|
|
Post by Terrordar on Dec 12, 2009 11:40:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Dec 12, 2009 13:43:02 GMT
I have nothing against the fact that peta kills so many animals - in many ways the people that should be blamed are the breeders that keep breeding surplus animals. What I have a problem with is the obfiscated nature of peta's campagne - they do their best to advertise that they are good and wholesome without actually saying that they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Dec 12, 2009 22:16:02 GMT
Peta has been doing their best to advertise that they are good and wholesome? Where the hell have I been?
I know you said that they do it without saying so, but their campaigns are horribly sexist, racist, inappropriate.. I could keep going. Not only that, but they're very proud of this fact. They JUST want publicity because they honestly believe in "any publicity is good publicity."
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Dec 12, 2009 23:24:19 GMT
Well guys, I live in Norfolk, and know exactly where the "killing" factory is located. Also, it is only about 65 miles to Ahoskie NC.
I have always thought that PETA (People Eatin Tastey Animals)
;D (euthanization) is the biggest farce we have....I equate them to "Planned Parenthood" (abortion)...the same thing...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Dec 13, 2009 4:55:29 GMT
Peta?! Oh please... they SUCK. If they really wanted to make an effort at saving animals and wildlife, they would NOT be sitting around all day, indulging in random "nod nod let's all agree that ____ is bad" shallow, fake discussions and actions. They would work with the scientists and everyone else out there, involved in the environment(all aspects of it). What have they done? Nothing! I dislike protests and most demonstrations: they don't really do a thing except for getting someone's attention. But will they make a "determined plan/action" work? I doubt it (unless said parties were going to give way or the pressure or political/etc. fallout was too great to ignore).  And what do scantily-clad models have to do with saving animals, anyways? (edit again: I don't mind sexy-looking men/women but I do think their inclusion in lingerie kinda trivializes the focus of whatever events that're being held.  ) Besides my own thoughts are these: IF they want to save the environment and save the animals, wildlife, etc. , they have to pay attention the people first. Majority of poaching and other encroachment/etc. of forests are because the people burn them down in order to earn some money and they of course, won't listen to those who criticize them but who do nothing to alleviate their social, economic, etc. issues. In a world of lawlessness, if you can't beat them, you join them instead. Then there's of course, the "apathy" issue: I don't see PETA actually doing anything about that either. Edit: Also, not very interested in "animal welfare" myself but more interested in educating of humans to have a certain set of ethics that encompass themselves, people around them and also the environment. 'Cos I'm all for conserving the environment but if there is an inbalance(like certain species turns all predatory and starts wiping out the other species), then there has to be a certain amount of control. Plus, it is good to protect animals from harm but it is also a little crazy to start talking about "animals" as if they're "humans" and also a little crazy to start treating rights as if they're 'unlimited" and have little to no impact on the people you try to enforce them on"*. *Also includes indirect impact too. Now, if there's an equivalent of Angelina Jolie for animals and stuff? Mmmmm... |
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Dec 14, 2009 17:22:46 GMT
Well guys, I live in Norfolk, and know exactly where the "killing" factory is located. Also, it is only about 65 miles to Ahoskie NC. I have always thought that PETA (People Eatin Tastey Animals) ;D (euthanization) is the biggest farce we have....I equate them to "Planned Parenthood" (abortion)...the same thing... What's wrong with abortion now... also I wouldn't call that planned parenthood, more unplanned. But sorry, I know this thread's about Peta. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Dec 14, 2009 18:40:42 GMT
Thats the only reason I didn't respond to him like that as well Kitty. Of course as you said, this is about Peta.
