Peta and Animal Rights

Remove all ads!

[This was moved from the end of the "Texas Taleban" thread. - BTA]

It may be social liberalism rather than political or economic, but it is liberal.

The talking heads, certainly, and anyone who opposes the extremes of the animal rights movement (such as myself).

On the contrary, there's a huge difference between the two. You see, the Baptists as a whole do not choose to associate with Westborough, and in fact they choose not to associate (Westborough isn't a member of any baptist organization, convention, affiliation, or anything). On the other hand, PETA chooses to employ these few people and chooses to place them in positions of authority and influence. These aren't even grunts managing the register, either, but rather high-level management.

The terrorism/extremism isn't a liberal issue, just another reason that some people hate them.

Watchdog groups expose corporate and government wrongdoing on both sides, and that's more political than social. The social liberals haven't chosen who other people have sex with as a hot-button issue, but rather what other people eat and wear and use.

You've never heard of a morality clause before? I don't know how common they are, but I'm a little surprised at this. A morality clause is "a provision in a contract or official document that prohibits certain behavior in a person's private life." They're usually used by corporations to protect their image if a major spokesperson does something objectionable and it comes out. For example, Tiger's affairs may well have cost him some contracts. Normally, an individual's sexual life isn't an issue for such contracts, but if they had any morality clauses, they may have banned affairs, drug use, excessive drinking, etc. Tiger would have violated such a clause, and it may well be grounds for termination of the contract.

I'll take your word for it. I'm not too familiar with the division line.

The social movement started first (going back before slavery). The political results came first.

How about the right to work outside the home? The right to not be their husband's property? The right to not be beaten? I think this is one of the areas where the social and political coincide.

Again, this is an area where the lines blur.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

On both the political and social spectrum, liberal/conservative is a very case-by-case determination. There are liberal democrats who are for increased military spending. Does that mean that increased military spending isn't a conservative/republican issue? No, it just means that on this issue these liberal democrats are more conservative.

Thanks for misquoting me and making bad assumptions. No, I wasn't trying to be insulting. Or snide. I was trying to be serious. I see homosexuality and bestiality as very similar in many terms: Neither one causes any apparent harm to humanity or society. Neither one is biblically acceptable. The biggest difference I can see is that the animal can't give consent. Tell me, why do you find bestiality so offensive? To be perfectly clear, you read insult into that, I didn't write it in.

You'll also note that in my post I also gave the possibility of an issue I would completely agree with, and one which I could actually see some social liberals championing.

Actually, no, I'm primarily talking about corporations, though individuals play a role as well. In a debt-based economy it is considered standard for corporations to borrow money, spend money, make money, and then pay back the debt. Corporations borrow money based off of projected earnings and expected income. The problem with this is that, as we saw recently, when the banks stop issuing credit, the companies can't cope. In a savings-based economy, such debt would be an exceptional thing, reserved only for massive investment. Companies would be expected to pay for goods and services with money that they've saved up from previous earnings, rather than money they expected to get from projected earnings. It's a much safer system, but also less efficient, as it requires a certain amount of capitol to be perpetually tied up in savings. Families definitely should be savings-based, though far too many of them aren't these days. For corporations, it's a much stickier issue. Debt-based corporations perform better, but are more liable to fail and default. Savings based corporations are safer and more secure, but not as efficient.

 

[This was moved from the end of the "Texas Taleban" thread. - BTA]

OK, let me get this straight - you think homosexuality and beastiality are very similar? The only thing I find similar about them is that both are biblically unacceptable (but I could say the same thing about murder and eating shellfish - are they very similar too?). Setting aside the Bible for a minute, you do not see some massive differences between a human having sex with another human of the same sex, and a human having sex with an animal? To me it seems the differences are self-evident (whether you've read the Bible or not) when you're talking about having sex with a person compared to something like a sheep or a horse.

EDIT: Oh, and premarital sex and beastiality are also two things that cause no apparent harm and are biblically unacceptable - I guess they're pretty similar too...

 

[This was moved from the end of the "Texas Taleban" thread by request of the author below. - BTA]

I know you believe that but I'm waiting for you to explain just what makes it "liberal."

Ok, so you oppose it. I'm sure there are some pundits, but I have not heard any. I'm sure there are loads of corporate lackies who oppose it, and we already agreed that they have a self-interest in opposing it.

Which "people?" I saw only one statement from one person. And you have yet to show me where that was their policy, or when they have actually done of those things. You took one statement from one person and tried to make this big point about it. If that works for you fine, but for me it makes you look desperate for something to try and pin on them. Really, is there ANYTHING else you can point to other than that? Something?

