Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Enzo03 on October 26, 2011, 02:24:27 pm
-
SAN DIEGO (AP) — A federal court is being asked to grant constitutional rights to five killer whales who perform at marine parks — an unprecedented and perhaps quixotic legal action that is nonetheless likely to stoke an ongoing, intense debate at America's law schools over expansion of animal rights.
...
The suit, which PETA says it will file Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Diego, hinges on the fact that the 13th Amendment, while prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude, does not specify that only humans can be victims.
...
"By any definition, these orcas are slaves — kidnapped from their homes, kept confined, denied everything that's natural to them and forced to perform tricks for SeaWorld's profit," said Kerr. "The males have their sperm collected, the females are artificially inseminated and forced to bear young which are sometimes shipped away."
:nono:
-
It's kind of irritating, because I don't neccesarily disagree with some of PETA's stances on things like performing animals etc, but they (like all organisations that focus on getting public attention) push it to the 'max'.
The case doesn't touch on several bonuses of having captive animals, such as awareness and funding for their wild counterparts, but, also, there is a valid point being made there.
Whilst the 'Modest Proposal' technique of attention grabbing may work as a shock tactic when it is unexpected and surprising, it's become so common now that it's actually become tacky.
-
This is how you make things happen. Good on PETA for actually standing by what they say they stand by
However, as much as I respect them for actually taking action, this is still utterly hilarious
-
It's a slippery-slope case though, in fairness, because if you grant those rights to performing animals, then it leads the way to legislation over working animals, including food-producing ones.
As I've said before, the flaw in PETA's plan to stop everyone eating meat is that, in order to grow that much vegetable crop, you'd have to slaughter tens of millions of now-useless grazing animals for the space (and because you'd still have to pay to feed them). Whilst most animals produce secondary goods such as Milk or Eggs, for the main part what they would achieve is the near genocide of most farmland animals.
PETA have done some good stuff in the past, revealing some horrendous behaviour towards animals, however, they need to be realistic about things, there's nothing whatsoever wrong about drawing attention, and I'm pretty sure they don't expect to win, but they should be prepared for some unexpected results if by some chance they do.
-
If what the article says is the case then it certainly comes under the heading of "the letter of the law over common sense"
here are 3 for you.
1. wtf does PETA intend to do if they win, who will house the Orcas as I presume they would not be able to function sufficiently in the wild?
2. where do domestic pets stand in all this?
3. where do rescue centres stand in this? they detain animals often against their will and in many cases run schemes that a close parallel to euthanasia when they get over capacity and put down animals that are less likely to be adopted. and on the subject of euthanasia vets routinely destroy animals that would have a drawn out and painful death or otherwise have a long period of intense suffering while they recover.
just a few thoughts
-
2. Your dog is a slave, according to PETA.
I don't know, I miss the days when PETA was a form of bizarre street theater and people in bodypaint. They were much more amusing then.
-
I recall this one time when PETA showered in the streets naked
Albeit, I don't understand the relation to what they were protesting to what they were doing to protest, but eh. Great life drawing subjects
Funny thing though, how do they intend to apply the US amendment in Canada?
-
PETA is a joke. Granted in the case of the nearly-nude female models a very attractive wouldn't-kick-it-out-of-bed-for-eating-crackers joke, but a joke nonetheless.
Legal challenge is going nowhere. Even if a lower court were dumb enough to wade into this, the USSC would slice and dice it faster than you can say "sushi."
-
*Sigh*
Constitutional rights? Do we really want to run down the list of rights defined in the United States Constitution that definately don't need to be extended to animals?
The short list: Whales don't need the right to vote; dolphins don't need freedom of the press, and apes don't need guns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjcpRHuPjOI). (Neither does Charleton Heston, but that's a subject for another thread.)
-
2. Your dog is a slave, according to PETA.
I don't know about dogs, but I wonder if anyone of them even seen a person who "has" a cat. :)
You don't own a cat, a cat owns you (and that's not only in Soviet Russia). If he's is feeling generous, he'll sometimes let you think that have any sort of power over him.
