SassyBritches said:

while i tend to agree that PETA is its own worst enemy in harping on 100 outrageous "issues" for every 2 or 3 that it has a valid case for, and for obscuring their cause by tying their campaigns to denouncing celebrities with only tangential links to the problem, surely an Republican such as yourself is not in favor of the government shutting down or fining private organizations for their free speech rights.

Tessa said:

As I conservative-minded person, I adore PETA - their extremist tactics have consistently undermined their causes. They're the animal rights version of Jerry Brown - so invalidated in the public eye that what they say is irrelevant because they have no legitimacy outside their own radical fringe. If I were a person committed to animal-rights causes I'd loathe them: when they do seize on a valid issue (and that does happen - even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as they say) it can't gain traction because PETA's views as a whole are so unacceptable to the public.
[Edited 3/21/05 19:05pm]

Tessa said:

nah, that's just me being a dramatic fag, lol! i think they have every right to be passionate about their causes (even if it us their biggest downfall). i do think, however, that they should be held to some higher degree of responsibility when it comes to addressing their issues. as a charitable organization they should have to provide statistics (with valid sources) when making the claims that they do. for instance, when showing animals getting skinned alive, perhaps they should also have to mention that its not the norm in the industry. they should remain focused on those companies that do engage in the cruel behaviour and not suggest all fur companies support the acts.
[Edited 3/21/05 18:49pm]

damosuzuki said:

six of one, half a dozen of the other. i was actually going to recommend Limbaugh as someone on the other side, if Sassy's looking to be "shut down or fined for providing VERY biased and misleading information." and then there's his buddy Keyes for the part of your post that i've put in bold.

Tessa said:

i can't stand limbaugh...not at all! i think he's a poor excuse for a conservative pundit and he's not a real conservative when it comes to the policies he supports. as for keyes...yes, unfortunately he is so blunt and outspoken he tends to turn people off. before he's even opened his mouth people have stopped listening. to be fair to keyes, though, that is mostly the result of the media and not so much alan's. he has many, many policy ideas that i think a lot of those on the left and center would agree with. unfortunately, the media focuses on one or two issues and runs with it (with the help of alan's outspoken nature) and that is what ruins his public credibility. peta, on the other hand, doesn't need media to make it look bad...it succeeds in that very well all on its own. if the media would show alan fairly, from all perspectives of his platforms, i think a lot of people would have different opinions of him. sure, they'd think he's crazy but he'd be crazy with some great positions on education, business, and taxes.

Tessa said:

True enough, though I would say that there is a very critical difference. Limbaugh (who I don't take seriously in the least) speaks for a large element of the public - perhaps even a plurality. This allows him the opportunity to be as didactic as he likes, a luxury PETA does not enjoy: they actually have to win people over, not simply preach to the converted.

SassyBritches said:

i'd have to disagree. without the media as an outlet for them (and as an outlet to expose the good and the bad of them, that people make out for themselves), there would be no PETA. PETA, at this point, really doesn't do anything but talk through the media.

damosuzuki said:

i don't really think they're that different. Limbaugh's audience is conservatives and republicans. as you imply, he doesn't have to win anyone over.

PETA's audience is people who like animals. that's not an audience you need to build or win over.

both groups are well-established before either Limbaugh or PETA comes to the table.

Tessa said:

Only different in that Limbaugh represents a plurality, PETA represents a fringe. Presumably PETA wants to do more than fund-raise and fire up their followers. They have established goals they wish to achieve, so they have to reach beyond their base and coerce people to their cause. Limbaugh doesn't have to reach beyond his base to achieve objectives.

I agree that their techniques are similar enough - no argument there.

i'm still waiting for the day PETA shows up at International Mister Leather.... or do they not protest them because most of the people are gay and would look bad to protest a minority

GangstaFam said:

I watched the video. Really gruesome. Reminded me in some ways of the Nick Berg vid. You have to pause it and collect yourself.

ehuffnsd said:

The way I see it: animals eat other animals -- should we stop lions and other animals from eating animals, too? Watching National Geographic and seeing the cheetah kill a baby calf is hella gory. We're all a part of the circle of life. Humans are animals. Some select to be herbivores, most are omnivores. I'm one.

Meat is healthy. It provides protein when I need it. When I am weak on some days and I've done extensive amounts of physical activity or when I need to concentrate I eat foods that are high in protein. They help your body restore itself. So I'm not ashamed to eat meat.

As far as fur, well, that's some cosmetic/couture/glamor s--t. Back in the day, people used animal furs to stay warm and to participate in merchantilism, but we really don't NEED to have furs in modern Western society -- unless you're living far away from civilization then it's understandable. But to use it strictly for fashion and to skin the animals while they're alive is foul. Maybe they could change the practice by fully killing the animals or having a livestock of animals to do it for that sole purpose of skinning and tanning.

Impressed said:

What's that?

GangstaFam said:

Here's a link to the Nick Berg pic ---> http://www.religionsfreih...g-irak.jpg

...a little too graphic to display on the org.


warning, edit.
[Edited 3/21/05 21:42pm]

Was that one of the POW decapitations?

wow. perhaps you could have just typed what it was or linked it with a warning...
[Edited 3/21/05 21:37pm]

GangstaFam said:

Yep. I'm surprised you haven't seen or heard of it. It was all over American news channels last spring.

Impressed said:

I was very aware of it. But I tried to avoid any images or video of it. And I had already forgotten the victim's name.

GooeyTheHamster said:

....

SassyBritches said:

I love your frankness.

Fuck JHo. Fuck her in her stupid ass.

CherrieMoonKisses said:

well,God did provided Adam and Eve with clothing...from an animal in the garden.


I don't really have an opinion on this topic except that ppl don't defend salmon or cows in the same manner they defend a fox or a mink.

I think we have some animal prejudice going on.

Rhondab said:

True, so true

Rhondab said:

But they're always depicted wearing fig leaves.

Rhondab said:

to peta's credit, they do have slogans such as "hooks hurt" in reference to catching and eating fish.

mmm...but i do love me some sushi. heck, if fish was good enough for jesus, its good enough for me.

"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it."
- PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, September 1989, Vogue Magazine

What a fuckin' pig.

JediMaster said:

VoicesCarry said:

...and this newkirk woman is probably pro-choice...

SassyBritches said:

Nevermind