I have a subject to bring up.

Remove all ads!

You are most welcome, Dendri, always glad to be of help

and to continue on the helpful vein:

PETA's web site

Anti PETA site

 

Not to cut your post short, DR, but this picture is kind of, well, depressing. "Attention; taken, not given", "one cant help but think of". To be honest, the thought which came bumping in was that that heavily implies passivity on the part of the audience. What of actively making choices?

But whatever. This thread is by intend one for bashing. Foolishly I felt that the by far lesser evil gets a beating.

/me drops out

 

I must really deviate from the norm here (not that unusual).

I disagree with the philosophy and techniques of PETA. I believe in animal conservation and in protecting the environment of endangered animals (although protecting the environment of endangered bugs is a bit overboard to me).

However, I fully support the use of domestic animals for use in what they were bred for. Whether that is clothing, research or food -- I don't care. It's what the animals were bred for -- I really don't care about some rodent's life and how many had to die so we could cure some disease. For that matter, I don't care how many cute monkeys die so that we can find cures for cancer or aids. That little worms are made to slave away so we can have silk doesn't keep me awake at night.

I find it humorous all the cosmetics popping up that 'haven't harmed any animals.' What a croc. The chemicals those cosmetic companies are using were tested by someone else -- of course they know it's going to be safe to use because it was already tested on animals. What a stupid advertising loophole to use.

Different breeds of cattle are used for different things -- get over it. We as consumers have dictated such a fate. Some cattle have great hides, but not good meat. The hides become our shoes, baseball gloves, and even underwear. The rest of the beast become feed stock for other animals (and glue). Beef bred for ... well, beef ... are almost completely used (it is just not good business sense to have any waste) -- we have the normal cuts we see in the store, hamburger and -- beef franks (you really don't want to know about these). Other parts are also used as feed stock for other animals. The same is true for rabbits, chickens, turkeys (there's a good candidate for reintroduction into the wild), pigs, sheep and anything else we eat.

I fully agree with the right of any individual to protest anything they want -- that's why I served in the military, support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And I expect those individuals to respect my right to eat animals and use the products we obtain from animals.

(Edit: spelling errors...)

[ August 22, 2006, 14:54: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

^ As Long John Silver would say"Ahrrmen"

 

I know I am bumping this thread but I just saw it for the first time.

When asked if I support/endorse PETA I think Rallymam (and DS) already answered better than I could

All I can add is "AMEN!"

 

Wow, that really says it all doesn't it?


Hypocrites!!

 

Wouldn't work. The dialogue would be shorter than a phone call from a stock broker trying to convince you to invest in a company called Enron. No one listens to vegetarians when they try to be informative. If you don't believe me, I'll ask one question. Have you ever heard of AAVS, PCRM, COK, Farm Sanctuary, Vegan Outreach or VRG (all very large organisations that do exactly what you suggest)? Didn't think so. But you've heard of PETA. That should tell you something about how receptive people really are to new ideas. Vegetarians in our society are actually given less time and consideration than Jehovah's Witnesses (an impressive feat) knocking on the door at midnight during a keg party.

Companies "lose" many customers when they hire telemarketers (who most people consider a lot more annoying than PETA) to push their products, but they actually are "losing" far fewer customers than they are gaining. People tune out their commercials (which cost a lot more $$ than telemarketing), use their free samples without buying the product afterwards (free samples have proven virtually useless as a marketing tool in our modern economy....and it's expensive to do), and throw their mailers away without reading them (direct mail is almost as ineffective as giving away free product samples when comparing investment to yield). With telemarketing, a much smaller investment yields much greater results (in the area of 10-20 times the success rate per dollar spent) and companies aren't worried about the people they offend....because they probably wouldn't have bought what they were selling, anyway.

PETA is the same way, and they use the same mindset that companies use when hiring telemarketers. If you are bothered or offended by them, rest assured, they aren't trying to convert you (hell, you probably wouldn't have converted to vegetarianism, no matter what they did). They are trying to convert that other guy. I'm not trying to make anyone like PETA (or telemarketers). Just pointing out that PETA's goal isn't what you seem to think it is.