Cats also don't need any kind of constitution. Their rules are clear: "You feed me, clean my litter box and I might let you pet me from time to time".
Of course, all this is from my personal experience (my family is owned by a lot of cats). :)
-
Although, isn't there some debate on whales of various types being sentient, and therefore deserving some sort of rights?
-
Whilst most animals produce secondary goods such as Milk or Eggs, for the main part what they would achieve is the near genocide of most farmland animals.
Oh you wouldn't be able to keep farm animals for eggs and milk if PETA had their way.
-
I am a proud supporter of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals.
-
The one problem is that we will probably never stop eating meat... vegetables will never succeed as a single food source. We could, however, start eating bugs. :D
Wait... will PETA then start arguing for insect rights? o_o
-
They already did
Obama swatted a fly on national television
PETA issues a response
We all laughed
-
They also wanted to put have-a-heart insect traps in the White House
-
2. Your dog is a slave, according to PETA.
I don't know about dogs, but I wonder if anyone of them even seen a person who "has" a cat. :)
You don't own a cat, a cat owns you (and that's not only in Soviet Russia). If he's is feeling generous, he'll sometimes let you think that have any sort of power over him.
Cats also don't need any kind of constitution. Their rules are clear: "You feed me, clean my litter box and I might let you pet me from time to time".
Of course, all this is from my personal experience (my family is owned by a lot of cats). :)
With us its more of a mutual co-existence thing. But yeah, those cats really see people as feeding robots 0_o.
-
All animals automically plead the fifth. This will get no where because of that.
-
2. Your dog is a slave, according to PETA.
I don't know about dogs, but I wonder if anyone of them even seen a person who "has" a cat. :)
You don't own a cat, a cat owns you (and that's not only in Soviet Russia). If he's is feeling generous, he'll sometimes let you think that have any sort of power over him.
Cats also don't need any kind of constitution. Their rules are clear: "You feed me, clean my litter box and I might let you pet me from time to time".
Of course, all this is from my personal experience (my family is owned by a lot of cats). :)
With us its more of a mutual co-existence thing. But yeah, those cats really see people as feeding robots 0_o.
i think cats are capable of psychic mind control over their human hosts.
-
2. Your dog is a slave, according to PETA.
I don't know about dogs, but I wonder if anyone of them even seen a person who "has" a cat. :)
You don't own a cat, a cat owns you (and that's not only in Soviet Russia). If he's is feeling generous, he'll sometimes let you think that have any sort of power over him.
Cats also don't need any kind of constitution. Their rules are clear: "You feed me, clean my litter box and I might let you pet me from time to time".
Of course, all this is from my personal experience (my family is owned by a lot of cats). :)
in Soviet Russia you own cat.
-
in Soviet Russia everyone owns the cat.
Fixed that for you
-
in Soviet Russia everyone owns the cat.
Fixed that for you
In Soviet Russia cat everyone owns eats you.
-
In Soviet Cat, Russia eats you?
-
In Cat Russia, Soviet is eaten.
-
In Russia Cat Soviet owns you.
-
In Soviet Russia, cat owns everyone. :)
It all makes sense now! The Cold War was because an American was late to feed the cat by 10 seconds! No wonder they wanted to nuke US...
-
In Soviet Russia, thread derails you.
-
Getting back on track when I heard about this the first thought that came to mind was the experience of keiko the whale. Keiko was the star a mid 90's disney type flick called free willy, and he had been moved from mexico city to the aquarium in newport oregon. This was a sensible move because he was not well in Mexico and became healthy again in the colder climate of Oregon. Where it gets sticky was when somebody had the idea to release him back into the wild, despite having spent nearly his whole life in captivity. So a temporary pen was built in Iceland to attempt to retrain him to survive on his own in the wild. What ended up happening was he ended up hanging around people and was not able to feed himself. Eventually he died by beaching himself because he had pnuemonia.
The animal rights people had their day and blew it big. Read all about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiko_(orca))
-
Maybe some of these PETA members might try surviving alone in the wild...