You have tried to paint this organization as something radical or extreme, but in the little bit of research I've done, I've found next to nothing, except the things you pointed out, which seems minor, and since you claim to be an expert on this "extreme" group I'm waiting for the evidence. Anytime now.

So now they are "terrorists?" And hated? I'm sure McD's sees them that way and other corporations and their minions, who have been nailed by them in their illegal activities.

Again, you seem to ignore all the good work they do hand-in-hand with responsible companies as partners protecting animals.

Yes, the "terrorist" label for someone that some people may not agree with, where have we heard THAT one before?

Both sides of what? Not really. The link I posted above, such as boycotts by customers over the way in which animals are treated, is just as social as it is political. Let me give you an example of a moral issue that is more social than political:

That's a social/moral issue, not political - there were no laws, no politicians, no legislation, no constitutional issues that I could see. This was pure public pressure; the same kind used by Christian conservatives on business interests that offends their morality according to their moral beliefs.

I know what it is, usually used in contracts, but you still have not explained how this is a wide-spread practice for hiring and what would be in it for this instance. As an example I know many school districts have morality clauses for teachers, because they can't be exotic dancers and teach, but I've never heard of one that forces you to be faithful to your spouse. I'm just wondering how a morality clause, and what would be in it, reltates to the topic, and the instance that was brought up about someone calling an employer to tell him that his employee was cheating.

If you wish to consider the DoI as the Founding document, the politics came first. The statement of principle "that all men are created equal." Now, I'm only speaking within the context of American politics. Before the DoI there was no America.

Those are legal rights, which are political. Using the word "right" is usually a good tip-off. And all the things you mention are illegal (holding someone against his/her will, assualt, forced servitude etc). Women don't have the "right" to wear pants, but it may or may not be socially acceptable.

You are doing nothing more than just tap-dancing here. You can tap-dance around the issue all you want, but you have not shown just how this is a "liberal group." Which leads me to suspect that you really don't know that much about the group in question. I mean, they very well may be a liberal group, but as an involved liberal, who was a former Nader Raider and a MoveON member, among other active groups, I've never heard of them on the issue that liberals care about: health care, the War in Iraq, jobs, education reform, etc. Again, I will keep asking until you answer, what makes them specifically liberal? That way I can make sure to lend my support to them if the need arises.

Well, it's good to hear you did not mean that as an insult. And I will take that to mean that the practice of bestiality is not an insult as far as you are concerned. Let's take the issue then: What makes bestiality specifically "liberal?" It can just as well be a conservative practice. Conservatives may very well be even more for it, and since the issue has never been seriously discussed within our politics, I'm not so sure that it may not become more of a conservative issue; and as you seem to point out that "liberals' care more about animal rights, as well as animals not being able to give their consent; also conservatives may see animals more as their property, hence they can do with them what they wish. So to me it makes more sense that conservatives would be more in favor of bestiality. But that is just mere speculation on my part, knowing that conservatives value their property and propety rights. I can't prove that conservatives would be more in favor of bestiality than liberals, no more than you can prove the reverse.

No actually they are not. I worked for a very cash heavy company that saved quite a bit of money and was not willing to spend its large amount of cash to improve. That was Circuit City. I would just love to debate this issue. But this is a separate topic - please post this on another thread, so that we don't burn all over Ragusa's thread. Let's show some respect.

 

I've never given much thought to this issue, but since we did not have a thread for it, I thought we should craft one (for anyone else who cares). I don't see the issue of animal rights as specific to any political ideology. NOG, please post your replies on the "Texas Taliban" thread on this one. Or maybe a mod could move my last reply, if that is possible. TiA.

 

Animals have no rights, they are property. The only rights they have are rights that we have given them. It disgusts me that there are people who care more about an animal then they do about a human being. If a cat is abused, there are people who will come out of the woodwork to provide financial support and/or adopt the "poor feline". The abuser of the cat is likely to face more jail time then he would for mugging someone.

 

Thanks, BTA.

TGS - Nevertheless, there are cruelty laws against abuse, so animals do have "basic" rights. But you are right, and though I like animals just fine, it is amazing that people value them more than they do other people. I think an important part of any debate on animal rights, depends on what emotions and human attributes we assign to animals.

For example, one of my favorite novels is Call of the Wild, and Buck is a fantastic character and a hero in his own right. But it is still a work of fiction, in which we suspend our beliefs that animals are capable of the depth of emotions and intelligence that Buck has in the story. It's part of the strength of London's writing that I have to constantly remind myself that it is a work of fiction. Nevertheless, part of the story is the amazing amount of cruelty displayed by some of the human characters, which at times makes them seem less human than the dog, Buck.

