|
Post by sugarfreejazz on Oct 25, 2010 14:17:10 GMT -5
Euthanized animals are already used as meat in pet food in rendering plants as well as poultry feed and fertilizer among other things.
Those pets could not be used for human consumption in the US.
|
|
|
Post by shadowpanther on Oct 25, 2010 14:27:32 GMT -5
What little respect I had for them went out the window when I learned they kill about 97% of all the animals they "rescue". And those are just the reported killings. Nevermind they give funding to recognized terrorist organizations such as the ALF. 97% is a fucking lot of animals. That is literally tons and tons of meat we're talking about here. If they made burgers out of it instead of throwing it away you could use it to a)feed hungry people in Africa b) feed hungry animals if they don't care about hungry people or even c) sell it on the open market. This would reduce the demand for cows and hence less animals would need to die. They could also use the money they make for more terrorism funding and celebrity bribes! Seriously why not if they're just going to kill them anyways?? Fuck, now I feel like sending Michael Vick jerseys to PETA HQ. In all seriousness, "population control" is, has always been, and will always be a euphemism for genocide. The people doing it might, in some kind of extremely fucked up way have good intentions, but you can bet whatever they are trying to "control" is being wholesale slaughtered and/or involuntarily sterilized. This is why I don't like the UN, it's basically PETA for humans. Sign me up! I already love eating rabbit pie and since the rabbit is the cuddliest of animals, eating cats and dogs is a less bastardly act!
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 25, 2010 14:39:49 GMT -5
In all seriousness, "population control" is, has always been, and will always be a euphemism for genocide. The people doing it might, in some kind of extremely fucked up way have good intentions, but you can bet whatever they are trying to "control" is being wholesale slaughtered and/or involuntarily sterilized. This is why I don't like the UN, it's basically PETA for humans. Err.. Are you saying the UN is trying to wipe out whoever it supposedly doesn't like, or was that just a non-sequitor?
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Oct 25, 2010 14:41:13 GMT -5
What little respect I had for them went out the window when I learned they kill about 97% of all the animals they "rescue". And those are just the reported killings. Nevermind they give funding to recognized terrorist organizations such as the ALF. 97% is a fucking lot of animals. That is literally tons and tons of meat we're talking about here. If they made burgers out of it instead of throwing it away you could use it to a)feed hungry people in Africa b) feed hungry animals if they don't care about hungry people or even c) sell it on the open market. This would reduce the demand for cows and hence less animals would need to die. They could also use the money they make for more terrorism funding and celebrity bribes! Seriously why not if they're just going to kill them anyways?? Fuck, now I feel like sending Michael Vick jerseys to PETA HQ. In all seriousness, "population control" is, has always been, and will always be a euphemism for genocide. The people doing it might, in some kind of extremely fucked up way have good intentions, but you can bet whatever they are trying to "control" is being wholesale slaughtered and/or involuntarily sterilized. This is why I don't like the UN, it's basically PETA for humans. Hey, hey, the UN as powerless as it maybe, is primarily there to prevent war between sovereign states by providing mediation. Everything else, like UNICEF, is just icing on the cake.