-
In many ways, PETA is like the modern day Kellogg, he was on a war against masturbation, which is, of course, a war you simply are not going to win. I see PETA in much the same light with regards to eating meat.
-
That **** with cats doesn't fly with me. They fall out of line, i bop them on the head, look at them, and yell NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Cat's don't like this, they **** up less afterward.
-
In many ways, PETA is like the modern day Kellogg, he was on a war against masturbation, which is, of course, a war you simply are not going to win. I see PETA in much the same light with regards to eating meat.
Well, the difference is that eating animals (animals, not meat; no one objects to eating meat) is something that might conceivably drop to a small fraction of what it is now within the next couple hundred years or so. Unlike Kellogg, it seems pretty likely that at some point in the future, PETA will eventually win.
-
Assumes advances in artificial meat production not yet in evidence.
-
They will 'kind of' win, as in meat taken from slaughtered animals will, most likely be grown in labs instead (Though, as The E points out, we are actually a fair distance from creating and accepting that kind of product). It's certainly possible that sheer weight of need will, and does, force farming away from the more area-dependant techniques, such as crop farming and livestock, and more into things like Hydroponics and GM. But that's not truly a 'victory' for PETA, it's not been done for ethical reasons, it's not that we are concerned about the animals, it's that we are concerned about ourselves.
Fact is, whilst there are people who choose to be vegetarian, the vast majority of humanity eats animal life, whether it be insects, rodents, bovines, equines or any other type. Indeed, there's growing arguments that 'insect farming' may be another route to dealing with the resource problem, so I don't see PETA ever really succeeding in stopping humanity eating or exploiting animals.
-
They will 'kind of' win, as in meat taken from slaughtered animals will, most likely be grown in labs instead (Though, as The E points out, we are actually a fair distance from creating and accepting that kind of product). It's certainly possible that sheer weight of need will, and does, force farming away from the more area-dependant techniques, such as crop farming and livestock, and more into things like Hydroponics and GM. But that's not truly a 'victory' for PETA, it's not been done for ethical reasons, it's not that we are concerned about the animals, it's that we are concerned about ourselves.
Fact is, whilst there are people who choose to be vegetarian, the vast majority of humanity eats animal life, whether it be insects, rodents, bovines, equines or any other type. Indeed, there's growing arguments that 'insect farming' may be another route to dealing with the resource problem, so I don't see PETA ever really succeeding in stopping humanity eating or exploiting animals.
Agreed on all counts, but I guess I was referring more to the kind of practices of exploiting animals which are the driving force behind PETA and the animal rights movement in general. So, sure, they won't ever really succeed as in achieving everything they'd want to, but things like factory and fur farming and the like which account for 90% of what they really want to end, might in the long term (mostly) end.
-
in cat russia, soviets pet you (if youre a member of the feline master race)
-
Unlike Kellogg, it seems pretty likely that at some point in the future, PETA will eventually win.
It depends on whether you are talking about their sane or insane goals. They'll never get an end to people owning pets for instance. Or using horse drawn carriages. Or letting kids ride on elephants.
When it comes to meat, it will require someone figuring out how to make it another way. Meat simply tastes too good for humans to give it up. :p
-
humans are naturally omnivorous. it took the invention of agriculture to make a meat free diet anywhere near practical, and i still have doubts that it is. also livestock gives you the capability to convert non-nutritional resources (grass) into nutritional products (beef).
-
Well, the difference is that eating animals (animals, not meat; no one objects to eating meat) is something that might conceivably drop to a small fraction of what it is now within the next couple hundred years or so. Unlike Kellogg, it seems pretty likely that at some point in the future, PETA will eventually win.
I agree. If things continue headed in the direction they are now, I think PETA will probably win. The line between "animal" and human is getting fuzzier all the time. Eventually people will realize that granting humans the right to life and not, say, chimpanzees, is rather arbitrary and based on old fashioned ideas like having a soul.
-
As long as Bacon is delicious, I believe there's always going to be a market for raising, killing, and then turning pigs into it.