 

Which brings to mind this clip (for some reason I can't get it to play unless you change the resolution to 480p). When it comes to animals some people care about cruelty to all animals, most people only care about certain animals which makes it even more hypocritical.

 

As a vegan and animal rights activist, I take great offense to the assertion that we care more for animals than we do for people. As a group, we most assuredly do not. I certainly do not, and contrary to what some of the people around here seem to think*, I am fairly representative of how animal rights activists as a group feel about and interact with the world around them.

That said, PETA has more than it's fair share of republican members. I should know, since I used to be one of them. While I haven't been a member of PETA or for that matter the republican party for almost a decade, I'm still intimately familiar with what they do and do not do as a group. For starters, the ALF is not supported by PETA. They get no funding from PETA, and PETA most assuredly does not endorse breaking and entering in the name of "animal liberation". Yes, it is certainly true that members of the ALF are more likely than your average Joe to be members of PETA, but that doesn't really mean anything. KKK members are usually republican, but only an idiot would argue that the republican party supports the KKK.

* "No, Drew, I know you aren't <insert unsubstantiated stereotype about vegans or animal rights activists here>, but that's because you're different." I've said it once, and I'll say it again. No, I'm not different. Put aside your preconceived notions for a minute, examine yourself, and realize that what really differentiates me from other animal rights activists is not my beliefs, my worldview, or my actions. The difference is something far simpler -- you know me.

 

Let me try to redirect your attention:

In truth, in a purely mechanical sense, I see homosexuality as closer to bestiality than it is to heterosexuality for one reason: there is no potential for offspring. It's only one reason, but it's a big one. Mind you, I'm not (at this moment) criticizing either one. That you read any comparision between the two as critical is reflective only of your own distaste for bestiality. Not unusual by any means, but please read what I say and not what you assume me to mean. More to the point, though, why exactly do you object to bestiality?

Actually, there's a huge difference between the two. Premarital sex causes a great deal of harm to society, both theoretically and practically. How much of the abortion debate is over married couples who don't want kids yet? How many kids are put up for adoption by married couples? In both cases, the answer is a noticable amount, but a vast minority. Now, how many single parents are single because they never married, but had a kid? How big of a problem is teen pregnancy in the US? How many marriages end because of affairs? (I'm sorry, I lump pre-marital and extra-marital sex together, you may not.)

The fact that the liberals have taken it as one of their issues. For proof, look here or here or here.

If you really want more info, look here or here or here.

I'm sorry, where did I claim that? What I've linked to you above (apparently vastly more than your 'research' found) came from a simple Google search for "PETA extremism". They were all on the first page.

Thanks for taking that completely out of context. That was their association and support of terrorists (a documented fact mentioned several times above), though apparently they've made terrorist lists themselves.

This is pure BS, Chandos, and I'm tired of it. I brought up the good work they do! Or did you miss where I said:

No, the 'terrorist' label for a group that 'employs individuals' (I'm being legal here) that have committed violent crimes against those that disagree with them.

Politics: i.e. liberals and conservatives, Dems and Reps.

... I never claimed it was 100% either one, just that it's more political than social. Watchdog groups usually watch government action, after all.

Go back and re-read how that came up. I never claimed it was wide-spread, though you indicate it's much more wide-spread than I thought it was. This came up as an off-topic question about defamation lawsuits, nothing more.

One, I consider the DoI only a 'founding document' in a social sense, not in a political one. The Constitution and, before it, the Articles of Confederation, were political founding documents. Two, I was talking about a societal movement as a whole that goes back before the founding of the US and well outside it's borders. William Wilberforce (an English contemporary of the Founders) is the first name that comes to mind, though the movement was already well established before him. The debate over slavery raged at the formation of the Constitution and, as I understand it, even in the Continental Congresses. It was already a hot-button political issue in England at the time.

... You're saying that the government could pass a law banning women from wearing pants? It'd be ridiculous, sure, but I bet it'd also be ruled unconstitutional.

I find it more likely to be liberal (here social liberal, not political) merely because it's not currently accepted within society. Social conservatives don't usually try to push the boundaries of acceptance, while social liberals often do. Beyond that, though, I never suggested it was at all liberal yet, or likely to become so any time soon. Likewise, I also don't expect a savings-based economy to become anyone's pet topic any time soon, but it's a possibility.

It's one thing to ban excessive cruelty to animals, and I think a very good thing on just about any basis. It's something quite different to give animals rights equal to humans or treat them on an equal basis.

