PETA: know-nothing hypocrites

Posted by clyde on March 24, 2008 at 1:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey! I'm a member of PETA: People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

Posted by flash1 on March 24, 2008 at 5:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good post Ray. You are exactly right!!!!

Posted by primafacie on March 24, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If eating animals is bad, why do they keep making them out of food?

Posted by Earl on March 24, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

eat more beef, its whats for dinner.

Posted by DoubleChubbyChuck on March 24, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A cheeseburger a day keeps PETA away.

Posted by Mike_In_Hartsel on March 24, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Love the replies.

Ray didn't mention PETA's campaign to embarsass people who wear fur. Freedom of speech doesn't include spraying fake animal blood on people's clothing to make a point. PETA is a terrorist organization. If you don't agree with them they will come after you.

Posted by outrider on March 24, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For being so Liberal they sure are Conservative.

Linda McCartney was Veggie sure didn't "Help" her any.

Good ol Sam Elliot knows.

Posted by Wolfgang on March 24, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

PETA Senior Vice President Mary Beth Sweetland is a diabetic and uses insulin daily. Insulin was developed through animal testing - the very thing PETA is adamantly against.

I guess animal testing is bad only if she doesn't benefit from it.

Posted by kathyM on March 24, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

PETA is probably going to give an award to the scum who killed Meredith Emerson but "couldn't bring himself" to kill her dog.

Posted by NotChasB on March 24, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I see we are all in agreement so far about the nuts in PETA.

PETA doesn't love animals, they just "Hate" people!

Posted by Michael on March 24, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I always make room for poor, mistreated animals - right next to the mashed potatoes and salad!!!!

Posted by RickyLee on March 24, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A prairie dog in every pot!

Posted by GWM on March 24, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Charles_B should be kinder to puppies.

Posted by Tbone on March 24, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder if Ray has stopped beating his wife yet?

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mike_in_Hartsel: "Freedom of speech doesn't include spraying fake animal blood on people's clothing to make a point. PETA is a terrorist organization."

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant people are that by shutting down the voice of animal rights advocates, they are paving the way for curbing many of their own rights that they take for granted.

You may hate PETA, but not a single animal rights advocate has ever killed another human being. On the other hand, several anti-abortionists have killed doctors and bombed clinics.

Does that mean pro-life organizations should be tarred with the label of "terrorism" because of the actions of a few? And if those organization wants to contribute some money to the legal defense of those few, does that make them terrorists?

By the way, if throwing paint on people is what we're going to start calling terrorism, then we are a nation of wimps who will soon see our jails swamped with anyone who happens to get in a brawl with someone else.

Posted by gr8fuldude on March 24, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

PETA is the equal to the jehova's witnesses. They fully believe that they alone can dictate to the world how it eats.

Why is it that people who eat a balanced diet (some meat, some fish, some veggies, some grains, some dairy, etc) NEVER go around pushing their diet on others, but fringe groups such as this feel perfectly happy telling the majority how to live.

Think I'm doing a nice steak for lunch.

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, the next time you hear of animal abuse, take note that the undercover investigation was probably done by an animal advocacy group like PETA and the Humane Society. Not the government agencies who are by law supposed to be providing oversight for these sorts of things.

Take for example the recent Hallmark slaughterhouse abuse of diseased and sick cows that made their way into our children's school lunches. Your taxpayer funded Department of Agriculture did not uncover this. The Humane Society did.

Or, remember the IAMS scandal of testing hundreds of dogs and cats, cutting out huge chunks of their muscle to "examine" the tissue and debarking - i.e, severing the vocal cords - dogs because the sound was getting on the vet's nerves. No government agency uncovered this. PETA did.

And let's not forget "researchers" who live off fat taxpayer-funded grants while performing some of the cruelest experiments you could imagine. Let me assure you, a lot of these "Studies" have nothing to do with saving lives, and what's more, rely on re-testing that has been done dozens of times already in the past with the same results. Once again, animal rights groups uncover these things; our government does not.

If you don't give a damn about animals, just admit it. But don't accuse groups that do of being "terrorists" just because their tireless efforts annoyingly remind you of how callous and indifferent your own stance on animal welfare is.

Posted by NotChasB on March 24, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense

Typical supporter of PETA and nut that you are. In your sick mind you lower human beings to the level of animals and raise animals to the level of human beings. You equate the killing of animals to the murder of children in the womb. The idiots that killed those child killers and butchers were just as bad as the so called doctors they murdered. These nuts were not part of any legitamite or true Christian Right to Life organization and have never condone this sort of violence. We leave that to the abortionists and people like you who do support taking innocent life as a self imagined right. Kind of like the right the Nazis had when it came to killing Jews ans others. They also had immoral laws passed that allowed them to commit these inhuman things. If we endorsed murdering abortionists we would lower ourselves to your level mytwosense.

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NotChasB: "If we endorsed murdering abortionists we would lower ourselves to your level mytwosense."

I repeat, not a single animal rights advocate has ever killed another human being in their efforts to help animals. Ever.

By the way, vegetarianism honors ALL of God's creation, not just mankind.

Posted by Eli on March 24, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mytwosense,
Freedom of speech does not include assault, which is what throwing paint on people amounts to. Protesting is one thing, and PETA crosses the line with actions like that.
Groups like ELF can fairly be considered terrorist organizations because they claim responsibility for their terrorist actions, as opposed to the actions of a few individuals against abortion clinics and/or doctors which were widely condemned by the pro-life community.

Posted by peterpi on March 24, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My word! I don't think I've even seen this much vitriol against gay people or abortion in comments on letters!
You like meat? Keep eating it! But I also hope PETA keeps pointing out the sometime barbaric practices we use to raise it. Even a fundamentalist Christian writer has condemned our meat raising practices.
So some PETA members want us to be vegetarians. Guess what? It's their right and privilege to urge us to do so. We can keep right on eating cheeseburgers and raw tuna if we wish, but they can also protest if they wish. I happen to agree with them on fur. To take a living animal, sometimes endangered animals, and kill it, sometimes cruelly, only for its skin, but not use any other part of it, is wasteful and vain. Yes, I wear leather shoes, but guess what? That leather comes from domesticated cows that society also consumes the meat from and finds other uses for. Same with pigs. To kill a tiger or wild fur-bearing critter just so you can show how rich and arrogant you are is asinine.
grt8fuldude, when was the last time PETA or Jehovah's Witnesses tried to force someone to be vegetarian? Orthodox Jews and Muslims feel that their members should not eat certain animals or certain combinations of foods. Does that put them in the same category also?
Don't like PETA? Don't listen to them. It'd that simple.
I'll take red paint thrown on a fur coat over a bullet fired at a doctor any day.

Posted by Eli on March 24, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I'll take red paint thrown on a fur coat over a bullet fired at a doctor any day."
Both behaviors are unacceptable. Pointing to somebody else and saying that their action was worse doesn't make one's own behavior any better. The saying "two wrongs don't make a right" comes to mind.

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eli, PETA definitely crosses lines, but that's how they get attention to animal abuse to a very uninformed public. I honestly believe if people knew even 25% of the atrocities committed to animals, they would be repulsed, yes, even NotChasB.

