, no argument there. But so was vague the claim that beer can kill a small child, which was the reason for my post.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 20:57
:D

Could you elaborate on your statement though? Nature is a resource for humans to be used? Maybe we're misunderstanding each other but...if I understood that correctly, you're basically saying that nature is only there for humans to benefit from it. Right?Yep, pretty much. That's my view anyway.

Note that I don't believe in killing or harming animals for no reason.

viper456
06-01-10, 20:57
Going back to the opening post...yeah it was rude of them not to ask permission but at the same time they were praising the women in the ad. News papers and what not use people's photos all the time too, sometimes without permission.

badboy70
06-01-10, 21:02
Yep, pretty much. That's my view anyway.

Note that I don't believe in killing or harming animals for no reason.
THat's quite narrow-minded, don't you think.

So animals shouldn't be benifiting from it?
Humanity isn't a superior race, it's just the most intelligent one on this planet, and right now we're using our intelligence to use, even abuse, nature for our own comfort without thinking about the consequences.

Zebra
06-01-10, 21:05
Yep, pretty much. That's my view anyway.

Note that I don't believe in killing or harming animals for no reason.

Why do you think so? Nature was not built around the human species but the human species is a PART of nature. Nature is a give-take thing and with the forming of civilisations humans took too much and gave too little. That works for a short period of time but now we're slowly realising that that time is coming to an end.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 21:05
THat's quite narrow-minded, don't you think.

So animals shouldn't be benifiting from it?
Humanity isn't a superior race, it's just the most intelligent one on this planet, and right now we're using our intelligence to use, even abuse, nature for our own comfort without thinking about the consequences.No.

Animals shouldn't be benefiting from what exactly?

And yeah, we are a superior race. I'm sorry but it's fact. No matter how much you try and look at it animals are not equal to us.

@Zebra: Umm, what? Is our time coming to an end? I see no indication of that.

Punaxe
06-01-10, 21:06
:D

Could you elaborate on your statement though? Nature is a resource for humans to be used? Maybe we're misunderstanding each other but...if I understood that correctly, you're basically saying that nature is only there for humans to benefit from it. Right?

I actually thought, going back to your questions "Do you even have any idea how nature works? How ecosystems work?" http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showpost.php?p=4275500&postcount=75) he meant the basic workings of nature where everything is indeed a resource to other forms of life. I wouldn't say nature in general is solely there for humans to be used, and I don't think that's what Mad Tony meant either, but man of course happens to be an apex predator, and is capable of furnishing parts of nature solely for use as resource. This is nothing other than the cycle of life, except made easier for us to utilize.

touchthesky
06-01-10, 21:06
PETA frequently looks the other way when its celebrity spokespersons don’t practice what it preaches. As gossip bloggers and Hollywood journalists have noted, Pamela Anderson’s Dodge Viper (auctioned to benefit PETA) had a “luxurious leather interior”; Jenna Jameson was photographed fishing, slurping oysters, and wearing a leather jacket just weeks after launching an anti-leather campaign for PETA; Morrissey got an official “okay” from PETA after eating at a steakhouse; Dita von Teese has written about her love of furs and foie gras; Steve-O built a career out of abusing small animals on film; the officially “anti-fur” Eva Mendes often wears fur anyway; and Charlize Theron’s celebrated October 2007 Vogue cover shoot featured several suede garments. In 2008, “Baby Phat” designer Kimora Lee Simmons became a PETA spokesmodel despite working with fur and leather, after making a $20,000 donation to the animal rights group.

According to government documents, PETA employees have killed more than 19,200 dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens since 1998. This behavior continues despite PETA’s moralizing about the “unethical” treatment of animals by farmers, scientists, restaurant owners, circuses, hunters, fishermen, zookeepers, and countless other Americans. PETA puts to death over 90 percent of the animals it accepts from members of the public who expect the group to make a reasonable attempt to find them adoptive homes. PETA holds absolutely no open-adoption shelter hours at its Norfolk, VA headquarters, choosing instead to spend part of its $32 million annual income on a contract with a crematory service to periodically empty hundreds of animal bodies from its large walk-in freezer.

from

www.petakillsanimals.com

oh

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm

;)

T-Sex
06-01-10, 21:11
And yeah, we are a superior race. I'm sorry but it's fact. No matter how much you try and look at it animals are not equal to us.


Oh. Ok, if thats what you think.

Tombraiderx08
06-01-10, 21:12
Don't worry, I'm sure Oprah won't mind. :vlol: i dont think its that big a deal?

Mona Sax
06-01-10, 21:13
Granted, they are very uncompromising in their methods and often go way too far, but as I think this thread proves, sometimes extreme methods are the only ones that will shake people out of their apathy. As this thread shows, many people are unwilling to consider that their profit (or just vanity, in the case of furs) can cause unbelievable suffering to other creatures. Wearing fur is unneccessary in our day and age, there are plenty of alternatives. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy for anybody working in or using the products of an industry that causes animals more harm than necessary for our own survival.

Zebra
06-01-10, 21:14
@Zebra: Umm, what? Is our time coming to an end? I see no indication of that.

No. Read my post. That's not at all what I said. The time of us taking more then giving is coming to an end (or rather the time during which we thought that that would work forever.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 21:15
No. Read my post. That's not at all what I said. The time of us taking more then giving is coming to an end (or rather the time during which we thought that that would work forever.What exactly do you mean?

T-Sex
06-01-10, 21:17
What exactly do you mean?

I think he means that resources are running out because humans have been draining them without replacing them for so long.

badboy70
06-01-10, 21:19
No.

Animals shouldn't be benefiting from what exactly?

And yeah, we are a superior race. I'm sorry but it's fact. No matter how much you try and look at it animals are not equal to us.

@Zebra: Umm, what? Is our time coming to an end? I see no indication of that.
No race is superior, we stem from monkeys so does that make them superior because they are our ancestors? Of course not.
Simply because we're smarter doesn't make any race superior.
If there are aliens that are smarter than us, are the superior?
No.
Animals can do more things than we think.
If the whole world would be about running fast instead of being smart, animals would outrun us making them the superior race.

Once we push the planet too far we'll al just die, becuase of global warming, rising sea levels and all that other stuff.
Then life will start over again, without us.
What's the superior race then?
The world isn't build around humans.

Zebra
06-01-10, 21:23
And yeah, we are a superior race. I'm sorry but it's fact. No matter how much you try and look at it animals are not equal to us.


WHAT? Wow...now you ARE being ignorant. Humans ARE animals. We're hominids and hominids are a primate family. As you should know, primates are animals.

T-Sex
06-01-10, 21:24
It manages to annoy me every time people claim that humans are a superior race. Definitely more advanced in terms of technology, but not superior.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 21:32
No race is superior, we stem from monkeys so does that make them superior because they are our ancestors? Of course not.
Simply because we're smarter doesn't make any race superior.
If there are aliens that are smarter than us, are the superior?
No.
Animals can do more things than we think.
If the whole world would be about running fast instead of being smart, animals would outrun us making them the superior race.

Once we push the planet too far we'll al just die, becuase of global warming, rising sea levels and all that other stuff.
Then life will start over again, without us.
What's the superior race then?
The world isn't build around humans.

WHAT? Wow...now you ARE being ignorant. Humans ARE animals. We're hominids and hominids are a primate family. As you should know, primates are animals.

Jeez, how much evidence do you need that we're superior? It's not just that we're smarter. Our brains are far more complex which means we are capable of far more things.

I'm sorry Zebra, but I honestly think you are the ignorant one if you can't recognize this.

T-Sex
06-01-10, 21:37
Jeez, how much evidence do you need that we're superior? It's not just that we're smarter. Our brains are far more complex which means we are capable of far more things.

No. Far more things doesnt mean good things.

Zebra
06-01-10, 21:44
Jeez, how much evidence do you need that we're superior? It's not just that we're smarter. Our brains are far more complex which means we are capable of far more things.

I'm sorry Zebra, but I honestly think you are the ignorant one if you can't recognize this.

So you're saying that a human who's smarter than another one is superior to that human? Or a human who has more skills and talents than another one is superior to that human?

Legend of Lara
06-01-10, 21:45
*cough*
In response to the original topic, PETA are shameless and don't get any second thoughts about their "messages". They've proven that time and time again.

Mona Sax
06-01-10, 21:47
Jeez, how much evidence do you need that we're superior? It's not just that we're smarter. Our brains are far more complex which means we are capable of far more things.
Does being more complex than most other species give us the right to exploit other species? Hardly. It's just a convenient worldview because it allows us to justify our own morally ambiguous acts, to put it mildly, and therefore to override our conscience. Let's use the smarter, more advanced aliens somebody mentioned above for a little intellectual experiment. If your theory were correct, you'd consider yourself worth less, you wouldn't mind them to strip the planet of its resources and to wear your skin for fashion.

Love2Raid
06-01-10, 21:49
All living things need to be respected. Humans have no more right to use the resources of the planet than any other creature.