 

No, sorry none of the links you posted say that, nor are they proof. Although one person who happens to be liberal did post a few things on animal rights. I thought that maybe you could explain how it is a liberal issue. Or better yet, if you can find a real liberal organization that, like MoveOn, that is making PETA, and its agenda one of its top issues, or maybe even in the top ten. Here, let me show how something like that would be accomplished, just as an example:

"A major liberal group, MoveOn, has announced that health care reform will be a major issue for 2009:"

http://pol.moveon.org/2009/agenda/results/?rc=homepage

See? MoveOn polled its liberal membership to find out what issues liberals actually cared about and set its liberal agenda accordingly. That would be real proof that liberals cared about the issue of health care. Also, I would respectfully suggest that you take the time to read the articles you are posting; that way you can know the proof you are offering.

Again, those links are not helpful, because they don't prove that PETA is a terrorist/extreme/liberal organization, only that they are responsible for the deaths of animals, which they are supposed to be saving. There is some hearsay in there but no proof.

Really? You didn't refer to them as terrorists? Did you take a moment to read your own post? BTW, did you read the links you posted? Otherwise, you would have known what was in them.

Of course, you found "PETA extremism!" Did you expect to find links that would say GOOD things about them if you typed that? If I wanted to prove that Baptists were extremist, would I find similar stuff posted on the internet, if I typed "Baptist extremism?" We all know that everything posted on the web is true, and objective. Right? What if you typed PETA successes in saving animals? Would you find something different? But to be fair to you, I will accept that some people claim that PETA is not all it claims to be.

Did you read the link? Here let me post it so that you can read what was in your own "research." They were making fun of them being called "terrorists."

I actually remember that story about the Maryland police, because it was sort of a joke that they put them on the list for the big circus threat.

You accuse me of BS and you don't even know what's in your own links? Hey, I just wanted you to educate me a bit on PETA and what it does in some sort of objective and rational manner. I thought you knew more about them. I on the other hand, only did very minor research on them, and I admitted as much to you, to give you the opportunity to tell me what was so radical about them. I'm sorry if I upset you.

I will agree you never could have convinced me that they were a liberal group, unless you could find something really substantial to prove that, because I belong to several groups and neither PETA nor animal rights is ever an issue for any of them.

See, there's an excellent example. Show me. If there is such a thing, just post a specific instance where PETA, was convicted of a crime of some sort. Or, I will prove to you just how easy going I am: Just tell me in your own words what violent crime PETA committed, and I'll look for the news story and the court case on it. All I'm asking is for something real. I'm not even disputing you, as much as I'm asking you just to put up a specific instance that would show that. Remember, when you make an accusation, the burden for proving it is not on the person you are telling; that burden is on you, the accuser. I have no vested intersted in PETA. Hell, I don't even think they are liberals, so what do I care?

If they are government watchdog groups; many of them are corporate watchdogs, especially regarding the environment, and that is on the liberal agenda and it is political.

I'll take your word for it, especially since it was off-topic.

No, it was not. And it something that every American should know (they make immigrants know it). It is a political document declaring America a separate country and no longer a colony of England. Can you explain how that is a social document and not a legal, political document?

Slavery was an issue when Israel was in Egypt too. I made the point of specifically speaking to our own (American) political development.

That's not a news flash. And you just admitted that it was poltical, because:
1. The Constitution is a political document.
2. The Continental Congress was a political body.

Thank you for making my point.

Dude, you are coming unhinged. All I said was that women wearing pants was socially or not socially acceptable. It was to prove that there was no need for a law, hence the term "social."

I guess I don't get that. One day if it ever becomes an issue we can revisit it, because there is no social movement for it, either liberal or conservative. But I'm still inclined to believe that conservatives would be more than likely support it from a political standpoint, but at the moment it is not even legal, so it's a non-issue. Of course, gays have been around since the beginning of time and have been widely accepted as well as rejected in the past, particularly the ancient world, but I don't know about bestiality. I really don't know much about its history.

 

So, wait, a scholarly paper, a book, and a blog called "Liberal Road Blog" with multiple posts on animal rights don't show that it's a liberal issue? You want an official organization's official announcement of it? Do me a favor and find me a social (as opposed to political) liberal organization. In the mean time, though, maybe you'll take this. Sure, it's a UK political liberal party, but it's liberal nonetheless.

Maybe you should re-read those. Convictions in court are not hearsay. And, yes, I'd say killing animals you take out of shelters, combined with a policy of "animals are better off dead than in captivity" (one of the articles quoted the President of PETA saying so), seems pretty extremist to me. Also, PETA being on state terrorist watch lists and admitting to giving money to terrorist organizations (specifically the ELF and ALF) verges on 'terrorist' territory in my book.

