P. E. T. A.

[Woodsy]

I think if P E T A wants to really do something good for the planet is fight to save all the Babies being slaughtered for absolute selfishness and greed. Abortion or should we say Murder is a bigger problem than us eating meat. P E T A just like any other liberal group stands up and embraces evil. With the kind of murder I am talking about we have millions of human beings just being killed either for greed or because some heartless coldhearted women hates the life that is in her. This is the biggest injustice we have on this earth and you have P E T A worrying about the stuff that is very insignificant or not the least bit important.

Amen.

 

[Lion of Narnia]

Trying to keep this on topic, here's some choice bits from the horses, urr.., mouth:

---"Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works."
- Ingrid Newkirk, President and Co-Founder of PETA
---PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk once said even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, "we'd be against it."
---"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."
-Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA
---"To those people who say, `My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say `Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off."
-- Bill Maher, PETA celebrity spokesman

 

[Lion of Narnia]

On another forum (yahoo animal rights) I once, rather uncharitibly ,posted a letter printed in the Arizona Republic that challenged PETA to make a real stand of courage--rather than targeting spindly models and frail geriatrics wearing fur they should go into a typical biker bar (Warsaw Wally's in Phoenix would do nicely) and start throwing fake blood on all those people wearing leather. Of course then, the blood that would start splashing after that would definetly not be fake....

I find it very interesting that some of the posters defending animal rights in this thread (and in the world in general) are otherwise quite secular. They give animals a equality of value with human beings--nay they give animals greater rights than human. How so? It's allright for wolves, tigers, lions and other predators to eat other animals but not humans. As Wayne Campbell (WAYNE'S WORLD) might say "HELLO!! ??"

If humans are just animals then why is there a higher standard on us than critters? Even if by scavanging ,humans have been meat eaters for for about 2.5 to 3 million years. With homo erectus we started to become effective big game hunters, something definetly solidified by anatomicaly modern humans circa 100,000 years BPE. Settled agriculture, circa 10,000 BCE in a few settled area in the middle east. So if human history is compressed to a year's time and it's 12:00 AM, January 1, some of us started starch-monoculture at 11:12 PM December 31.

So the animal rights secularists make the same distinction between animals and the rest of us-we have such greater intelligence that we are held to a higher standard. But they want to dump on us a "ethic" born out of a emotional rather than rational origin. Not very secular-scientific. If there is no outside of nature basis of ethics then it's all a matter of "taste", of personal preference. By that standard (or lack of thereof) there is no difference between six million Jews or six million chicken broilers. And also by that standard PETA or no one else has the moral authority to claim that my hunting, meat eating, and leather jacket wearing is "murder".

BTW, "philosopher" Peter Singer (Animal Liberation ) thinks it's ok for a woman to kill her baby 28 days after birth. I'm curious why he chose that number? Why not 28 months, right in the middle of the "terrible two's"? Or 28 years?

-Robert

 

[Lion of Narnia]

In regards to hunting I'm going to start another thread to specicaly deal with that topic--See you'all there!

-Robert

 

[Woodsy]

BTW, "philosopher" Peter Singer (Animal Liberation ) thinks it's ok for a woman to kill her baby 28 days after birth. I'm curious why he chose that number? Why not 28 months, right in the middle of the "terrible two's"? Or 28 years?

He also supports inappropriate behavior with animals:
"Mr. Singer noted that almost all of the taboos on nonprocreative sex (taboos against homosexuality, oral sex, contraception and masturbation) have vanished. But one notable exception still stands: the taboo on sex with animals. "Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog?" he asked. The persistence of the inappropriate behavior with animals taboo, he wrote, reflects humans' ambivalence about animals. We know we are like them, but we think we are better, and so we want "to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals." "
From: http://www.dadi.org/sexanmal.htm

http://www.all-creatures.org/sof/rolemodel-singer.html

"Princeton University's Peter Singer, known for his promotion of euthanasia and infanticide, has now weighed in to support inappropriate behavior with animals."

From: http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/singer.htm

I'm sure all the parents paying to send their kids to Princeton are very happy that the school is so "progressive."

 

[Lion of Narnia]

In regards to hunting I'm going to start another thread to specicaly deal with that topic--See you'all there!

-Robert

In the morality forum

-R