Fatal Attractions

ZergFront

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,959

DrJ

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
588
Aaaand...what was the purpose of this post?
 

jere000

Arachnosquire
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
106
Fatal attractions is full of bull <edit> is why I think he posted this.I watched it once and they changed every story on there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pitbulllady

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
2,290
Yes, "Fatal Attractions" is a <edit> show, full of lies. Pretty much anything on Animal Planet these days is pure AR propoganda, the sole purpose of which is to make exotic keepers(as in US) look like a bunch a irresponsible idiots who keep poor wild animals in cages to stoke our massive egos, and have no regards for anyone's safety, and to make animal breeders of ANY species out to be a bunch of money-grubbing psychopaths who hoard animals in horrific conditions in order to make a buck or two. Animal Planet relies on sensationalistic programming that plays on that fear and ignorance the general public has of animals and animal husbandry. HSUS is a major controlling influence/stock holder and is widely portrayed in many programs as the cavalry charging to the rescue of innocent, helpless animal victims.

pitbulllady
 

Onagro

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
71
This show should really be cancelled. I saw the reptile one and ended up furious over it! They really like to call anyone, even people with just a couple animals, "hoarders".
 

Vespula

Arachnodemon
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
707
This show makes me angry, as well. They change the facts and make all keepers seem like maniacs, social outcasts, and wierdos...:evil: It just bothers me.
 

Toirtis

Arachnobaron
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
316
Next episode has a case that I am very familiar with...I will watch to see just how accurate/inaccurate it is.
 

DireWolf0384

Arachnoangel
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
783
I have seen this show before and they make it look like these incidents happen all the time when in reality, they do not happen that often, and I am a firm believer that AP has declared war against the exotic pet trade. I know for a fact the HSUS funds them. They want the public to fear exotic pets and the people that keep them. I personally cannot stand AP anymore.
 

Kaimetsu

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
135
It's frustrating because AP also shows alot of enjoyable wildlife documentaries that i love. The animal rights movement frustrates me, because honestly i agree with alot of their positions, but they have been highjacked by idiots and wackos. I feel that even the animals we slaughter for food should be given some level of quality of life before they get slaughtered, and obviously people who abuse pets should be prosecuted. I even agree with groups like sea shephard that are fairly extreme, cetaceans such as whales and dolphins are inteligent enough that they should be protected from slaughter for profit, even if it means dangerous and aggressive tactics such as the ones that sea shephard employs. I just want to ask those members of groups like the HSUS that are against exotic pets, sometimes against all pets, why can't i live with the animals that i love, such as snakes, even large ones, if i can prove that i can provide them quality of life?
 

snappleWhiteTea

Arachnoangel
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
780
Has any one seen the "I Shouldn't Be Alive" show? Its equally as stupid as fatal attractions. FA is weird though, i seen one with a Harmlemite who owned a tiger and a solitary female who was bitten and died in her own trailer. the harlem one was funny though, they had the guy who owned it on there talking.
 

DireWolf0384

Arachnoangel
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
783
In my opinion,as long as we are providing the animal with the quality of life it deserves and keeping their cages secure and protecting the public, the HSUS, PETA and other groups should butt out. FACT: Exotic Pets have been known to lower blood pressure, combat depression and mental illness and help people recover from sickness.(Just as effective as Cats and Dogs) They want to effectively ban exotic pets from private people even if that means confiscation, putting politicians in their pockets and in some rare cases, eco terrorism.
 

pitbulllady

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
2,290
It's frustrating because AP also shows alot of enjoyable wildlife documentaries that i love. The animal rights movement frustrates me, because honestly i agree with alot of their positions, but they have been highjacked by idiots and wackos. I feel that even the animals we slaughter for food should be given some level of quality of life before they get slaughtered, and obviously people who abuse pets should be prosecuted. I even agree with groups like sea shephard that are fairly extreme, cetaceans such as whales and dolphins are inteligent enough that they should be protected from slaughter for profit, even if it means dangerous and aggressive tactics such as the ones that sea shephard employs. I just want to ask those members of groups like the HSUS that are against exotic pets, sometimes against all pets, why can't i live with the animals that i love, such as snakes, even large ones, if i can prove that i can provide them quality of life?
The position you described is Animal WELFARE, NOT Animal RIGHTS. There is a HUGE difference. The basic gist of the Animal Rights movement is that animals are "equal" to us in every way, and therefore it is morally wrong for us to use them in any way, or own them for any purpose. On the darker side, they are driven by a belief that animals are actually better off dead than being owned by humans, but only they(the AR activists)have the "right" to end an animal's life, out of mercy, of course, to prevent the possibility that the animal MIGHT be abused by humans somewhere down the road. The AR people know that if they just come out and try to ban ALL animal ownership at once, they aren't going to get very far, but if they go after certain types of animals at a time, they can eliminate ownership of those types via attrition if not through outright bans. The easiest way to accomplish this is to rely on the very powerful emotion of FEAR. Create an image of certain animals and the people who own them that the majority of the public will find threatening, and the public will appeal to the lawmakers to "save" them from this menace. They also rely on the "Divide and Conquer" concept-driving wedges between animal owners ourselves, creating this notion that "MY animals are OK, but YOURS are dangerous and have to go". When people start to believe that they themselves are immune or protected along with their animals from the bans, etc., and that it's "the other people" who are the problem, they strengthen the AR movement considerably, whether or not they consider themselves supporters.

