PETA

S

SabbathKeepah

New member
"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." -Alex Pacheco, Director, PeTA

"We feel that animals have the same rights as retarded children." -Alex Pacheco, Director, PeTA,

Regan when asked which he would save, a dog or a baby, if a boat capsized in the ocean: "If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog." -Tom Regan

And to top it all off:

"Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses." -Ingrid Newkirk, President, PeTA,


FUCK PETA

Fucking idiots.

<P ID="signature">------------
11.jpg


"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi</P>
 
Fuck that. Those statements are idiotic. I'm not to going sugarcoat that.


<P ID="signature">------------
11.jpg


"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi</P>
 
> "Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six
> billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter
> houses." -Ingrid Newkirk, President, PeTA,

An unpleasant comparison, but a valid one if you put value on animal life. You just chewed out Lillymon for not tolerating your beliefs, but it would seem that you're just as animous towards groups of people whose values clash with yours.

<P ID="signature">----
"And dreams may come
That are everlasting
Though all just plastic too..." </P>
 
What is your opinion on the ELF?

> FUCK PETA
>
> Fucking idiots.

Just wondering.

<P ID="signature"><HR>
<CENTER>
tv.jpg
</center></P>
 
Re: What is your opinion on the ELF?

I do not approve of any terrorist organization. ELF (which PETA has donated funds too) is no different. Terrorist scum.


<P ID="signature">------------
11.jpg


"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi</P>
 
> An unpleasant comparison, but a valid one if you put value
> on animal life.

A valid comparison? I value animal life. I am in fact a vegetarian.
But comparing the slaughtering of chickens for food to the Shoah is fucking insane and extremely offensive.
PETA is stupid. Less than 5 percent of their funds actually go to helping animals. Most of it goes to coffers of these extremist and terroist organzations like ELF.



<P ID="signature">------------
11.jpg


"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi</P>
 
> Less than 5 percent of their funds actually
> go to helping animals. Most of it goes to coffers of these
> extremist and terroist organzations like ELF.

Care to back that up with some evidence?

<P ID="signature"></P>
 
> A valid comparison? I value animal life. I am in fact a
> vegetarian.

> But comparing the slaughtering of chickens for food to the
> Shoah is fucking insane and extremely offensive.
> PETA is stupid. Less than 5 percent of their funds actually
> go to helping animals. Most of it goes to coffers of these
> extremist and terroist organzations like ELF.

Let me state that I do not "support" the ELF, and especially not the ALF. I have sort of a "well, they're doing something to keep the Earth from turning into an unbreathable maze of strip malls, although they're doing it the wrong way" thing going on. The thing is, these people get labelled terrorists, even though they do not kill people, but they are placed in the same category as al-Qaeda. They are "arsonists" or more aptly, "sabateurs"...The other thing I wonder is, since they are basically a bunch of lone wolves who have no knowledge of each other, and are thus a secret organization not only from outsiders, but often from each other, how are they being funded by PETA? I have heard of various connections between individuals, as would make sense because the movements they belong to overlap and tend to attract people with extreme sentiments, but they aren't some organization with a treasury or anything like that...

<P ID="signature"><HR>
<CENTER>
tv.jpg
</center></P>
 
Terrorism does not have to involve killing. Its using fear to control or influence a large group of people.
I wouldn't put ELF in the same boat as al-Queda, but they are still terrorists.
Also, PETA has given TAX-EXEMPT money to people known to associated with ELF. Some was used for criminal defense of these terrorists but not all of it in accounted for.

<P ID="signature">------------
11.jpg


"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi</P>
 
PETA is a terrible organization.
Adbusters and the CCF are against them, too.
And I value their judgments.

<P ID="signature">:D!</P>
 
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


FUCK PETA

Fucking idiots.


<hr></blockquote>
Grr...whatever happened to that "I won't push my belief on others" mantra of yours? I retract my earlier statement, this makes you no different than Danoz, only harder to spot.

There are actually a few very interesting questions you have at your disposal here and instead of addressing them you blindly lash out at them because their belief seems so irrational to you.
Here's a hint for future discussion; if something seems completely insane to you, instead of dismissing it as 'evil' or 'idiotic', try to analyze the situation no matter how absurd it first sounds, and think; "Why on earth would they believe that?".

