PETA and HSUS

[The Snark]

EPA. The Simpsons Movie was pretty accurate.

We had a traffic accident in our town. Since I heard the BANG I eventually wandered out to the scene. A car was leaking radiator fluid which has a 50 foot trip to the storm drain that emptied into Parker Creek. Some dude from the EPA was there. He was warning everybody to stay clear of the scene. I mean, this guy was acting like the EPA guy on Ghostbusters. He ordered me to back away from the vicinity. I sadly replied it is ethylene glycol and just what in heck is his personal 12 alarm fire. The nut case actually threatened to have me arrested if I didn't cooperate.

So there we have Parker Creek. 150 yards upstream is the start of the LP timber harvest plots. Around a half million acres of clear cuts. The entire area sprayed repeatedly by helicopter with several different kinds of herbicide, all draining down into Parker. Thousands of gallons of herbicide is okay because Louisiana Pacific, the biggest $$$ in the entire county, had filed the correct papers and received the correct waivers, but 2 gallons of biodegradable alcohol is a deadly hazard.

Talk about can't see the forest for the (lack of) trees. The EPA are in a class all their own, teetering at times at the very pinnacle of the cement head pyramid.

 

[Thistles]

Why do people have to get so pissy about this topic? I think the thread should be closed as well, because obviously people here can't accept the views of others and have to resort to making personal attacks. Remember, accepting someone's opinion is not the same as agreeing with it.

If you were walking down the street and saw someone kicking a puppy, would you say something? How would you feel about it? Magnify that by billions.

 

[Stirmi]

I wante the thread closed because it is losing it relevancy and turning sour between us and is resorting t personal attacks like bob grill said. I don't get why you two are getting so angry at me I respect your opinions however as soon as you started talking down to everyone is where I lost it because it was disrespectful an it is possible to be both there something called a middle ground and not being a extreme conservationist or the other end. This thread wasn't meant to cause anger between anyone it was meant to warn people about the true intentions of PETA and the Hsus. I'm sorry if I offended you but I have a right to an opinion just as you. As for the dogs ad cats, ironically those are the only animals if think should be heavily regulate because of the damage to the environment they cause, however they should not be banned but regulated. Let's stay on good terms and drop this thread because I'm not going to Change your mind and your not going to change mine. And we are Ominvores, we eat both meat and plant like matter it is in it nature to eat both.

 

[BobGrill]

If you were walking down the street and saw someone kicking a puppy, would you say something? How would you feel about it? Magnify that by billions.

Oh stop it. Your pathetic attempts to make me look like a cold-hearted animal-hater have failed already so don't even try it.

I see no reason for anyone to get all radical about it. I myself love animals and hate seeing them treated badly, but I'm not going to verbally or physically attack others just because they don't see eye to eye with all of my views.

 

[Thistles]

I wante the thread closed because it is losing it relevancy and turning sour between us and is resorting t personal attacks like bob grill said.

You mean because people actually dare to defend animal rights? This has been brought up on the forum many times before with predictable results: a few predictable people make a few predictable angry (and often untrue) statements and everyone pats each other on the back for being so perceptive and staunch and united against the evils of the AR movement.

And like 2 people take the opposing view and can't get any straight responses. Look at PBL's replies to me here, for example. Did she ever answer any of my criticisms? Nope.

I don't get why you two are getting so angry at me I respect your opinions however as soon as you started talking down to everyone is where I lost it because it was disrespectful an it is possible to be both there something called a middle ground and not being a extreme conservationist or the other end.

I don't think I've talked down to anyone. I've asked people to stop generalizing and to be honest with themselves. I don't consider myself an extremist at all. I live in the US, own pets, feed them other animals...

This thread wasn't meant to cause anger between anyone it was meant to warn people about the true intentions of PETA and the Hsus.

There have been others just like it. If you just wanted a one-sided "THESE R BAD K?" warning, this isn't the place. It's a forum. That means there will be other people who can reply, and some will dissent.

I'm sorry if I offended you but I have a right to an opinion just as you.

Of course you do.

As for the dogs ad cats, ironically those are the only animals if think should be heavily regulate because of the damage to the environment they cause, however they should not be banned but regulated.

That would be a good start.

Let's stay on good terms and drop this thread because I'm not going to Change your mind and your not going to change mine. And we are Ominvores, we eat both meat and plant like matter it is in it nature to eat both.

"Let's just be done with this BUT BY THE WAY FINAL SHOT!" We are not omnivores by necessity. We are omnivores by choice. There is nothing natural at all about the standard American diet. Don't pretend nature justifies eating McDonalds.