PETA, delusional first-world idiots that they are, will not change that. The only thing that could would be to find a way to produce equal-quality bacon without involving pigs, at the same or a better price than traditional pig-based methods.
-
Truth is, we have pitifully few reources that are self-maintaining as animal stock is. We talk about a 'renewable energy source' as something of the future, but as far as our biology is concerned, nature figured it out billions of years ago. And it's not just meat. Leather, Wool, Milk, Eggs, Silk, Gelotin etc. It's easy when you are in the First World to believe that we can live without these sort of things, but the truth is that for the vast majority of the planet, they are the core elements of survival.
For example, to a Sherpa, a goat is a source of milk, clothing and, eventually, food. They cannot grow Cotton or food crops because they are nomadic and because the climate will not allow it, they would have to fundamentally change their way of life in order to stop using animals. Unless PETA want to actually get into these countries and establish vast textile and hydroponics industries, whether the country involved wishes it or not, they really are just preaching from a position of ignorance.
-
Which is why PETA is never going to be non-ridiculous, given their blindness to issues outside of the very specific circumstances and lifestyle options available in the first world.
-
Umm... how does that figure, considering that PETA doesn't campaign against sherpas keeping goats or any other "necessary" and reasonably humane use of animals?
-
It's complained about Obama swatting a fly before. And yes, they have stated that pet ownership is slavery and that wearing wool is encouraging the abuse of animals, though, in fairness, they were referring to Australian sheep at the time.
Thing is, if they called themselves the 'People for the Responsible Treatment of Animals' and campaigned more along those lines, they'd probably be regarded with less embarassment as they tend to be. It's the whole idea that it's 'Vegan or nothing' has permeated the organisation to the point of obsession. They even state a falsehood in their article on wool on their site, they state that sheep only grow enough wool to protect themselves from the environment, which is not true, wool-producing sheep will keep growing wool slowly till it is sheared, as the incident with 'Shrek' highlighted...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrek_%28sheep%29
-
The problem is that their definition of "humane use" is "no use at all". If we take the precedent alluded to in the OP, how is one of those goats not a slave that needs to be liberated?
Consider the following statement put forth by PETA's head idiot:
If anybody wonders 'what's this with all these reforms?', you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation, and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment [on], and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose.
-
It's complained about Obama swatting a fly before. And yes, they have stated that pet ownership is slavery and that wearing wool is encouraging the abuse of animals, though, in fairness, they were referring to Australian sheep at the time.
What, this "PETA complains about Obama swatting a fly" thing is still making circles? It was never substantiated anywhere.
Anyway, isn't it kinda obvious that PETA operates in the context of first world countries and the luxury of choice, as opposed to being against every form of utilization of animals no matter how necessary for human survival? If their goal is "total animal liberation", then do you really believe that they'd rather want to see third-world sherpas starve or freeze to death without their goats or simply to see sherpas no longer need goats to survive and then to stop using them?
And let it be stated again for political correctness' sake that I disagree with PETA (almost) as much as the next guy, although probably for somewhat different reasons. They're certainly attacked for the completely wrong reasons most of the time.
-
Because it comes with the assumption that, deep down, they want to change their lives, that the world that PETA lives in is somehow a goal to be achieved, rather than simply another choice, and one that Sherpas don't have the luxury, and probably don't have the inclination to make.
Thing is, all the current goals of PETA will achieve is to reduce the number of currently plentiful animals because they are no longer needed, lessen awareness and sympathy for endangered species by preventing zoos etc from raising awareness and collecting donations, and create an increase in the artificial textiles industry, which is one of the poorer ones when it comes to pollution creation.
When PETA campaigned against Battery farming, I was with them, when they complained about the terrible conditions that some Circus animals were kept under, I was with them, but, for me at least, it's a big leap from 'treat them humanely' to 'treat them as humans', I just feel PETA has somehow blurred the distinction.
-
I'm sorry, but if someone makes absolute statements like the one quoted above, and does not qualify them with real-world stuff, then I am going to go ahead and assume that they're a) Idiots and b) serious.