About humans being 'superior': we are only superior in the areas we have 'civilized'. I can assure you, you won't feel very superior when you are all alone in an African savannah.

I am not against eating meat, since this is natural. Animals eat meat too, it's part of our diet and doesn't make us barbaric. As long as the animals are treated with respect (not all stacked into a tiny cage, should be able to go outside), it's okay in my opinion. I hardly eat it though because I don't like it very much. I don't see anything wrong with drinking milk either. As Punaxe said in an earlier post, milk in Europe (and I assume it's the same elsewhere) is safe to drink. The fur industry is disgusting though, I would never wear fur.

Catapharact
06-01-10, 22:07
Does being more complex than most other species give us the right to exploit other species? Hardly. It's just a convenient worldview because it allows us to justify our own morally ambiguous acts, to put it mildly, and therefore to override our conscience. Let's use the smarter, more advanced aliens somebody mentioned above for a little intellectual experiment. If your theory were correct, you'd consider yourself worth less, you wouldn't mind them to strip the planet of its resources and to wear your skin for fashion.

But then you are playing the higer being moral ambiguity card where as the others are defending the "equality" species card. If they want to play that game then I totally wouldn't mind following upon the Darwin ideals and have an total anarchy of a world where everyone is out there to fend for themselves. Oh Mother Nature can be such a ***** :p.

You can sure bet that I am going to shoot anyone who tries to breathe in my air ;).

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 22:11
So you're saying that a human who's smarter than another one is superior to that human? Or a human who has more skills and talents than another one is superior to that human?No. You're putting words in my mouth that aren't there.

Does being more complex than most other species give us the right to exploit other species? Hardly. It's just a convenient worldview because it allows us to justify our own morally ambiguous acts, to put it mildly, and therefore to override our conscience. Let's use the smarter, more advanced aliens somebody mentioned above for a little intellectual experiment. If your theory were correct, you'd consider yourself worth less, you wouldn't mind them to strip the planet of its resources and to wear your skin for fashion.What exactly do you mean by exploit? Personally I don't think we as a species are exploiting animals at the moment.

Well if supposedly more intellectual aliens did ever come to this Earth we as a race would put up a fight and rebel.

Punaxe
06-01-10, 22:16
Does being more complex than most other species give us the right to exploit other species? Hardly. It's just a convenient worldview because it allows us to justify our own morally ambiguous acts, to put it mildly, and therefore to override our conscience. Let's use the smarter, more advanced aliens somebody mentioned above for a little intellectual experiment. If your theory were correct, you'd consider yourself worth less, you wouldn't mind them to strip the planet of its resources and to wear your skin for fashion.

I think you're wrongly projecting some ethical ideas onto the sole idea of biological superiority there. I too think humans are superior to animals, because we are capable of so much more than animals are. We are the top of the food chain. We are more skilled. We are better capable of adapting ourselves. We are better survivors. On top of that, while biologically any species' extinction would be just as disastrous, if mankind would be lost, much more than mere biological features would be lost - mankind has history, knowledge, culture. This, I could defend, makes our survival worth more than any given animal's (as known today).

This does not mean I do not value nature, and everything that is nature, to the highest degree. I am saying that I believe there are good reasons to consider ourselves superior, but I do not propagate ever putting any kind of valuation of species to practical use. Everything must be treated with the proper respect.

More advanced aliens (e.g. of higher intelligence and having more/better natural capabilities) would indeed be superior over us. This does not mean that the "proper respect" that needs to be paid to any other form of life (including ourselves) suddenly diminishes.

Mona Sax
06-01-10, 22:17
But then you are playing the higer being moral ambiguity card where as the others are defending the "equality" species card. If they want to play that game then I totally wouldn't mind following upon the Darwin ideals and have an total anarchy of a world where everyone is out there to fend for themselves. Oh Mother Nature can be such a ***** :p.

You can sure bet that I am going to shoot anyone who tries to breathe in my air ;).
No, because - at least as far as humans are concerned - the theory of evolution doesn't only work on an individual, but also on the levels of groups and even the entire species. Just like humans going on a killing spree for breathing each other's air would be detrimental to the survival of the species, so would be excessively damaging the environmental system we're a part of. Nature would survive (because it would shift to a new balance), we wouldn't.

I also agree with the 'equality' point of view. It's just a different - moral - plane, but ultimately leads to the same conclusion. It's that which makes me believe that morals are based on biology, not religion or philosophy.
What exactly do you mean by exploit? Personally I don't think we as a species are exploiting animals at the moment.
As long as we consider treating animals worse than absolutely necessary to be normal, I think we are.
Well if supposedly more intellectual aliens did ever come to this Earth we as a race would put up a fight and rebel.
Which is my point. We wouldn't accept being treated as an inferior species. Therefore, the same has to apply to our own attitude to less complex or less powerful creatures.

Lemmie
06-01-10, 22:22
It's that which makes me believe that morals are based on biology, not religion or philosophy.

Could you clarify that, and maybe give some examples? It's not something I've heard of much, although I expect you are referring to the altruistic nature of humans and the desire to protect members of same family/tribe/society, right?

Zebra
06-01-10, 22:25
No. You're putting words in my mouth that aren't there.


What I said was merely the logical continuation of what you said.

Mona Sax
06-01-10, 22:28
I think you're wrongly projecting some ethical ideas onto the sole idea of biological superiority there. I too think humans are superior to animals, because we are capable of so much more than animals are. We are the top of the food chain. We are more skilled. We are better capable of adapting ourselves. We are better survivors. On top of that, while biologically any species' extinction would be just as disastrous, if mankind would be lost, much more than mere biological features would be lost - mankind has history, knowledge, culture. This, I could defend, makes our survival worth more than any given animal's (as known today).
I'm sure other animals have history, knowledge and culture, too. Arguably not as complex as ours, granted. Then again, we are not involved in any battle for our survival, we are not threatened by any species but ourselves. We do not have to choose beween staying alive and treating other species as well as we can.
More advanced aliens (e.g. of higher intelligence and having more/better natural capabilities) would indeed be superior over us. This does not mean that the "proper respect" that needs to be paid to any other form of life (including ourselves) suddenly diminishes.
Again, a great point, and I fully agree. However, 'superior' is usually a term used to justify mistreatment of other, allegedly 'inferior', individuals, social groups or, in this case, species. That's the use of the word I was referring to.

Punaxe
06-01-10, 22:28
Could you clarify that, and maybe give some examples? It's not something I've heard of much, although I expect you are referring to the altruistic nature of humans and the desire to protect members of same family/tribe/society, right?

I think I could do that. In short: a sense of "morality" is required for a species to survive. "Evil" species who would all want to kill each other in order to save more food for themselves, could never have a high survival rate because they would be in a constant state of war. On the other hand, overly altruistic species would die out because they'd give all of their food away. A certain balance between different "moral" strategies makes for an evolutionary stable strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy). A certain sense of morality simply had to evolve, because otherwise, there would be no stable strategy and it the species would die off.

See chapter 5 of The Selfish Gene (http://www.macroevolution.*********/gene/gene30.htm) if you're interested in the details.

Lemmie
06-01-10, 22:29
I think I could do that. In short: a sense of "morality" is required for a species to survive. "Evil" species who would all want to kill each other in order to save more food for themselves, could never have a high survival rate because they would be in a constant state of war. On the other hand, overly altruistic species would die out because they'd give all of their food away. A certain balance between different "moral" strategies makes for an evolutionary stable strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy). A certain sense of morality simply had to evolve, because otherwise, there would be no stable strategy and it the species would die off.

See chapter 5 of The Selfish Gene (http://www.macroevolution.*********/gene/gene30.htm) if you're interested in the details.

Thanks for that, I'll give it a look. :)

Punaxe
06-01-10, 22:35
I'm sure other animals have history, knowledge and culture, too. Arguably not as complex as ours, granted. Then again, we are not involved in any battle for our survival, we are not threatened by any other species but ourselves. We do not have to choose beween staying alive and treating other species as well as we can.

Again, a great point, and I fully agree. However, 'superior' is usually a term used to justify mistreatment of other, allegedly 'inferior', individuals, social groups or, in this case, species. That's the use of the word I was referring to.

I agree, I was explaining how I would not defend that interpretation of "superiority". We should indeed treat everything on this planet as well as we can.

Also I do not think our knowledge and culture are arguably more complex - they just are. Another thing we may want to take into account is the potential that will be lost, the potential of gathering even more knowledge, capabilities, and what-have-you.

Mona Sax
06-01-10, 22:36
Could you clarify that, and maybe give some examples? It's not something I've heard of much, although I expect you are referring to the altruistic nature of humans and the desire to protect members of same family/tribe/society, right?
Yes, pretty much. I was referring to a point I made in another thread, saying that often people claim to use a religious text as a moral compass, when they just pick out the rules they agree with anyway and ignore the more inconvenient ones (like sacrificing your family for your god or killing somebody for an absolutely minor crime).