But the agriculture, vivisection and entertainment industries have billions of dollars to pay lobbyists and execute savvy marketing campaigns that keep the public under the impression all cows are happy and graze in endless green meadows, that all animal testing is done to save human lives, and that animals in circuses and zoos live a blissful existence.

Our regulatory agencies do NOTHING to dispel this notion.

It's the tireless, thankless efforts of ordinary grassroots citizens who risk their lives doing undercover investigations to bring this information to the public.

I have an incredible amount of respect for anyone who will get out there and risk being called a "terrorist" in their efforts to improve the lives of animals. Our society has a tendency to brand these people as "nuts" but these people aren't trying to win a popularity contest. They just want to extend human decency and compassion to other living beings in addition to humans.

Unfortunately, there is a misconception that this means they hate people. Not so. Most of my animal rights friends have children, and also are involved in causes that better the lives of people, too. Generally, animal rights folks have a wealth of compassion, a virtue that has been distorted in our society today into something that is somehow wrong and dangerous.

Posted by gr8fuldude on March 24, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Uhm, peterpi -
See attached: http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/30...

I have personally no business in yours or anyone else's diet. Kindly stay out of mine.

Posted by me2 on March 24, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Anti-Charles, you misread mytwosense`s post. Try again. You injected your pet agenda (joke) into the comparisons made, called names and threw insults that had nothing to do with the actual post.

You did not "hit a nerve" "make a point" or any of the other things you constantly brag about. I know that by pointing out your posting deficiencies you will crow about your effect on me, oh well, another misunderstanding on your part.

You also did not refute anything in the post.

I suspect that a rational discussion is impossible with you. I see you as an angry, single white male, mid thirties or younger, who lives in a rented apartment, works a low level job and drives an old beater. I can envision you on weekends, carrying picket signs about abortion with the rest of your overweight, unattractive male losers. I guess you made it through high school only, haven`t traveled much and if you did, you stayed away from learning anything about the countries you were in. It would surprise me if you attend a regular Christian church, I see you as a "Church of the open door" or "pillar of fire" member.

I don`t think you have an i.q. number high enough to melt chocolate. Look it up on Google.

Ordinarily I don`t too often care what you write, haven`t called you sick, nuts or an idiot as others have, but today you just brought out the nasty in me because all week you have been patting yourself on the back for your inane comments.

If voodoo worked I would make a doll of you and glue the fingers together so you could not type.

Of course I could have the wrong mental picture of you. Maybe you are skinny.

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gr8fuldude, that campaign is nothing on a par with the Jehovah Witnesses!

And how about the dairy industry stay out of my diet? I would like to not be subjected to misleading ads stating milk is a "diet" food that will help me lose weight, and I would also like my child, once he's in school, to have an option of soy milk in the cafeterias, not just dairy milk.

Posted by Eli on March 24, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Raising awareness is one thing, but it is certainly fair to call ELF a terrorist organization for the following reasons:
In 1998 $12 million in damage was done in Vail due to fires started by ELF
In 2000, ELF burned thirty SUV's at a dealership resulting in damage of $1 million.
In 2001, $7 million in damage was caused by fires at the Center for Urban Horticulture at the University of Washington, for which ELF claims responsibility
In 2003, a 206-unit condominium was burned. Damages totaled $50 million and a banner was left which was signed "The E.L.F.s are mad". Three weeks later, 125 SUVs were burned, with total damages of $3.5 million. A month later, more homes under construction in San Diego were burned, costing $450,000
In 2005, a 9,600 square foot home was burned, causing $3 million in damage
March 3rd of this year, four homes in Woodinville, Washington were burned causing $7 million in damage.

This is without a doubt a terrorist organization.

Posted by gr8fuldude on March 24, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That campaign is on the exact same level as the Witnesses: "I'm saved (or fill in whatever blank), you're not, unless I can somehow beat you into submission to my habits. Then, and only then are you "ok"...
And as to soy milk, can't you pack your own child's lunches? Last I knew, kids don't always gravitate toward what their parents want. Packing a lunch with what you want your child to consume might be a good start, rather than depending on the school cafeteria (remember the whole "ketchup is a vegetable" thing a few years back).

All that said, you do your thing, I'll do mine - Montgomery Gentry

Posted by Eli on March 24, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To be clear, this is not to say that PETA is a terrorist organization. If they do in fact provide any support to organizations like ALF or ELF then they should be prosecuted, but as far as I'm aware there isn't any evidence of this.

Posted by peterpi on March 24, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gr8fuldude,
That link encourages people to ask other people to become vegetarian. If you don't want to, become the Nancy Reagan of vegetarianism and "just say no".
mytwosense,
Great point about the dairy industry. Kids (beyond the age of being weaned from breast milk) don't "need" milk. They need the nutrients that milk and other sources provide. Calcium, manganese or magnesium, protein, etc. can all be met in a child's diet without a drop of milk. But the dairy industry has, um, "persuaded" Congress and federal regulators that kids have to have cow's milk.

Posted by gr8fuldude on March 24, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pererpi - The Bible encourages people to ask other people to become Christian, so when can I take up some of your time to tell you to do something that I know you will have no intention of doing, just so I can be satisfied in knowing that I wasted your time to get you to do something that I know you have no intention of doing?

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eli, I'm talking about people calling PETA terrorists. As for ELF, I believe their cause is environmentalism and not the group who PETA supposedly donated money to once, for a few members' legal defense.

That group may have been ALF, Animal Liberation Front, and I don't know what the charge was that had their members on trial. In fact, I really don't know much about them. I went to Google their name once to see what all the fuss was about, then had second thoughts when I realized the National Security Agency is probably tracking such searches!

gr8fuldude: "And as to soy milk, can't you pack your own child's lunches?"

Sure, and I plan to. However, my tax money goes to fund a product in our schools whose health benefits I don't believe in and whose methods of producing I don't approve of. Again, I reserve the right to speak out against that, as I certainly view it as a coercement of what I should put in my child's diet. Certainly more so than a benign "I'll go Veg for 30 days" campaign.

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eli, we must have posted at the same time. Anyway, if PETA did contribute that money to ALF members' legal defense fund, I don't think it was a crime at the time. Today, it probably would be considered so.

Posted by The_Punnisher on March 24, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

South Park handled the PETA fanatics in the proper fashion; These people love their animals.....;-)....

I didn't rise to the top of the food chain by eating rabbit food.

Posted by greenleaf on March 24, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I debated whether this was even a discussion I should wade into.

Let me start by saying that I am not a PETA member. I am mostly vegetarian for health and environmental reasons but do still eat fish and, on occasion, poultry. I also wear leather belts and shoes.

I have seen how animals are killed ( on the farm ) and at it's best it isn't pretty. I have always believed that if we had to purchase live chickens and other animals at the store to kill and butcher ourselves, that far less meat would be eaten.

Knowing that animals raised in factory farm settings live short, uncomfortable lives has led my family to reject almost all meat consumption.

Most people have heard of the negative effects of red meat consumption on human health. These are many and well documented so I won't even address that here.

