Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

PETA members charged with animal cruelty

PETA Animal Curelty

  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#21 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 01:58 PM

waterpanther, on Jun 18 2005, 12:45 PM, said:

As I said, they challenge beliefs many people take for granted. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Challenging beliefs is one thing. Targeting children with scare tactics is quite another. Walking up to a child with a fake KFC bucket, filled with fake blood, pictures of a dead chicken, and telling the kids that their parents are murderers, is all designed for one thing: To instill fear in the child. To instill fear is the main goal of terrorism...so, IMO, logically speaking, PETA IS a terrorist organization. Whose members target children, mainly.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#22 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 02:26 PM

How about Sunday schools that instill fear of going to hell in kids?  Are they terrorists, too?  

How about parents that threaten physical punishment?  Are they terrorists, too?

How about the people who commit hate crimes--lynchings, gay bashings, rapes?  Are they terrorists, too?

Quote

To instill fear is the main goal of terrorism...so, IMO, logically speaking, PETA IS a terrorist organization

Not logical.  Fallacy of the undistributed middle.  

Quote

Whose members target children, mainly.

Flatly untrue.  Post proof or retract, please.
Posted Image

#23 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 02:44 PM

waterpanther, on Jun 18 2005, 12:45 PM, said:

As I said, they challenge beliefs many people take for granted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But to be fair, there are also those who reject PETA's arguments not because they take an opposing viewpoint for granted, but because they have thoughtfully considered their position and simply disagree.

Me, I see no great moral difficulty with using animals for food, crucial medical testing, etc., because I have seen no compelling scientific evidence that any animals (save perhaps some of the higher mammals) are truly self-aware, and I don't think you can commit moral wrong against a creature that isn't even aware of its own existence.

#24 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 02:58 PM

Quote

I don't think you can commit moral wrong against a creature that isn't even aware of its own existence.

So you cannot commit moral wrong against an infant, an elder suffering from Alzheimer's or a person in a coma or vegetative state?  I disagree.

Quote

But to be fair, there are also those who reject PETA's arguments not because they take an opposing viewpoint for granted, but because they have thoughtfully considered their position and simply disagree.

Quite true.  But I'd guess they're in the minority.  I'd also guess that those who put that much effort into thinking out their own positions are just as thoughtfully opposed to egregious cruelty as anyone in PETA.
Posted Image

#25 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 03:23 PM

I'm probably the most radical environmentalist on this board (and have the arrest record to prove it!), and I have no patience for PETA and what they stand for.  As I see it, they promote an sentimental view of the natural world, which is actually utterly ruthless and sometimes even cruel.  Because we're an intelligent, compassionate species, I'm against unnecessary cruelty to animals (groups like the SPCA do excellent work in this regard), but hey, there's a reason human beings don't have four stomachs and a mouthfull of molars!  

But saving species and preserving the ecosystems that make up the natural world is where the action's at, not making people feel bad for wearing leather shoes.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#26 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 03:29 PM

MuseZack, on Jun 18 2005, 01:23 PM, said:

I'm probably the most radical environmentalist on this board (and have the arrest record to prove it!), and I have no patience for PETA and what they stand for.  As I see it, they promote an sentimental view of the natural world, which is actually utterly ruthless and sometimes even cruel.  Because we're an intelligent, compassionate species, I'm against unnecessary cruelty to animals (groups like the SPCA do excellent work in this regard), but hey, there's a reason human beings don't have four stomachs and a mouthfull of molars!   

But saving species and preserving the ecosystems that make up the natural world is where the action's at, not making people feel bad for wearing leather shoes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Well put Zack! The SCPA and the Humane Society do a far more credible job of forwarding animal rights than the monsters who print stuff like this and give it to kids:


http://www.consumerf..._mommykills.pdf

panther, THAT is the work of terrorists. It overshadows any possible good this group might do, and makes their actions indefensible.

#27 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 03:37 PM

Quote

I'm probably the most radical environmentalist on this board

Possibly one of two, even though I've managed not to get arrested.    :lol:

Quote

I have no patience for PETA and what they stand for. As I see it, they promote an sentimental view of the natural world, which is actually utterly ruthless and sometimes even cruel.