I'm convinced that all basic rules that are accepted by a vast majority of people (don't kill, steal, cheat, lie, etc.) are imprinted in our genetic makeup, developed in order to protect the individual, family, social group or even the entire species.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 22:40
What I said was merely the logical continuation of what you said.No, it was completely illogical.

Zebra
06-01-10, 22:40
I'm convinced that all basic rules that are accepted by a vast majority of people (don't kill, steal, cheat, lie, etc.) are imprinted in our genetic makeup, developed in order to protect the individual, family, social group or even the entire species.

That reminds me of a documentary report I've watched some time ago. It was about whether apes had a sense of justice and they did.

No, it was completely illogical.

Why?

You said that humans are superioir to other animals because they're smarter. The logical continuation to that is that anything smarter than something else is superior to it. And the logical continuation to THAT is that a human smarter than another one is superior to that human.

Mona Sax
06-01-10, 22:40
Also I do not think our knowledge and culture are arguably more complex - they just are. Another thing we may want to take into account is the potential that will be lost, the potential of gathering even more knowledge, capabilities, and what-have-you.
Which exist for any other species, too. Who knows where evolution will take highly intelligent species like birds, dolphins, apes, dogs, cats, elephants, etc.?

Punaxe
06-01-10, 22:43
Which exist for any other species, too. Who knows where evolution will take highly intelligent species like birds, dolphins, apes, dogs, cats, elephants, etc.?

Hmm, yes, you are right... But then we should probably take the formule potential X chance of potential being reached, and humanity would be the winner again. :p

Mona Sax
06-01-10, 22:44
That reminds me of a documentary report I've watched some time ago. It was about whether apes had a sense of justice and they did.
Yes, exactly. Apes are altruistic, too, by the way. They will help other individuals - even strangers - to food, even if they realize they won't profit from it.

Zebra
06-01-10, 22:45
Which exist for any other species, too. Who knows where evolution will take highly intelligent species like birds, dolphins, apes, dogs, cats, elephants, etc.?

And where it will take us for that matter. I've always been curious how much the world we've built around ourselves is going to influence our evolutionary development.

Mona Sax
06-01-10, 22:45
Hmm, yes, you are right... But then we should probably take the formule potential X chance of potential being reached, and humanity would be the winner again. :p
Just wait for dolphins to develop opposable thumbs, and we're screwed. ;)

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 22:49
Why?

You said that humans are superioir to other animals because they're smarter. The logical continuation to that is that anything smarter than something else is superior to it. And the logical continuation to THAT is that a human smarter than another one is superior to that human.If you actually read my post, you would've found that it's also because of how our brains are more complex and how we are capable of so many things which animals are not.

Stop trying to twist my views and paint me as if I'm some sort of maniac.

Zebra
06-01-10, 22:55
If you actually read my post, you would've found that it's also because of how our brains are more complex and how we are capable of so many things which animals are not.

Stop trying to twist my views and paint me as if I'm some sort of maniac.

Oh, please. We are still animals. An elephant is capable of so many more things than an ant, an elephant's brain is so much more complex than that of an ant, yet both are animals. And so are we!

Eddie Haskell
06-01-10, 23:01
I contribute monetarily every year to PETA. They do a damn good job, except with this ad.

I have seen much suffering and horrible living conditions for us humans around the world. But if you think that's bad, see what their pets and animals live like. Many soldiers in Iraq (and Afghanistan) went off at the sight of how these people treat their animals. I had to stop many soldiers from beating the hell out of some of these guys. They could not understand why westerners felt this way about animals. There are very different mindsets out there when it comes to how a pet or any animal should be treated.

And one good thing that happened there is that some soldiers got to take dogs out of Iraq to the US. I met some of the SPCA International people over there and they were just fantastic.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 23:06
I contribute monetarily every year to PETA. They do a damn good job, except with this ad.

I have seen much suffering and horrible living conditions for us humans around the world. But if you think that's bad, see what their pets and animals live like. Many soldiers in Iraq (and Afghanistan) went off at the sight of how these people treat their animals. I had to stop many soldiers from beating the hell out of some of these guys. They could not understand why westerners felt this way about animals. There are very different mindsets out there when it comes to how a pet or any animal should be treated.

And one good thing that happened there is that some soldiers got to take dogs out of Iraq to the US. I met some of the SPCA International people over there and they were just fantastic.Do you also donate to the WWF?

Oh, please. We are still animals. An elephant is capable of so many more things than an ant, an elephant's brain is so much more complex than that of an ant, yet both are animals. And so are we!We're not animals. Can you honestly not see the huge differences between us an animals?

T-Sex
06-01-10, 23:08
We're not animals. Can you honestly not see the huge differences between us an animals?

We are animals. Just far more advanced than any other animal.

Eddie Haskell
06-01-10, 23:09
Do you also donate to the WWF?

We're not animals. Can you honestly not see the huge differences between us an animals?

I am not going to tell you every charity I assist with a contribution. I cannot help them all, so I choose the ones that fight the hardest and most vigorously. Greenpeace gets the largest share of my annual contributions.

MiCkiZ88
06-01-10, 23:10
We're not animals. Can you honestly not see the huge differences between us an animals?
Hate to say this, but Zebra is correct about us being animals. The difference is that we are by brain more advanced, but there are other animals who are advanced in other ways.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 23:11
I am not going to tell you every charity I assist with a contribution. I cannot help them all, so I choose the ones that fight the hardest and most vigorously. Greenpeace gets the largest share of my annual contributions.You didn't answer my question. I don't want to know all the charities you give to, I was just wondering if you give to the WWF?

The WWF are a great charity to give to, but PETA certainly aren't.

As for Greenpeace, I certainly don't agree with their methods either. They're eco-terrorists as far as I'm concerned. It's your money though, not mine. Do with it what you will.

@T-Sex: It could be argued that way, but there is something different about us. Our ability to evaluate, our complex emotions etc etc. You cannot deny that there are huge differences between us and animals.

T-Sex
06-01-10, 23:12
@T-Sex: It could be argued that way, but there is something different about us. Our ability to evaluate, our complex emotions etc etc. You cannot deny that there are huge differences between us and animals.

There are huge differences between different varieties of animals. The difference between us and other animals is really major though.

MiCkiZ88
06-01-10, 23:13
@T-Sex: It could be argued that way, but there is something different about us. Our ability to evaluate, our complex emotions etc etc. You cannot deny that there are huge differences between us and animals.Who says animals cannot think and only act by instinct? Who says humans dont act on instinct? And who says animals have minimalistic emotions, if any at all?

Zebra
06-01-10, 23:14
@T-Sex: It could be argued that way, but there is something different about us. Our ability to evaluate, our complex emotions etc etc. You cannot deny that there are huge differences between us and animals.

Again: There are huge differences between (as you obviously need a second example) a snake and a tiger. Yet both of them are animals. See what I'm getting at? It's not like we're the only species with complex emotion or high intelligence, either, you know.

Eddie Haskell
06-01-10, 23:14
You didn't answer my question. I don't want to know all the charities you give to, I was just wondering if you give to the WWF?

The WWF are a great charity to give to, but PETA certainly aren't.

@T-Sex: It could be argued that way, but there is something different about us. Our ability to evaluate, our complex emotions etc etc. You cannot deny that there are huge differences between us and animals.

You know you ought to just... nah, it ain't worth it.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 23:14
Who says animals cannot think and only act by instinct? Who says humans dont act on instinct? And who says animals have minimalistic emotions, if any at all?The differences between us and animals are clear. They are not capable of showing the same level of emotions as we do that's for sure. They certainly can't evaluate situation effectively like we can either.

@Eddi Haskell: I don't know why you wont answer the question, but I'll take that as a no then. Suit yourself.

T-Sex
06-01-10, 23:15
Who says animals cannot think and only act by instinct? Who says humans dont act on instinct? And who says animals have minimalistic emotions, if any at all?

I think some animals do indeed have emotions, and i dont think animals act entirely on instinct. I think youre mixing me up with mad tony.

Mona Sax
06-01-10, 23:16
@T-Sex: It could be argued that way, but there is something different about us. Our ability to evaluate, our complex emotions etc etc. You cannot deny that there are huge differences between us and animals.
Can you prove that they don't have those? And if yes, just how different does an animal have to be from other species in order to qualify as something special?

Zebra
06-01-10, 23:17
The differences between us and animals are clear. They are not capable of showing the same level of emotions as we do that's for sure. They certainly can't evaluate situation effectively like we can either.


Wow...how do you know that? Just because a dolphin might not look sad to you doesn't mean it isn't. Just because an elephant doesn't look angry to you doesn't mean it isn't. We're simply not able to catch emotions in other animals' facial expressions because we don't have to. That doesn't mean they don't have any emotions though :rolleyes:.