---------- Post added 11-11-2013 at 08:09 PM ----------

Oh stop it. Your pathetic attempts to make me look like a cold-hearted animal-hater have failed already so don't even try it.

I see no reason for anyone to get all radical about it. I myself love animals and hate seeing them treated badly, but I'm not going to verbally or physically attack others just because they don't see eye to eye with all of my views.

That was not what I was trying to do. I was asking you how you would respond if you saw what you perceive to be animal abuse occurring, and appealing to your professed love of animals. Would you be angry? Would you say something? What is happening here is we have a difference of opinion about what constitutes abuse. I think every chicken killed on a factory farm deserves the same standard of care as my hypothetical puppy, so I feel the same way about it as I would if I saw my hypothetical puppy kicker.

I have not attacked anyone. I have attacked their positions and actions. That's what a conversation, debate or argument is. People and animals have rights. Beliefs do not. They deserve scrutiny.

 

[The Snark]

Oh stop it. Your pathetic attempts to make me look like a cold-hearted animal-hater have failed already so don't even try it.

I see no reason for anyone to get all radical about it. I myself love animals and hate seeing them treated badly, but I'm not going to verbally or physically attack others just because they don't see eye to eye with all of my views.

You are a cold hearted animal hater! I said it so it has to be true. So there. Bite me. (Said it with a straight face too!)
The fact is just about everyone who has weighed in on this thread is an animal lover, each in their own way. That none of you think precisely like I do proves you are all wrong but that's okay. Please report for sterilization or otherwise remove yourselves from the gene pool.

 

[Galapoheros]

Hey Bob, I took a hint from Thistle's username and Avatar, I'm on to you Thistle lol! Oh yeah, staying on topic, PETA sucks! hahaha.

Oh stop it. Your pathetic attempts to make me look like a cold-hearted animal-hater have failed already so don't even try it.

I see no reason for anyone to get all radical about it. I myself love animals and hate seeing them treated badly, but I'm not going to verbally or physically attack others just because they don't see eye to eye with all of my views.

 

[Elytra and Antenna]

PETA and HSUS are here to stay and grow ever larger. Even the very people (exotic animal lovers) they target defend them. Setbacks will be setbacks.

 

[The Snark]

PETA and HSUS are here to stay and grow ever larger. Even the very people (exotic animal lovers) they target defend them. Setbacks will be setbacks.

You can take that one step further. As political parties are extremely aware and use the same tactic constantly, any kind of publicity, negative or positive, helps out the cause. This being from the average couch potato just stares vapidly, mouth hanging open slightly, with the grey matter motor never getting shifted out of neutral: If <name your favorite media news source> says it, it has to be true. If <name your most hated media news source> say it, it's a lie. So it really doesn't matter what is said, or the real truths. The discerning mind is off. The name of the cause gets out there and gets spread around and that's all that matters.

 

[Thistles]

You can take that one step further. As political parties are extremely aware and use the same tactic constantly, any kind of publicity, negative or positive, helps out the cause. This being from the average couch potato just stares vapidly, mouth hanging open slightly, with the grey matter motor never getting shifted out of neutral: If <name your favorite media news source> says it, it has to be true. If <name your most hated media news source> say it, it's a lie. So it really doesn't matter what is said, or the real truths. The discerning mind is off. The name of the cause gets out there and gets spread around and that's all that matters.

You must have been talking to my mother.

 

[The Snark]

You must have been talking to my mother.

Probably worse. From some two week applied psychology mini course. Billboard logic, capturing attention, blah blah blah. Was good for a half credit though!

You know, there is something remarkable and very strange about operations like PETA. There are people who donate great amounts of money to those causes and those people as a general rule do a lot of research before the money changes hands. What is amazing is there are so many people who apparently know far more than the millionaires and all their research. Why is this?

(I'm going to be up front honest here and not sandbag you all. I've just been in touch with a person who is making a third huge donation to an animal rights operation and who has researched PETA, even using a private investigator, for over a year before he gave them money. So I would really like to hear the info sources of the PETA authorities here, and the in depth research they have done. So please don't toss well known flash and crash media hype at me. I'm quite willing to hear the bad, but I want the real nuts and bolts. All of them, non selective. If you cite mainstream news media it would be very helpful, even your obligation if you think about it, to also cite the money that has changed hands, and who if anyone stands to profit from lowering the rights group a notch or two. Let's hear ALL the dirt. The rationales, the reasons and the motivations.