What I find surprising is the fact that people don't understand what it takes to maintain a meat diet. It takes 10 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef, chicken or pork. When it comes to your pocketbook , your health and feeding the maximum number of people, it makes more sense to cut out the middleman and eat the grain yourself. To produce meat , the farmer first has to produce grain using water, fertilizer and energy. More energy must be used to transport grain to the rancher who then uses more water and energy to grow his animals. The rancher also uses antibiotics in wholesale quantities to protect his overcrowded animals from disease. These antibiotics then make it into the meat you eat and even into our waterways. Antibiotic resistance by E coli bacteria in particular is increasing due in large part to the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture.

Then there is the sheer waste of the waste. Pig farms, in particular have caused major pollution problems in nearby waterways and even nearby wells when their containment ponds have failed.

These are the reasons my family eats so little meat, and we eat less each year. Fish once a week and chicken once or twice/ month that's about it.

I don't fault anyone for showing concern over life whether it's human or animal. The people who belong to PETA have every right to their opinions, as do people who are opposed to abortion or war, or destruction of the environment. On one level or another, we are all talking about the same thing, a reverence for life.

My opinions have not been influenced by PETA and,in fact, I don't believe I have ever met a card carrying PETA member. I also question whether Mr. King can support his allegations that PETA is associated with any terrorist groups. It seems a bit of a stretch.

While I don't share PETA members zeal for protecting animals, I do understand their desire to respect life.

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

greenleaf: "The people who belong to PETA have every right to their opinions, as do people who are opposed to abortion or war, or destruction of the environment. On one level or another, we are all talking about the same thing, a reverence for life."

Thank you. This was the point I was trying to get across when I talked about the dangers of labeling PETA a terrorist group, because the law will eventually interpret such labels to other organizations concerned with protecting life.

You got the point across much more clearly and eloquently than I obviously did.

Posted by NotChasB on March 24, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense

I didn't mis-read anything. Why did you even bring up that fake argument in the first place of PETA not killing anyone but accussing Pro-Life people of killing so-called doctors that kill kids and bringing up the whole abortion issue with your rantings in the first place as a smoke screen. What does that have to do with this issue?

You started this and I did refute your sick comparision and hit that big fat nerve in your body or you would not have mentioned it and then tried to deny it. It also show how low people like you will go to defend the undefendable. If the things I say to you offend and insult you then stop fitting into them. You think you can say what ever truly offensive thing and lie about pro-life advocates and escape a reprimand. What entitles you to that?

Your statements and words just show others here how low you will stoop.

That NotChasB is being mean to me for nothing Boo! Hoo! with your crocodile tears running down your cheeks.

Posted by MGD on March 24, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I seriously doubt that you can truthfully make a statement like no animal rights activist has ever killed another human. No, I'm not going to go to google and search for it but I suspect you are guessing and that you don't really know that.

Feed lots are disgusting. Beef, chicken, pork, fish shouldn't be massed produced. Don't support factory farms, there are organic and free range substitutes. Or you can do what I do and hunt for your food. No success in elk season and I'm a vegitarian until next year. A few pheasants and some geese are always good to have in the freezer.

Posted by MGD on March 24, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Furthermore, if you don't like PETA you can write a few anonymous comments on this board or you can provide a better alternative. Show a responsible way to raise animals, one that doesn't have serious environmental and health consequences.

I think I'll have a steak for lunch too but mine used to be part of a free-ranging elk.

Posted by gr8fuldude on March 24, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MGD - You make an excellent point in that most game is MUCH lower in fat, and far healthier than what you can buy in the store. Provided you clean the game correctly, you will be eating much healthier.

All this said, my wife is Asian, and we eat accordingly. She cooks a variety, and it is all delicious. This weekend we Pho Ga (chicken noodle soup), TonKatsu (fried pork chops) and vegetable soup, all with generous portions of rice and salad. Niether of us are obese, and I run marathons in my spare time.

Balance in one's diet is a good thing.

Posted by NotChasB on March 24, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense

If you support abortion and vote for canidates that support this barbaric practice, then your hands are just as bloody as the abortionists tha performs the actual killing and you knew that is exactly what I said and meant.

Just like the German people who supported Hilters policies againts Jews even if they were not in the camps gasing and mudering them pesonally. That is how you lower yourself to the level of a muderer. Keep playing your little word and mind games and I will expose each and every one. Poor little ole innocent me and bad old NotChasB.

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MGD: "I seriously doubt that you can truthfully make a statement like no animal rights activist has ever killed another human. No, I'm not going to go to google and search for it but I suspect you are guessing and that you don't really know that."

Please don't accuse me of being untruthful, randomly making up guesses, and not knowing what I'm talking about. I can assure you I've done the research you admit yourself you don't feel like doing. To the best of my knowledge, it's a fact that no animal rights advocate has ever killed a human, at least not related to animal-rights activities.

Posted by NotChasB on March 24, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MGD

We already have legitamite and sane organizations for the well being of animals. They are called the Humane Society and the SPCA.
We don't idiot extremists like PETA and their defenders. They only make concern for animals a joke.

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gr8fuldude: "All this said, my wife is Asian, and we eat accordingly. She cooks a variety, and it is all delicious. "

Actually, it is common practice in Asia to also eat dogs, cats, and any number of endangered species. Many Asians carry this practice over to the US when they come to live here.

Does your wife?

Posted by gr8fuldude on March 24, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Twosense -
A big part of most Asian cultures is respect: respect for customs, identity and honor. That means you don't come to America and expect to disrespect their customs regarding dogs, cats and endangered species.

All that said, there is VERY little obesity in most of Asia. We as a culture could learn much from them.

Posted by NotChasB on March 24, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MGD
Anything mytwosense posts as you have already read is not credible and is very disingenuous. She should be in politics with her talent for double-speak.

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gr8fuldude: "All that said, there is VERY little obesity in most of Asia. We as a culture could learn much from them."

Are you suggesting that Americans should follow these dietary practices? I am struggling to interpret your comment as meaning anything else. Here's some info for anyone considering such a diet:

About Korea's dog markets: http://www.seoulsearching.com/DogMeat...

About China's dog markets: http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/dog...

Posted by gr8fuldude on March 24, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Twosense -
Nice try, but please spare us the doubelspeak. My wife is Japanese, and as I said, we go heavy on the fish, veggies, rice and some meat. For the record, no cat, dog, rat, or anything similar.

Please try to stay on topic, which is the hypocrisy of PETA and the like.

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gr8fuldude: "Please try to stay on topic, which is the hypocrisy of PETA and the like."

Are you serious?

You made the decision to veer the conversation off its original topic by bringing up your wife's ethnicity, and that you eat according to that ethnicity. When I pointed out what that ethnicity commonly eats, you decided you didn't like the conversation after all.

Hypocrisy?

Pot meet kettle.

Posted by kathyM on March 24, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with NotChasB that the Humane Society and SPCA are doing a great job of protecting animals. PETA members' zealousness crosses the line: destroying property, supporting/praising other anti-human groups, and declaring everyone but themselves to be immoral.

BTW, Japan and China have the highest rates of gastric cancers in the world. Is that from their healthful diets?

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kathyM: "PETA members' zealousness crosses the line: destroying property, supporting/praising other anti-human groups, and declaring everyone but themselves to be immoral."

Again, having compassion for animals does not cancel out compassion for humans.