MiCkiZ88
06-01-10, 23:17
The differences between us and animals are clear. They are not capable of showing the same level of emotions as we do that's for sure. They certainly can't evaluate situation effectively like we can either.
Based on... ? Sure, some animals have a very very basic way of surviving and they only need to rely on their instincts, but there are animals who use their brain to think things through. I have seen an elephant saving her family member from sinking. It wasnt based on instinct. The elephant had to think how to to get the member out of the water without making the situation worse.

@Tsex: No, I am not mixing you up. I am on your side of the debate.

Eddie Haskell
06-01-10, 23:19
@Eddi Haskell: I don't know why you wont answer the question, but I'll take that as a no then. Suit yourself.

Let me put it this way, I'll choose which charities I find "great" and contribute to them, and you can do likewise. And I won't put down yours.

T-Sex
06-01-10, 23:19
The differences between us and animals are clear. They are not capable of showing the same level of emotions as we do that's for sure. They certainly can't evaluate situation effectively like we can either.

Monkeys/Apes/Chimps do show lots of emotion, and many animals do evaluate situations.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 23:20
Right, people are misinterpreting me here (either deliberately or not).

I never said animals aren't capable of showing emotion, and I never said animals weren't capable of thinking either. They are capable of both of those things. However, humans are more complex in both of those respects and can do so many more things that animals can't.

@Eddie Haskell: I wasn't telling you which charities to support. All I did was ask whether you gave to one particular charity.

Mona Sax
06-01-10, 23:23
Elephants are a great example. They will recognize themselves in mirrors and are able to understand that everything they see is inverted - objects they see in front of them (read: in the mirror) are actually behind them, left is right and vice versa. They definitely can evaluate a situation, even if it's completely new to them. They also mourn for dead members of their group and often seek revenge against humans who mistreated them, which shows they do indeed have deep emotions.

MiCkiZ88
06-01-10, 23:24
Right, people are misinterpreting me here (either deliberately or not).

I never said animals aren't capable of showing emotion, and I never said animals weren't capable of thinking either. They are capable of both of those things. However, humans are more complex in both of those respects and can do so many more things that animals can't.
Not deliberately here but I just do want to know why, even though proven by science, you think us humans are not animals, mammals so to speak?

Mokono
06-01-10, 23:27
And now this thread diversity of statements had confused me to death. Are we really higher beings? I'm not sure if i need to answer that question, but let's take a look around: We've built civilization, adapted to all kind of enviroments in this planet, we developed law and sociocompatible living rules. Others had mentioned being the top of the food chain, but that would be a very animalistic approach and also leave apart the fact that without our invention we're just furless monkeys :D. Anyways, we also have empathy as an ally to prove that we're an exceptional case in this planet, sure other animals have it (as i'm pretty dure my dog liked me as his owner), but the way we express it it's more advanced than in any other species. If any of you think that i can't be completely sure of what i'm talking about (this is: saying that we have more advanced ways to express), must tell with proofs wich other species share our communication skills (notice that i'm recognizing them in other species, but i still consider ours to be better). Now, a few points i do not consider to be that "high".

First of all, the way we can "do" something doesn't mean we "should". I live in acountry with a vast biodiversity and i have learned to love it and protect it, but that doesn't mean i can't have a use of that if my own survival requires it, however, this doesn't mean i should depredate everything around me. Notice that one thing is satisfying needs, and a very different thing is profiting from the unnecessary explotation of resources (this is: one that isn't made for my consumption, but for my selfish benefit only). Saying this, i think that those who juse execute rights over nature without setting themselves limits or responsibilities just don't deserve to be called high beings, simply because their mentality can't look beyond their own interests. Another point i want to make clear is that just because it's there (read "next to me), doesn't mean it belongs to me... In fact, the Amazon basin as well as the Peruvian mountains (with gas underneath) doesn't have any belonger, however, they happen to be part of the territorial hegemony of my country, and i believe most of you knows that everyone has a duty linked to the land they were born in.

Responsibility, can someone point me where i can find it's propper execution nowdays? Because setting holes in the ozone shield (or layer) doesn't look responsible enough for me. Fair enough, Hydrocarbons are needed, and we're ina duty with our people too, unfourtunately, our cars happen to run with that naughty resource, and CFC is still a legal component in some products. But this "living the moment" mentality is blinding everyone, to the point that if you don't happen to see the changes they're just theories, and if Al Gore made a movie of them, then it's even more ridiculous. Well, this (northern) winter all of you have been enjoying your snow, while the snowy peaks here are disappearing, and if something i can measure and reasure with my naked eye. Oh, but this is global warming, let's keep it out of discussion now.

I believe the subject is still fur and hunting, right? Well, hunting itself is not bad. Natives here have certain rights to hunt to preserve themselves and their lifestyle (although most little groups and their languages had already disappeared
). Now, hunting for the fashion market is senseless, and does not contribute to an endangered human group survival. It's just the result of a senseless superficial consumism, so in this (and only this) matter PETA holds a bit of sense. However, their campaigns against farming animals for human consumption are tasteless, and we all need Iron in our diet, so that plus all the negative criticism readable here discredits PETA in less time than an amoeba uses for splitting.

Anyways, my view feels so nebulous, but is because this topic is so wide. We must admit we have responsabilities with the environment, not just the right to explote it. And if we use it's resources, then let's justify it with the uses we give to those resources (being of extreme need rather than meaning just income). And more important is to focus on development of new ways of clean consumption.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 23:28
Elephants are a great example. They will recognize themselves in mirrors and are able to understand that everything they see is inverted - objects they see in front of them (read: in the mirror) are actually behind them, left is right and vice versa. They definitely can evaluate a situation, even if it's completely new to them. They also mourn for dead members of their group and often seek revenge against humans who mistreated them, which shows they do indeed have deep emotions.Again, I never said animals didn't think or show any emotions at all.

Not deliberately here but I just do want to know why, even though proven by science, you think us humans are not animals, mammals so to speak?What's that got to do with my post you quoted?

As I said, it could be argued that we are "animals". If so, we are certainly unique from them. Unfortunately many people in this thread will refuse to accept this.

Forwen
06-01-10, 23:28
check

Mona Sax
06-01-10, 23:33
Again, I never said animals didn't think or show any emotions at all.
No, but I'm saying that several species have emotions similar, if not equal, to our own, which would discredit your point. You don't even have to consider exotic animals like elephants, an ordinary dog with its capability for sadness and joy will suffice.

MiCkiZ88
06-01-10, 23:33
What's that got to do with my post you quoted?

As I said, it could be argued that we are "animals". If so, we are certainly unique from them. Unfortunately many people in this thread will refuse to accept this.- Right, people are misinterpreting me here (either deliberately or not).

...

My responce, not deliberately here.

But there is no need for the argument since we are animals.

Mad Tony
06-01-10, 23:37
No, but I'm saying that several species have emotions similar, if not equal, to our own, which would discredit your point. You don't even have to consider exotic animals like elephants, an ordinary dog with its capability for sadness and joy will suffice.I'm not disagreeing with you that some animals can show deep emotion, but since when have they had the same sort of emotional abilities that we do?

Mona Sax
06-01-10, 23:41
I'm not disagreeing with you that some animals can show deep emotion, but since when have they had the same sort of emotional abilities that we do?
I don't know. Point is that you don't, either, and that, consequently, your differentiation between humans and animals is arbitrary, it's based on speculation. It's not a scientific criterium, anyway. By all scientific standards, we're animals.

MiCkiZ88
06-01-10, 23:41
I'm not disagreeing with you that some animals can show deep emotion, but since when have they had the same sort of emotional abilities that we do?
So, in order for us humans to be animals, we need to have the very same emotions and way of thinking? I do not get it. Like I said before, each animal has its advantages and disadvantages. We humans have big brains for our size, but we need the brains to survive. We have a long lifespan and we need the help and nursing from other humans before we can surive on our own. There are some animals who have the very same, yet just smaller brains. Where is the difference in being an animal and a human? Humans have souls? A privilidge for only humans?

Mad Tony
07-01-10, 00:01
So, in order for us humans to be animals, we need to have the very same emotions and way of thinking? I do not get it. Like I said before, each animal has its advantages and disadvantages. We humans have big brains for our size, but we need the brains to survive. We have a long lifespan and we need the help and nursing from other humans before we can surive on our own. There are some animals who have the very same, yet just smaller brains. Where is the difference in being an animal and a human? Humans have souls? A privilidge for only humans?Mokono's first paragraph sums up my thoughts really well.

Candee Sparks
07-01-10, 00:14
Not really looking for conflict by throwing my opinion out there but I really hate PETA. Their extreme ways of advertising just all-out disgusts me and I never hear any positive that comes out of their work or advertising, ever. All that comes to mind when I hear PETA is obnoxious women kicking, screaming and using violent measures to protest. Sure, every organization needs a swift kick to get its message out there but I'd sooner cut the head off of a chicken myself and watch it run around for my own amusement than have any affiliation with PETA or give them a cent of my money.

And for the record, I donate regularly to the ASPCA and I adopted my yellow lab, Gypsy, from the ASPCA when she was just a puppy.

