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

#61 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,908 posts

Posted 19 June 2005 - 01:57 PM

Raina, on Jun 19 2005, 01:15 PM, said:

But a lot of species are endangered because of humans.

~.~ I agree, I did not mean to imply we have not contributed to this event.

Quote

Now granted, species have been going extinct since the beginning of the world, but I think that it's gotten to the point where humans have stepped way beyond nature's boundaries and we'll soon see a mass extinction on the scale of what killed the dinosaurs.

~.~ I agree, again. In the case of natural extinction, we should allow it to happen. It is only when our presense has caused near extinction, should we step in and prevent the loss.

Quote

I'm not condoning PETA's actions, but I do agree with a lot of the ideas behind them. Unfortunately, those ideals don't work in today's world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


~.~ There is no doubt they have done good things, but when they over-step and imo, attack a child's safety, etc... I disagree vehemently with them.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#62 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 19 June 2005 - 07:10 PM

Quote

A method of torture being used on the prisoners at Guatanomo is pictures of scantily clad women being placed around a detainee's neck. If forcing offensive pictures on the detainees is torture, then it is also torture to force these children and their parents to view intentionally offensive materials such as the fake KFC bucket filled with blood, pictures of dead chickens, and such.

So you assume the children would have the same sort of religious horror of the PETA comic that a devout Muslim would have at the pictures of scantily clad women?  Feel the same sort of sense of personal impurity?  For that matter, do you assume that these children are being held somewhere against their will with no prospect of release, the clear prospect of death for crimes that they may well not have committed, and the continuing degradation of day-to-day physical abuse?  If so, then the situations are equal.

One word:   context.

ps--And if you don't agree, will you testify when I sue my co-worker for her really, really bad picture?  I mean, it's bad.  You'd be truly horrified.
Posted Image

#63 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 19 June 2005 - 10:12 PM

waterpanther, on Jun 20 2005, 12:10 AM, said:

Quote

A method of torture being used on the prisoners at Guatanomo is pictures of scantily clad women being placed around a detainee's neck. If forcing offensive pictures on the detainees is torture, then it is also torture to force these children and their parents to view intentionally offensive materials such as the fake KFC bucket filled with blood, pictures of dead chickens, and such.

So you assume the children would have the same sort of religious horror of the PETA comic that a devout Muslim would have at the pictures of scantily clad women?  Feel the same sort of sense of personal impurity?  For that matter, do you assume that these children are being held somewhere against their will with no prospect of release, the clear prospect of death for crimes that they may well not have committed, and the continuing degradation of day-to-day physical abuse?  If so, then the situations are equal.

One word:   context.

ps--And if you don't agree, will you testify when I sue my co-worker for her really, really bad picture?  I mean, it's bad.  You'd be truly horrified.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree about context - perhaps severity - but not context.  

No, I'm usually struck from the jury pool early on.  And, it takes me a long time to decide, too many ifs, ands, or buts for me.  She might tell me that you subject her to something equally offensive and feels justified in forcing her idea of art on you.  I worked with a woman once who complained non-stop about the offensive Hindu neighbors in her apartment building yet she thought nothing of grilling hamburgers and steaks out on her balcony.

Edited by eloisel, 19 June 2005 - 10:12 PM.


#64 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 20 June 2005 - 08:52 PM

Hi, Elara.

Quote

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


~.~ No. In the animal kingdom, parents physically punish their young. You will note, I did not say abuse, I said punish. This comes in the form of threats and actual physical contact. This is done to keep the young alive, it is done to teach order, the human animal needs to do the same thing. Again, note, I did not say abuse, there is a difference.

I was referring to human parents here, who have the option of verbal communication.  When they choose not to exercise it and strike children instead, the only message they send is that might makes right, and force insures confromity.  It does not teach right from wrong; quite the contrary.

Quote

My son was in pre-school when PETA showed up at several schools and pulled this crap.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, since the comics were to be distributed only to urban children whose mothers were wearing fur.  Does anyone know, by the way, whether these flyers were ever given out?  Everything I could find on the net about them said they "would be" distributed, or that "PETA planned" to do so, but nothing I ran into said they actually were.

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.