But PETA does not deal primarily with "the natural world" as you're using the phrase.  They deal with animal/human interaction, which is frequently far from natural.  In fact, the lack of naturalness in most such interactions is one of their most strongly argued points.

Quote

but hey, there's a reason human beings don't have four stomachs and a mouthfull of molars!

Yup.  Our primate ancestors only had one stomach for all those fruits and roots and nuts--you don't need multiple stomachs unless you're a grazer--and humans have only half a mouthful of molars!
Posted Image

#28 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 04:06 PM

Dave, here's what your Center for Consumer Freedom has to say for itself--and what it doesn't have to say.  Like who pays for it.   :D  Not that it's not clear that it's a special-interest group opposed to a wide range of consumer protections.  I'll bet if we dug into it, we'd find Richard Mellon Scaife's name and not a few other radicals.

Quote

The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by restaurants, food companies and more than 1,000 concerned individuals. From farm to fork, our friends and supporters include businesses, employees and consumers.

The Center is a nonprofit 501©(3) corporation. We file regular statements with the Internal Revenue Service, which are open to public inspection.

Many of the companies and individuals who support the Center financially have indicated that they want anonymity as contributors. They are reasonably apprehensive about privacy and safety in light of the violence some activist groups have adopted as a "game plan" to impose their views.

If you want to argue what PETA does, and you want to argue about how they do it, why not go to PETA's own site?  Taking Consumer Freedom's word for their activities, well, that's kind of like taking the Swift Boat Veterans' word for John Kerry's war record.  

I agree that the flyer is over the top.  Terrorism, though?  You have to be kidding.  It's no worse than your average Chick Tract, and not nearly as bad as a multitude of video games.  What about parents who take their children to violent movies?  Are they terrorists, too?
Posted Image

#29 Raina

Raina

    Cpt. Raina 'Starlee'

  • Validation Team
  • 6,009 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 04:15 PM

Quote

I don't think you can commit moral wrong against a creature that isn't even aware of its own existence.
So are you saying that it'd be morally fine if we started experimenting on humans who aren't self-aware?

"First thing they tell you is to assume you're already dead... dead men don't get scared or freeze up under fire. Me, I'm just worried that hell's gonna be a lonely place. And I'm gonna fill it up with every toaster son of a bitch I find." -Racetrack

"I believe what goes around comes around and if I am the instrument of 'coming round' then I'll do it happily. " -Shal


Viper Squadron CAG
Roman Warrior
Browncoat

#30 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 04:37 PM

While I do believe that certain animals should be granted (much) greater legal protections, and while I do support the banning ownership of some kinds of animals as pets (birds, parrots in particular), I *don't* support PETA, and never will.    

Not just because some of their positions are hypocritical (decrying fur while wearing patent leather shoes -- not that I'm a fan of fur), or downright ridiculous (no meat, no milk--Hagen Daz lovers of the world: unite & take-over), but because I *do* consider PETA a terrorist organization whose tactics do more harm than good to the cause they champion.    

Quote

waterpanther: And yes, they're an in-your-face organization. But they are not a terrorist organization by any means. There may be individuals who commit violent acts to draw attention to what they consider abuses, but a) they're not following the organization's official position

And yet the organization both defends and -- crucially -- FUNDS such individuals, and more to the point: groups.  Just one of many examples to be found by googling "PETA, ALF, funding:"  http://www.cdfe.org/conference.htm    

In my opinion, the relationship between PETA and ALF/ELF is not much different from the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA, or PLO/Hammas.  (In fact, the resemblance is almost certainly NOT coincidental).    

As the political arm, PETA must keep its hands clean enough to continue fundraising and to continue advancing its radical ideology through public discourse, while funnelling a considerable part of the monies raised to the militant faction, which does the illegal dirty-work.        

Quote

and b) there's a long history of such actions in human civil rights and liberation movements

You say potay-toe...    

From the Peta.org FAQ:  

Quote

“Don’t animal rights activists commit ‘terrorist’ acts?”
The animal rights movement is nonviolent. One of the central beliefs shared by most animal rights people is rejection of harm to any animal, human or otherwise. However, any large movement is going to have factions that believe in the use of force.