MiCkiZ88
07-01-10, 00:20
Mokono's first paragraph sums up my thoughts really well.
Why cannot you answer instead of relying to someone elses response? I in no way mean to insult you, but I would much rather have you writing your own thoughts than someone elses.


As for Mokono's answer:

Just because we are more advanced doesnt mean we are not animals. Civilisation nor monarchy does not only excist within the human species. We just evolve faster due to keeping things in memory. Be it painted on cave walls or written in your school books. If we did not have developed to way to pass things in to future, we'd be just as much animals as any other animal here on our planet. We'd still be more advanced in our brains, but without past knowledge.. we are what we are.

I dont know if that makes any sense, just wrote what was on the top of my mind.

silver_wolf
07-01-10, 00:22
I can think of much worse things than using someone's image w/o permission. Namely, the way some animals are treated. And if PETA's methods worked I'd be supporting them 100%. But they don't; instead all animal activists are seen as nut jobs.

Mad Tony
07-01-10, 00:25
Why cannot you answer instead of relying to someone elses response? I in no way mean to insult you, but I would much rather have you writing your own thoughts than someone elses.


As for Mokono's answer:

Just because we are more advanced doesnt mean we are not animals. Civilisation nor monarchy does not only excist within the human species. We just evolve faster due to keeping things in memory. Be it painted on cave walls or written in your school books. If we did not have developed to way to pass things in to future, we'd be just as much animals as any other animal here on our planet. We'd still be more advanced in our brains, but without past knowledge.. we are what we are.

I dont know if that makes any sense, just wrote what was on the top of my mind.Because Mokono took my thoughts and put them into words far better than what I myself could do on this topic.

I think what Mokono was trying to point is how we are different and unique to animals.

tombraiderluka
07-01-10, 00:29
Some people are like animals

MiCkiZ88
07-01-10, 00:30
I think what Mokono was trying to point is how we are different and unique to animals.
Yes, and? We are still animals no matter how different we are. If you read my older posts, I clearly state that there are differences between animals. Some can survive a meteor whilst nearly every other specie will be wiped out. We can build machines and we can pass information from generation to generation. But that does not change the fact that we still are mammals, animals. And like I said, monarchy excists in ''animal'' kingdom. It is not just something that we humans came up with.

Big Matt
07-01-10, 00:51
For all of recorded history, the consumption and use of animals has been necessary to the health, survival, and advancement of the human race. I don't believe things are any different now than they have always been. That being said, I am very much against the abuse of and cruelty toward animals (people who do so should be heavily punished by the law). I think animals should be (within reason) treated with respect and dignity. Farmed animals should be treated well and slaughtered humanely. I am against hunting a species to extinction or endangerment. I, myself, don't hunt. Stalking and killing an animal holds no appeal for me, especially when the super market has perfectly good, ready to cook and eat sirloin already on the shelves. Even though I don't hunt, I definitely support my own rights and the rights of others to do so.

I have never had any respect for PETA. In my opinion, their outrageous and disrespectful brand of propaganda does far more to alienate intelligent free thinking human beings from their cause than it does to sway us.

From reading this thread, it seems to me that some think it's entirely justifiable for an organization to regularly, willfully, and blatantly break the law as a means of propagating their particular political stance. In case some people weren't aware, walking up to a complete stranger and intentionally throwing paint all over them is classified by the law as assault. As well, intentionally destroying their expensive fur coat is willful destruction of property. Both acts have been deemed unacceptable by the civilized world are therefore illegal and punishable.

For those who think this type of behavior is okay, I wonder what their opinion is on destroying an abortion clinic to make a political statement. Better yet, I wonder if they think it would be acceptable for we NRA members, or RKBA and hunter's rights supporters to take up arms and start breaking the law in an effort to draw people's attention to our cause and garner their support. Just as with PETA's actions, such behavior would be foolishly counterproductive, unacceptable, and deserving of the inevitable legal repercussions.

As far as animals go, I always have and always will treat them with kindness, dignity, and respect but, I have no intentions to ever stop eating steaks and cheeseburgers or to stop wearing leather shoes, belts, and garments. No amount of hi-jinks or law-breaking by an organization will cause me to change either.

As far as the argument whether humans should be classified as animals -- I do not believe that we are. Just because something is living, doesn't make it an animal. Plants, animals, beings, bacteria -- all are living yet separate and distinct. All of these groups have similarities to the others, but are clearly not the same. In my opinion, humans are a race of beings, not a species of animal.

silver_wolf
07-01-10, 00:55
Perfect post right there. I agree w/ all you said.

Punaxe
07-01-10, 00:56
Because Mokono took my thoughts and put them into words far better than what I myself could do on this topic.

I think what Mokono was trying to point is how we are different and unique to animals.

I was saying something very similar to Mokono's first paragraph a few pages back, but I could write another such paragraph concerning the difference between elephants and blackbirds. The general criteria of classification we use here (within the Eukarya) are based on the type of cells, and generally speaking makes us either fungus, plant or animal. We have the same cell structure as the animals do; therefore, we are animals.

You apparently have other criteria to classify organisms. What are they? Or do you accept the current taxonomy, except where it concerns humans?

Squibbly
07-01-10, 01:14
Tyra Banks looks awful there!

Didn't even realise it was her until I saw your post. :eek:

Without fur Wilhelmina Slater wouldn't look so awesome :(

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/imageBank/cache/v/vanessa-williams-lp-news.jpg_e_b531446b815d841fa57ff7ac29559923.jpg

It's so true.



Anyway, I never take PETA seriously. They're always pulling stupid stunts. Oh, and remember they flipped out when Obama killed a fly? Come on.

I am completely for the proper treatment of animals, but PETA is a little nuts.

On the topic of Obama and pictures being used without consent, I also just heard he was in some jacket ad without permission.

Dennis's Mom
07-01-10, 01:15
Going back to the opening post...yeah it was rude of them not to ask permission but at the same time they were praising the women in the ad. News papers and what not use people's photos all the time too, sometimes without permission.

A newspaper only reports news; it doesn't co-op someone's image to sell you something. They basically put words in those ladies' mouths.

I daresay even the Christian members of this forum wouldn't consider it praise to be a part of a Westboro Baptist Church "Christian and Fabulous!" campaign intended to "raise awareness" of Christianity.

It isn't just the message, it's the messenger. I wouldn't be associated with PETA if you paid me.

Johnnay
07-01-10, 01:16
Nature is a resource for us to use though.

Yes and No

not all of nature is good you know

for example we defintiely MUST NOT use trees for our sake, obvious reasons( defrestation, threat of species exinction e.t.c)
we can only use nature for our survival but not for the planets sake

silver_wolf
07-01-10, 01:18
Originally Posted by Mad Tony http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?p=4275495#post4275495)
Nature is a resource for us to use though.

That's the problem with people these days. As one sunglasses-wearing agent put it, humans are a virus. We destroy, warp, and mutilate things purely to serve us, without caring what happens to anything else, and when we're done we leave a dead waste behind us.

Simochka
07-01-10, 01:55
It's a good cause.
There's no need to wear fur. If someone wants fur then use fake fur.

But I don't like what PETA is doing. i'm against fur but I don't need to join a group or anything. I just refuse to wear fur but I don't care what other people do.

And I'm a vegetarian. I can eat veg burger at mcdonalds with my friends who eat normal big macs. Big deal? As long as I don't have to touch the meat then I'm happy

patriots88888
07-01-10, 02:00
It's a good cause.
There's no need to wear fur. If someone wants fur then use fake fur.

But I don't like what PETA is doing. i'm against fur but I don't need to join a group or anything. I just refuse to wear fur but I don't care what other people do.

And I'm a vegetarian. I can eat veg burger at mcdonalds with my friends who eat normal big macs. Big deal? As long as I don't have to touch the meat then I'm happy

Perhaps the best reply I've seen in this thread. You are so right about that. The belief of strength in numbers isn't always true. Most times it takes a much stonger person to stand up on their own for what they think is right. Kudos to you for pointing that out. :)

cbragg09
07-01-10, 02:08
i like PETA...

knightgames
07-01-10, 03:08
PETA is to Animal Rights as Fundamental Extreme Terrorism is to the Moslim Religion. Niether are representatives of their true cause/belief.

BOTH 'true causes' are sullied by the extremism and dangerousness of these type of beliefs.

Necromanser
07-01-10, 03:38
They have a noble cause- to get as many women as they can naked.

But seriously do their methods really work?Are they daft if they think putting a few celebrities on an advert and getting a few girl bare will get more people to be enviromentally concious?

Ward Dragon
07-01-10, 04:00
I think you're wrongly projecting some ethical ideas onto the sole idea of biological superiority there. I too think humans are superior to animals, because we are capable of so much more than animals are. We are the top of the food chain. We are more skilled. We are better capable of adapting ourselves. We are better survivors. On top of that, while biologically any species' extinction would be just as disastrous, if mankind would be lost, much more than mere biological features would be lost - mankind has history, knowledge, culture. This, I could defend, makes our survival worth more than any given animal's (as known today).