~.~ The same defensiveness that you are feeling right now, correct?
You take your belief for granted, but this does not mean you speak for everyone, nor should you. Same as they cannot speak for everyone and should not.
You have the right to not eat meat, I have the right to eat it, does this mean I am guilty of being cruel to animals? If so, then I will try to remember this the next time I am aiding a neighbor in doctoring an animal or doctoring one of my own.
btw, I was once verbally attacked by someone, who as far as I know, was and still is, a member of PETA, for having my colts gelded. Why? Because she said it was not a natural thing to do, so it was cruel. So much for spaying and neutering your pets.

And what defensiveness is it that I'm feeling now?  Do you actually have any idea what I take for granted?  I doubt it, very seriously. Where did I say I don't eat meat?  Where did I say you shouldn't?  As for the PETA person who said you shouldn't geld you colts, she obviously does not represent the official position of the organization.  (And obviously doesn't know anything about horses.)  Why take her word for policy over the actual mission statement?  Do you assume that all Christians are homophobes, say,  because a few idiots are?  

Quote

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.

~.~ Then, we can no longer aid animals and fowl inside of our cities, as that could be considered animal/human interaction. So, Pale Male and Nola would not be protected and allowed to nest where they chose.
I realize this is not what you mean, but you need to look at what is being said and how far extremism can go. PETA is not going to help animals/fowl if they keep going the way they are going. In fact, they are going to harm efforts to save endangered species, because many times it takes a human involvement to save those species, sometimes even a hands on involvement.

I don't follow you here.  No, PETA does not in general deal with wild animals.  There are several fine organizations that do:  Sierra Club, WWF, Greenpeace, Fund for Animals, Audubon, et many, many cetera.  Why should they, or we, be unable to "aid animals and fowl outside our cities" simply because one organization does not?  Their missions are complementary, not contradictory.  (The "unnatural" interactions I'm referring to here are things such as laboratories, factory farms, fur farms. And in those circumstances, no one does the muckraking investigations any better than PETA.)  

I think it's remarkable, actually, the way many people respond to PETA.  For most Americans, possibly most Westerners, the organization challenges the special position that humans have assumed is and should be theirs.  Even devout atheists, never mind the folks who believe that Genesis is science, take offense at the idea that H. sap is just another critter, smarter than some, less well adapted than most, and that other critters deserve much the same respect we pay ourselves.  They draw vitriol from left and right equally.  When I googled "PETA,ALF,funding," what I came up with was a clutch of right-wing sites run by anti-regulatory groups, hunting publications and fundamentalists.  One one of them--I forget which, and I'm not going wading through that sludge again--railed that PETA was "typically Marxist."  Meanwhile over on Democratic Underground, another ranter was going on at length about PETA being a "CIA front."  When an organization draws that much equal and opposite hatred, with parties on both sides repeating such mantras as "PETA won't let you have pets!" while steadfastly refusing to take the trouble even to look at the organization's website -- where they sell toys for pets, by the way-- then something fairly primal has been touched.  Something very threatening.   And it's been touched in a way that the fact that human and chimpanzee DNA are 99% identical doesn't reach to.  After all, we call our enemies "animals," don't we?  Where would all our superiority go, if we were animals, too?
Posted Image

#65 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,908 posts

Posted 20 June 2005 - 11:24 PM

hi waterpanther,

waterpanther, on Jun 20 2005, 08:52 PM, said:

I was referring to human parents here, who have the option of verbal communication. When they choose not to exercise it and strike children instead, the only message they send is that might makes right, and force insures confromity. It does not teach right from wrong; quite the contrary.

~.~ I realize you meant humans, I was simply pointing out that animals also use threats. You had mentioned the 'threat of punishment' and it seemed to me that you said even the threat was wrong. I was pointing out that threat (again, not threat of abuse/beating) is not bad, nor unusual. With my son, the threat of being in trouble was more than enough. But now we are getting off the subject of PETA.

Quote

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, since the comics were to be distributed only to urban children whose mothers were wearing fur. Does anyone know, by the way, whether these flyers were ever given out? Everything I could find on the net about them said they "would be" distributed, or that "PETA planned" to do so, but nothing I ran into said they actually were.

~.~ Comics? No, these were not comics and around here, we don't wear fur. It's not even that common in the bigger cities. Actually, you would find that more often at the casinos. According to the paper they were actually distributed, it was not the school that told me about this action. I can look for it, so we both know whether it was true or not.
Funny, in an odd way, story. I knew someone (not with PETA) that constantly berated me for not being against hunting/trapping. Did this stop her from eating meat? No. Did it stop her from buying a fur coat? No. This is the holier than thou type I have experience with.

Quote

And what defensiveness is it that I'm feeling now?

~.~ I meant as you defend PETA, you can't help but feel defensive. My point was that you and others in this thread were feeling the same defensiveness. There was no insult intended, only a hope of getting you and everyone to see that you are feeling the same thing as you come from different sides.

Quote

Do you actually have any idea what I take for granted? I doubt it, very seriously.

~.~ You mentioned that people against PETA take their beliefs for granted, I was simply pointing out that perhaps you take your belief in PETA for granted. Maybe that is not wording it correctly, but I am trying to point out that the way you see PETA, others on the receiving end of their attention or simply on the other side, may not feel the same.

Quote

Where did I say I don't eat meat? Where did I say you shouldn't?

~.~ I apologize. I was merely giving an example, not attempting to say that I know whether you do or don't eat meat. From my experience, PETA does have the stance that one basically cannot eat meat and that by doing so, one is being cruel to animals. I have never been cruel to any animal. This is a sore subject for me, especially this year, so I am most likely not making the best of sense.

Quote

As for the PETA person who said you shouldn't geld you colts, she obviously does not represent the official position of the organization. (And obviously doesn't know anything about horses.) Why take her word for policy over the actual mission statement?

~.~ Since I have had to put up with her quite alot, it is hard to disconnect her from them, I will readily admit that. See, this is where people are going to get a bad impression and if PETA does not feel this way, they need to make certain the public (and their members) is aware of that. One way to do that would be to loudly voice a disapproval of extremist activity. You may be surprised how many out there are just like her.

Quote

Do you assume that all Christians are homophobes, say, because a few idiots are?

~.~ No, I know better than that, but those few do make a bad impression, don't they? And it seems that is all it takes to place a bad mark on a group. I will say, in my family, all of those that go to church are indeed, homophobic. Sad, but true.

Quote

I don't follow you here. No, PETA does not in general deal with wild animals. There are several fine organizations that
~snip~
Their missions are complementary, not contradictory. (The "unnatural" interactions I'm referring to here are things such as laboratories, factory farms, fur farms. And in those circumstances, no one does the muckraking investigations any better than PETA.)

~.~ I took this:

Quote

In fact, the lack of naturalness in most such interactions is one of their most strongly argued points.
to mean they were against human/animal interaction as it is unnatural. I stand corrected.

Quote

I think it's remarkable, actually, the way many people respond to PETA. For most Americans, possibly most Westerners, the organization challenges the special position
~snip~
the same respect we pay ourselves. They draw vitriol from left and right equally. When I googled "PETA,ALF,funding," what I came up with was a clutch of right-wing sites run by anti-regulatory groups, hunting publications and fundamentalists. One one of them--I forget which, and I'm not going wading through that sludge again--railed that PETA was "typically
~snip~
been touched in a way that the fact that human and chimpanzee DNA are 99% identical doesn't reach to.

~.~ sorry, I had to snip that, I hate that I am making such large posts. I understand what you are saying, but do you have hands on experience with those that are against some of PETA's work? Have you actually talked to anyone that has been a (for lack of a better word) target? (I am not saying you haven't, I am simply asking) You are about the first PETA supporter that I have talked to that is not talking to me as a crazy. I used to support them long ago, until I was on the receiving end of attacks from a few other supporters. This is why I react the way I do, why I have no time for them, the experience I have had has left a very sour taste in my mouth. And, as much as I like you, you have one very large moutain to climb to convince me that they are not extremists. And, believe it or not, I do realize that there has to be others like you, I just have not had experience with them.

Quote

After all, we call our enemies "animals," don't we? Where would all our superiority go, if we were animals, too?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


~.~ I am an animal. I have always known this and have only felt as an equal to the animals around me.
I do know people that take some offense to the notion, but most seem to agree that we are animals, they just feel they are 'more evolved'. One of my firsts posts on the SUSA Xena board was a discussion about animals being sentient, believe me, my view was quickly ridiculed by one poster.

~edit cuz I missed a quote tag.

Edited by Elara, 20 June 2005 - 11:41 PM.

El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS



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