Oh, really?  I wonder what Lech Walesa would say about that?  Or Ghandi?  

Quote

FAQ continued: “How can you justify the millions of dollars’ worth of property damage by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?”

Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are both examples of people breaking the law in order to answer to a higher morality.

“The ALF,” which is simply the name adopted by people acting illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. It burns empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF "raids" have given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have been discovered or believed otherwise. They have resulted in officials’ filing of criminal charges against laboratories, citing of experimenters for violations of the Animal Welfare Act, and, in some cases, shutting down of abusive labs for good. Often ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs.

As well as the deaths of the "liberated" animals, who are often kept -- or, worse, abandoned -- in environments for which they are totally unadapted/unprepared.    

Quote

waterpanther: There was a faction of PETA, many years ago, that did oppose the keeping of companion animals. That's not the offcial position of the organization now.

Is it not part of their "ultimate goals?"  

(thanks to JohnnyBOB for posting this from the Penn&Teller b*llsh*t site -- *fantastic* show, btw):

Quote

PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group’s overall goal as “total animal liberation.” This means no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing, and no pets (not even seeing-eye dogs). PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of animals.

Quote

waterpanther:That said, it's not really useful to label all members of a movement extremists because some are.

Isn't that always the way?      

Quote

PETA is easier to label "extremist" because it questions beliefs a lot of people simply take for granted, and the first response to that kind of challenge is usually defensiveness.

Perhaps so, but I honestly don't consider myself one of them.  Intellectually and emotionally, I agree with quite a few of PETA's goals.  And even those with which I vehemently disagree, I feel like I at least understand where they're coming from.  But, ultaimtely, I'm with Mary Rose on this:

Quote

One thing that extremists never get is that they hurt their own causes. I'm against animal cruelty and I'm a vegetarain but I can't really go to extremes. It doesn't help the animal rights cause overall IMO.

Post-script:

Quote

waterpanther: The gay civil rights movement began with an act of violence, the Stonewall Rebellion.

That was self-defense.  No comparison there.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#31 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 04:44 PM

waterpanther, on Jun 18 2005, 02:06 PM, said:

Dave, here's what your Center for Consumer Freedom has to say for itself--and what it doesn't have to say.  Like who pays for it.   :D  Not that it's not clear that it's a special-interest group opposed to a wide range of consumer protections.  I'll bet if we dug into it, we'd find Richard Mellon Scaife's name and not a few other radicals.

Quote

The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by restaurants, food companies and more than 1,000 concerned individuals. From farm to fork, our friends and supporters include businesses, employees and consumers.

The Center is a nonprofit 501©(3) corporation. We file regular statements with the Internal Revenue Service, which are open to public inspection.

Many of the companies and individuals who support the Center financially have indicated that they want anonymity as contributors. They are reasonably apprehensive about privacy and safety in light of the violence some activist groups have adopted as a "game plan" to impose their views.

If you want to argue what PETA does, and you want to argue about how they do it, why not go to PETA's own site?  Taking Consumer Freedom's word for their activities, well, that's kind of like taking the Swift Boat Veterans' word for John Kerry's war record.  

I agree that the flyer is over the top.  Terrorism, though?  You have to be kidding.  It's no worse than your average Chick Tract, and not nearly as bad as a multitude of video games.  What about parents who take their children to violent movies?  Are they terrorists, too?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hey, that was simply the site I found an image of that disgusting flyer PETA was handing out to kids, I don't care one way or another who they are.

And, no, I am not kidding. PETA wanted to show that terrible drawing to children without allowing a parent's censure of the material (which is a parent's right) for no other reason than to upset children. To me, that is a form of terrorism.

And don't play the moral equivalency game with me. Parents who take their children to violent movies are at worst bad parents. Besides, that's comparing apples to oranges!

#32 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 04:47 PM

waterpanther, on Jun 18 2005, 02:26 PM, said:

How about Sunday schools that instill fear of going to hell in kids?  Are they terrorists, too? 

Very good point...I hadn't considered them. One could argue that they are merely trying to save the child's soul, ect...but that's a stretch...even for me. Personally I always hated that prayer that says: "If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take." That prayer instills the fear that they might die while sleeping in the child...