This does not mean I do not value nature, and everything that is nature, to the highest degree. I am saying that I believe there are good reasons to consider ourselves superior, but I do not propagate ever putting any kind of valuation of species to practical use. Everything must be treated with the proper respect.

More advanced aliens (e.g. of higher intelligence and having more/better natural capabilities) would indeed be superior over us. This does not mean that the "proper respect" that needs to be paid to any other form of life (including ourselves) suddenly diminishes.

Perfectly said :tmb: Human beings are a type of animal, albeit much more advanced in many areas. However being more advanced doesn't mean that we hold no respect for other life forms. We shouldn't make our lives miserable by holding animals equal (or superior) to our own lives, but neither should we separate ourselves from the rest of life on the planet to the point where we don't care if other animals are suffering needlessly. There's got to be a good balance where we care for other animals but still eat meat without causing undue suffering to livestock.

As far as clothing goes, I've got no problems with leather because we eat cows anyway, so it would be wasteful not to use their skin. I don't see much point in fur, though. I don't think it looks all that good to begin with, and the animals that provide the fur generally aren't animals that are being used for food (or have I got that wrong?). So I don't really like fur, but as long as it's legal, individual people have a right to wear it. Attacking such people is assault and should be treated as such. The proper way to campaign against fur would be to try to make it illegal and if people vote to outlaw fur, then the legal system will deal with anyone who breaks the law. That outcome would be much better than a bunch of idealistic vigilantes attacking people just to make a point. Such attacks only turn people against the cause, which is a shame because on its own, preserving animal rights is a good ideal.

For all of recorded history, the consumption and use of animals has been necessary to the health, survival, and advancement of the human race. I don't believe things are any different now than they have always been. That being said, I am very much against the abuse of and cruelty toward animals (people who do so should be heavily punished by the law). I think animals should be (within reason) treated with respect and dignity. Farmed animals should be treated well and slaughtered humanely. I am against hunting a species to extinction or endangerment. I, myself, don't hunt. Stalking and killing an animal holds no appeal for me, especially when the super market has perfectly good, ready to cook and eat sirloin already on the shelves. Even though I don't hunt, I definitely support my own rights and the rights of others to do so.

I have never had any respect for PETA. In my opinion, their outrageous and disrespectful brand of propaganda does far more to alienate intelligent free thinking human beings from their cause than it does to sway us.

From reading this thread, it seems to me that some think it's entirely justifiable for an organization to regularly, willfully, and blatantly break the law as a means of propagating their particular political stance. In case some people weren't aware, walking up to a complete stranger and intentionally throwing paint all over them is classified by the law as assault. As well, intentionally destroying their expensive fur coat is willful destruction of property. Both acts have been deemed unacceptable by the civilized world are therefore illegal and punishable.

For those who think this type of behavior is okay, I wonder what their opinion is on destroying an abortion clinic to make a political statement. Better yet, I wonder if they think it would be acceptable for we NRA members, or RKBA and hunter's rights supporters to take up arms and start breaking the law in an effort to draw people's attention to our cause and garner their support. Just as with PETA's actions, such behavior would be foolishly counterproductive, unacceptable, and deserving of the inevitable legal repercussions.

Again, perfectly said :tmb: (Except the bit at the end about humans not being animals, because as far as "animal" is scientifically defined, human beings are indeed a type of animal. However that does not in any way mean that we are identical to other animals because clearly there are differences between every species of animal.)

Johnnay
07-01-10, 11:25
I completed agree...does anyone remember the ads they did for kids?

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/mommykills.jpg

http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/peta.jpg


Honestly.

and Honestly please remove these pictures( offensive gestures)

at least for me they are disturbing particularly the rabbit getting stabbed
or a mod will do so

Zebra
07-01-10, 14:41
Because Mokono took my thoughts and put them into words far better than what I myself could do on this topic.

I think what Mokono was trying to point is how we are different and unique to animals.

Every single species is unique. Every single species has its unique characteristics. Why do you not see that? We're different from a fish. Of course we are! But a rat is different from a fish aswell and it's still an animal. Being different than other animals is hardly going to support your statement because all animals are different if they weren't there'd only be a single species.

Of course our civilisation might seem "superior". But look at the first primitive life forms on this planet - unicellular organisms - and then look at more modern animals like whales. The difference is huge! Even bigger than the difference between those whales and us (with all our inventions, etc.).

LightningRider
07-01-10, 14:47
Meh, I only wear cloth clothing anyway. :pi:

voltz
07-01-10, 15:44
http://www.targetofopportunity.com/mommykills.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Pamelavoorhees.jpg

remind you of anyone?

xXhayleyroxXx
07-01-10, 15:50
I think PETA does a good job - i don't agree with everything they do - but they have guts to spread their message!

Animal cruelty is disgusting - it truly is. PETA provides cruelty-free cosmetic and food lists - so you know what is cruel and what isn't. For that, I admire them.
It's a real pain searching for it all manually on the internet - but we have PETA.

Maybe you didn't realise vegetarians have to do that... but we do, and PETA supports us.

So their posters are extreme? If they wern't people would not remember them, people would walk past and not think twice. Peopel would be naive to the suffering of animals worldwide.

Chocola teapot
07-01-10, 15:56
I see... No problem.

T-Sex
07-01-10, 16:06
I think PETA does a good job - i don't agree with everything they do - but they have guts to spread their message!

Animal cruelty is disgusting - it truly is. PETA provides cruelty-free cosmetic and food lists - so you know what is cruel and what isn't. For that, I admire them.
It's a real pain searching for it all manually on the internet - but we have PETA.

Maybe you didn't realise vegetarians have to do that... but we do, and PETA supports us.

So their posters are extreme? If they wern't people would not remember them, people would walk past and not think twice. Peopel would be naive to the suffering of animals worldwide.

:tmb:

Mad Tony
07-01-10, 16:06
I think PETA does a good job - i don't agree with everything they do - but they have guts to spread their message!

Animal cruelty is disgusting - it truly is. PETA provides cruelty-free cosmetic and food lists - so you know what is cruel and what isn't. For that, I admire them.
It's a real pain searching for it all manually on the internet - but we have PETA.

Maybe you didn't realise vegetarians have to do that... but we do, and PETA supports us.

So their posters are extreme? If they wern't people would not remember them, people would walk past and not think twice. Peopel would be naive to the suffering of animals worldwide.It's mainly their actions which gain them the most notoriety. They're nothing but a menace.

xXhayleyroxXx
07-01-10, 16:07
It's mainly their actions which gain them the most notoriety. They're nothing but a menace.

I don't think it's right that they go into fur shops and destroy the clothing - but then again it's a vulgar business. To me they're eradicating the suffering - it's revenge.

T-Sex
07-01-10, 16:09
revenge.

Exactly :)

It's mainly their actions which gain them the most notoriety. They're nothing but a menace.

They arent a menace.

Admles
07-01-10, 16:12
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Mad Tony
07-01-10, 16:14
I don't think it's right that they go into fur shops and destroy the clothing - but then again it's a vulgar business. To me they're eradicating the suffering - it's revenge.The fur manufactuers will just kill more animals for the fur lost. PETA's actions in this respect are very counter-productive.

They arent a menace.So heckling and assaulting people isn't being a menace?

T-Sex
07-01-10, 16:14
So heckling and assaulting people isn't being a menace?

Not when its the kind of people who deserve it.

Ward Dragon
07-01-10, 16:16
Not when its the kind of people who deserve it.

So it's okay to break the law and assault people as long as you think they deserve it? :confused:

T-Sex
07-01-10, 16:17
So it's okay to break the law and assault people as long as you think they deserve it? :confused:

No, but it's more or less the same thing that they themselves are doing, so give them a taste of their own medicine.

Im starting to sound like the villain here.

xXhayleyroxXx
07-01-10, 16:18
The fur manufactuers will just kill more animals for the fur lost. PETA's actions in this respect are very counter-productive.


More animals would die anyway - it's disgusting.

@Admles - why would PETA kill animals? the website might be a fake - how would I know?


I just want to make this clear - I'm not a PETA fan-girl. I support the RSPCA entirely. But I understand PETA's motive - I'd hassle animal-killers, I'd create asmuch trouble as possible if it meant saving just one animal. I'm thankful to PETA for creating the food/cosmetic list as a I said before.

disneyprincess20
07-01-10, 16:18
Not when its the kind of people who deserve it.

That's a bit of a moralistic judgement isn't it?

The fur manufactuers will just kill more animals for the fur lost. PETA's actions in this respect are very counter-productive.


Exactly.

PETA, like Greenpeace, spend more time being vocal about their cause than actually helping the animals they should be. Destroying fur coats in the shops won't save the animals that have already been killed. I have much more respect (and much more money to donate) to the charities that actually help, instead of wasting all their time an energy saying they help animals and being very smug and judgemental. The PETA people need to refocus their energies.