It's clear to me you do care about animals, or you wouldn't even cite the good works of other advocacy groups. I wish you were aware of all the good PETA has done for animals, but I can understand why some of their more extreme tactics might put you off from learning more. Personally, I give PETA an enormous amount of credit for getting a lot of animal rights issues on the map.

Progress simply cannot be made if the public isn't aware of these issues, and let me tell you, PETA might be well-funded compared with some other non-profits, but their balance sheet is nothing compared to the billions of dollars available to the industries who hate what PETA and other groups are trying to accomplish.

With all that against PETA and other animal rights advocates, it is not easy to be roundly hated and decidedly outfunded, and yet still continue to do work you believe is necessary for creating a less miserable world for animals. I am sure you have beliefs that you hold very dear, and have often landed you in situations where you're the lone voice of dissent. Try to keep that in mind the next time you call PETA members anti-human. Thanks.

Posted by peterpi on March 24, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, the topic is PETA and animals, but NCB compared the Holocaust to abortion, so:
I don't care how they pretended otherwise, but every sane German knew that the victims of the harsh labor camps, death camps, exection vans, and execution squads were living breathing independent human beings. To compare the mass oganized systematic state-controlled and run execution of roughly 10 - 12 million people to a woman's decision to have an abortion is repulsive.
NCB, if abortion is murder and the doctor is a murderer, what does that make the woman who requests and pays for the procedure? Should she be subject to the same law you would subject the doctor? And please, spare me the argument that the woman was an unwilling participant or was sweet-talked into it or didn't know what she was doing.

Posted by MrPeabody on March 24, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PETA is a hypocritcal organization and should not be regarded as the only organization that protects animals.

The END justifies the means appears to be their credo. Look up and research what has been happening to UCLA faculty members who have and/or had done research on animals. Whether or not I agree with their using animals in their research is irrelevant. These tactics are unacceptable and criminal.

PETA wasn't very happy when their usual practice of euthanasia of animals in its' shelters was exposed to the public. It kind of hurt their image - the false one they tried to project.

Posted by greenleaf on March 24, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense,

Thank you for the compliment regarding my earlier posting. I should thank you doubly as I don't believe anyone else even looked at it!

I feel as though I should come to your aid but when I see how samurai-like you fight a host of opposing voices, I almost feel as though I should get out of the way and let you soldier nobly on.

To all the rest of you posters: You might disagree with mytwosense, but I imagine you have a begruging respect for this determined debater. Even if the rest of you don't, I certainly do!

Putting aside the matter of PETA for a moment, how do the rest of you show a reverence for life in your daily lives? Do any of you love friends, family, pets or nature? I bet everyone posting today has a reverence for one or more of those things. Think how you might feel if something or somebody you love was threatened. You know you would want to protect them. It's no different whether you are pro-life, anti- abortion , anti war, anti abuse or anti-rape.

I love the natural world and work to protect it daily, with words, with money, with my vote and with non-violent actions. I would never hurt innocents or destroy property. I hope that you wouldn't either.

I think we have to be careful how we call others terrorists. I believe most animal rights activists, and that probably includes most PETA members, are non-violent and only interested in protecting something they love.

Posted by jconder45 on March 24, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by gr8fuldude on March 24, 2008 at 11:26 a.m.
I have personally no business in yours or anyone else's diet. Kindly stay out of mine.

Exactly! If I want to eat a human liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti, that's my right as an American, dammit!

Posted by greenleaf on March 24, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jconder45,

Best change your nom de plume to Hannibal and learn to like straight jackets!

Posted by KW on March 24, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mts - While throwing paint on someone may not be the desires of the majority of PETA members, those who do such acts are guilty of assault and can and should be prosecuted and jailed. That sort of behavior is totally unacceptable from any group or individual.

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

greenleaf, thanks for the encouraging words. They made my day! :)

KW: "While throwing paint on someone may not be the desires of the majority of PETA members, those who do such acts are guilty of assault and can and should be prosecuted and jailed. That sort of behavior is totally unacceptable from any group or individual."

I imagine they often are jailed for doing that, or similar such actions. Personally, I couldn't participate in that kind of behavior, although I can definitely empathize with the anger behind it. For example, every time I see a picture of J.LO draped in the skins of about ten different animals...grrrr....

Posted by KW on March 24, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah mts, that sort of picture makes me go grrrr too. Although I suspect for a completely different reason than yours!

Posted by GetReal on March 24, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense-

Do you have any leather apparel, shoes or furniture?

Do you use glue?

How about medicines, cosmetics, buttons, toothbrushes, toothpaste, mouthwash, detergents, soap, wallpaper, paint, plastics, glass, oil, antifreeze, tires, heart valves?

Yes, these are all made from animals and animal by-products.

You may need to re-evaluate your whole life.

Posted by jconder45 on March 24, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My reaction to this letter and to this entire chain is a "SO WHAT?" Yeah, I don't like PETA either, they're extremists and hypocrites, but, frankly, I'm not much worried about them. I'm much more worried about multinational corporations shipping mine and my neighbor's job overseas, abetted by Bush-Cheney, and by the Fed usiong my hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to bail out bloated Wall Street firms for their bad business decisions. I really couldn't give a crap about PETA.

Posted by greenleaf on March 24, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

KW,

I guess we see what part of life you have reverence for :>). Although when you think of it, wouldn't it be better from your point of view if she wasn't draped in furs for that very same reason? As you said : "grrr"!

Now the serious point: She doesn't need furs to be beautiful, no woman does! I would never buy furs for my wife and she knows that, not that she wants furs anyway.

Maybe a 150 years ago I could have worn furs out of necessity, but there are so many alternatives today (including faux fur) that there is no reason to raise and kill animals strictly for their fur.

Posted by KW on March 24, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

greenleaf - I had the very same thought regarding the furs right as I hit the post button. So I guess I'm in total agreement... lose the furs baby!

Posted by greenleaf on March 24, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GetReal,

While I'm sure that some of the items you mentioned have some animal products in them, I do question some items you mentioned. Buttons for example are mostly made of petroleum based plastic much as cars are mostly made of oil based rubber and steel belts. Then there's glass, which I believe is made of melted and then cooled silicone dioxide, limestone and soda ash. Are you thinking that the limestone was taken from living clams, oysters and other mollusks? Could you explain?

Posted by mytwosense on March 24, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GetReal: "mytwosense-

Do you have any leather apparel, shoes or furniture?

Do you use glue?

How about medicines, cosmetics, buttons, toothbrushes, toothpaste, mouthwash, detergents, soap, wallpaper, paint, plastics, glass, oil, antifreeze, tires, heart valves?

Yes, these are all made from animals and animal by-products.

You may need to re-evaluate your whole life."

Get Real, don't you think that as an animal rights advocate, I've studied the subject of all the unlikely products that have animal ingredients in them?

You left out film, Jello, white sugar, and many beers and wines.

To answer your question, I don't wear or buy leather products, and I can't remember the last time I bought glue. Of course, all sorts of products these days have glue in them, and I am sure some are around my house.

So yeah, I get the point that it's challenging to be completely vegan. But actually, its not as difficult as it used to be. There are so many cruelty-free products available now, including cosmetics and toothpaste and even high fashion clothes.