Honestly, I don't know if they should be considered a terrorist organization or not...

Quote

How about parents that threaten physical punishment?  Are they terrorists, too?

Your question makes no sense. A parent threatening physical punishment is NOT trying to instill fear in the child...they are disciplining the child, teaching the child right from wrong.

Quote

How about the people who commit hate crimes--lynchings, gay bashings, rapes?  Are they terrorists, too?

IMO, yes they are.



Quote

Flatly untrue.  Post proof or retract, please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Here's the proof:

Quote

4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, often waiting outside their schools to intercept them as they walk to and from class-without notifying parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” PETA brags that its messages reach over 2 million children every year, including thousands reached by e-mail without the permission of their parents. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”

Emphasis mine...and this was from the VP of PETA,
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#33 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 04:56 PM

Quote

Your question makes no sense. A parent threatening physical punishment is NOT trying to instill fear in the child...they are disciplining the child, teaching the child right from wrong.

Parents threatening physical punishment and terrorists are both attempting to change behavior through fear of pain and/or bodily harm.  No difference except scale.  Question:  do you believe it's acceptable to strike your wife?  If not, why is it acceptable to strike a child but not an adult?  


Quote

4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, often waiting outside their schools to intercept them as they walk to and from class-without notifying parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” PETA brags that its messages reach over 2 million children every year, including thousands reached by e-mail without the permission of their parents. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”

Source?  Is this quote from PETA's site?  You're going to have to forgive me if I don't trust anything coming off Faux News.

And where does it say that they target mainly kids?  Do kids vote?  Write checks?  Somehow I doubt it.

Edited by waterpanther, 18 June 2005 - 05:15 PM.

Posted Image

#34 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 05:14 PM

waterpanther, on Jun 18 2005, 02:58 PM, said:

Quote

I don't think you can commit moral wrong against a creature that isn't even aware of its own existence.

So you cannot commit moral wrong against an infant, an elder suffering from Alzheimer's or a person in a coma or vegetative state?  I disagree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I would disagree with the suggestion that infants, Alzheimer's patients, and people in comas are not self-aware. I don't see why human consciousness -- which I know exists, because I have it -- would disappear simply because one's mental capacity is diminished by injury, disease, or lack of development.

And no, I don't think you can commit moral wrong against someone in a vegetative state, hence my stance on the Terry Schiavo case -- she's already dead and gone, so let her husband find some peace by pulling the plug.

#35 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 05:18 PM

Quote

And no, I don't think you can commit moral wrong against someone in a vegetative state

So it would have been acceptable for a nursing home attendant, say, to rape her?
Posted Image

#36 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 05:40 PM

waterpanther, on Jun 18 2005, 05:18 PM, said:

Quote

And no, I don't think you can commit moral wrong against someone in a vegetative state
So it would have been acceptable for a nursing home attendant, say, to rape her?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course not, and eww to the example. It would also not be acceptable for a funeral home worker to rape a corpse, even though that has nothing to do with wronging the dead person, because . . . already dead. However, it has everything to do with respecting the feelings of the friends and family the dead person left behind, and the dignity of the human race in general.

It's the same reason I think it's horrible to wantonly murder animals, or burn down national parks for fun. Even if the animals and trees aren't aware of what we're doing to them, it diminishes us, and any conscious beings, human or otherwise, that might follow us.

(To be honest, I don't know how to assess morality independent of consciousness, because without the ability to make choices, what should be is meaningless, and only what is remains.)

#37 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 05:56 PM

waterpanther, on Jun 18 2005, 04:56 PM, said:

Parents threatening physical punishment and terrorists are both attempting to change behavior through fear of pain and/or bodily harm.  No difference except scale.  Question:  do you believe it's acceptable to strike your wife?  If not, why is it acceptable to strike a child but not an adult? 

First, No it's not ok to strike your wife. As to why spanking a child is different...you're teaching a child who doesn't know right from wrong, what IS right and wrong. And spanking should always be used as a last resort. Hell if it wasn't for the butt whipings I got growing up I'd be in jail by now. And last time I checked, parents generally don't fund terrorist organizations that bomb buildings, committ arson, like PETA seems to.