My one thing is... why can't Peta be more like the Heaven's Gate cult? That'd be so awesome. Self-correcting problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Dec 14, 2009 21:38:05 GMT
I mean, I obviously agree with the idea behind Peta, but I really hate how they go about it. I know it helps some to go vegetarian and/or vegan, but I also think it alienates a lot of potential vegheads specifically because of how "extreme" and hypocritical they seem. There is this joke we have within the vegan forum I frequent: www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=35650799 |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Dec 15, 2009 0:29:17 GMT
Well guys, I live in Norfolk, and know exactly where the "killing" factory is located. Also, it is only about 65 miles to Ahoskie NC. I have always thought that PETA (People Eatin Tastey Animals) ;D (euthanization) is the biggest farce we have....I equate them to "Planned Parenthood" (abortion)...the same thing... What's wrong with abortion now... also I wouldn't call that planned parenthood, more unplanned. But sorry, I know this thread's about Peta. That was my point Kit..the obvious playing with words.. Ethical treatment of Animals----killing animals...unethical Planned parenthood----killing babies..unethical...obviously not "parenthood".  And TD didn't respond cause he's my buddy.... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Dec 15, 2009 0:35:46 GMT
ss, of course I could start now and say that abortion is not "killing babies", with that theory every orgasm a guy has is "killing babies" and every menstruation a chick has is "killing (the potential inhabitant of) babies" - but I won't because, no offense ss, it will just end up in "god said" blah blah and that is unscienticfic rubbish that has no point arguing about.
Commenting on the Peta thing, everything is said already. I'd always liked to compare Peta to the charity I volunteered at in Australia.
Their intentions were good, their ways were hypocritical.
It's a bit sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Dec 15, 2009 9:26:01 GMT
Well, what also is sad, is that a society for the protection of animals has millions of (paying) members, however one for fighting the abuse of children numbers only a few thousand (I speak of Germany).
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 15, 2009 11:54:01 GMT
Ethical treatment of Animals----killing animals...unethical Planned parenthood----killing babies..unethical...obviously not "parenthood". I don't quite see the similarity, even if you consider abortion unethical it's not unethical in the same sense. Peta's about protecting animals and they go about this by killing animals. Obvious case of saying one thing and doing the opposite. Planned parenthood is about having your children when you've planned to have them. The usual reason for abortion was that someone got pregnant when she didn't plan for it and therefore decided to stop the pregnancy. Even if you consider abortion unethical it's perfectly in line with what planned parenthood is about, which is having your children when you've planned to have them. With Peta, on the other hand, they're saying we should treat animals ethically and in their work they treat animals unethically. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Dec 16, 2009 3:28:22 GMT
Well, what also is sad, is that a society for the protection of animals has millions of (paying) members, however one for fighting the abuse of children numbers only a few thousand (I speak of Germany). In general I agree with you Glance BUT that again goes a bit away from Peta, but must be said about charitable work or the drive behind it in general. I personally would always advice someone not to donate for children in Africa, to orphans in Belarus or to breastcancer when they don't have any inner connection to such topics. The (I don't like the word but will in this case) 'charitable spirit' should come, in all cases, out of a inner personal urge to help the specific cause, not out of a "trend" or a social pressure. If more people have a connection to abused animals then to abused children, then that is not a reason to judge them. Weighing causes of charitable work against each other, will only lead to people getting upset about the general hypocricy or hopelessness of charities and will stop helping any cause whatsoever. I just used the example of breastcancer - for me, I would never donate to a breastcancer foundation. Not because I give a sh*t about breastcancer patient, but because I would only ever donate to a foundation caring about all types of cancer, regardless of the cause of them (someone who smoked for 30 years and gets lungecancer) or the intimicys of it (prostate cancer is generally ignored in public foundraisers). If I had a personal connection though, lets say my grandma died of breastcancer, I might feel much more strongly about it and would donate/help. So now I could be judge for not caring about things that don't effect me personally or for hypocricy ("because they don't help everyone, you don't help at all!") but what would be the use? I'm schizophrenic - of course I would donate for the research of a cure of schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses without wondering why not all mental illnesses get treated the same by the respective charity. That's because it effects me. When lately considering what volunteer work I could do in Germany, I did not look into helping at a hospital or at an old age facility, because ill people that have insurance are cared for enough and because I cannot handle old people very well. That might be a horrible attitude for some. If someone was a teacher for physics 40 years of his life and a pationate traveller of asian countries, he probably has a closer connection to the terrible educational conditions for people in Thailand, then to sufferers of chronic insomnia, so he will most likely donate/help there. Etc etc. You get my point. |
|
And what do scantily-clad models have to do with saving animals, anyways? (edit again: I don't mind sexy-looking men/women but I do think their inclusion in lingerie kinda trivializes the focus of whatever events that're being held. 
)
.com