Medicines and surgery techniques are increasingly developed with more accurate testing methods instead of old animal testing standards that give uncertain results. In fact, the European Union is really leading the way in this direction, and I believe on the verge of outlawing animal testing.

jconder45: "I'm much more worried about multinational corporations shipping mine and my neighbor's job overseas, abetted by Bush-Cheney, and by the Fed usiong my hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to bail out bloated Wall Street firms for their bad business decisions. I really couldn't give a crap about PETA."

As my many posts on this forum will attest, I manage to find time to worry about these and other issues facing Americans, even while caring about the plight of animals. Once again, concern for animals does not cancel out concern for humans.

Posted by greenleaf on March 24, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense,

Tires and glass are made from animal by-products?

Posted by GetReal on March 24, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

greenleaf-

Inedible animal tallow provides several fatty acids that are key ingredients in most plastics, which would also answer your button question, although before plastics, actual slices of animal horns and bone were used.

Inedible tallow is also used in the production of rubber and lubricants.

The largest use of edible tallow is in the making of baking and frying oil, and I'm sure you are aware that oil extracted from fish or marine mammals has been used for centuries.

Processed animal fats are also used to form compounds known as isopropenyl esters, one use of which is a durable glass coating used to reduce breakage.

By the way, have you noticed ever since McDonalds was extorted into moving to a tallow-less based cooking oil their frys don't taste near as good?

Posted by me2 on March 24, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Man, I hate to tell you all this but petroleum is an animal by-product. It comes from the body oils of Foraminiferia. Coal, however, comes from leaves.

Course the Forams have been dead millions of years and the plants have too.

Well, I just wanted to lighten up these posts.

Posted by greenleaf on March 24, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GetReal,

Thanks - it's been 30 years since I studied biochemistry. I had no idea!
It's also been that long since I ate at McDonald's so I'm afraid I can't help with that!

Posted by kathyM on March 24, 2008 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense, There is a huge difference between LAWFULLY advocating decent treatment of animals and attacking those who use animals properly. PETA and its overzealous counterparts do both. So does that make their illegal tactics OK? A PETA member's testifying at a congressional hearing does not make him or her morally immune when torching a reserach laboratory--or publishing names of their "enemies" and encouraging the harassment of same.

BTW, yes I do love animals. I adopted all my pets from a shelter or the street. One of my favorite TV shows is Animal Planet's "Animal Precinct." But just because I don't agree with PETA does not mean I advocate animal cruelty. I don't agree with ANY organization that threatens or commits harm as a means of gaining attention or scaring others into following their demands.

Posted by MGD on March 24, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Twoface, just do the google search on animal rights activst murder. You didn't do any research or you would not have made that statement. You are a liar on this point and therefore anything you post here is suspect at best.

I did one search on Yahoo and copied links to just the first 5 stories. Try it yourself.

Making up facts is not the same as making a point.

Stop, drop, and roll 'cause your pants are on fire.
Liar!

http://www.theharryrowellfamily.org/g...
http://www.cdfe.org/ecomurder.htm
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressR...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/art...
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/08022...

Posted by greenleaf on March 25, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MGD,

Don't you think your message would be better received without the insult and harsh delivery?

I examined the links you posted. two examine one disturbed Dutch activist who apparently killed a man of opposing views. Two sites reported on a senate inquiry investigating the animal liberation front. Its leader gave testimony that he believed murder to be justifiable in defence of animals in a research setting.

Your point is well taken but not well delivered. I have read Mytwosense's contributions on a number of occasions and I have never seen any defence of violence. I have seen a passionate defence of the natural world which I share but never with any support of violence as a means to any desirable end.

Personally, I would be surprised if there aren't hundreds of animal rights activists worldwide who would consider vandalism or even violence as a tactic. I am not surprised that someone, somewhere has been murdered by a fanatic. Unfortunately, fanatics kill people daily. Thousands of people through the centuries have been murdered for the cause of peace, ironic as that is. It takes thousands of moderate, well-intended people to maintain a movement. If many animal rights activists were murderers and vandals governments around the world would have shut them down long ago.

In this forum, Mts has defended her beliefs against a dozen posters of opposing views. They attacked and Mts responded time after time. You might have caught Mts in a mistake, but this is not someone who is a "Twoface" or a "liar".

Posted by mytwosense on March 25, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MGD, are you really that confident in sources from a rodeo family's personal website, and a PR firm funded by the restaurant, alcohol, and tobacco industries? In other words, two groups that absolutely hate animal rights activists?

I did some digging on their claim that the killing was because of animal rights. It was pretty difficult, because the links they sourced to supposed AP and Reuters articles didn't work. Finally, I discovered the murderer, a vegan Dutch man who was with an environmental group I've never heard of, said he killed the politician to "stop him from targeting the weak parts of society to score points" and "he had hoped that the leaders of other political parties would deliver substantial critique on Fortuyn, but that it never happened. Instead, Fortuyn had the talent to channel criticism so that it never touched him."

In other words, he never claimed or stated the murder was motivated by animal rights. And my statement said "To the best of my knowledge, it's a fact that no animal rights advocate has ever killed a human, at least not related to animal-rights activities."

In fact, the politician who was killed was supposedly known to be an animal lover and developing animal-friendly policies.

Yeah, the shooter was a vegan and had a history of working for environmental and animal rights issues. But, I don't think this case was motivated by animal rights, or the guy would have admitted that was his reason.

And that's exactly what my statement said - no activist has ever killed someone because of animal rights issues. This shooter was just an unstable assassin with a political grudge, period.

But the biased sources you cite flat out lied and said otherwise. So I suppose I could take your tactics and scream that you're a liar, but I don't use the Internet as a shield to talk in an ill-mannered way to someone that I would never do in real life.

Posted by MGD on March 25, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay GL, you are right the insult was not necessary but it got my point across quite clearly. I don't completely disagree with MTS but for her to make a claim that no ARA has ever commited a murder is just a guess and I called her on it.

She then claimed that she had done the research, which is a lie. The original statement may have been a mistake but she made it a lie when she claimed to have done the research. To be honest, I didn't even read the links. Had I done proper research I'm sure I could have found more examples. My point is that you lose all credibility when you post false statements which she knowingly did.

Your post was well thought out, well written and made several statements in support of your opinion. I found it a good read and felt no reason to comment, if I had it would have been to say good points. In other words, you represented your self and your opinion wwell which is likley the reason no one really responded. I might find some minor points to disagree with but your open and honest opinions are not subject to the debate of a bold-face lie.

I don't eat factory farmed meat, poultry, or fish. I help to support financially, a no-kill shelter. I eat only as much red meat as I can hunt and kill during archery season. Well, I have been to dinner parties where I got some beef but I'm 95% off beef unless I buy organic. I think fur is human arrogance and cruelty made into fashion. I wear leather belts and shoes but have started looking into alternatives. I don't use plastic grocery bags or anything with styrofoam, I recycle close to 75% of my total trash output and will begin composting in a couple of weeks. I ride my bike or the bus to work nearly all the time. I buy local, organic produce.