Here's a little something I found on the Time4Dogs Blog, which sums up nicely the differences between the way an Animal Rights group(the HSUS)thinks, and the way an Animal WELFARE supporter thinks:

"Humane Society of the US-Their Philosophy Explained
HSUS Philosophy Explained:
An Animal Welfare Advocate and an HSUS executive (an unlikely pair, I agree; but bear with me) were walking down the street when they came upon a homeless person and his dog. The Animal Welfare Advocate gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job so he could earn a living. Then he could afford food & shelter for himself and the dog. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person and a coupon for dog food so they could get by till the homeless person could start that job.
The HSUS person was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person with a dog, he decided to help out as only he could. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the local animal "shelter" and a coupon for euthanasia, because he knew the homeless person would be better off without the dog; and besides, dogs are better dead than in the company of humans. He then reached into the Animal Welfare Advocate’s pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept $19.50 for administrative fees and gave the homeless person 50 cents.
If the homeless man refused this kind offer, the HSUS executive would make sure that he was cited for failure to license, failure to sterilize, and failure to provide food and shelter for the dog. And then he would take it to the "shelter" himself.

Now you understand the difference between Animal Welfare Advocates & the Humane Society of the US.
"

pitbulllady
 

Kaimetsu

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
135
The position you described is Animal WELFARE, NOT Animal RIGHTS. There is a HUGE difference. The basic gist of the Animal Rights movement is that animals are "equal" to us in every way, and therefore it is morally wrong for us to use them in any way, or own them for any purpose. On the darker side, they are driven by a belief that animals are actually better off dead than being owned by humans, but only they(the AR activists)have the "right" to end an animal's life, out of mercy, of course, to prevent the possibility that the animal MIGHT be abused by humans somewhere down the road. The AR people know that if they just come out and try to ban ALL animal ownership at once, they aren't going to get very far, but if they go after certain types of animals at a time, they can eliminate ownership of those types via attrition if not through outright bans. The easiest way to accomplish this is to rely on the very powerful emotion of FEAR. Create an image of certain animals and the people who own them that the majority of the public will find threatening, and the public will appeal to the lawmakers to "save" them from this menace. They also rely on the "Divide and Conquer" concept-driving wedges between animal owners ourselves, creating this notion that "MY animals are OK, but YOURS are dangerous and have to go". When people start to believe that they themselves are immune or protected along with their animals from the bans, etc., and that it's "the other people" who are the problem, they strengthen the AR movement considerably, whether or not they consider themselves supporters.

Here's a little something I found on the Time4Dogs Blog, which sums up nicely the differences between the way an Animal Rights group(the HSUS)thinks, and the way an Animal WELFARE supporter thinks:

"Humane Society of the US-Their Philosophy Explained
HSUS Philosophy Explained:
An Animal Welfare Advocate and an HSUS executive (an unlikely pair, I agree; but bear with me) were walking down the street when they came upon a homeless person and his dog. The Animal Welfare Advocate gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job so he could earn a living. Then he could afford food & shelter for himself and the dog. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person and a coupon for dog food so they could get by till the homeless person could start that job.
The HSUS person was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person with a dog, he decided to help out as only he could. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the local animal "shelter" and a coupon for euthanasia, because he knew the homeless person would be better off without the dog; and besides, dogs are better dead than in the company of humans. He then reached into the Animal Welfare Advocate’s pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept $19.50 for administrative fees and gave the homeless person 50 cents.
If the homeless man refused this kind offer, the HSUS executive would make sure that he was cited for failure to license, failure to sterilize, and failure to provide food and shelter for the dog. And then he would take it to the "shelter" himself.