[ September 02, 2006, 11:06: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Well, actually, I hadn't, before this thread - but that might be because I don't think they have made it to New Zealand yet.

 

And if they did I don't think they'd survive very long in a country that relies on animal products and is actually attempting to virtually exterminate a type of animal (possum and a few others).

Then again we wouldn't stand for half the tactics they use and most would wind up in jail. We don't have laws that can be read as 'it's legal to break the law as long as you're doing <such and such>'.

 

BLABLABLABLABLA!!! Nutcases all of them!

You need examples? Okay. One of my neighbours here in Denmark had a minkfarm. And behold, one day he came up there and approx. 5000. minks had been released.

1. Minks aren´t living freely in the wild here in Denmark. Introducing the minks into the environment is nothing short of a disaster. Most indigenous animals have no chance against a mink, since they are natural born killers, so to speak.

2. Most minks still can´t survive for long, so most of them die. Starvation etc...

3. The few minks who are smart enough to survive kill on a major scale. A mink once got into my parents henhouse and went after 30 ckicken and 2 ducks. 1 mink only. They raze all in sight when they have the chance. It´s their nature. Most of the chicken weren´t dead, just mutilated severely. Me and my dad had to put them to death after that.

The problem (one of the numerous problems I might add) with these moronic animal activists is that they never consider the consequences of their actions, and pretty much make both our lives and the lives of the animals they set free a mess.

And I´ll choke all the rhinos in the world with my bare hands, if it wasn´t an animal activist (group) who released those minks. They just never found out who.

 

Could have just been some punk with a pair of bolt cutters and vandalisim on his mind but the chance of it being animal rights activists is far greater.

"Free all the animals!" and watch the eco-system try to adapt to a sudden influx of a certain type of animal... not pretty.

 

Bad example. You'll be hard pressed to actually find an animal rights activist or organisation that would support such a release (not even the ALF would do that....they'd just vandalize the place a bit, take pictures of the conditions at the facility, and release them to the press). The people that did that release were almost definitely animal rights activists, but they clearly weren't playing with a full deck.....and no more represent the values of animal rights activists than Joe Lieberman represents the values of democrats.

 

Bad example, Drew? This ain´t the first time that it´s happened here... On another farm 8000 minks were released a few years back. They got the guys. I believe it was a bunch of people from Earth First or another one of those mental disorder support groups. Besides, watch the Penn & Teller-thingie. You don´t believe that the ones in charge condone these actions?
Off-topic: Respect, man. You gotta have some b*lls to be able to say that about Joe Lieberman without fear of reprecussions from his gang o´ thugs.

 

First time or not, it's still a bad example. As a vegan, and an animal rights activist I can tell you with absolute certainty that the vast majority of animal rights activists do not condone or support such activities in any way.

First of all, releases are highly illegal activities which mainstream organisations like PETA, AAVS, VRG, PCRM, or vegan outreach don't condone due to their being, uh, illegal. The fur coat sprayings and whatnot which have been attributed to PETA were not actually endorsed or supported by them. PETA actually actively discourages such things. The closest they ever come to sponsoring illegal activity is when they sponsor the parading of half naked men and women down city streets sporting signs which state they'd rather go naked than wear fur.

Second, releases (of non-native animals) are harmful to the eco-system. Given that the vast majority of animal rights activists are also environmentalists, it is actually quite a rare thing to find an animal rights activist dumb enough to actually support such a harmful (and highly illegal) act as releasing mass numbers of alien species into the wild.

Not really. It was democrats who ousted him, even though he was an incumbent, because his values were far out of step with the values of democrats. Joe Lieberman is running as an independant, now. Lieberman may still consider himself a democrat, but the democratic leadership (and the state of Connecticut) doesn't seem to share the sentiment.

 

Point taken.