These are examples of what I am doing, and I didn't have to lie or misrepresent myself to make my point. Had I come on this board reprersenting hunters and then made inaccurate claims and accusations, I would have made invalid any good positve influences that I might have otherwise had.

MTS, you don't have to defend every point of view opposing your own. If you make good, clear, honest statements in support of your position, you will go further and your cause will be better for your efforts. Lying will invalidate everything good and accurate you may have said.

Peace

Posted by KW on March 25, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mere use of leather products shouldn't really be an issue for someone unless your a die-hard advocate that humans cease eating animals. The leather for most of these products comes from the animals killed for meat and to discard the hide, rather than reuse it, would be a waste of perfectly good materials.

Posted by mytwosense on March 25, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MGD, while I would like to reach a place of peace with you, the fact remains you are still calling me a liar. Your justification for doing so is a handful of links that you just admitted you didn't even read.

I have been an animal rights advocate for close to a decade. During that time, I've had numerous discussions with other activists, in which the topic we are debating has come up many times. We have never heard of anyone killing someone else in the name of animal rights, and have been very thankful for that, as it would do terrible things to our cause.

And despite your belief to the contrary, I have looked up the subject in the past, extensively. Because frankly, I was surprised when I first heard the claim, myself. Did I use the same keywords as you? I have no idea. At any rate, I still ended up doing further research with the links you provided - while you did not even bother to research these links yourself.

I honestly believe the fact that you're a hunter is why you have such animosity against my positions on this thread. That's fine, but to call someone a liar - one of the worst things you can call someone - based on five links you didn't even bother to look at is not an approach I have encountered to date with other opponents, no matter how heated the discussion got.

You can and should do better than that.

Posted by CWW on March 25, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love my fur coats and my guns.

Posted by PJM on March 25, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Peta uses emotion to prey on uninformed people. They collect millions of dollars in donations and do very little to actually help any animals. If you believe otherwise I'd suggest you take a closer look at what they actually do and what they stand for.

Posted by MGD on March 25, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Graaf admitted that the lifting of the ban of fur was a reason for murder. He said he was protecting vulnerable segements of society, i.e. animals.

By the way, that was the statement on the animalrights website, read dutch news sites and it's clear he was motivated by being an ARA

Here is the deal, he did it and was motivated by animal rights. He is also a whack job and does not represent you or the mainstream ARM. If you stand up and say it's never happened then you are misrepresenting the truth and making your position vulnerable to attack and criticism.
I believe in animal rights, just not the same way that you do. I abhore factory ranches, it's not natural. Animals should not be raised to be food for humans, they are part of the natural cycle of life and in fact, exist within the food chain. Animal husbandry is the crime in my opinion, not the killing and eating of animals.

You made the connection between Christians and murderers but are denying the connection between animal rights and murderers. The spokesman for ALF came out a few years ago in supprt of the murder of anyone who does animal reseach.

I think that you and other ARA are going to need to accept that as your numbers grow, you are going to be gaining some demented individuals as part of your group. That is the way it goes and any group will have a minority that takes good ideas too far and crosses lines.

Graaf may be the exception but he is definitely an ARA who commited murder to protect animals. I don't see how you missed that in your exhaustive reasearch. This case seems to be new to you and if you had really done the research, you would have come across this already and would not have had to look it up to see the details.

I accept that you do not belive that anyone who comits murder can be considered an Animal Rights Activist. By definition, they killed an animal on purpose. By the same token, I do not consider people who shoot animals in fenced areas hunters, they aren't huntingno matter what they claim. The jackasses who shot all those bison? Definitely jerks and definitely not hunters. An animal rights activist who crosses the line and commits murder? No longer an anmial rights activist by definition. Better argument than a blanket denial.

Although I do not believe that you did the stated research, I sincerely apologize for calling you a liar. It was uncalled for and I genuinely hope that your pants are not, in fact, on fire.

Posted by mytwosense on March 25, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Graaf admitted that the lifting of the ban of fur was a reason for murder."

Where did he claim this? Please provide your source.

Posted by greenleaf on March 25, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MGD, and Mytwosense,

I think we've made some progress here!

MGD,

My disappointment with you was mostly related to your use of insult. I never feel it's appropriate to employ insult, but especially not when someone such as yourself, who obviously has the vocabulary and writing skills to support an argument, chooses to employ that tactic instead.

On rare occasion, I will lose my temper and my writing voice becomes a little shrill. I don't support my points well
under those circumstances either! Enough said on that subject ( by me anyway! ) :>).

Thanks for the kind words regarding my post, I'm glad you read it and I hope a few others did as well.

Mytwosense,

I have never been a fan of dueling links arguments, as so many of them are partisan or otherwise biased. As a scientist, I become incensed when people present propaganda sites as scientific. I think that MGD's links point to the over-riding problem of depending on search engines and website links to support our arguments. It's too easy to execute a search and then perform shallow research. I believe too many people form hard opinions from that process. Primarily for that reason, I have sworn off the practice for myself. Too often the debate becomes about the links at the expense of a good conversation.

I know that MGD hasn't totally resolved this to your satisfaction, but I think he's trying. Also, I always feel that these forums are all about influencing the other person. It's the old hearts and minds concept. You have to admit that MGD isn't your typical hunter gatherer! He's definitely nuanced and not so black or white as many are.

My point is, with a little give and take, you two might have a good, mostly non-confrontational, conversation. I'd like to see that.

Oh, and MGD, You did score some points with your final word. I couldn't have chosen a better one myself.

Peace to both of you my friends!

Posted by mytwosense on March 25, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

greenleaf: "I know that MGD hasn't totally resolved this to your satisfaction, but I think he's trying."

True, and the reason I'm pressing him for an accurate, or at least a less biased source, is because I want to know myself if indeed this assassin was animal rights-motivated. I've said numerous times that no animal rights activist has ever murdered someone with animal-rights motivations, and I can't keep saying that if indeed this is not the case.

At the moment, I need a little more proof than what I'm being given.

I largely agree with your comments about depending on the Internet for research. On the other hand, if you can collect enough information from varying sites, both objective and maybe not so objective, compare them all, you can draw some informed conclusions.

And again, the animal industry has billions of dollars at their disposal to create a barrage of misleadingly named websites that "appear" to be grassroots driven by ordinary citizens. However, a good deal of them are front groups created and run by Rick Berman, a known PR professional with restaurant, alcohol, and tobacco industry clients. Those sites are funded by his clients.

Using those sites is kind of a sloppy debating tactic, in my opinion. I wouldn't dream of trying to prove my opposing position to MGD with a link to PETA that supports my position.

Posted by MGD on March 25, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.animalrights.net/archives/...

I don't have time to debate the subtle nuances of this case. I think that you made a blanket statement that requires you to know the details and motivations behind every murder ever.

You can spend some time on the Dutch news sites and find the statements that Graaf made initially. You didn't trust sites whose agenda did not mirror your own so I went to an animal rights site. Even there they admited that he had animal rights as a motivation, though stressing that it was not his primary motivation.

We can debate this issue until the end of time. I will hold to my opinion that in any group of people, there are some who take things further than the mainstream. There is a top-10 list of people who should be murdered for animal experiementation. There was the spokesperson for ALF who openly advocates murder. You didn't really address these statements and you shouldn't have to. These people are not representing you. Just as someone who murders an abortion doctor is not representing me just because I feel abortion is morally wrong. No, I don't want to debate that here.

