Peta and Animal Rights

Remove all ads!

That was his conclusion - the final paragraph - which I agreed with! I didn't agree with his perception of history and his arguments that lead to it. You can have a valid conclusion even if you start with false premises, but I'm sure you've taken a class or two in logic or philosophy, so I won't expand on that further.

I thought it was obvious that the people I was referring to were the people who were posting on these forums, and specifically in this thread. If that was not clear, I apologize.

And I agreed with his conclusion.

You tend not to elaborate much on points you agree with - that's why I barely mentioned the latter part of his post.

That's exaxtly what it meant. I do not see how agreeing with what Chandos said, and disagreeing with LKD's interpretation of history are mutually exclusive. In fact, since they have different points of view, if you agree with one, you almost have to disagree with the other.

 

Chandos's post clearly missed the point of LKD's. He seemed to believe, and a later post reinforced that appearance, that LKD was actually advocating making all extramarital sex illegal and. Combine that with the whole 'inalienable rights' rant and it was clearly missing LKD's point. When you agreed with it, I took that to mean you had missed the point in the same way.

 

This appears to be a case of you reading only what you want to. This is what I wrote to LKD:

NOG - Please try reading a little more closely. I know mistakes happen, but after I made a point of adding some clarity to that point, you still didn't bother to read it.

 

Ok, Chandos, you kind of lost me there. To put things in perspective, I was specifically talking about LKD's post #47 and your post #49, and then later on LKD's post #50 and your #51. I don't know if that helps you understand why I said what I did. No where does LKD in any way advocate any of the positions he's talking about, and at least one of the three (and I'm guessing a second as well) I know he's agaist.

I know that you said that, and I did read it, but directly after that, in the same post, you said:

My first point was that neither the current law on the age of consent, nor the protests against it were actually the subject of LKD's posts. They were nothing more than examples he cited. Secondly, and I think more importantly, you flat out guess at his own position on the subject when he has said nothing about it at all. I'm very confused about how you shifted to that topic in the first place.

 

That was my response to #47. I am disagreeing that anyone can pass a law requring that marriage would be a requirement to have sex. And that marriage would have to be deconstructed if that were the case. He explained that it was not about passing any laws in his response. People do that all the time now (complain), so that's not a problem. If you read closely, you will notice that I commented that it was OK to place "age restrictions" on premarital sex. Reading comprehesion is a good thing.

But in #50 he switched from just saying that people can be for advocating against premarital sex, to legislating against it. That's something different than just saying that people have a right to self-expression but actually imposing their morality on to another person by law or state decree. That would be a violation of basic individual rights - tyranny.

This is what he said:

Notice that the shift here is on TEEN SEX, which he never really made clear in any other post, since he was only speaking to "premarital sex." We already have laws curtailing TEEN SEX to a certain degree, which was my point and I did not see a problem with it. Now he's only speaking to a law we already have, so I would have to guess that he wants to expand it in his hypothetical situation? I mean this is HIS hypothetical situation, that is totally unrelated to either the topic, or even Ragusa's at this point.

This is the problem with going this wildly off topic. This LKD's hypothetical group, not a specific or particular group that is up for dicussion on this thread, hence the reason I needed him to tell me what it was that this group was adovactiong/protesting about EXACTLY. I know it's hard not to bring gay marrriage or abortion or people fornicationing, or whatever else, into every thread we have, but it would help if we could have at least one topic without any of those issues, unless we are discussing a specific group and not one from someone's imagaination that can morph into something different on every other post on a thread.

 

Actually, he said that people have a right to advocate laws that strengthen their position (I took that to mean things like bans on abortions, or allowing all abortions any time, or supporting welfare for single mothers, or cracking down on child support), though I can see how you could read that out of it. He's still talking about people talking about something, not his own position.

I hate to say this, but I think it was you that took us off-topic this time, and turned the extramarital/premarital/teen sex debate (they're often interchanged) from one of several examples into a hypothetical. I still think it's a leap to assume he supported or suggested anything. I am kind of curious why you took up the example of sex restrictions and ignored the examples of drug freedom and enacting PETA's vision as law. I'm assuming you don't think he's advocating either of those two.

 

I would just like to remind everyone that there was no reasonable basis for the invasion of Iraq.

Just my contribution to the off-topicness of this discussion...

(Is off-topicness a word?)

 

It is now!

All in all, though, I think the PETA issue is dead. I think we all agree that they're a bunch of kooks, and I don't think anyone will be able to convince anyone else about anything concerning their attitudes toward ecoterrorism or the extent of their past actions concerning it. I think we've also beaten the liberal/conservative issue until it's just one bloody mess.

 

This is what he "says" he said:

So, that is what I responded to.

The age of consent in Texas is 17, so what "law" is he speaking about regarding teen sex? You don't have consent laws in Canada, LKD?

That's fine, but that has NOTHING to do with what I was responding to.

No, it was you. See post #9.

I didn't think he was advocating anything. You were the one who thought that. And no, you are not really curious in the least.

I don't agree with that at all, and I don't think a few others here would agree with you either. Just saying....