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Oct 25, 2010 16:10:37 GMT -5
In all seriousness, "population control" is, has always been, and will always be a euphemism for genocide. The people doing it might, in some kind of extremely fucked up way have good intentions, but you can bet whatever they are trying to "control" is being wholesale slaughtered and/or involuntarily sterilized. This is why I don't like the UN, it's basically PETA for humans. Err.. Are you saying the UN is trying to wipe out whoever it supposedly doesn't like, or was that just a non-sequitor? They talk about human population control and that makes me a just a wee bit edgy, given how an organization that supposedly loves animals has gone about trying to control the pet population. I'm not claiming to have any evidence that the UN are actually planning any serious PETA-style action on the human population though.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 25, 2010 16:11:22 GMT -5
booley, go watch Penn and Tiller's episode on PETA. It will explain everything to you including about the arson. ... You know I actually have watched Penn and Teller. They lost me when I kept seeing them using not only bad logic but skewed information. The best example was their episode on Global warming when they did the "Scientists said there was going to be Global cooling in the 70s" canard. (since we are apparently assigning homework, here's one for you..http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bullsheit.html) Plus if the case is so obvious, then why can't you make it yourself? In short, I am not sure Penn and Teller are a valid source material.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 25, 2010 16:13:32 GMT -5
I mean, I guess you are reffering to ALF but I'm not sure they are terrorists. Vandels sure. However perhaps I am old fashioned but a terrorists kills people to make them do what he wants. Err, no. You're thinking of warfare. Terrorism means instilling fear to get what you want (hense the "terror" part). It doesn't nessecarily involve killing. No terrorism is often part of warfare. And terrorists instill fear primarily through the easiest and best means available, threatening your life. Burning cars that are probably insured doesn't have quite the same impact as threatening to kill you.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 25, 2010 16:38:57 GMT -5
Err, no. You're thinking of warfare. Terrorism means instilling fear to get what you want (hense the "terror" part). It doesn't nessecarily involve killing. No terrorism is often part of warfare. And terrorists instill fear primarily through the easiest and best means available, threatening your life. Burning cars that are probably insured doesn't have quite the same impact as threatening to kill you. Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. From The Free Dictionary. Now, please point out where in that definition it says killing is a prerequisite for terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 25, 2010 16:45:40 GMT -5
Err, no. You're thinking of warfare. Terrorism means instilling fear to get what you want (hense the "terror" part). It doesn't nessecarily involve killing. No terrorism is often part of warfare. And terrorists instill fear primarily through the easiest and best means available, threatening your life. Burning cars that are probably insured doesn't have quite the same impact as threatening to kill you. I am honestly baffled. Are you trying to defend them attacking people and/or property? Or are you trying to win the game of semantics?
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 25, 2010 16:49:44 GMT -5
... Well, this example is the ELF, but I'm pretty sure it's terrorism. Also, firebombings. People here seem to be pretty willing to say that anti-abortion advocates are engaging in terrorism when they burn down a clinic, isn't animal rights advocates burning down a laboratory the same thing? No they are not. Please go back and read your links. I mean for one thing that the 2nd presents some suspicion about the FBI investigation, which may indicate a larger pattern of hyping the threat of "eco terrorism" in order to chip away at civil liberties. I am perhaps biased since I still recall how this same FBI and other local authorities that spied on civil rights activists as communists and peace groups as possible terrorist front groups. This may not be the case here (or even if the FBI does trump up charges, that does not mean the "victim" isnt' guilty of something) but there is a history of this so I am leery of taking this at face value. But I admit that's a tangent either way. And I never said that ELF (and ALF) did not engage in vandalism. In fact I pointed this out several times. But more to the point, the comparison between animal rights and environmentalist groups and abortion clinic bombers is flawed. As I said, they are not the same. Go back to the first article. This was indeed by all the data I can find an ELF act. Notice something? The charges were arson. But NOT murder or attempted murder. No one was hurt. There is no indication that anyone was ever in any danger. Given how prosecutors charge a defendant with as many crimes as they think are relevant, this is telling. Compare this with a common bomb used in clinic bombings, the pipe bomb, which is designed to spray deadly shrapnel to get as much physical damage to bystanders as possible. Or the wanted posters anti-abortion terrorists put out, listing the names, address and pictures of clinic doctors which makes someone wanting to kill these guys (as some have) much easier. Or to put it another way... Here's is ELF's terrorism.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Earth_Liberation_Front_actionsAnd here is anti-abortion terrorism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violenceI am sure you will notice that while ELF has along history of property damage and civil disobedience, there is no real body count. (the only one I could find was actually a suicide of an ELF activist). Meanwhile the anti abortion terrorism will just as happily target people as they will property. Its' the over all pattern that's important. The pattern I can see shows that groups like ELF and ALF will destroy property. But they do not target people. The pattern also indicates that what we all agree are terrorists (abortion clinic bombers, al Queda for instance) DO target people. Property damage is often just a prelude to the attack on a person. These two are not the same. Their tactics are not the same. And finally, and this is more of an interpretation of the pattern I see, there may be an ulterior motive in equating the two as the same by authorities. Nor is does the actions of ALF or ELF translate into the actions of PETA.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 25, 2010 17:02:11 GMT -5
Not quite. When I hear people call for the culling of the population that could mean any number of things, normally it means killing. So killing off parts of the population or controlling birth. And never did I try to stick it as a common belief of PETA members, but a belief of many of the more extremist members Ok two problems (actually three but I will go to the 3rd one in a bit) First, the view of one or even a few individuals does not equate into a representative of the whole. That's a clearly fallacious argument and shame on you for using it. I know you are smarter then that. Which means you either lying to yourself because you dont' like Peta and so anything that challenges that belief gets ignored. Or you think I'm an idiot and won't notice what you just did . Second, lets say that this is a beleif among some members, that the human race should be culled. Yet not one of these people are acting on it. Even groups that can be said to be extremist (ALF and ELF) avoid casualties. Which means even the extremists don't seem to hold this extremist view. So hwo is it even relevant? But here's another problem, one with the response... ....And never did I try to stick it as a common belief of PETA members, but a belief of many of the more extremist members.....Well, let's see, PETA lies, believes in redicuously extreme ideas As I pointed out above, those two statements cannot both be true. Which makes your further charges suspect. You seem to see a double standard whether there is one or not. But merely asserting something does not mean it's true. You haven't even responded to most of what I said earlier which refutes what you claim here. And I don't' have time to repeat myself. Just because you don't like them (and you may have very good reasons to not like them) doesn't mean every bad thing you have heard about them is true.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Oct 25, 2010 17:04:19 GMT -5
No terrorism is often part of warfare. And terrorists instill fear primarily through the easiest and best means available, threatening your life. Burning cars that are probably insured doesn't have quite the same impact as threatening to kill you. Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. From The Free Dictionary. Now, please point out where in that definition it says killing is a prerequisite for terrorism. To be honest I've never thought using "force or violence" against property should count as "terrorism." Couldn't people in, say, the Plowshares Movement be considered terrorists under that definition? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plowshares_Movement
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 25, 2010 17:05:37 GMT -5
No terrorism is often part of warfare. And terrorists instill fear primarily through the easiest and best means available, threatening your life. Burning cars that are probably insured doesn't have quite the same impact as threatening to kill you. I am honestly baffled. Are you trying to defend them attacking people and/or property? Or are you trying to win the game of semantics? No I am trying to point out that these things are NOT the same. So to make an analogy, while I think speeding in a school zone is bad, it's not the same as drinking and driving. Terrorism has been so horribly misused. It's more a snarl word now, meant o evoke an emotional response and shut down debate. I argue that ELF and ALF are not terrorists. They have engaged in criminal acts. but they are not terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Oct 25, 2010 17:25:21 GMT -5
Booley, ummm, you do realise terrorist 'tactics' vary right? Just because one group targets primarily people and the other doesn't, still doesn't diminish the fact that both are done to coerce and intimidate for 'ideological and political' reasons.
A bunch of people firebomb a lab that is thought to do animal testing, only the property is damaged. The action was done as part of an initiative to intimidate and threaten researchers. It's terrorism. Just because people aren't targeted 'directly' doesn't make it any less of terrorist action. It is the intent and purpose of the action that changes it to something more.
It isn't just 'civil disobedience'. To try to frame it as such is disingenuous as terrorism can still be inflicted on just property, not people. If a group took out Mount Rushmore for ideological/political reasons, you'd have no qualms saying it was terrorism, because of the symbolic nature of the attack. Even though people were not targeted directly, just property.
So please, don't be naive.
|
|
|
Post by DrKilljoy on Oct 25, 2010 17:38:41 GMT -5
|
|