Yes, that does mean that in my view, PETA's stated goals do involve killing real human beings.
-
As long as Bacon is delicious, I believe there's always going to be a market for raising, killing, and then turning pigs into it.
PETA, delusional first-world idiots that they are, will not change that. The only thing that could would be to find a way to produce equal-quality bacon without involving pigs, at the same or a better price than traditional pig-based methods.
sacrilege! do not disgrace the bacon!
-
Because it comes with the assumption that, deep down, they want to change their lives, that the world that PETA lives in is somehow a goal to be achieved, rather than simply another choice, and one that Sherpas don't have the luxury, and probably don't have the inclination to make.
Well of course it's also a goal. If I for instance could choose between the world as it is and the world as it is except that sherpas magically wouldn't need to use goats yet they'd be just as well off, of course I'd pick the latter. If sherpas using goats involves even the tiniest ethical problem no matter how negligible compared to the gains the sherpas get from it (let's say the ratio is +1 bad, +10 good), then it ought to be a goal to improve things so that the said tiny ethical problem can be avoided (improving the situation to +0 bad, +10 good). Immensely low-priority compared to bigger issues elsewhere, but an eventual goal nevertheless.
There's nothing inherently wrong with changing other people's lifestyles. It's just hard to do in a way which results in a net benefit.
Thing is, all the current goals of PETA will achieve is to reduce the number of currently plentiful animals because they are no longer needed, lessen awareness and sympathy for endangered species by preventing zoos etc from raising awareness and collecting donations, and create an increase in the artificial textiles industry, which is one of the poorer ones when it comes to pollution creation.
Well, any lost awareness and sympathy for endangered species it makes up for increased awareness and sympathy for domestic species, and frankly, it's not like people lose interest in endangered rhinos if they pick up interest in the conditions of pigs. I'm not sure what animals you're referring to by plentiful animals though, or why it'd be bad to reduce their numbers.
Also, I don't buy the idea that the artificial textiles industry pollutes more than the leather industry (even considering the synergy with the meat industry), and it certainly does less so than the fur industry, but since I'm not really an expert, let's assume so for the sake of the argument.
When PETA campaigned against Battery farming, I was with them, when they complained about the terrible conditions that some Circus animals were kept under, I was with them, but, for me at least, it's a big leap from 'treat them humanely' to 'treat them as humans', I just feel PETA has somehow blurred the distinction.
Well, if you're referring to the topic, then yeah, I'd agree it's completely silly. When the problem is breeding (or capturing; dunno how much that is still done) of orcas into captivity, then I'd rather see them arguing against that instead of pulling a PR stunt.
-
As long as Bacon is delicious, I believe there's always going to be a market for raising, killing, and then turning pigs into it.
PETA, delusional first-world idiots that they are, will not change that. The only thing that could would be to find a way to produce equal-quality bacon without involving pigs, at the same or a better price than traditional pig-based methods.
sacrilege! do not disgrace the bacon!
Well the Japanese are supposedly working on it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/16/japanese-scientist-makes-poop-burger_n_878210.html:)
-
Felt this (http://www.theonion.com/video/advocacy-group-decries-petas-inhumane-treatment-of,14359/) deserved a (re) posting. :p
-
There's actually quite a bit of [successful] research on production of consumable meat without raising animals for that purpose, much of which is actually capable of producing edible product.
http://www.scienceinseconds.com/episodes/In-Vitro-Meat See references under the video.
-
i wonder if were doing more damage by saving endangered species that to simply allow them to die out. extinction is part of evolution. by preventing nonviable species from dieing out, you increase competition for space and resources by other species, hindering their further evolution and not making room for new species. yes i admit we cause a ****ton of extinctions on our own, but these are species that are nonviable because of competition with humans, and thus cannot adapt survive in their changing environment. if we constantly try to preserve these species, it wont allow for any development of traits that would make them viable despite our interference. one such potential trait is greater intelligence. we may actually be preventing the evolution of a second sentient species.