Instead of making a new thread I'll post it all here since it's relevant to the topic.



The capsized example earlier holds a very interesting debate, in my opinion;

Where do you draw the line of equality amongst beings in contrast to humans?

In other words, would you:
Save your pet instead of a complete stranger?
Save your pet instead of a person you utterly despise?
Save a complete stranger instead of a stray cat or dog?

And so on, and so on, there are innumerable questions you could ask here, but it all boils down to what I said earlier about where you draw the racial line and whether or not you factor in feelings and intelligence, like Tom Regan did:
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


Regan when asked which he would save, a dog or a baby, if a boat capsized in the ocean: "If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog." -Tom Regan


<hr></blockquote>
He obviously meets both the intelligence and emotional criterias seeing as he's basically saying he likes dogs more than humans, so if they are both equally intelligent he picks the dog.

A Christian is easy, they will pick a human regardless, because, after all...humans are oh so special and definitely not animals, yada yada.
They are, of course, entitled to their opinions on that, I just don't like the foundation of said opinion; self-aggrandizing.

I'm guessing the majority will save a human almost unconditionally, but I'm very interested to see what those that don't believe that think.

In the event people don't think it's an interesting question at all; ok, fine, I just know that I would almost definitely save my cat instead of a complete stranger, so at least the question isn't that obvious to everyone.
Where I draw the line? My pets.

<P ID="signature"><center><img src=http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Trucido/MegaVin.png>
Coming to cinemas near you! </center></P>
 
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


Terrorism does not have to involve killing. Its using fear
to control or influence a large group of people.


<hr></blockquote>

Is that what it is? Damn, it must suck to live under a terrorist government then. :\

<P ID="signature"><center><img src=http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Trucido/MegaVin.png>
Coming to cinemas near you! </center></P>
 
> But comparing the slaughtering of chickens for food to the
> Shoah is fucking insane and extremely offensive.

Says you. I don't think it's particularly insane to put 1/1000 the value of a human life on that of a chicken. I'm not saying I support PETA, I'm just saying that this quote represents a set of values which are not, in of themselves, a threat to you. When other people are brought into it (in the form of terrorism or whatever), it's different, but that's not what I'm responding to.

You can't expect to get respect if you can't give it. I don't care if your point of view is the majority.

<P ID="signature">----
"And dreams may come
That are everlasting
Though all just plastic too..." </P>
 
> Grr...whatever happened to that "I won't push my belief on
> others" mantra of yours? I retract my earlier statement,
> this makes you no different than Danoz, only harder to spot.

My beliefs? That was fucking offensive statement, equating the Jews of the Holocaust to chickens. Make that statement to any Jew and see the reaction.


> There are actually a few very interesting questions you have
> at your disposal here and instead of addressing them you
> blindly lash out at them because their belief seems so





> Save your pet instead of a complete stranger?

Of course not. I love my pets but human is far more important.

> Save your pet instead of a person you utterly despise?

I do not let hatred blind me so much as to dismiss someone as less than an animal.

> Save a complete stranger instead of a stray cat or dog?

The stranger if I had to choose. I do take in stray animals though.


> He obviously meets both the intelligence and emotional
> criterias seeing as he's basically saying he likes dogs more
> than humans, so if they are both equally intelligent he
> picks the dog.

Here I can be more agreeable. While I utterly disagree and do not comprehend this type of thinking I wouldn't say he was idiot for that.

> A Christian is easy, they will pick a human regardless,
> because, after all...humans are oh so special and definitely
> not animals, yada yada.

Christians believe animals are devoid of souls. I believe this as well but I think humans devoid of them as well. I always choose humans because of what they could potentially contribute to the human race. A dog or cat can supply enjoyment for a family but will not affect humanity as a whole.






<P ID="signature">------------
11.jpg


"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi</P>
 
What's with the backhanded insult? Where did I insult you?