T-Sex
07-01-10, 16:19
More animals would die anyway - it's disgusting.

@Admles - why would PETA kill animals? the website might be a fake - how would I know?


I just want to make this clear - I'm not a PETA fan-girl. I support the RSPCA entirely. But I understand PETA's motive - I'd hassle animal-killers, I'd create asmuch trouble as possible if it meant saving just one animal. I'm thankful to PETA for creating the food/cosmetic list as a I said before.

:tmb:

Ward Dragon
07-01-10, 16:20
@Admles - why would PETA kill animals? the website might be a fake - how would I know?

The website is pretty convincing :whi:

Why would an animal rights group secretly kill animals at its headquarters? PETA’s continued silence on the matter makes it hard to say for sure. But from a cost-saving standpoint, PETA’s hypocrisy isn’t difficult to understand: Killing adoptable cats and dogs – and storing the bodies in a walk-in freezer until they can be cremated – requires far less money and effort than caring for the pets until they are adopted.

...

Now the death toll of animals in PETA’s care has reached 21,339, including more than 2,000 pets last year. That’s not an animal charity. It’s a slaughterhouse.

T-Sex
07-01-10, 16:21
The website is pretty convincing :whi:

It sounds VERY convincing >.> <.<

Mad Tony
07-01-10, 16:22
No, but it's more or less the same thing that they themselves are doing, so give them a taste of their own medicine.

Im starting to sound like the villain here.No, it's not. It's nothing like that.

And yes you are, probably because PETA are a villainous organization.

More animals would die anyway - it's disgusting.Why? By destroying their fur products the business will just order more - meaning more animals will die. The best thing to do would be to peacefully protest and try and persuade people not to buy their products.

PETA don't believe in doing anything peacefully unfortunately. Two words come to mind when I think of PETA: violence and sensationalism.

xXhayleyroxXx
07-01-10, 16:22
is there evidence though? I'm not saying you're wrong Ward Dragon - i'm just very slow to trust a source.

@ Mad Tony - I've already said I think the way PETA does things is wrong when it comes to destroying the fur items.

T-Sex
07-01-10, 16:23
No, it's not. It's nothing like that.

And yes you are, probably because PETA are a villainous organization.


Ok. All you've actually done is rephrase what you've said in every single post you made in this thread

Catapharact
07-01-10, 16:23
I don't think it's right that they go into fur shops and destroy the clothing - but then again it's a vulgar business. To me they're eradicating the suffering - it's revenge.

So I guess businesses have every right to hire thugs, get the reps. of PETA, hang em by the trees they love to hug so much and give them a beating of a life time.

T-Sex
07-01-10, 16:23
So I guess businesses have every right to hire thugs, get the reps. of PETA, hang em by the tress they love to hug so much and give them a beating of a life time.

PETA don't love trees... trees arent animals :rolleyes:

xXhayleyroxXx
07-01-10, 16:24
So I guess businesses have every right to hire thugs, get the reps. of PETA, hang em by the trees they love to hug so much and give them a beating of a life time.

read my latest post directed at Mad Tony

Chocola teapot
07-01-10, 16:24
Tree's are living creatures, that support animals.

T-Sex
07-01-10, 16:25
Tree's are living creatures, that support animals.

They arent actually animals though. Im pretty sure people from peta wouldnt dive in the way of a chainsaw to stop a tree from getting hit.

Mad Tony
07-01-10, 16:27
PETA, like Greenpeace, spend more time being vocal about their cause than actually helping the animals they should be. Destroying fur coats in the shops won't save the animals that have already been killed. I have much more respect (and much more money to donate) to the charities that actually help, instead of wasting all their time an energy saying they help animals and being very smug and judgemental. The PETA people need to refocus their energies.I agree.

Here are some real animal charities

http://www.wspa.org.uk/
http://www.wwf.org/
http://www.rspca.org.uk/

Why anybody would give to those rabid morons at PETA I don't know.

@ Mad Tony - I've already said I think the way PETA does things is wrong when it comes to destroying the fur items.I know, I was just explaining to you how destroying fur is counter-productive.

Ok. All you've actually done is rephrase what you've said in every single post you made in this threadAt least most of my posts have been more than one line long.

T-Sex
07-01-10, 16:28
At least most of my posts have been more than one line long.

Im now writing pointlessly much like you suggest so that my post becomes more than one line long and fills up more space, apparently making it better and more informative. Peta are still awesome by the way. :whi:

Mokono
07-01-10, 16:29
So it's okay to break the law and assault people as long as you think they deserve it? :confused:

The other post (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showpost.php?p=4276548&postcount=180) you made was brilliant, and it could've been more brilliant if it had been followed by this icon: http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/buttons/threadclosed.gif

Seriously, the thread has been spinning around whether we're humans or animals, rather than focusing in eve if we're different/better/higher/whatever, what we can do to live in harmony without having to project our humanity to the animals or without having to renounce it. Also this is not about how much of a serious group or a mental blind bunch activists they're. We also aren't like the bad guys in the last James Cameron film! I mean, c'mon, it was good and all, but it doesn't portray humanity as a whole, just a face of our society (notice that there are other societies around with completely different lifestyles). What i'd like to read is that assuming we are different from the rest of the animal kingdom, what duties we have with the rest of the living things? Most of you will still fight the idea that we're different and stuff saying that we're animals too (wich is true, but not that simple) rather than looking for an alternative. PETA? They don't look for an alternative, they're just impulsive, whether their cause is noble or not. So what's the deal? Go VEGAN? Drop the milk market? What's the solution?

"You owe me an explanation, i'm waiting" -Mademoiselle Carvier

xXhayleyroxXx
07-01-10, 16:31
I know, I was just explaining to you how destroying fur is counter-productive.



A peaceful protest would indeed by a wiser option. And could be seen as counter-productive.By the way i support RSPCA and Dog's Trust. My grandma worked as an animal cop (which I may want to do) and has a badge which has been passed down through the family - and it's now in my possession. Most of my animals have been rescued from cruel situations - and the RSPCA contact us to see if we have room for an animal due to be put down.

I want to get to the bottom of whether PETA really is as evil as the website says - i want evidence.

disneyprincess20
07-01-10, 16:32
I agree.

Here are some real animal charities

http://www.wspa.org.uk/
http://www.wwf.org/
http://www.rspca.org.uk/

Why anybody would give to those rabid morons at PETA I don't know.



Ironically, every dealing I have had with the RSPCA has been terrible. They waited too long to come save a bat that flew into our house, they failed to protect a horse that was neglected on a farm close to us despite repeated notifications from many different people in the community and they keep telling us that we're not looking after our cattle properly, even though my family have been doing it for years and we're going above and beyond all the legislation to take care of our animals. I'll still give them money over PETA or Greenpeace, because they spend more of that money actually caring for animals, instead of wasting it on publicity stunts and stupid gory websites (http://www.peta.org/cooking-mama/index.asp).

xXhayleyroxXx
07-01-10, 16:34
Ironically, every dealing I have had with the RSPCA has been terrible. They waited too long to come save a bat that flew into our house, they failed to protect a horse that was neglected on a farm close to us despite repeated notifications from many different people in the community and they keep telling us that we're not looking after our cattle properly, even though my family have been doing it for years and we're going above and beyond all the legislation to take care of our animals. I'll still give them money over PETA or Greenpeace, because they spend more of that money actually caring for animals, instead of wasting it on publicity stunts and stupid gory websites (http://www.peta.org/cooking-mama/index.asp).

That's sad - but sometime you have to realise they can't be everywhere at once. Take the action into your own hands - that's what I do.

T-Sex
07-01-10, 16:35
Ironically, every dealing I have had with the RSPCA has been terrible. They waited too long to come save a bat that flew into our house, they failed to protect a horse that was neglected on a farm close to us despite repeated notifications from many different people in the community and they keep telling us that we're not looking after our cattle properly, even though my family have been doing it for years and we're going above and beyond all the legislation to take care of our animals. I'll still give them money over PETA or Greenpeace, because they spend more of that money actually caring for animals, instead of wasting it on publicity stunts and stupid gory websites (http://www.peta.org/cooking-mama/index.asp).

That "Stupid gory website" was stupid but somehow incredibly fun

disneyprincess20
07-01-10, 16:37
That's sad - but sometime you have to realise they can't be everywhere at once. Take the action into your own hands - that's what I do.

I think it's a local problem to our area - like I said I have no problem with them as a whole.

That "Stupid gory website" was stupid but somehow incredibly fun

So you enjoyed mutilating the dead bird?

xXhayleyroxXx
07-01-10, 16:39
I think it's a local problem to our area - like I said I have no problem with them as a whole.


They're not very efficient in our area either - they should hire all the people they've trained instead of a select few - and distribute them correctly.
I guess since It's a charity they can't however - for money reasons.

