Moderator: Community Team
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
That was staged. That close up was intentional. Do not put it past PETA to stage that stuff to get donations and support.Army of GOD wrote:That clip of the person banging the hamster on the table is...just wow.
A lot of times PETA tends to annoy me. But I agree...they do need to exist.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
"This doesn't conform to what I want to think, so it's fake."jefjef wrote:That was staged. That close up was intentional. Do not put it past PETA to stage that stuff to get donations and support.Army of GOD wrote:That clip of the person banging the hamster on the table is...just wow.
A lot of times PETA tends to annoy me. But I agree...they do need to exist.
They have people to feed...
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
They feed themselves off of peoples generosity and decency. They have a staff they feed. Kinda strange that after that despicable act that animal was held up to the camera for a close up. THAT SHIT WAS STAGED.spurgistan wrote:"This doesn't conform to what I want to think, so it's fake."jefjef wrote:That was staged. That close up was intentional. Do not put it past PETA to stage that stuff to get donations and support.Army of GOD wrote:That clip of the person banging the hamster on the table is...just wow.
A lot of times PETA tends to annoy me. But I agree...they do need to exist.
They have people to feed...
Santa Claus doesn't exist, too.
EDIT: Know what PETA doesn't feed themselves with? Clubbed baby hamster. Or, as we carnivores call them, "Hot Dogs."

drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
There are plenty of real and important issues to choose from..Woodruff wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHU9T70YFJU
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX
I worry about global warming, the environment in general, the coming water crisis, nuclear weapon proliferation, Islamic extremism, the global economy, and, among many more things, animal cruelty.GabonX wrote:There are plenty of real and important issues to choose from..Woodruff wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHU9T70YFJU
Why waste time worrying about this?
That's like saying "I broke my leg, but I can't worry about that because I'm too busy worrying if I have cancer."GabonX wrote:There are plenty of real and important issues to choose from..Woodruff wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHU9T70YFJU
Why waste time worrying about this?

This.muy_thaiguy wrote:Animal cruelty, I'm against that. PETA, I'm against that too.
At first, I avoided watching the video. I have seen some of PETA's other stuff and some of it is pretty nasty.Woodruff wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHU9T70YFJU
True. Ironically, in that case I think the reason is pure horror. I forget where I read it (a story, not a sociological text or anything), I remember hearing about how mountain folk (Appalacia, Cumberlands, etc.) will mourn their dogs in a way they would never mourn even a child. When a child died, the women could cry, but the man was supposed to "stay strong", and go on with living. When a dog died, though, they could break down and cry real tears. The real truth was that they had to keep up that wall when it came to the children. In that tough life, one just could not take the time to stop or the whole family might have perished. If they allowed themselves to break down when a child died, then simply going on living would have been that much harder. I remember my grandmother talking about similar things in wartime.oddzy wrote:what bothers me is that so often it seems that people put so much time and emotion into animals.... when there are kids within a minute's driving distance that are abused, ragged, hungry and uneducated.
in new orleans, several years ago, there was a incident involving a puppy that was tied to a tree and set on fire. no argument - absolutely horrific. that same day, two children were beaten to death by their stepfather. the puppy incident generated the largest number of letters to the editor in the paper's history. no one noticed two little human beings being savaged to death.
I definitely do NOT put it past PETA to stage something, because I tend to consider PETA in the same light as Greenpeace (which is NOT a favorable light). It's possible that it's staged. However, as far as the closeup goes...that's like saying that criminals videotaping their criminal activities (which happens all the time by these idiots) is also just "staged". Don't necessarily chalk up to staging that which can be explained as stupidity.jefjef wrote:That was staged. That close up was intentional. Do not put it past PETA to stage that stuff to get donations and support.Army of GOD wrote:That clip of the person banging the hamster on the table is...just wow.
A lot of times PETA tends to annoy me. But I agree...they do need to exist.
They have people to feed...
I agree.oddzy wrote:what bothers me is that so often it seems that people put so much time and emotion into animals.... when there are kids within a minute's driving distance that are abused, ragged, hungry and uneducated.
in new orleans, several years ago, there was a incident involving a puppy that was tied to a tree and set on fire. no argument - absolutely horrific. that same day, two children were beaten to death by their stepfather. the puppy incident generated the largest number of letters to the editor in the paper's history. no one noticed two little human beings being savaged to death.