The beautiful woman I am going to marry and the guy who will be my best man are both vegitarians. I went to a birthday party last weekend at the house of some began friends of ours. I eat at Watercourse and find great non-meat meals at most restaurants. I support animal rights in many ways. We are not as different as it may appear.

I'm done with this line of debate unless you have something really new or interesting to add. I'll engage in a conversation about the pros and cons of groups such as PETA though. I have some thoughts that I've not seen expressed here.

Greenleaf, thanks for noticing that I don't fit into the old Elmer Fudd on Budweiser stereotype of a hunter. Most of us don't. I know a dedicated group who spends more time and money on social, environmental, and wildlife causes then on hunting. It doesn't make the papers when we donate 100 pounds of fresh deer and cases of canned food to the Rescue Mission or that we serve meals in January or February when there are so few volunteers. You only read about hunters when one gets lost or when people claiming to be hunters get in trouble with the law. We'll continue to be good examples, teach our kids and push the green lifecycle.

Shalom

Posted by JTTAAB on March 25, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Red meat is not bad for you. Green fuzzy meat is bad for you.

Posted by Vision on March 25, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense is WRONG, WRONG WRONG. Of course telling the truth is not required to be a PETA, or HSUS member. You leaders routinely lie under oath so why should you. Read on to find out the truth about your posts today.

Animal Rights activists have killed humans in their quest for the animal rights agenda. Pim Fortuyn was killed by Volkert van der Graaf in Holland. Pim voted to allow a pig farm and was murdered by Volkert over this decision. It is only a matter of time before one of your kind kills someone in the US. Your friends left a pipe bomb on the door step of the neighbor of a UCLA researcher. What do you use pipe bombs for mytwosense? Your friends torched a car belonging to the same Professor. You display the typical "morally elitist attitude" that the Animal rights cause is built upon. You and your kind use violence to force your agenda on the world just the same as all terrorist organizations do. If we can't get our way we will enforce our way with violence. You leaders have called for violence including murder ( Jerry Vlaseck the leader of ALF has said ALF members would resort to murder to stop animal testing).

Mytwosense wake up to the facts about the animal rights movement.

Posted by cutrite on March 25, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't just take my word for it, look and see for your self the thoughts of peta and the other groups few know little about!
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articl...

Posted by ragamuffin on March 25, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i hate to say it, mytwosense, but you seem to be a very willingly ignorant individual. plus if you were to pour fake animal blood all over my fur coat, i'd have to say, i wouldn't willingly restrain myself in teaching you a lesson. unfortunatley every side of every argument tends to have a few zealots, but the day that my dog stands on two feet, wears a suit, gets a job, and tells me i shouldn't eat animals, i'll stick with my current dietary plan. oh wait, i forgot the animal kingdom is filled with animals that eat other animals. what are you going to do stop them? I'd like to see you go and try some those stupid stunts on a den of lions, or a pack of wolves. in short animals can surprisingly take care of themselves without the help of people who haven't discovered what its like have a hobby.

Posted by mytwosense on March 25, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MGD: "I don't have time to debate the subtle nuances of this case."

No, but you make time to call someone a liar based on articles and websites you don't even bother to read.

MGD: "You didn't trust sites whose agenda did not mirror your own so I went to an animal rights site."

Animalrights.net is another ANTI-animal rights website! Did you not bother to check that out, either??

No where can I find a statement directly from the assassin that he ADMITS - in your own words - a fur ban raising had anything to do with the shooting. This is your claim, yet you can't provide a source where he is directly quoted as saying this.

And you call that a subtle nuance???

I did, however, in doing yet more of your research for you, find this: "...he said his goal was to stop Mr Fortuyn exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" and targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" to try to gain political power.

"I confess to the shooting. He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main....

And here is another article citing anger over Muslim and immigration issues: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/...

Vision: "Pim Fortuyn was killed by Volkert van der Graaf in Holland. Pim voted to allow a pig farm and was murdered by Volkert over this decision."

Shall we go through the same debate I just had with MGD? I'm happy to oblige. You go first: your source, please, for the pig farm assertion.

Posted by mytwosense on March 25, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ragamuffin: "I hate to say it, mytwosense, but you seem to be a very willingly ignorant individual. plus if you were to pour fake animal blood all over my fur coat, i'd have to say, i wouldn't willingly restrain myself in teaching you a lesson."

Welcome to the conversation. You might want to scroll up, waaay up, to my post where I clearly state I would never pour fake blood on anyone's coat.

Once you're no longer ignorant about my actual position, then perhaps we can have a nice chat.

Posted by Johntrythisone on March 25, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mytwosense,
am I mistaken, or did MGD apologize for calling you a liar?

Posted by etbmfa on March 25, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

7 Things You Didn't Know About PeTA

1. PeTA has stated repeatedly that their goal is "total animal liberation." This means no pets, no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no fishing, no hunting, no farming, no leather, and no animal testing for lifesaving medicines.
2. PeTA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals.
3. PeTA funds the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine an animal-rights organization that presents itself as an unbiased source for nutritional information and has links to violent animal-rights groups called SHAC and ALF.
4. PeTA has used their contributors tax-exempt donations to fund the North American Earth Liberation front and the Animal Liberation Front, FBI-certified domestic terrorist groups responsible for fire bombs and death threats.
5. PeTA regularly targets kids as early as elementary school with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda. They are totally opposed to traditional farming methods.
6. PeTA spends less than one percent of its $13 million budget actually caring for animals. PeTA kills animals.
7. PeTA has repeatedly attacked groups like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, for conducting animal testing to find cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases.
source: www.consumerfreedom.com
www.animalscam.com
www.petakillsanimals.com
www.naiaonline.org

Posted by mytwosense on March 25, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah - right after implying once again that he thought I was lying: "Although I do not believe that you did the stated research, I sincerely apologize for calling you a liar. It was uncalled for and I genuinely hope that your pants are not, in fact, on fire."

Posted by mytwosense on March 25, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PR flack Rick Berman-run websites funded by the restaurant, tobacco, and alcohol industries:

www.consumerfreedom.com
www.animalscam.com
www.petakillsanimals.com

Dog breeding group who routinely opposes legislation that would crack down on puppy mills:
www.naiaonline.org

Posted by mytwosense on March 25, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not sure if the people on this thread are really concerned about who the source of their information is. But for any reader out there who doesn't like to be duped into thinking he/she is getting animal industry-funded propaganda disguised as caring concern for animals, let me provide you with a little navigation tree for all the sources cited to me today.

Rick Berman, PR professional for the restaurant, alcohol, and tobacco industries, runs every single one of these websites. His strategy is not to discredit the message of animal rights activists, but to discredit the actual activists.As he himself describes his strategy, "shoot the messenger.... We've got to attack their credibility as spokespersons."

To do this, he fronts several websites and lobbying groups that at first glance - until you look up their board members and the legislation they oppose - seem to be concerned with kind treatment of animals and consumer rights.