Dennis's Mom
07-01-10, 16:41
I think PETA does a good job - i don't agree with everything they do - but they have guts to spread their message!
So does the Westboro Baptist Church.
http://thepulpit.freedomblogging.com/files/2009/08/westboro_baptist_church-drones1.jpg

"So their posters are extreme? If they wern't people would not remember them, people would walk past and not think twice. "

I've decided to take your words to excuse the Westboro Baptist Church methods. Now maybe you understand how our First Lady might feel by being forced to endorse PETA's ideals--and by association, their methods.

I wouldn't use fan art in an avatar without asking permission. The idea it's OK for PETA to use the First Lady in this manner is unconscionable.

Animal cruelty is disgusting - it truly is. PETA provides cruelty-free cosmetic and food lists - so you know what is cruel and what isn't.

I daresay there's other organizations out there doing the same thing that don't condescend to and terrorize people to get their message across.

You don't change people's minds by nagging and harassing. Like a lot of extreme causes, PETA more about making itself feel superior than doing anything useful.

T-Sex
07-01-10, 16:41
So you enjoyed mutilating the dead bird?

Yes, because it was satirical and it was really cartoony. Im a vegetarian in real life.

xXhayleyroxXx
07-01-10, 16:43
So does the Westboro Baptist Church.
http://thepulpit.freedomblogging.com/files/2009/08/westboro_baptist_church-drones1.jpg

"So their posters are extreme? If they wern't people would not remember them, people would walk past and not think twice. "

I've decided to take your words to excuse the Westboro Baptist Church methods. Now maybe you understand how our First Lady might feel by being forced to endorse PETA's ideals--and by association, their methods.

I wouldn't use fan art in an avatar without asking permission. The idea it's OK for PETA to use the First Lady in this manner is unconscionable.


I daresay there's other organizations out there doing the same thing that don't condescend to and terrorize people to get their message across.

You don't change people's minds by nagging and harassing. Like a lot of extreme causes, PETA more about making itself feel superior than doing anything useful.

As I've said throughout the thread - i only thank PETA for their food/ cosmetic list. And it's only thier motive I understand.

T-Sex
07-01-10, 16:45
The difference between Westboro baptist church and Peta is... every possible difference. I dont agree with some of the stuff peta does to get noticed, but they do manage to get noticed and get their message heard.

disneyprincess20
07-01-10, 16:46
Yes, because it was satirical and it was really cartoony. Im a vegetarian in real life.

As someone who has raised, killed, prepared and eaten her own birds, I thought it was in dreadful taste and woefully naive. But to each their own.

T-Sex
07-01-10, 16:47
As someone who has raised, killed, prepared and eaten her own birds, I thought it was in dreadful taste and woefully naive. But to each their own.

Even though its exactly what happens in real life, they just added a lot of cartoon gore.

But lets try and move away from that conversation :p

Catapharact
07-01-10, 16:48
The difference between Westboro baptist church and Peta is... every possible difference.

- Both of them use every given possible method (ethics be damned) to get the message across... Like using children in their campaigns.

- All their messages are littered with hateful bile that invokes mob mentality.

- Both use terror tactics to get the point across. Kind of reminds me of the "If you aren't with us, you are against us" metality. Way to win support there people.

- Both of them focus more on advertising hate rather then actually doing good.

disneyprincess20
07-01-10, 16:52
Even though its exactly what happens in real life

Nope, not really.

- Both of them use every given possible method (ethics be damned) to get the message across... Like using children in their campaigns.

- All their messages are littered with hateful bile that invokes mob mentality.

- Both use terror tactics to get the point across. Kind of reminds me of the "If you aren't with us, you are against us" metality. Way to win support there people.

- Both of them focus more on advertising hate rather then actually doing good.

Exactly Cat, well said.

Ward Dragon
07-01-10, 17:10
I want to get to the bottom of whether PETA really is as evil as the website says - i want evidence.

Newsweek reports roughly the same numbers that were on the Peta Kills Animals website:

But what many animal lovers don't realize is that PETA itself may have put down some of those unwanted Dalmatians. The organization has practiced euthanasia for years. Since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued. Dalmatians may no longer be the breed of the day, but the problem of unwanted and abandoned pets is as urgent as ever. Shelters around the country kill 4 million animals every year; by some estimates, more than 80 percent of them are healthy. In recent years those grim statistics have split the animal rights community. Ironically, PETA has emerged as a strong proponent of euthanasia. (The group is better known for its public condemnations of everyone from fashion designer Donna Karan for her use of fur to the National Cancer Institute for its animal research.) In defense of its policy PETA has insisted that euthanasia is a necessary evil in a world full of unwanted pets. But while the group has some well-known allies, including the Humane Society of the United States, a growing number of animal rights activists claim to have found a better, more humane way.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549

Mona Sax
07-01-10, 18:37
So does the Westboro Baptist Church.
http://thepulpit.freedomblogging.com/files/2009/08/westboro_baptist_church-drones1.jpg

"So their posters are extreme? If they wern't people would not remember them, people would walk past and not think twice. "

I've decided to take your words to excuse the Westboro Baptist Church methods. Now maybe you understand how our First Lady might feel by being forced to endorse PETA's ideals--and by association, their methods.
- Both of them use every given possible method (ethics be damned) to get the message across... Like using children in their campaigns.

- All their messages are littered with hateful bile that invokes mob mentality.

- Both use terror tactics to get the point across. Kind of reminds me of the "If you aren't with us, you are against us" metality. Way to win support there people.

- Both of them focus more on advertising hate rather then actually doing good.
The methods are often similar, but the goals are entirely different. As extreme and sometimes misguided as PETA is, their goals are laudable. The WBC's clearly aren't.

Ward Dragon
07-01-10, 18:42
The methods are often similar, but the goals are entirely different. As extreme and sometimes misguided as PETA is, their goals are laudable. The WBC's clearly aren't.

PETA thinks they're saving animals from suffering and WBC thinks they're saving people's souls from eternal suffering. It's a similar goal with similar methods and both are really really misguided.

Mona Sax
07-01-10, 18:45
PETA thinks they're saving animals from suffering and WBC thinks they're saving people's souls from eternal suffering. It's a similar goal with similar methods and both are really really misguided.
I don't see how wishing someone to burn in hell would do them any favors.

Dennis's Mom
07-01-10, 18:45
The methods are often similar, but the goals are entirely different. As extreme and sometimes misguided as PETA is, their goals are laudable. The WBC's clearly aren't.

In my opinion, their goals are identical: promote yourself. Just as WBC's methods fail to "convert" anyone to their cause, neither do PETA's.

Indeed, I would argue PETA harms its "cause" far more than helps.

It just got worse. This is a billboard in Times Square:

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/131022/thumbs/s-FASHION-PRESIDENTIAL-BILLBOARD-large.jpg

Why do people think using the First Family to sell something is acceptable? :hea:

Ward Dragon
07-01-10, 18:49
I don't see how wishing someone to burn in hell would do them any favors.

They're trying to scare people into converting, just like PETA does.

Mona Sax
07-01-10, 19:00
They're trying to scare people into converting, just like PETA does.
Asking gays to 'convert' is like asking a turtle to do a backflip, and asking open-minded straight people ('gay enablers') to hate others for their sexual orientation isn't exactly saintlike, either.

Candee Sparks
07-01-10, 19:02
Asking gays to 'convert' is like asking a turtle to do a backflip, and asking open-minded straight people ('gay enablers') to hate others for their sexual orientation isn't exactly saintlike, either.

:gki:

Ward Dragon
07-01-10, 19:04
Asking gays to 'convert' is like asking a turtle to do a backflip, and asking open-minded straight people ('gay enablers') to hate others for their sexual orientation isn't exactly saintlike, either.

Neither is throwing paint on people and comparing meat-eaters to Nazis. My point is that all extremists have some sort of "noble goal" that they are working towards, but it's a mistake to grant them any leniency just because they say they want something good.

T-Sex
07-01-10, 19:59
They're trying to scare people into converting, just like PETA does.

Right, youre comparing a group that thinks terrorist attacks are great and praises school shootings to an animal welfare group. Mhm. :pi:

Mad Tony
07-01-10, 20:04
Right, youre comparing a group that thinks terrorist attacks are great and praises school shootings to an animal welfare group. Mhm. :pi:An "animal welfare" group thats kills thousands of animals, assaults people and compares eating meat to the holocaust.

Dennis's Mom
07-01-10, 20:56
Neither is throwing paint on people and comparing meat-eaters to Nazis. My point is that all extremists have some sort of "noble goal" that they are working towards, but it's a mistake to grant them any leniency just because they say they want something good.

Exactly. The end does not justify the means.

patriots88888
07-01-10, 21:08
People need to be weary of all orginizations/groups. Most have an agenda which extends beyond what their primary 'cause' is, non-profit not-withstanding. I never understood why anyone feels the need to belong to groups like these when they're perfectly capable of contributing to and helping whatever cause their interested in on their own.