Some people call them terrorists (and I've linked to them). I have said that some of their actions verge on terrorism.

No, I expected to find documented evidence and quotes to show that they were extremists. Oh, and go ahead and look up Baptist Extremist on Google. I did. You know what I found? Baptists criticizing about extremist movements. Oh, and Westborough, but we've been through that already.

And, gee, what was Raven Ministries doing? 'Disrupting' a swinger club? I'd call their actions terrorism any day.

Yes, I do read my links. I bring them up only for specific purposes, which I prep you for when I bring them up. Believe it or not, I don't endorse 100% of everything in every link I've ever posted. I don't know if you do or not.

What upset me is the BS you've been throwing out. I've provided evidence that PETA has engaged in some radical activities and provided financial support to extremist groups, and you've ignored it. I went into this expecting you to actually read and be willing to change your mind.

This is pretty arrogant, you know. I've been a member of several Christian groups over the years and I've never heard support for Israel preached, but that doesn't mean it isn't a Christian topic. Combine that with the social/political division (MoveOn is a political movement, after all, as was Ralph Nader's campaign), and you're experience with liberal groups isn't exactly universally representative.

Right, you don't care, that's why you ignored what I said. PETA hasn't been conviced. People PETA employs and financially supports have been convicted. Look up people like Roger Troen, Fran Stephanie Trutt, Josh Harper, and, most importantly, Rodney Coronado, who committed a multi-million dollar arson at Michigan State University. The day before, he FedExed a package to Maria Blanton, who testified that she accepted the package at the request of Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder and President of PETA and. The day after, he FedExed one to Ingrid Newkirk herself, but that one was intercepted by the FBI. It contained documents stolen from Michigan State University and a video-tape of a masked Coronado performing the arson. Newkirk arranged to have the packages sent to her before the arson. The FBI executed a search warrant at Maria Blanton’s home and found evidence that PETA’s other co-founder, Alex Pacheco, had been planning burglaries and break-ins with Rodney Coronado.

Easy, it didn't establish any country. That's what you have wrong. The DoI establishes independance from England, but it doesn't establish anything to replace it. Hell, it doesn't even establish the colonies as a confirmed united entity, just that they were all united in this effort. In fact, as I understand it, there were some serious debates about whether or not all the colonies would join the Articles of Confederation when they were written. The DoI established that we weren't Brittish any more, but it didn't establish what we were.

Actually, no, it wasn't. It was an accepted practice by both sides. The only objection the Israelites has was that they were slaves.

The problem with that is that, both as a social issue and a political issue, slavery predates the US. It was an established issue of debate for the Founding Fathers. You can't say anything for America other than that it's been an issue on both fronts for as long as we've been around.

No, what you said was that it wasn't a right. Pornography isn't a right, but just accepted by society. There have been laws that restrict and ban it, and they've been upheld by the Supreme Court. A ban on women wearing pants, though, would be struck down in an instant. Equal protection and all that.

Off-topic, though similar to homosexuality, if less wide spread. The point I was making, though, was that liberalism/conservatism can be broken into topics. One may be liberal on one issue and conservative on another. This is usually called being centrist, but not always. Mike Huckabee is generally considered firmly conservative, even though he's firmly liberal in some areas.

That's the common myth, but the fact is (at least as I have heard it) that the King had already authorized the execution of every one of them for their previous letters to him (which were far from declarations of war). That being said, you're right that seperation from a government is political, so I guess the DoI is a political document, but not in a founding sense. The reason I say this is because the DoI didn't found anything, it only seperated us from England.

 

No, really. Here's the topic of the scholarly paper:

It's not about advocacy groups, like PETA being "liberal;" it's about animal rights and the social contract ideas of the philosopher, Hobbs. Obviously, you didn't read it. Don't feel bad I didn't either. As for finding a "liberal" blog about animal protection, do you think I can find a conservative one? Because I can find one, like, Conservative Animal Advocates, does that prove that it's a conservative issue? Certainly there are both liberals and conservatives that care about the issue. I don't know much about the Liberal Party in the UK, but I know they are not an animal protection group here in the US, like say, PETA.

Which terror watch lists are they currently on? The last point seems to be a point of controversy. Here let me post our own member, Drew:

You didn't even respond to Drew's comments, NOG. He seems to know much more about PETA than both of us put together. Maybe we both could learn a few things from him.