To give a prime example, Paul Watson was railroaded and bashed as people have been bashing PETA here. Word has come out from several very reliable sources, evidenced by their own actions, that Fox News received significant amounts of dark money to throw dirt at him. So, please keep in mind when bashing away, you may be entirely right and correct, or you may be echoing the slime slingers.

 

[Mister Internet]

Morbid curiosity again backfires to interrupt my hiatus. Things have gotten crunchy since the last time I've been here.

I have a genuine question for Thistle, Snark, and anyone else who insists on putting humans and animals on morally-equivalent grounds:

"Based on what, exactly?"

Now, I fully understand your moral outrage... I've heard it before. What I don't understand is that I invariably hear the MOST moral outrage for animal rights from the people with an agnostic or atheist worldview. This is completely incoherent to me, and I am just curious how you've come to justify the otherwise overwhelming cognitive dissonance that comes along with simultaneously holding the views that: A) there is no universal morality, and B) to the extent that morality obtains, animals are on equal footing with humans.

If one is truly committed to a naturalistic worldview (i.e., there is no spiritual dimension, or that the only things that are "real" are what we can perceive from our five senses), then it makes little sense to pretend that we have any reason or higher purpose in protecting the environment, animals, or even other people for that matter. They are just competing species in a grand ecosystem that, through chance and happenstance, has allowed us to co-exist and this particular point in time... why on earth does that carry ANY moral weight? Why are Black Rhinos more morally-weighted than fruit flies? Why does it matter if people hunt a species to extinction? Isn't that what animals DO??? If we are morally equivalent with animals, then it seems that those of you arguing in favor of animal RIGHTS are arguing in exactly the opposite direction... animals would hunt us to extinction without a second thought, because that's what animals DO. Why are you so indignant at humans for doing what animals DO, when you've just gotten done explaining that we are morally-equivalent to animals and therefore hold equal moral weight?

It's mind-boggling, really. You can't have it both ways.

 

[gloost]

Didn't read it. I've seen, heard and smelt this sort of inane diatribe so many times, I feel about it the same way I feel about treading in dog poop. Its dull, annoying, and disconcertingly familiar.

 

[Thistles]

I have a genuine question for Thistle, Snark, and anyone else who insists on putting humans and animals on morally-equivalent grounds:

"Based on what, exactly?"

Now, I fully understand your moral outrage... I've heard it before. What I don't understand is that I invariably hear the MOST moral outrage for animal rights from the people with an agnostic or atheist worldview. This is completely incoherent to me, and I am just curious how you've come to justify the otherwise overwhelming cognitive dissonance that comes along with simultaneously holding the views that: A) there is no universal morality, and B) to the extent that morality obtains, animals are on equal footing with humans.

If one is truly committed to a naturalistic worldview (i.e., there is no spiritual dimension, or that the only things that are "real" are what we can perceive from our five senses), then it makes little sense to pretend that we have any reason or higher purpose in protecting the environment, animals, or even other people for that matter. They are just competing species in a grand ecosystem that, through chance and happenstance, has allowed us to co-exist and this particular point in time... why on earth does that carry ANY moral weight? Why are Black Rhinos more morally-weighted than fruit flies? Why does it matter if people hunt a species to extinction? Isn't that what animals DO??? If we are morally equivalent with animals, then it seems that those of you arguing in favor of animal RIGHTS are arguing in exactly the opposite direction... animals would hunt us to extinction without a second thought, because that's what animals DO. Why are you so indignant at humans for doing what animals DO, when you've just gotten done explaining that we are morally-equivalent to animals and therefore hold equal moral weight?

It's mind-boggling, really. You can't have it both ways.

Ohh, this is the juicy stuff! These are good questions, and I've given them a lot of thought, particularly before I went vegan when I was still trying to justify eating meat. Let me correct you real quicklike and say I don't put humans and animals on "morally-equivalent grounds" at all. I will give you my... manifesto? tomorrow or the day after. You deserve a good answer and I'm running on 6 hrs sleep for the past 3 days so I couldn't be coherent enough to do this justice right now. For now I'll just say I am indeed an atheist, I do believe there is morality, and I am more ecocentric than anything in my view. I'll elaborate later, I promise. Also, I notice your signature. Is philosophy a pastime of yours? Your major in college?