 

Yeah, but you took it... off-topic... from my... off-topic...ness...es. Yeah!

Ok, now you're scaring me.

Sorry, I was looking at the wrong post. You're right. Can we all agree that there are kooks among them?

 

It was really between you and Aldeth at first if you go back and actually bother to read the posts.

No, not really. You're asking me about these issues is just another attempt at going off-topic. I can explain why you are using misdirection with this next comment.

I can agree with Drew, who knows far more on this topic than either of us. He countered every point with which you attempted to smear PETA rather nicely. And you are still tryng to find some way to make a negative comment about them to end this thread.

I began this thread believing that since they were a bunch of animal lovers, that they were indeed "kooks." I believed that you actually knew something of value about PETA off the top of your head, since you were so quick to condemn them. You did not, and you had to scour the web intently to find something to try and back up your claims.

Nevertheless, it appears to me, especially judging by Drew's remarks as well as the research that was displayed on this thread, that PETA is more of a victim of typical corporate smear attacks, than they are a bunch of "kooks." In my opnion, you may want to consider taking a closer look at those attacks, and the slanders against them, rather than just believing them hook-line-and-sinker. That's just my opinion on the actual topic.

 

The bulk of Drew's counter to my claims was "no it's not". I linked news articles, multiple news articles, including quotes from multiple PETA upper management (including it's president and co-founder) and citations of evidence and testimony from trials.

You started this thread believing that animal lovers are "kooks"? I knew PETA's reputation and found evidence to back it up. Mind you, that reputation isn't that they're all criminals or terrorists, but rather that there are some kooks in power and they have engaged in some radical actions.

 

He refuted your unfounded statements with facts. Drew did a nice job on this thread, especially since he knew far more than you did about PETA. The posts are a matter of record, and anyone who cares enough can go back and review them and draw their own conclusions.

No actually, you started believing something different, and after all this posting you have moderated your views on PETA (you should go back and reveiw your own posts)

The facts have changed your opinion, so all the "evidence," even that you found, proved you wrong, to a certain degree. I have to give you good credit for admitting that you were wrong at the beginning and now see PETA as something as least somewhat different than you originally started out. It's just my opinion but I think you should give Drew a little of the credit for helping add some clarity on this issue for you and the rest of us.

 

Well, it looks like Mike Tyson has run afowl (HAHA!) of these lunatic losers.

Again, in a world of extensive human suffering, these people spend their resources worrying about racing pigeons? To me, where they put their resources indicates where their priorities are, and in this case, as in just about every other one, it indicates that they value animal life over that of human life. I know their charter doesn't say it and all that jazz, but actions speak louder than words. While I have acknowledged their right to speak their minds, I wish that the media would just ignore them so they would wither up and disappear.

 

Chandos, you're right, both Drew's claims and mine are a matter of public record on these forums. I've looked over them again and, in the two posts that he posted, he only cited one piece of evidence of any kind to support PETA, and that was that the NELFPO isn't actually an official part of ELF, which would be hard considering there is no official, organized ELF, as he himself pointed out. He said nothing to refute my claims of an association between the head of PETA and Rodney Coronado, or of PETA funds going to his defense, or of the products of his raid going to their hands. The closest he came was saying, by nothing but his own words, that PETA doesn't support ALF, despite the evidence I presented that it had. Then he dropped out of the conversation, probably because we got into slavery and liberalism and other off-topic issues.

 

Out of curiosity, when would it be appropriate to give a sh! about animals? After any and all human suffering has been eliminated from the face of the planet?

 

Most decent people give a poop about animals, Susipaisti -- I like them myself. But in life you've got to set priorities, and I think that our first priority should be human suffering and misery. Now others obviously would rather spend their energies helping racing birds before they would help a rape victim. Fine and dandy -- it's a free country and they have every right to their opinions.

But I also have the right to my opinion, and IHMO their priorities are seriously screwed up. As are their opinions and thought processes. I believe that their wild ideas and ridiculous initiatives should be vigorously opposed -- in a legal fashion -- by allnormal minded people who understand that while animals are wonderful, they are not the same as humans.

Now this is gonna sound a little harsh, but hear me out. I was dating this one girl who had 3 cats (warning sign right there, LKD!) and I asked her "If we were on a boat and you could save either me or one of your cats, which would you pick?" She hesitiated and couldn't answer for about a minute. Right then I knew that the relationship would go no where, because if in your mind my life is anywhere NEAR to being the equivalent of that of a cat, then you're a freaking idiot. I'm sorry, but that's beyond stupid and insulting, and it's beyond the whole "everyone sees the world differently, LKD" relativistic nonsense. To me it indicates a lack of emotional maturity to put that much value on an animal. And then the stupid whore wondered why I broke up with her a few weeks later. She's still single, now with 2 cats that it is very clear to me that she cares more for than any guy she's ever dated. And she wonders shy she never gets second dates.

 

I counted four posts. You are leaving a few things out.

 

@LKD, give her points for honesty at least. I'd rather have someone prefer a cat to me than have them lie about it.