So what? Some people call GWB a "terrorist." I even found a link:

http://tvnewslies.org/html/george_w__bush_-_world_s_leadi.html

Maybe the Good Lord was looking out for you. I found a pair of Jerrys: Jerry Falwell and Jerry Vines, both Southern Baptist "extremists." Westboro is a Baptist Church, but it's views may be a bit harsher than that of the Jerrys', maybe.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/cf.crossfire/

I guess some people believe the good pastor is a "hate-filled bigot." Gee, I wonder if I could say that about the Baptist Church now, since the pastor is a leader of a large Baptist church? No, I would not, I hope I'm different than that. I hope I can judge the Baptist Church upon the totality of what it does, and while recognizing that it has some faults, that it does far more good for many people, than those few instances and those individuals represent, even if they are "officials."

It does establish a country, and names it:

Here's more:

I see that you reconsidered that point, I missed it the first time around. The DoI states the "intention" of the Congress to institute a new government.

No, really, again you are wrong. It is a Constitutional right under the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech. Ask Larry Flynt.

 

You're going around in circles and you know it, Chandos. You asked for a recognized liberal group that supported animal rights and I gave you one. Now you're claiming that, because it isn't solely dedicated to animal rights, it doesn't count. You'll likely apply the same logic to dedicated animal rights groups, that since they aren't officially a liberal group they don't count. This is BS. Few if any social action groups dedicated to a cause are officially conservative or liberal, democratic or republican, but they still get their funding from one or the other. By that logic, the NRA isn't a conservative group, nor is Code Pink liberal.

Well, the USDA for one. I don't know why the USDA has a terrorist watch list, but it apparently does. It was on both the Maryland and Virginia lists, I don't know if it still is or not. I found accusations that they're on teh FBI list and a number of other states, but I couldn't find confirmation.

Since Chandos asked. I'm sorry, Drew, but you don't know enough about PETA. PETA has admitted to giving money to the ELF, and they (ELF) share funds with ALF (they're joint groups), so they gave money to the ALF, too. They've listed donations to both groups in their tax filings. They've paid legal fees for numerous ELF and ALF individuals charged with crimes (usually arson). They've received returns from the ALF, too: Wiki

Spoiler

In 1984, a 26-minute PETA film called Unnecessary Fuss,[38] based on 60 hours of researchers' footage obtained by the ALF during a raid on the University of Pennsylvania's Head Injury Clinic, led to the suspension of funds from the university, the closure of the lab, the firing of the university's chief veterinarian, and a period of probation for the university.[18][39]

Westboro is a baptist church in nothing more than name. No baptist association with have anything to do with them, and for good reason. Now, as for Falwell and Vines being 'extremists', well, there are some legitimate views on that, but they're as mild 'extremists' as you can get and still wear the label.

You could, however, say it about his church. You know, like they did about Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church. You see, the thing is, while Jerry Vines may be a respected member, he's only a leader of one church, not the entire Baptist community. Ingrid Newkirk, on the other hand, is the president of PETA and one of it's two founders. The other founder has been implicated in similar activity, though he's not so vocal about things.

... You'll notice that 'united' isn't capitalized? Hell, it even capitalized 'Representatives', but not 'united'. All it says is that these states (meaning governmental bodies) were united in their opposition to England.

I think we agree here, except perhaps that you place more significance on the 'intention', whereas I reserve it for the act itself. Regardless, I think it's moot since, as I pointed out earlier, the issue of slavery both as a political and social debate predates even the DoI.

Depends on the pornography. The overall topic of pornography is considered 'not protected speech', but individual examples may merit protection under other considerations (i.e. art). My point is that pornography, as a whole, is not protected, and many states have restrictions on what can be disseminated where and to whom. Utah's website gives some good background.

 

PETA gives money to fey creatures and aliens ... they keep getting stranger and stranger.

 

Ok, that's fair enough, even though I found one that was conservative. But yes, again, I meant a "liberal" group, like MoveOn, Bold Progressives, RePower America, Organizing for America, etc. These are all liberal groups that deal with a variety of issues that liberals care about. I get emails all day long and updates from all the above groups daily, and never once was there anything about protecting animals or PETA in any of the issues that we are fighting for. Not once. Actually being a liberal and having one of those moments and pausing when someone who is not a liberal says: "this is what liberals care about," and as an active liberal, I think: "Say what?"

It could be because of its undercover investigations. I saw they were on the list, and a lot of people were again making fun of them being on there, just as they were about the Maryland police and the circus event. They also put the Humane Society on there. You wouldn't like the links I found on it because they accuse the government of working with corporate interests to silence them and that's why some peope feel they are on there.

http://current.com/items/91585340_peta-classified-as-a-terrorist-threat-by-the-usda.htm

Nevetheless, I could find no other list that they were on and I find the terrorist charge pretty thin without something substantial. Sorry, but I checked myself and could find very little.