 

[The Snark]

Mister Internet??... did someone leave the door open? But anyway. Kind words much appreciated but I am going to have to decline the nomination(s). I'm theistic. (Buddhist with a Hindu slant backed up by the Nordic pantheon and an assortment of native American beliefs and principles.) But in this particular instance I'm pretty much neutral and playing devils advocate. Devil as in Lucifer in the correct translation of the word, or Prometheus if you prefer. And as for animal rights they place a poor second to my main interest, human rights, as in the right to think without ideologies, indoctrinations, knee jerk reactions and Pavlov's puppy piddling on ones leg. And yipes do we ever get some salivating going the moment we ring the PETA bell, don't we?

Honestly, I've never stood up and said PETA or HSUS or Poodles As Party Favors are in the right. I'm standing up and shouting into the wings, "Is there anyone here who has truly and honestly done their own research and isn't echoing, pro or con, some media blather?"

PS I've said it before and it's time to reiterate. George Carlin hit it closer IMHO than anyone else, paraphrased: Save the whales! Save the snails! Save the planet! BULL(feathers)!! It's people that are going away. The earth is doing just fine and will continue after humans and all the animals have gone. Maybe a bit more barren and inhospitable to life but it is going to keep right on rotating in it's orbit doing it's basking in the sun thing. Maybe pop out some new form of life that doesn't mind toxic radioactive sludge for water and feeds contentedly on Styrofoam.

 

[Galapoheros]

Cmon Mr I, don't you "feel" it, you just have to feel it, and then, then you know you're right(sarcasm), emotions are a killer. "Why are Black Rhinos more morally-weighted than fruit flies?" Yip, it's about "us" really. Sometimes I wonder if these emotions are only conscious awareness of something close to social instincts that might awaken over time, how could we discern between the two if it happens simultaneously(?) If we just did the "smart" thing, we wouldn't have to worry about morals so much imo. There seems to be a lot of eco-indoctrination these days via NGOs and by the government. Some of the kids these days almost seem to be taught to hate their self because they are human and, "killing the planet". A lot of money to be made in carbon taxing. imo the planet is extremely resilient, it doesn't care anyway but of course it's good to keep the environment clean, simply the smart thing to do. It really comes down to how and what we do that affects us, I think that's semi-hidden concern for most people that is usually expressed with emotions and caring. We protect people to protect ourselves, we want to protect the environment so that we can live in a better environment. I wouldn't have a problem with Poison Ivy going extinct! We want the Black Rhino around because "we" like to see the Black Rhino. I wonder what the Black Rhino tastes like, mmmmmm, Black Rhiiinoooo.

 

[The Snark]

HEY! You leave my Rhus Toxicondendra out of this! (It's quite good at interim erosion control)

 

[pitbulllady]

Ohh, this is the juicy stuff! These are good questions, and I've given them a lot of thought, particularly before I went vegan when I was still trying to justify eating meat. Let me correct you real quicklike and say I don't put humans and animals on "morally-equivalent grounds" at all. I will give you my... manifesto? tomorrow or the day after. You deserve a good answer and I'm running on 6 hrs sleep for the past 3 days so I couldn't be coherent enough to do this justice right now. For now I'll just say I am indeed an atheist, I do believe there is morality, and I am more ecocentric than anything in my view. I'll elaborate later, I promise. Also, I notice your signature. Is philosophy a pastime of yours? Your major in college?

Am I to understand, Thistles, that your AR "manifesto" includes the conclusion that it's morally wrong for us humans to OWN, keep, breed and sell animals, for any reason, of any species? That you yourself do not own animals, or sell animals, and do not believe that the rest of us should, either? If that's not the case, then please do enlighten us as to why you choose to disregard that, which is a staple of the AR mantra, while upholding the "meat is murder" aspect. If it's morally wrong to eat animals, to kill animals for any reason, is it acceptable to own, buy and sell animals as property?

pitbulllady

 

[The Snark]

"Indignation is cheap. Even Albert Zchweitzer's reverence for life didn't incude the mosquito, the tape worm or the Tse Tse fly." -Roger Zelazney-
But then, what of those who are indignant of the indignant?

 

[Thistles]

Am I to understand, Thistles, that your AR "manifesto" includes the conclusion that it's morally wrong for us humans to OWN, keep, breed and sell animals, for any reason, of any species? That you yourself do not own animals, or sell animals, and do not believe that the rest of us should, either? If that's not the case, then please do enlighten us as to why you choose to disregard that, which is a staple of the AR mantra, while upholding the "meat is murder" aspect. If it's morally wrong to eat animals, to kill animals for any reason, is it acceptable to own, buy and sell animals as property?

Again, it's like you haven't read a single word I've written. I've answered most of your questions already. Feel like answering any of mine?