The reality is they are meant to fight against any legislation that would strengthen animal cruelty laws and protect animals from abusive situations, oppose any legislation that would protect consumers from unsafe food practices, and to generally characterize animal rights groups as extremists connected to terroristic activities.

Some of his "campaigns" include:

The Center for Consumer Freedom, an anti-animal rights front group. By the way, this thread is featured right now on their website, under "Letter of the Day" - so I wouldn't be surprised if some of their propaganda spreaders are posting here.

The American Beverage Institute, poses as a "Drink responsibly" group whose actual purpose is to constantly war with Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.

Center for Union Facts - Against the minimum wage for restaurant industry workers and any effort to get the restaurant industry to start paying its wait staff more so customers don't have to subsidize their salaries.

Employment Policies Institute - Also against any efforts to raise minimum wages.

Do a search on Rick Berman. He's quite an interesting character, who has raised deceptive marketing-speak to an unprecedented level.

Posted by greenleaf on March 25, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mytwosense,

You are a marathoner! I continue to be impressed by your determination against all odds. Now you have a fresh group of assailants I see!

I am equally impressed with the amount of venom directed at PETA and the paucity of defenders. Why do you suppose that is?

I confess that while I have been aware of the organization for years, I have never known a member of the environmental community that has belonged to it and have never looked into it myself.

Is it so disliked by some because it is effective? Perhaps it's disliked for the no holds barred, no compromise approach that some imply it has. I just don't know!

The last time I saw such a gut level rejection of a movement it was the Edward Abbey ( of The Monkey Wrench Gang and Desert Solitaire fame) inspired Earth First organization.

Do you have any ideas as to why this may be?

Posted by mytwosense on March 25, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Greenleaf, simply put, PETA has made an enemy out of the most powerful industries in the world, who literally have limitless resources at their disposal.

Using these resources, the animal industries - that is, those who make profits off animals raised for food, used for medical testing, for breeding, for entertainment purposes, etc. - have actually launched a major propaganda campaign against all animal rights activists.

However, PETA is directly in their crosshairs because it's the best known animal rights organization, and simply put, because PETA pisses them off. They simply cannot get rid of them, no matter how many marketing campaigns they launch.

PETA has exposed many of the worse cases of animal abuse in factory farms and medical labs, among others. These investigations, along with others from groups like the Humane Society, have informed the public about things they were not aware of. As there are billions of dollars at stake here, the animal industries have essentially declared a no-holds barred war against all animal rights activists.

This includes retaining hired PR guns like Rick Berman to create a slew of phony grassroots websites like the ones I named in a previous post. As I mentioned before, one of those websites currently has this thread as their featured "letter of the day." It would not surprise me if they actually wrote and sent the letter for this thread, and are responsible for many of the subsequent posts. I don't recall seeing many of the thread's posters on the forums until today.

By the way, the Humane Society is now really going to be on their sh$% list, since they uncovered the horrific abuse of crippled cows at the huge Hallmark/Westland slaughterhouse. That was a totally random choice for an investigation, too, so that should tell you something about how this kind of abuse is likely more common than not.

Posted by greenleaf on March 25, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense,

Now you mention it there are an abnormally large number of posters whose names I haven't seen before.

Perchance a conspiracy is afoot! (pardon me, I've been reading a lot of Shakespeare lately). This is either a little suspicious or you and I have become cynical with age and the many battles we have fought.

I trust what you say about PETA. It probably is a treat to a few industry types.

Maybe I'll have to consider joining!

Keep fighting the good fight! I will too!

Posted by greenleaf on March 25, 2008 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense,

Actually, I meant "threat" not "treat". Sheesh! :>)

Posted by PJM on March 26, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense, if you are really concerned about where information comes from and not getting duped then you really need to take a closer look at peta. If you're not a fan of propaganda you probably won't like what you really find.

If you want sources you can trust then use yourself as a source. Go to a feedlot, or a dairy farm, or go out with a hunter and see for your self what really goes on. You'll find out that it's nothing like what peta portrays.

Most of the video "proof" they offer up is either outdated(slaughter house footage from the 70's), misrepresented("rodeo" footage from Mexico) or made up("under cover" peta plants abusing animals to get footage of something that doesn't exist).

See for yourself and then decide who's telling the truth!

Posted by MGD on March 26, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MTS, I surrender on the Graaf case. Most of the reporting that was done was done by groups not aligned with anmial rights. You win the argument though I still believe part of his motivation was animal rights. Either way, he was an animal rights activist and a murderer.

Do you still believe that no animal rights person is capable of murder? What about Jerry Vlasak? I watched the interview Ed Bradley did with him on 60 minutes and he seems quite comfortable encouraging others to murder animal rights researchers, meatpacking workers, and meat industry executives. Do you agree or disagree that this ALF member encourages murder?

JERRY VLASAK: "Would I advocate taking five guilty vivisector's lives to save hundreds of millions of innocent animal lives? Yes, I would."

PETA is not honest about killing animals. There are hundreds of reports of them showing up at no-kill shelters as well as kill shelters and adopting pets only to kill them and dump their bodies. Taking healthy adoptable animals and killing them might make sense to the PETA people as a long-range plan but I think it's wrong. How do you feel about this practice?

Greenleaf, if that referenced me then no, I am not part of the industry. Unless you mean the IT industry supporting a consulting company. I'm pretty much honest about being against factory meat. I just happen to strongly disagree with PETA and their methods.

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETA_pissing...

I wonder how many people donate to PETA only to find that they are supporting a very extreme group.

Posted by MGD on March 26, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Meat is not murder, murder is murder. Commerical meat is just disgusting, unsafe, un-natural, and environmentally damaging. I've been to the feedlots and they are terrible.

PETA on the face is a good positive group working to save anmials but they have a very dark side and a great PR group to spin it. They kill way more animals than I eat in any given year.

MTS, you deride (often correctly so) the sources of information that work against PETA as being one-sided and slanderous. How is PETA any different? They have an agenda too and it looks like they are willing to throw no-kill shleters under the bus for not agreeing with them. That story comes from the PETA website and sounds very much like PR spin.

I doubt very much that you will find many reports done independent of an agenda. People who don't care don't take sides and don't report on it.

Thanks for pointing out what Rick Berman is up to, he seems like a schmuck. As the song teaches us, "Know Your Enemy."

Posted by mytwosense on March 26, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MGD - thanks for your comments. Truthfully, I'm probably not going to say "No animal rights activist has ever killed another person because of animal-rights" in the future. While I do think this assassin's motivation was mostly something else, I can't definitely prove animal rights was in NO WAY an issue.

So - truce. :)

As for PETA, I guess to me...and others might not agree...the difference between their strategies and Rick Berman's is that PETA is pretty transparent about who they are. You go to their website, you know it's PETA and run by devout believers who clearly state their agenda is animal rights. With a Rick Berman site, it appears to be advocating one thing, while a little digging shows you what it's really fighting for is the opposite. I believe the word "doublespeak" was used a few times in this thread, towards me. Well, a Rick Berman website is doublespeak in action.

Take for example: www.naiaonline.org You go to this site and you think it's an advocacy group for pet lovers and more humane treatment of pets. The reality is its a lobbying group for purebred breeders, and yes, puppy mills, who fight vigorously against any humane treatment