Now you understand the difference between Animal Welfare Advocates & the Humane Society of the US.
"

pitbulllady
Some excelent points here the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights is something i havnt been able to articulate nearly as well as you did here. The scenario you posted is clearly fiction but it does an excelent job of highlighting the two different ways of thinking. The sad thing is i think the majority of people who support the humane society and consider themselves animal rights proponents are really animal welfare proponents and don't realize who they are supporting. I personally support animal welfare very strongly, is their an organization out there that works to fight for animal welfare without supporting "animal rights" in the sense that you have defined it?
 

pitbulllady

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
2,290
Some excelent points here the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights is something i havnt been able to articulate nearly as well as you did here. The scenario you posted is clearly fiction but it does an excelent job of highlighting the two different ways of thinking. The sad thing is i think the majority of people who support the humane society and consider themselves animal rights proponents are really animal welfare proponents and don't realize who they are supporting. I personally support animal welfare very strongly, is their an organization out there that works to fight for animal welfare without supporting "animal rights" in the sense that you have defined it?
Sadly, no, not nationally, anyway. Nearly every single Animal Welfare group has been "hijacked" by the Animal Rights movement, and we are gradually seeing them "turn". The ASPCA long supported people's rights to breed dogs and other pets responsibly and own the pet of their choice, but now they are more and more against breeding animals, and absolutely against owning any sort of "exotic" animal, such as snakes or tarantulas. My best advice is to research your local animal protection groups/shelters, see what their positions are are, and donate to the ones that you find acceptable. They can sure use it, since they don't receive a penny from the national groups. If you don't want to make monetary donations, most are happy with gifts of things like pet food, towels, paper towels, bleach, animal toys, etc.

pitbulllady
 

dtknow

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 18, 2004
Messages
2,242
In my opinion,as long as we are providing the animal with the quality of life it deserves and keeping their cages secure and protecting the public, the HSUS, PETA and other groups should butt out. FACT: Exotic Pets have been known to lower blood pressure, combat depression and mental illness and help people recover from sickness.(Just as effective as Cats and Dogs) They want to effectively ban exotic pets from private people even if that means confiscation, putting politicians in their pockets and in some rare cases, eco terrorism.
References? I'd love to see the study/article. I mean-everyone on hear knows that their pets help them relax etc. but it is neat to see a study on something other than cats/dogs.
 

Ashphetamine

Arachnosquire
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
50
Hm. Well, i've spent a lot of time reading this thread- there are a lot of really good points here. I would just like to toss my own opinion in on this.

I refuse to watch the show honestly. I saw a fragment of the show in which they were bashing Tarantulas as being "highly poisonous" and totally making my snuggly little creepies out to be some kind of demonic man eating monsters. Mind you- the only <edit> examples they used were naturally DEFENSIVE species- i.e OBT. Oh, and by the way- if you poke ANY spider with a pair o prongs long enough- it will eventually get peeved!!!! They didnt specify that only SOME types of T's are aggressive- they just generalized them and basically gave every under informed idiot watching the show a bad impression and every reason they could think of to be terrified of them.

Personally, I've grown to dislike most television as it has become a media mind<edit>. People today have the lack of thirst for knowledge and they'll believe anything someone with sufficient funds throws in their face. Look at American politics! [thats a whoooole 'nother issue though].

All I have to say is AP used to be informative- back when Irwin was still around, people actually LEARNED from their programs. Now they're just fulling people full of fluff and whatever brings their ratings up.

Media monsters.
Perhaps they should do an episode about greed.

FATAL ATTRACTIONS: THE REAL REASON WE BIAS OUR PROGRAMS.


This trash is the reason I started the LSV thread in Tchat. Encourage people to LEARN before they develop a ridiculous FEAR/PHOBIA.

Humans have devolved[sp?] in that area, I believe. At least wild animals will try it and learn the hard way before they learn/decide to be afraid. =\ Humans just jump to fear as an easy excuse for apathy on any political/controversial subjects.

If they're afraid, they cant be scolded for not caring by either side.

well-
IM SCOLDING THEM!
 
Last edited:

forsakenfuture

Arachnopeon
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
1
It has been a while since ive been on this forum and like the OP i watched Fatal Attractions last night and started searching info on Anita Finch. It led me back to this forum. I am glad to see that there are others out there that agree with me.
 

ZergFront

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,959
Fatal attractions is full of bull <edit> is why I think he posted this.I watched it once and they changed every story on there.
Yup. Some of the story seems funny (not in the Har Har way either).

I never would own one but I'm fascinated by venomous snakes. I think shows like this only do damage to the responsible owners.

This is why I watch Nat Geo and Science Channel now instead of AP. It died with Steve Irwin...
 
Top