And you post a story from 1984? 25 years ago?

"Mild" extremists...interesting concept.

He is an important player in the Southern Baptist Convention and local politics:

And let's not forget about Falwell, who is a rabid extremist. Those are only two jokers I found on just the first page on Google; I didn't bother to go any further, because they pretty much represent Baptist extremism to me. But you may feel differently and go right ahead - your personal beliefs are your own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Vines

Did you notice that what you are looking at is not an original copy? It's smudged on the original, but what there is of the U is much bolder than the rest of the letters surrounding it. Regardless, the word America IS capitalized.
A "Representative," in an official rendering, is a title.

No, again, the Continental Congress was ONE body and acted as such. And they were not united in their opposition to England, they were declaring independence from England. The Continental Congress was the government until 1777, when the Articles of Confederation were drawn up. It was the intention that the confederation be created even before the DoI was drafted:

Of course, once the DoI was drawn up they were no longer colonies, because they were now a confederation of states.

In this instance there is one Congress that is representative of all the states within the Confederation. The Articles were drafted by 1777, but started BEFORE the DoI was finished:

So the "intent" to create the union was certainly there at the time of the DoI. Although you correctly point out that the states had to win the war and craft a legal, central, government to become a full-nation. I know we are nit-picking but I can't help it because I love this history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Here you can view the actual DoI:

http://factreal.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/declaration-of-independence-_enhanced1.jpg

As I pointed out it is restricted in certain places, but still thrives. But again, the original point is that it is a political issue, which you said was only a social issue. In fact, "soft" porn is fairly socially accepted, or else it would not be in so many motels, with the remote right next to the Bible.

Edit:

NOG - I did want to add something that you may find useful. If you wish to discuss anything about what liberals are doing or even what they are about to a liberal, my advice is to actually discover something about what is going on with liberals in the larger scheme of things.

Let me put it this way: I know the liberal agenda. I live it everyday. Like I said, educate yourself. I didn't have to go to MoveOn, or Bold Progressives, or Organizing for America to know the liberal agenda. And you could not find a single thing on a major liberal organizations website where Animal protections were on the radar. Not one. You found a small site, and that is fair enough to prove that SOME liberals care about animals on a political level.

Where you found one small site, I can give you the major homesites for liberals that spell out the top agenda for the next year. So before you presume to tell a liberal what the liberal agenda is, find it out for yourself. I say this with all due respect. Just saying....

http://www.moveon.org/
http://firedoglake.com/
http://boldprogressives.org/home
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/finalmarch-day3

 

PETA did give 1500 bucks to the North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office based in Portland OR (not the ALF) back in 2001, and I don't agree with that donation. That said, NOG glossed over a few details. PETA didn't give money to the ELF or the ALF. They gave money to the NAELFPO -- a press office. The ELF is not centrally operated or funded, and the press office does not fund any of their illegal activity, nor do they know the identities of individuals who choose to operate under the ELF banner. In their words:

In other words, they report on the actions of the ELF and provide them a forum to anonymously deliver their message to the public. They do not however fund, participate in, or organize any ELF activities. While I don't like PETA's decision to donate funds to this Press Office -- and things like this are part of the reason I did not renew my membership with PETA after the first year -- but I feel compelled to point out that donating to an office that merely reports on ELF activities and provides them an anonymous forum is a far cry from endorsing the often illegal activities conducted under the ELF banner.


Regarding the silliness about animal rights activism being "liberal," I would like to point everyone's attention to a guy named Matthew Scully. Matthew Scully is a conservative, animal rights activist and author. His book Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy was published in 2002, and it wasn't half bad. How conservative is Matthew Scully? He was a speech writer for George W Bush.

 

Realize, I've never even heard of those last three, and I only heard of MoveOn in this last election.

Again, I'm suspecting a larger and larger gap between the social and political liberal movements. Tell me, how often do they talk about feminism or black rights or gay rights? I'm seriously curious.

Think again. I posted a whole slew of things, the one from 1984 was just the oldest. The firebombing of Michegan State was in 1992 and PETA has helped pay for appeals (meaning after the conviction in 1995). In 2002 he boasted about other arsons (apparently the statute of limitations was up). In 2003, PETA boasted about him. The two who were arrested for killing animals were in 2005. Keep in mind, they only got caught because they got lazy and dumped the bodies in a dumpster. PETA's adoption rate has never topped 26%, and the latest number I heard was 6.8% (2006). That means only 6.8% of the animals they were given were ever adopted, and PETA doesn't maintain large animal shelters, so what do you think happened to the other 93.2%? For comparison, most SPCAs average 80-90% adoption rates.