For that matter that also answers the question about the Sunday School teachers...last time I checked they haven't funded terrorist organizations either. So no, they aren't terrorists.

Quote

Source?  Is this quote from PETA's site?  You're going to have to forgive me if I don't trust anything coming off Faux News.

And where does it say that they target mainly kids?  Do kids vote?  Write checks?  Somehow I doubt it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


The source is from Ben and tiller, IIRC...as for where is says they target children...perhaps you missed it.

Quote

One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”

That seems to say it loud and clear...they gear their campaigns towards children. No, kids don't write checks...PETA's goal is to terrorize the children to get the parents to change their thinking to PETA's...Guess PETA likes going after small, defenseless kids...they don't want to go after someone their own size.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#38 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 06:04 PM

Quote

Of course not, and eww to the example.

So it is possible to commit a moral wrong against a person in a PVS.  A person in PVS, remember, is not dead, only without consciousness or self-awareness.  

By the same token--and hang on, the ewww factor is about to get worse  :devil:--would it be morally acceptable for someone to sexually abuse an awake and aware golden retriever?   A golden retriever who could feed herself, show affection and pleasure and fear and interact with humans and other animals?  How about one that had been anaesthetized and was not aware?  

Quote

It's the same reason I think it's horrible to wantonly murder animals, or burn down national parks for fun. Even if the animals and trees aren't aware of what we're doing to them, it diminishes us, and any conscious beings, human or otherwise, that might follow us.

Agreed.  But I wonder how you determine that an animal being "wantonly murdered" is unaware of what is happening to him or her.  Animals certainly feel pain.  Birds and mammals, at a minimum, feel fear when another creature, human or otherwise, manifestly intends to harm them.  I grant you it's a crude measure, but, in general, isn't something that reduces pain and fear a moral good?  Something that increases it, a moral wrong?

Quote

(To be honest, I don't know how to assess morality independent of consciousness, because without the ability to make choices, what should be is meaningless, and only what is remains.)

Obviously conscience, and morality with it, depends on the ability to choose the good.  That in turn depends on consciousness.  But does the object of the moral or immoral action necessarily have to share the same kind or degree of consciousness?  I would argue that it does not.
Posted Image

#39 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 06:09 PM

Quote

The source is from Ben and tiller, IIRC...as for where is says they target children...perhaps you missed it.
QUOTE
One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”


That seems to say it loud and clear...they gear their campaigns towards children. No, kids don't write checks...PETA's goal is to terrorize the children to get the parents to change their thinking to PETA's...Guess PETA likes going after small, defenseless kids...they don't want to go after someone their own size.

Link, please.  And again, let me point out that Fox is notorious for taking things out of context or even making them up on the spot.  From a practical standpoint, this statement, as it stands alone, makes no sense.

Quote

you're teaching a child who doesn't know right from wrong, what IS right and wrong

A wife beater will make the same argument.  The old Texas law allowed a man to "correct" his wife and his children equally.

Quote

For that matter that also answers the question about the Sunday School teachers...last time I checked they haven't funded terrorist organizations either. So no, they aren't terrorists.

What about the KKK groups that grew out of churches?  The anti-abortionists who shoot doctors?  Those are terrorists in my book.
Posted Image

#40 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 06:17 PM

waterpanther, on Jun 18 2005, 06:09 PM, said:

Link, please.  And again, let me point out that Fox is notorious for taking things out of context or even making them up on the spot.  From a practical standpoint, this statement, as it stands alone, makes no sense.

Here's the link: http://www.sho.com/s...s.do?topic=peta You can also find it in post #5 of this thread, called the 7 things PETA doesn't want you to know.

Quote

A wife beater will make the same argument.  The old Texas law allowed a man to "correct" his wife and his children equally.

I'm sure he would...but a wife is an adult, and therefore KNOWS the difference between right and wrong. Or at least most adults should...you do get the criminal element also, like PETA.

Quote

What about the KKK groups that grew out of churches?  The anti-abortionists who shoot doctors?  Those are terrorists in my book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


And also in my book. Question. Are you trying to say that the PETA members who hand out fake KFC buckets, filled with fake blood, ect...aren't the norm for PETA?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: PETA, Animal Curelty

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users