It's easier to characterize animals as helpless victims of crimes beyond their control than humans. Even when we know that there are incredible causative forces behind poverty, hunger, disease, etc. we still tend to believe that people have some sort of agency when it comes to these things. When it comes to puppies left behind in a hurricane, the fact that they had no part in the matter is really hard to dispute.Woodruff wrote:I agree.oddzy wrote:what bothers me is that so often it seems that people put so much time and emotion into animals.... when there are kids within a minute's driving distance that are abused, ragged, hungry and uneducated.
in new orleans, several years ago, there was a incident involving a puppy that was tied to a tree and set on fire. no argument - absolutely horrific. that same day, two children were beaten to death by their stepfather. the puppy incident generated the largest number of letters to the editor in the paper's history. no one noticed two little human beings being savaged to death.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
I don't believe children have some sort of agency against child abuse. But I understand your point.spurgistan wrote:It's easier to characterize animals as helpless victims of crimes beyond their control than humans. Even when we know that there are incredible causative forces behind poverty, hunger, disease, etc. we still tend to believe that people have some sort of agency when it comes to these things. When it comes to puppies left behind in a hurricane, the fact that they had no part in the matter is really hard to dispute.Woodruff wrote:I agree.oddzy wrote:what bothers me is that so often it seems that people put so much time and emotion into animals.... when there are kids within a minute's driving distance that are abused, ragged, hungry and uneducated.
in new orleans, several years ago, there was a incident involving a puppy that was tied to a tree and set on fire. no argument - absolutely horrific. that same day, two children were beaten to death by their stepfather. the puppy incident generated the largest number of letters to the editor in the paper's history. no one noticed two little human beings being savaged to death.
My problem is that PETA just exaggerates and misstates things far too often. There is real animal abuse, but the Human society does a far, far better job than PETA. PETA is about the hype, not the work.thegreekdog wrote: I am also for the ethical treatment of animals; I've had pets, I didn't mistreat them. That being said, and far be it for me to try to tell others how to spend their money, but I believe the dollars contributed to PETA could be better spent on improving the condition of our own species.
Not to mention that they're hypocritical assholes.PLAYER57832 wrote:PETA is about the hype, not the work.
Peter Singer's Animal Liberation is a pretty good book toward that end, agree with him or not (reluctant carnivore, less reluctant pet-owner)Timminz wrote:Not to mention that they're hypocritical assholes.PLAYER57832 wrote:PETA is about the hype, not the work.
Also, pet lovers, did you know that PETA condemns you? Keeping animals for any reason, be it food, companionship, or work (for example, leading the blind) does not fall under their definition of "ethical treatment".
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Did you hear that everyone?!?! Release your domesticated animals into the wild! See how they fare.Timminz wrote:Not to mention that they're hypocritical assholes.PLAYER57832 wrote:PETA is about the hype, not the work.
Also, pet lovers, did you know that PETA condemns you? Keeping animals for any reason, be it food, companionship, or work (for example, leading the blind) does not fall under their definition of "ethical treatment".
My Maine Coon Cat would shit himself...30 pounds and all of it chickenshit.thegreekdog wrote:Did you hear that everyone?!?! Release your domesticated animals into the wild! See how they fare.Timminz wrote:Not to mention that they're hypocritical assholes.PLAYER57832 wrote:PETA is about the hype, not the work.
Also, pet lovers, did you know that PETA condemns you? Keeping animals for any reason, be it food, companionship, or work (for example, leading the blind) does not fall under their definition of "ethical treatment".
color me bad for thinking that two toddlers being beaten to death is beyond their control. i guess where i'm from, they're not so self-sufficient.spurgistan wrote:It's easier to characterize animals as helpless victims of crimes beyond their control than humans. Even when we know that there are incredible causative forces behind poverty, hunger, disease, etc. we still tend to believe that people have some sort of agency when it comes to these things. When it comes to puppies left behind in a hurricane, the fact that they had no part in the matter is really hard to dispute.Woodruff wrote:I agree.oddzy wrote:what bothers me is that so often it seems that people put so much time and emotion into animals.... when there are kids within a minute's driving distance that are abused, ragged, hungry and uneducated.
in new orleans, several years ago, there was a incident involving a puppy that was tied to a tree and set on fire. no argument - absolutely horrific. that same day, two children were beaten to death by their stepfather. the puppy incident generated the largest number of letters to the editor in the paper's history. no one noticed two little human beings being savaged to death.
Me too, I had fresh trout on the BBQ tonight. I caught it myself and clubbed it to death with a rock before I tore the hook from it's still twitching carcass. Then it was "Off with it's head, out with the guts!" and home to the wife and kids. We had four of them. YUMMY!!!jefjef wrote:
BTW. I do support People Eating Tasty Animals. I had a T-bone tonight. Great stuff!
BYE