I think it's valid. It's one thing to rant and rave against a group, but another thing altogether to act on it. PETA's comments comparing packaged meat to brutalized women, it's accusations against anyone who has a pet, and the like are 'mild extremism'. It's killing of animals, 'support' of firebombers, and court cases against numerous groups that were guilty of nothing more than offending PETA are substantially more extremist, because they're not just speech any more.

No, I think they represent most Baptist extremism pretty well, but again, that's pretty mild stuff compared to what PETA's done. Westboro is probably closer (though I don't know if they've taken any actions of any kind), but they're definitely not typical of anything Baptist.

Difference of perception, and probably debatable. I don't suppose experts have analyzed the original or something? As for America, of course it's capitalized, it's a proper noun. It has to be. United isn't a proper noun, so whether it's caplitalized or not is significant. If it is, it's part of a title (i.e. the United States of America). If not, it's just a descriptor (i.e. These American States, here united...).

I was unaware of that. Thanks. I had always been taught that the States governed themselves independantly until the Articles of Confederation were drafted and that, if anything, England's opposition to their rebellion helped cement an otherwise unlikely alliance.

I understand, I really do. It's engineering for me, but I understand.

Actually, what I said was that it wasn't a right. I'll agree that pornography is quite strongly both political and social, especially if taken as a whole.

When I looked those up, I found this. Interesting how it actually distinguishes this from social liberalism. To be fair, though, I'm not entirely sure their 'social liberalism' and the 'social liberalism' we've been talking about are exactly the same thing. Moreover, it looks like all of those are relatively new organizations. my.barakobama.com, of course, is new. Firedoglake was established in 2004. MoveOn was established in 1998. I couldn't find anything for Bold Progressives. I realize that may not mean much, but I tend to think of political entities that you would go to to define your political movement as things that should be a little older, especially when your political movement is itself much older. Moreover, though, those all appear to be political liberal groups, I'm accusing the social liberal movement of supporting PETA and animal rights.

Drew, at best, PETA gave aid to those who give aid to ELF. That it was indirect is meaningless. At worst, PETA gave aid to a branch of ELF. Now, since ELF is officially recognized as a criminal enterprise, nothing it does is legal.

Not really. Let me put it this way, if you found out that I gave money to a web forum dedicated solely to organizing 'anonymous' skinhead extremists to go kill gays and blacks, do you think I could be said to be supporting those skinheads? I don't know the details of the law, but I'd expect I could be arrested for conspiracy or facilitation.

Oh, I'm not saying it's exclusively liberal, just dominantly. The same is true of gay equality, feminism, and a lot of other things. You can find conservatives who support them all, but they're few and far between.

 

Wrong. The NAELFPO is nota criminal enterprise. The ELF, however, is. If you read your own wiki link, you would no that the ELF has no central organization, no central source for funding, and no central leadership. All the NAELFPO does is provide biased reporting of ELF activities. Bias in reporting is not illegal.

The NAELFPO is a press office. Even after the ELF made the list of terrorist, the NAELFPO still existed. They are still "legal". They do not organize ELF activities. They do not fund ELF activities. They do not facilitate ELF activities. Given that, your comparison is moot. As evidenced by their mission statement, which I quoted in my last post, the NAELFPO does provide extremely biased reporting of ELF activities. I agree that what they do is arguably a "bad thing". It isn't, however, illegal.

Whatever. I know lots and lots of liberals. What I don't know is lots and lots of liberals who are also animal rights activists. In fact, I can count the number of animal rights activists I know on one hand. There's a simple reason for this. Animal rights activists make up an unbelievably tiny minority. As such, animal rights is not part of the "liberal agenda". That is why I and Chandos argue that it isn't a "liberal" issue. If animal rights were really a liberal issue, it is reasonable to expect that liberals would care about it. The problem is that liberals by and large do not care about animal rights. In fact, most liberals, like most other Americans, are actually openly hostile to the animal rights movement. Some liberal issue....

 

Then we're at the 'at best' situation. They also recruit (at least ideologically if not directly) and provide a means of communication. This isn't just 'biassed reporting'. It may not be directly illegal, but it's much worse than biassed reporting.

This may be an issue of a vocal minority, then. All I know is that almost every case of animal rights activists I've heard of or met have been liberal, so I claimed the animal rights movement is a liberal movement. I don't know how big it is on anyone's radar in general politics, though.

Really? Aside from condemning the extreme groups like the ELF, I haven't heard any liberals attacking the animal rights movement. I've heard a lot defending it, though.