PETA is out to lunch, I don't care what they believe as long as they don't force their stupidity on me. I still remember that letter to araphat where they address him "Your Excellency" and care more about animals than human life. Really, I love animals so much. They interest me above all, and I have a lot of respect for the other beings on Earth here with me... but PETA again, is insane. PETA may as well be a religion in the way they deify the "purity of animals". They're nuts! (certainly not worth any thread discussion).

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I retract my earlier statement, this makes you no different than Danoz, only harder to spot.

<hr></blockquote>

How arrogant. Like he needed your approval and blessing on every opinion he has in order to be as open-minded as as obviously enlightened as you. Cleary you're the intolerant one, and what's sad is the fact that you don't realise it.


<P ID="signature"></P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Danoz on 12/16/04 07:52 PM.</FONT></P>
 
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


My beliefs? That was fucking offensive statement, equating
the Jews of the Holocaust to chickens. Make that statement
to any Jew and see the reaction.


<hr></blockquote>
It's irrelevant. It's offensive to you, yes, but not only did you condemn a whole organization for what one person said (though I'm sure you have other reasons, but you failed to mention them in your display of hatred), you also fail to grasp the simple fact that it's still her opinion, and it's not any less valid than yours.
And before we start hypothesizing on what I just said, remember, you attacked her opinion. What, pray tell, has she done to you or anyone else?

You say Humans > *, then she can go around saying Chickens > *.
What, we're better because we are intelligent, or something? If so, then you are inferior to someone smarter than you? What if an alien race makes contact and they are so far advanced to us we're basically ants to them, are their lives more important than ours?

I'm not making a straw man, as I'm not saying that's what you imply, I'm just trying to explain to you that in a world based on definitions, one persons definitions isn't any less valid than anyone elses.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


Christians believe animals are devoid of souls. I believe
this as well but I think humans devoid of them as well. I
always choose humans because of what they could potentially
contribute to the human race. A dog or cat can supply
enjoyment for a family but will not affect humanity as a
whole.


<hr></blockquote>
I could nitpick on this, but I won't, I'm already fairly aware what the pro-human side of my question will respond with, so I'd rather focus my efforts on the other side (or none at all).

<P ID="signature"><center><img src=http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Trucido/MegaVin.png>
Coming to cinemas near you! </center></P>
 
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


What's with the backhanded insult? Where did I insult you?


<hr></blockquote>
Every time you display intolerance I get cranky, I'm not going to get tired of pointing out that little tidbit of information until you stop doing such (which is probably never, so I guess it's a bit futile, and so you may have a point).

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


In reply to:I retract my earlier statement, this makes you
no different than Danoz, only harder to spot.

How arrogant. Like he needed your approval and blessing on
every opinion he has in order to be as open-minded as as
obviously enlightened as you.


<hr></blockquote>
My approval? Um, I just don't like hypocrites.
You can't just go around saying how you're respectful of other peoples opinions but then proceed to take a dump on said opinions just because you believe they are too outrageous.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


Cleary you're the intolerant
one, and what's sad is the fact that you don't realise it.


<hr></blockquote>

Ah, but you underestimate me greatly, I am quite aware of my own intolerance, which actually got me thinking; is intolerance towards intolerance justified? Does that make me just as bad as you?

I'd like to think that you have the right to defend yourself and others, which, if exaggarated, may seem an awful lot like "Eye for an eye".
It, however, is not, as I will point out later; it's still defense. Defense of what? Humanity.

Am I really just defending by attacking you even at my own leisure, though (meaning, are even cheap shots justified)? Yes indeed.
See, for it to stop counting as self-defense, you have to retaliate enough for the attack to cease being a threat. When you attack with intolerance, you are threatening everyone, and everyone are justified to retort until the intolerance is gone. This also means there is no "Eye for an eye" mentality at all, it's still just defense against something which hurts humanity as a whole.

<P ID="signature"><center><img src=http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Trucido/MegaVin.png>
Coming to cinemas near you! </center></P>
 
What makes you think you know me so well? Where have I been intolerent of anybody? Seriously, show me. So I disagree with abortion. That makes me intolerant? As far as I can tell, you don't understand the meaning of the word.


<P ID="signature"></P>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom