PETA

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, Paul, I really mean keeping animals in inhumane conditions. The Humane Society should have some clout but I've read that they do not because they are agricultural animals rather than pets.

I'm glad that there are some good ranchers out there. The good works of a few don't balance the bad works of the many... unless you can hunt them down and buy only from them.

There is even a market for "nice". I'd been buying "Happy Hens" eggs for quite a while, at $2.50 per dozen, but now have my own ducks. There are milk companies that promote organic & hormone free. BTW why would anyone drink milk or eat meat with hormones????
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kathryn:
I'm glad that there are some good ranchers out there. The good works of a few don't balance the bad works of the many... unless you can hunt them down and buy only from them.

There is even a market for "nice". I'd been buying "Happy Hens" eggs for quite a while, at $2.50 per dozen, but now have my own ducks. There are milk companies that promote organic & hormone free. BTW why would anyone drink milk or eat meat with hormones????[/quote]

How about bad works of the few don't outweigh the good works of the many?

Because it's a hell of a lot cheaper. Organic has no advantages over conventionally grown, and it takes up more land to do it.
 
Your statements are not making sense... How silly for me to talk about stuff like this in a gun forum... I'm cured, and will stick to gun stuff in the future. :)
 
Imagine letting domesticated cows free to run wild. They wouldn't survive a month. They were bred to do one thing, PROVIDE MILK and terrible hamburgers from McDonalds.
 
I have a problem with a PETA guy. He is feeding a flock of pigeons next to three of my customers who have to put up with the pigeons pooping all over their goods, trucks and people. All three of these customers produce food and the pigeons are a definite health hazard. The county has a law against feding pigeons but refuses to get involved. The PETA guy has been in my face about my legal measures to rid my customers of pigeons.

Last week bird watchers noticed a Perigrine Falcon nest in a cemetery across the road. The falcon is feeding on Mr PETA's pigeons (Hoo Rah!!) Mr PETA is threatning to shoot the falcon!

I believe these PETA people are unbalanced and the only reason they have a voice is that the Media loves the controversy they produce.

Geoff Ross
 
Several of the problems with these animal activists are:

1. They follow a "cause". It doesn't matter what the means is to the end. They rationalize their crimes regardless of who's property they destroy, or what truly happens to the critters they release or the people whose furs they paint.

2. Some in the movement are motivated by religious beliefs. They think of themselves of "saviors" of mother earth, which some call Guya. (ie. children indoctrinated by cartoons like "Capt. Planet" - Ted Turner invention).
Their root religious belief is that of evolutionism. They see man as nothing more than a more highly evolved animal, against what the Bible states, that we are created in God's image. They rationalize that since man is nothing more than an animal, he has no more value than one. I forget whether it was Margarett Singer or the head of PETA who once said to the effect..."As a dog, as a cat, as a child, as a rat." The article went on to compare the value of a human life to that of a rat. No difference was the conclusion. Therefore extermination through "enforced population control of the invalid, imperfect babies and elderly who are no longer productive members of society." I wrote a paper on this subject in college. This evil religious philosophy is the same rationale that Adolf Hitler's people used for the final solution to kill off Jews, Christians, Poles, Gypsies, and other lower life forms....Survival of the fitests you know.

3. The activists invarably concentrate on certain species of animals.....usually the cute ones. Hard to get an animal activist concerned about a reptile like they do about a cute little mamal w/ big eyes, regardless of their value in their ecological nitch. How many activists do you see trying to save the Komodo Dragon (Monitor)? Don't know? That's because they're all out crying about those cute little baby snow seals! I don't want to sound uncaring. I probably care more about those seals and there loss upon the environment than all of those eunuchs put together. That's because its an intellectual, NOT an emmotional issue with me. With an activist, its all based on cute little emmotional, sacarine sweet hogwash! Am I angry? No. Just emphatic. Have been around and read the writings of their nonsense and know where they are comming from.

I have absolutely nothing against the spotted owl, kangaroo rat, snow seal or any other creature. I do have something against the philosophy which deceptively exploits the innocent in order to gain money, power, and an agenda unknown by those who financially support thier causes. Some happen to do this with Moms and kids following murderous rampages. Instead of making sure that responsible adults have the liberty to arm themselves to protect the innocent, they contribute to the potential for murder by passing laws that prohibit firearms w/in 1000ft. of school property and such emmotional hogwash.

If something was bred for the purposes of food, lets kill it humanely, cook it and eat it..... as long as its not an animal activist. ;)

robert

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
 
Your comments are making perfect sense to some of us, Kathryn; don't quit yet. I became a vegetarian almost 10 years ago after reading John Robbins' book. I recommend it to everyone, even if you don't plan on giving up meat. It is an interesting read even if you only wish to argue with it.

For those of you who would espouse biblical verse in order to convince us that we are supposed to eat meat...remember, not all vegetarians are Christian... ;)

------------------
*quack*
 
Kathryn, I've been around this Board about as long as anybody; I'm not perturbed by non-gun occasionals...

Equalizer: If Gaia put us here when she made Earth, why did she give us a predator's eyes and make us omnivores? :) Riddle them that!

If we are not "supposed" to eat meat, why do we have predator's eyes and why CAN we digest meat?

If there is a moral aspects to one's diet, I can only wonder: Are animate forms of life of higher moral value than inanimate forms? A Bambi or a Thumper is of higher moral value than, say, a carrot or a beet?

Ah, but let us be consistent. A mouse, per Ingrid Newkirk, should have a higher moral value than said carrot--and therefore a Sequoia or a redwood. Sequoia root soup, anyone? Redwood leaf tea? Or do we have moral differences among veggies?

:) to all, Art

PS: Note that avoidance of growth hormones and of non-sanitary production is not at issue in my comments above...
 
I agree with Pauls post. He hits the foundation of the issue far better than I have. Its strange how various religious beliefs shape the way people think on various topics. Some of ours happen to be Biblical.
Which happens to be why I believe in good stewardship of animals....which includes humane care.

That said, I have no problem with Kathryn or anyone else who chooses to be a vegetarian. It can be a very healthy choice when there is variety in the diet, including the complete ammino acid, macro and trace mineral requirements. However, this can be a challenge. I would eventually like to raise all of my own meat and most of my produce. Its probably no cheaper, but you know what goes into it. BTW, fresh duck eggs are great. Got a malard that's been producing pretty steady now that its warm outside.

If anyone thinks from my post that I have something against folks that care much or have an emmotional affinity for animals, think again. There is nothing wrong with that. But emmotion is supposed to be a response to truth. The converse is not logical. One does not come to do or know truth because of emmotions. Emmotions should be merely a responder to information not a basis for activism. The extremists that follow a religious philosophy like that which Paul and I have stated, reach some very evil "solutions" when you see where that philosophy finally concludes. If it weren't for talk of human euthanasia, abortion, slaughter of children w/birth defects/diseases, etc., eldercide, genecide/ethnic/religious cleansing, property confiscation, and indoctrination of children in public schools, it would not be an issue with me.

It seems like many gun people, at least those here have a level head. Wonder what the correlation is?

-------
"A righteous man regards the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
 
One more point relating more to guns and emotions. A county in WV, I think it is Harrison Co., is debating an issue of euthanasia of dogs and cats at their pound. The most recent method was a bullet to the brain of the animal. I couldn't find out what gun/caliber combination. Their Humane (not human) Society wanted to go to lethal injection, because the thought of shooting an animal was , well....they never gave a reason on the news. It was just one of those nebulous guns = bad. Shot = better. I have no problem w/the most humane way of putting to sleep dogs in the pound.

I used to be a veterinary tech. I remember on one occasion when an old farmer brought in his old hound who had bad arthritis, mostly blind, etc. He didn't want to see it suffer any more and was in tears. The girl who was assigned to put it down tried to find a vein and give it an overdose of ketaset, or something. That poor farmer waited in the waiting room while that dog bellowed, and cried, and struggled, and oh how aweful. I don't know if there was much actual pain from the wrong administration of the drug, or just the needle prick. I thought to myself though, "That poor farmer probably would have handled it better and the dog not suffered had he used a 12 ga." Maybe I'm wrong, but both were in pretty bad shape for a while. The Humane Soc. never seemed to consider these matters. Its a different process with animals than it is w/capital offenders who receive lethal injection. Men receive that lethal dose after a seditive, then after unconsciousness.
 
remember if God had not wanted us to eat animals. he wouldn't have made them out of
meat!!

OK dude - what are you made out of ?

Yum! Fava beans and chianti on the way.
 
Pete Singer, of PETA, has proposed that human abortion be allowed up to 28 days after birth.

Leo Kuper wrote a book called "Genocide," in which he detailed the politics of mass murder:

1st, a target group (let's say Jews) are dehumanized in the popular imagination, so that they are removed from the realm of moral obligation.

2nd, they are denationalized: this means that they are no longer protected by the law.

3rd, they are de-capitalized. The state confiscates their property.

4th, they are re-settled.

5th, they cease to exist.

The Nazis harvested human hair and other things from KZ inmates. Abortionists are selling body parts for medical research. This beats animal experimentation, to some people's way of thinking.

Who are PETA dehumanizing in the USA? Humans.
What are they humanizing? Brute beasts.

These are not people one can compromise with.

They're the enemy.

------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!

[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited March 15, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited March 15, 2000).]
 
Kathryn I'm with you on this one. As much as I like red meat and milk in my coffee, they are by and large the worst things you can ingest. At this point "Organic" products are not well regulated and it is difficult to tell who is being honest and who is just trying to pass off a label. The best thing to do is buy all your perishables at a Farmers market. Thats what I have been doing for the past 2 years, the difference in my health has been amazing.

P.S., Good idea not to ask questions about health on a gun board. Been to the range or a computerstore lately ? Lardbutts as far as the eye can see ! ;)
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Pete Singer, of PETA, has proposed that human abortion be allowed up to 28 days after birth.[/quote]

Munro, as an English teacher and an avowed supporter of the pro-choice movement, I must take issue with your terminology. Webster's defines abortion as "the spontaneous or induced expulsion of a non-viable fetus," thereby completely invalidating the above statement.

To clarify Singer's stance, he is a proponent of euthanasia in many cases, including in the case of severely disabled infants. Your statement implies that he supports a parent's right to murder a healthy newborn baby on a whim, for no reason other than their own convenience. This is not true. Let me be perfectly clear: I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF SINGER'S IDEAS, AND I DO NOT ENDORSE THEM. I am just clarifying facts.

In doing some checking up, I have found that countless Christian and pro-life websites are having a field day bandying Singer's name about in the same breath as "pro-choice." Run a search for Peter Singer and see what I mean. You'll have to search through dozens of sites before you come across one that is not hosted by a Christian or Pro-Life organization. This does a great disservice to the pro-choice movement. Euthanasia and abortion are two separate issues. Peter Singer may be a poster child for the euthanasia movement, but his statements do not apply to the pro-choice movement in any way.

I spent most of the day today on a field trip to the Holocaust Museum with my students. Yes, the dehumanization of a race, the handicapped, and homosexuals (sorry, Christian Right)is terrible, unthinkable and wrong. Your statements against genocide, while true in their own right and applicable in an argument against Singer, have nothing to do with abortion.

I encourage anyone interested to read up on Pete Singer -- if you can find an unbiased website.

------------------
*quack*
 
Hey folks, I didn’t mean to start a shooting match.
My point is cant they come up with something other than beer?
I like a cold one just as much as the next person. The fact they
are using beer on college campuses is going to backfire.
Think of the result it might have on high school or junior high students.
Once again sorry if I’ve gotten anyone in a frenzy.
 
Kathryn...

Please realize that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is one of the largest animal rights agencies in the country (in terms of dollar contributions). Like the Federal Reserve, it is neither "Federal" nor does it have "reserves". The HSUS is nothing more than a huge generator of cash based upon emotional campaigns of the heart, with an official sounding name. It is not the same as local humane societies (Animal Cruelty Societies) which provide vital services to the community, and are primarily concerned with animal abuse issues. HSUS spends the majority of its contributions (approx. 98+%), not on prevention of animal abuses, but on executive and staff salaries, and advertising campaigns which generate more revenue. The president of HSUS "earns" a high six figure income. HSUS is a fraud.

Additionally, what the animal rights movement has perpetuated is MORE government! More controls, more regulation, more illegal land grabs, more bureaucracies, more government agents carrying firearms, more taxation, and most importantly, LESS FREEDOM for Americans.

The utopian wetdream of this movement includes eliminating our Constitution (and freedom) to further its genocidal agenda, therefore, they become but another target as the enemy of freedom. Anyone paying attention?
 
Garsh, I'm complimented by all your attention! I'm not a member of PETA, haven't researched what they do. I'm responding to these issues on a purely personal level.

My spiritual guidance discourages me from inflicting suffering on animals. I am not preaching that you all do the same. But it would behoove us all to know what we are eating, and what what business practices we are supporting. I felt some knee-jerk responses up there about how meat is good (and therefore all methods of creating meat are good).

And, BTW, my mention of organic was just to illustrate that there is a marketing appeal and demand for quality foods. I may be a fruit-n-nut case, but my budget would not allow for exclusive organic products.

And my nutritional needs are completely satisfied, believe me. Spent enuf time researching that one!
 
I saw PETA and MADD on tv the other day...PETA spokeswoman said the add wasnt intended to promote beer , but to keep people from using cows/beef be it milking or veal, or beef..
MADD was angry because they think that college age kids will see the ad and say..."hey! Beer is safer than milk.." and procede to drink up
 
I find myself basically aligned with Kathryn's views:

PETA: All animal captivity, exploitation, and hunting bad.

Kathryn, me, and many others: Cruelty and inhumane conditions bad, but not all killing, exploitation, or captivity of animals bad, provided no inhumane-ness or capricious killing. (I hope I'm not mis-stating your basic view, Kathryn).

This is a very reasonable and legitimate postition, IMO. This is why I take dogs I find to the pound. They're better off euthanized than suffering and eventually dying from starvation or being hit by a car. This is why I humanely kill pigeons and other birds who poop in my yard and on my car. There are bacteria in bird feces which is dangerous to my dogs, a higher species in my book than any bird. I think that we have a moral duty to animals which we keep captive and exploit for economic gains, to keep them in comfortable, humane conditions, with the terms comfortable and humane being elastic depending on the type of animal involved and needs and desires of that animal. Obviously, mammals, esp. intelligent ones like canines, minks, horses, etc., have a higher need for comfort and social interaction, as well as a greater capacity for mental stress due to poor conditions, than say, fish, birds, crustaceans, etc, though there are exceptions to this, such as the intelligent birds like parrots. Though I can't cite and studies for this, I think it's widely accepted that mammals need more humane treatment than others.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited March 15, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>MADD was angry because they think that college age kids will see the ad and say..."hey! Beer is safer than milk.." and procede to drink up[/quote]

Hhmm, Madd must think this is a college for the mildly retarded. Drinking beer apparently has nothing to do with the typical college experience and more about health. Well, I gotta got to the gym guys, I think I'll pound a couple 40's first though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top