-
Humans are just a part of the environment, providing selective pressure to be cute and/or endangered. :P
In more (or maybe less) serious news, I saw a t-shirt with the text "For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat three." Made my day.
-
For me it's actually quite simple.
PETA is trying to commit genocide.
I'm not making that up. I am not exaggerating for effect. PETA is trying to destroy entire species. They want to kill my dog. They want to kill all dogs. Because dogs have evolved to hang out with humans and that's worked out remarkably well for them. They far outnumber their wild brothers, wolves.
PETA wants to free the dogs. This will result in millions of them dying and millions of others wrecking local ecosystems, and probably squeezing out existing wolf species and driving them to extinction. PETA wants to genocide entire breeds of dog that don't have the necessary requisites to survive in the wild, and then kill the wolves for good measure.
And we haven't even gotten started on other domesticated species. PETA is composed of monsters and fools, advocating the genocide of entire species.
-
What about the fish?! No one cares about the fish! A humungous portion of fish populations have already died out...
-
What about the fish?! No one cares about the fish! A humungous portion of fish populations have already died out...
Don't you mean Sea Kittens (http://features.peta.org/PETASeaKittens/)?
It's stuff like this that makes it hard to take PETA seriously.
-
It's complained about Obama swatting a fly before. And yes, they have stated that pet ownership is slavery and that wearing wool is encouraging the abuse of animals, though, in fairness, they were referring to Australian sheep at the time.
What, this "PETA complains about Obama swatting a fly" thing is still making circles? It was never substantiated anywhere.
uh, yes it was. i saw the news report with my own eyes where a PETA spokesman said something to the effect of "we're disappointed the president would kill something on national TV" and held up some kind of weird catch-and-release device they were sending to the white house for him to use in the future.
-
What, this "PETA complains about Obama swatting a fly" thing is still making circles? It was never substantiated anywhere.
uh, yes it was. i saw the news report with my own eyes where a PETA spokesman said something to the effect of "we're disappointed the president would kill something on national TV" and held up some kind of weird catch-and-release device they were sending to the white house for him to use in the future.
Really? Well, that's more like it then, although a link would be nice since despite actually having tried to search for such a thing I've never found anything like that. All I've ever seen is people complaining about it.
-
PETA wants to free the dogs. This will result in millions of them dying and millions of others wrecking local ecosystems, and probably squeezing out existing wolf species and driving them to extinction. PETA wants to genocide entire breeds of dog that don't have the necessary requisites to survive in the wild, and then kill the wolves for good measure.
Dude, what the heck? Where are you getting that from? That's frankly just so mind-bogglingly ridiculous that I don't even know where to start.
If PETA wants to free the dogs, then why do they support, for example, shelters for homeless dogs? Doesn't make much sense, really.
I mean, seriously now, PETA wants to kill your dog? Surely you got something to back that up.
-
I mean, seriously now, PETA wants to kill your dog? Surely you got something to back that up.
According to them, my dog is a slave. Come now, you know that. All domesticated and semi-domesticated animals are slaves according to PETA, that's why this thread exists. Freeing them is also why this thread exists, so maybe you should go back and read the OP again a few times.
Freeing them means they can come and go as they please at the very least (and here in San Diego that will kill pretty much every dog and cat in the county, or the coyote population will die instead, pick one).
It's really quite simple. I have a Sheltie (he's new, I don't think I've mentioned him before), a working dog. He doesn't have the instincts to survive in the wild because he's evolved to perform a few very specific tasks. He wouldn't last very long if "freed". The majority of small dog breeds would die very quickly in the wild. Then most of the herding dogs like my Max, because their aggressive instincts have been tamped down on. Most of the work dogs, like the Grand Pyrenees and Saint Bernard, would go with them. We're left with some of the larger terriers and poodles that still have hunting instincts, some of the more aggressive working breeds like German Shepards, some of the more aggressive general breeds like Akitas and bulldogs competing with the coyotes and wolves for habitat and role.
As for PETA supporting animal shelters, you are under the delusion that PETA is a unified front; as with all large movements, this is untrue. Local branches might do so. The national leadership does not.
-
What about the fish?! No one cares about the fish! A humungous portion of fish populations have already died out...
Don't you mean Sea Kittens (http://features.peta.org/PETASeaKittens/)?
It's stuff like this that makes it hard to take PETA seriously.
OMFG! They've thought of everything!
And I dispute their claim that people don't like fish.
Many people love fish... love the texture of the meat on the tongue. :nervous:
-
yea i love fish, coated with beer batter and spritzed with lemon juice.
some would argue thats a waste of beer, but its usually an excuse to buy a 24 pack, and it only uses like a third of a can. and im usually plastered by the time dinner is done.
-
Fish tacos are great, especially when the meat is grilled tilapia.
-
As for PETA supporting animal shelters, you are under the delusion that PETA is a unified front; as with all large movements, this is untrue. Local branches might do so. The national leadership does not.
Oh it's far worse (http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-06-23/opinion/17379611_1_peta-s-web-animal-cruelty-dead-animals) than that. PETA claim that they only euthanise when they run out of money or if the animal is suffering but as the case above points out, that's not what is going on all the time. Ironically for an organisation that spends so much time checking up on other businesses to see if they are taking care of their animals, they do precious little of it themselves.
-
In my humble opinion, all members of PETA should be twated around the head with a seal skin sack filled with kittens, force fed a big mac wile they're dazed and told to MTFU and go become productive members of society (or if they already are, go get me a grilled chicken sandwhich with cheese).
But on a serious note, I personally can't stand for abuse of animals or anything that can't stnad up for itself from unfair treatment. And PETA have done some good things, but I think they are getting a little big for their boots. They are trying to change human nature at it's most base level, and it ain't gonna work without some cosmic event forcing our hand to do so.
So I say: PETA, chicken sandwhich or GTFO.
-
It's not them trying to stop animal abuse/cruelty, it's them trying to change the damn food chain.
-
If they had their way, they'd have all predators eating tofu. And when they had done that, protest about the cruel treatment of soya plants and how it's evil and immoral to eat it.
-
If PETA members would volunteer to be eaten (instead of the animals) the problem would be solved?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inFtOMx8nDU
It needed to be posted.
-
If PETA members would volunteer to be eaten (instead of the animals) the problem would be solved?
vegans, the other other white meat!
as i understand from a shady, nondescript, and unreliable source, people taste like pork.
-
That would sense, pig flesh is very similar to human flesh isn't it?
New type of bacon is here! :P
-
There's a reason it's called long pig.
-
There's a reason it's called long pig.
I'd like to see your long pig
-
There's a reason it's called long pig.
I'd like to see your long pig
Oh dear. :lol:
-
That would sense, pig flesh is very similar to human flesh isn't it?
New type of bacon is here! :P
Humans, according to what I've read, actually taste significantly worse than pigs.
-
this thread has moved into a level of disturbing I had never expected to find on these boards.
-
After the Vasudan lingerie thread, I'm not sure how it's possible anyone finds anything else disturbing.
-
i mean, seriously, its only cannibalism.
-
After the Vasudan lingerie thread, I'm not sure how it's possible anyone finds anything else disturbing.
I'd like to be your Vasudan lingerie
Okay, I stop now
-
After the Vasudan lingerie thread, I'm not sure how it's possible anyone finds anything else disturbing.
Vasudan....Lingerie?
I am both terrified and appalled.
-
After the Vasudan lingerie thread, I'm not sure how it's possible anyone finds anything else disturbing.
We really can't forget that picture of FreeSpace Rule 34 that was posted in here. That's worse than a zod in lipstick and lingerie.
-
I'm still amazed that so many people were seemingly traumatized by that Vasudan pic. I mean, have you been anywhere around the Internet? I've seen things that make that look like a fluffy little kitten. :p
-
I'm still amazed that so many people were seemingly traumatized by that Vasudan pic. I mean, have you been anywhere around the Internet? I've seen things that make that look like a fluffy little kitten. :p
two words: german porn