PETA Unable To Post Anti-Fishing Billboard

[arwalden]

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_292102216.html

PETA Unable To Post Anti-Fishing Billboard

Top News Oct 19, 2005 8:19 am US/Mountain

SALT LAKE CITY For six months, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has tried without success to get a company to post in the Salt Lake area its anti-fishing billboard depicting a dog with a fishhook through its lip.

Six billboard companies have rejected the design, which says, "If you wouldn't do this to a dog, why do it to a fish?''

``It's just so disappointing because people all over the country need to see this message. But especially in a place where there are a lot of fishers,'' said PETA fish empathy project manager, Karin Robertson.


...


``We're not convinced that the fish are necessarily in a painful experience,'' he said, adding there is not enough scientific material to support the claim.

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_292102216.html

[Lisa0825]

1. There was one on the Galveston causeway for a while.

Thankfully it's gone. I hated having to see it everyday as I left work.

[Verve]

2. Hmmm.. I live in a community full of hunters.

I refuse to let my husband or sons hunt. However, they do fish and LOVE it. Most of the time they throw the fish back unless we are sure we will eat the fish. My husband and I have tried to teach our sons to respect fish and treat them as humanely and gently as possible when they do catch them.

I'm all for animal rights, yet PETA should prioritize their grievances and go after big offenders where they can make much more of an impact.

If they do want to take up fishing, eliminating fishing all together is not only extreme but will surely fail. Focus first on humane fishing behaviors.

[northzax]

223. no offense but

how does exhausting a fish and submitting it to the trauma of a hook in any way allow 'humane' treatment of the animal?

hey, I fly fish, but I don't pretend it's not cruel to the fish. Even if they don't feel any pain from the hook, being caught alone must be fairly traumatic to the system.

[kestrel91316]

228. Hmmm.............. a question?

Some people fish and believe the fish suffers when caught........and then KEEP FISHING ANYWAY.
Some people fish and believe the fish doesn't suffer when caught......

What do you think of the first person, compared to the second person?
Just trying to provoke thought...

[northzax]

231. that the first person is a realist

I also think that the cow I had for dinner suffered when it was killed. I actually tend not to do very much catch and release, except for ones I cannot keep due to size requirements. When you think about it, catch and release is roughly the same as going hunting and winging birds, or shooting a deer in the haunches with a low powered rifle, It doesn't kill the animal directly, but it certainly weakens it and lowers it on the darwinistic food chain.

I don't believe in hunting for sport, I don't believe in fishing for sport. If I'm not eating it, I'm not going to torment it for fun.

[friesianrider]

249. I agree with you...

I think that PETA should focus more on larger issues. I'm all for making a bold (and even shocking) statement, but there are other bigger issues and offenses against animals that should probably be taken on first.

[longship]

3. Fish lip != dog lip

PETA's out in left field on this. They want everybody to be vegans. Looney group.

on edit: and by the way, I like fishing. And yes, I *do* use barbless hooks.

[McKenzie]

6. ditto...going barbless is better for catch and release n/t

[Mizmoon]

7. No, I eat meat and I used to fish

Now I think (realize?) that of course it must hurt the fish to have a hook through their lip. What are we trying to pretend ... that they have no nerves?

[warrens]

28. They're rapidly losing the sympathy of non-activists

In general, I'm on their side. I don't fish, but my brother is an avid catch-and-release bass and trout fisherman. This campaign is BS.

[Beaverhausen]

31. Catch and release? Aren't the fish wounded when they are caught?

Do they live when thrown back into the water?

[AngryAmish]

36. one tries not to hurt them when catching them

vast majority live when thrown back

[Beaverhausen]

41. and how does one not hurt them when catching them?

does one use a net?

[AngryAmish]

114. Depends on the fish

Some are more rugged than others. Essentially, when a fish is on a line it is fighting for its life. The longer the fight the more it will be exhausted (ie sprinting 100 yards makes one less tired than sprinting for a mile, especially when one is not used to running long distances.)

So, one tries to use heavy enought tackle to be able for get the fish landed without playing the fish too long.

[wtmusic]

286. A fish hooked in the lip does just fine when returned to the water

Sometimes the fish swallows the hook, then it's a different matter.

[RebelOne]

130. There is a high mortality rate among fish

who have been caught and released because the angler does not know how to handle the fish properly.

[Dangerously Amused]

164. Not necessarily true.

"PETA ... want(s) everybody to be vegans."

Not necessarily true. PETA is a collective; many people belong and they do not all promote the same issues. Kind of like here at DU. Some PETA folk are more concerned with animal "rights" - the legal aspect - and some are more concerned about animal "welfare" - how society treats or values animals. Some pursue the vegetarian (or vegan) agenda, others really don't care if you eat meat, they just don't want the animals to suffer hellish lives and painful, gruesome deaths first (i.e., they oppose currently accepted slaughterhouse and factory farming practices).

Peace.

[Centered]

265. agreed... a very diverse group

much like us here. Some believe in "core" values (unions, not invading other countires without provocation) others swing out farther (abortion or gay rights) and yes you can be a dem and not support these things too... alot of it depends on what generation your are in. For example my grandmother is a firm "old school" dem. She is for the working man and civil rights but she opposed abortion and gay rights.

We are many flavors here and each voice is important.

[zbdent]

4. PETA needs to do what another group did

Drive a panel truck around with the image on it.

Probably cheaper in the long run than trying to pay Clear Channel Outdoors the inflated costs of doing a billboard . . .

If the "pro-lifers" can do it with an alleged "aborted baby", then so can PETA . . .

[Skip Intro]

5. Great Idea!

Drive it around the busiest streets during rush hour. Travel from city to city - just be on the road constantly.

I really like that idea.

[jobycom]

10. I'd rather both billboards disappear

The graphic abortion billboards and the PETA billboards both cause me to react against their messages. I hate it when someone with a message I support uses the tactics of an enemy I despise.

A much more effective billboard would have a diagram of a fish and a quick description of how many nerves sticking a hook through it would effect. People don't associate fish with dogs, and many still believe the falacy that a fishhook doesn't hurt the fish, so the billboard fails from the beginning. Something which directly contradicts common assumptions with scientific evidence will nag at a person a lot more than a picture that immediately makes them reject the message and the messenger.

How about a picture of a fish, alive and happy, or maybe an illustration, and then a fact, like (I'm making this up, but find the actual number "5326. The number of nerve endings a fish hook goes pierces," then the phrase "Fish Do Feel the Hook," in large, simple letters. Maybe the illustration of the fish could be anthropomorphized enough to show a human fear, or to be shedding a tear.

That would stick with people more than the shock garbage PETA tries.

Maybe I should start my own group. JETA (Jobycom for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)? Nah, I'll work on it.

[BikeWriter]

22. Anthropomorphize a fish? Children are confused...

too much by cartoons as it is!

[jobycom]

57. What do you base that on? And do you think children would be

better served by a picture of dog with a fishhook through his lip?

[BikeWriter]

65. IMO, anyone showing a picture that graphic to a child...

...is guilty of child abuse, including PeTa! Also, whoever put that fishhook in a dog's lip should be shot. My opinion, as to the anthropomorphisizing. Children should be raised with a realistic and humane outlook on animals, not taught that some widdle fuzzy wuzzy animal's life is in any way equal to that of a sapient and self-aware being.

[Beaverhausen]

68. guess what? People do use dogs as shark bait

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005450117,00.html

warning- yes, this is real.

[BikeWriter]

82. That is a cruel stunt, done for the publicity. I've been...

...around shark fisherman the last fifty years and I've never heard of such stupidity. Secondly, dogs and cats would make poor bait, sharks eat fish. Thirdly, that is not even a shark hook, and would be unlikely to catch one.

[Beaverhausen]

85. you know all the shark fisherman in the world?

you personally know that none of them ever did this?

[BikeWriter]

95. I know for a fact it's not an effective way to catch a shark.

IMO, I would say it was more likely done by a sick person who wanted to bitch about shark fisherman being cruel to animals.

[Catchawave]

179. Sorry Bike, it's not a stunt....

From:http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_dogs_shark_bai...

Dogs, Puppies, Cats Used as Shark Bait

Netlore Archive: News stories and petitions circulating via email claim rogue fishermen on Réunion Island in the Indian Ocean use live dogs, puppies and cats as shark bait

Description: Email rumor/Petition
Circulating since: Sep 2005
Status: True
Analysis: See below


Email example contributed by Barbara S., 2 October 2005:

Fw: RSPCA Petition

This is really upsetting but so important.

Stray dogs & cats are being skewered on hooks and dragged behind boats as live shark bait. The cruel practice takes place on French-controlled Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean. Below is a petition from the RSPCA to the French government demanding they stop allowing this to happen.

I've passed it on to the ASPCA for them to take action on as well. Please pass it on to everyone, and put heat on the ASPCA & Humane Society to take a stand. I'm off to call the French Embassy.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/sharkbait




Comments: It appears there is some truth to this story. According to Clicanoo, the French-language daily newspaper of Réunion Island, an amateur fisherman was tried and convicted of animal cruelty in September 2005 for inserting hooks into the flesh of a stray pup with the intention of using the animal as shark bait.

Nor was this an isolated incident, according to several animal rights groups, including the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, the RSPCA, and the Brigitte Bardot Foundation. Citing a number of documented cases, the Bardot Foundation has lobbied local officials and the French Foreign Ministry for the past 10 years in hopes of putting a stop to the practice by enforcing existing laws against cruelty to animals.

It would seem an exaggeration to characterize the phenomenon as widespread, however. The technique is "seldom" used by commercial fishermen, Clicanoo reports, but is favored instead by "rogue" shark hunters who ply their illicit trade in the dark of night.




Email This Article

Sources and further reading:

Saving Dogs & Cats and Sharks in Paradise
Sea Shepherd News, 18 August 2005 (w/images)
Stop Using Puppies as Shark Bait, Says Bardot
AFP, 26 August 2005

Dogs Used as Shark Bait
The Sun Online (w/image)

Arrest Over Shark Dogs
The Sun Online

Man, Dog's Best Enemy
Clicanoo (French language), 30 September 2005

Three Hooks, Three Months of Prison...
Clicanoo (French language), 1 October 2005

RSPCA Petition - Stop This Cruelty!
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (UK)

Live Bait (Puppies, Kittens) Used in Shark Fishing
Brigitte Bardot Foundation (French language, w/images)


Last updated: 10/04/05


Current Netlore
The Urban Legends Top 25

[BikeWriter]

185. I posted the Snopes site upthread. It's...

illegal and rarely done.

[Catchawave]

237. But it's done......?

Welcome to Animal Rights 101

When something so bizzare is proven true on the urban legends websites, you know there's a problem. Whether it's dog/cat shark bait, or using sheep fetus skins to make designer coats, you know somewhere in this humanity thing, there's some terrible brain farts

[BikeWriter]

260. So, they're abusing road killed dogs?

[Catchawave]

262. They are?

Where did you see ALL that shark bait is dead?

[BikeWriter]

269. The Snopes site said the practice was isolated, illegal...

and mostly applied to roadkill. If you'd like to continue beating a dead horse, err, dog, please do so.

[BikeWriter]

92. This is a shark hook and steel leader.

[BikeWriter]

102. Snopes:

Rather than describing hordes of shark fisherman impaling live dogs on hooks and dragging them behind boats as shark bait, the article notes that employing dogs in shark-fishing is largely the province of a small group of amateur fisherman rather than large numbers of professionals, that the dogs used are generally dead animals picked up from roadsides or culled from the island's large population of unwanted strays (estimated at 150,000), and that the no-longer-alive animals are attached to unattended buoyed "shark trap" platforms rather than dragged alive behind boats.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/sharkbait.asp

[Beaverhausen]

115. so some fisherman are doing it

pretty sick.

Here is the beginning of that paragraph:

Based on a recent Réunion newspaper article which acknowledged the practice and reported the recent prosecution of a deliveryman (and amateur fisherman) on that island over animal cruelty charges associated with the described activity, we'd have to say there is some truth to the shark-fishing claim, although the practice does not appear to be as widespread or horrific (or tolerated) as implied by recent news stories.

[BikeWriter]

125. So it is outlawed, and relatively rare. Billions...

... more cruel people are abusing children and women each day. I'll reserve most of my concern for them.

[Beaverhausen]

129. you are right about the cruelty in the world.

We can definitely agree on that!

And sadly, not just women and children either.

[BikeWriter]

139. Unfortunately, yes'm.

[Kenneth ken]

94. .

the article says the image was digitally created.

I doubt that the image is more graphic than the reality of seeing and participating in the actual killing of non-human animals to which children raised on farms, or in hunting families are exposed.

Realistic and humane. Should all elementary schools organize field trips to factory farms and slaughterhouses so that children can get a realistic understanding of how most non-human animals are raised? It would certainly give them a perspective from which they could better discuss the term humane.

[BikeWriter]

97. My own children were raised on a working farm.

They treat their aninmals humanely.

[Kenneth ken]

140. I wasn't

and more particularly I wasn't raised on the working farm your children were raised on. So my questions are naive, but not meant as an attack.

Did they see and/or participate in killing chickes, pigs, castration of cattle that type of thing?

If so, do you think that was less graphic than the PeTA image? If so, why?

I am vegan because I couldn't participate in killing animals, so I think it's wrong for me to eat them. I don't push others to follow my choices. I'm not criticizing the way you raised your children, or your choices, I'm just curious as to why you think the PeTA image is child abuse.

[BikeWriter]

161. A dog is a pet, capable of unselfish devotion...

...to its master. The human tribes have enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with the canines for thousands of years, as we have the horse. I would not hesitate to kill and eat either should the situation necessitate it, but I find cruelty to either almost a betrayal.
My Children were raised eating meat, and faced the responsibility of butchering animals realistically. Kill what you eat and eat what you kill, and don't let Daddy catch you taking a life unnecessarily. The calf they bottle raised was named Dinner, for instance, though he was never butchered while we owned him.

[Kenneth ken]

168. thanks

(I have other comments, but I don't want to argue with you, and I think it would degenerate into that, so I'll stop here.)

[BikeWriter]

174. LOL! Okay, that's my philosophy and...

it works for my kids, too.

[Dangerously Amused]

131. ...

Part of the problem is that I would guess 99.9% of the population is completely isolated from the slaughter of the animals they eat. Subjectively people know that they are eating dead flesh when they go to McDonald's or plop a steak on the grill, but objectively I don't think most make that connection. Most meat comes to people neatly wrapped in a package, with no resemblence whatsoever to the animal from whose body it was taken.

But I agree, a trip to the slaughterhouse and the factory farm - or at least genuine research into that subject area - is an education that everyone who regularly eats meat should have. In my opinion it is as responsible to understand the source and processing of one's food source, and where one spends one's money in that respect, as it is to understand the background and positions taken by political candidates, and how one chooses to allocate one's vote.

[jobycom]

136. Good points. nt

[BikeWriter]

I agree, and I hunt my own food or raise it...

preferably to eating someone else's kill.

[nvliberal]

310. Guess what? It's called the food chain.

When animals kill other animals, it's unpleasant.

Death isn't pleasant, but we should look at humane treatment of the animals we eat.

I absolutely DESPISE the PETA crowd and their self-righteous attitude. They are fruitcakes who don't care one whit about animals.

They want to tell me WHAT to eat, WHAT to wear, that I can't go to circuses or enjoy horse racing because it's "exploitative," or even have pets, as Queen Fruitcake Ingrid Newkirk would like to see.

Forget it.

[jobycom]

135. Fish don't have fuzz.

And Finding Nemo is an adorable and stimulating film for kids.

Kids grow up with a variety of inputs, and sort out reality quite well as they grow. Using cartoon versions of animals, whether to teach or entertain, is no more harmful to kids than Harry Potter's magic or Tinky-Winky's color.

Fuzzy animals are often the very ones that are sentient, and self-aware, and experience emotions just as us slightly less fuzzy wuzzy human animals do. Not including Republicans. I have no problem with teaching a kid that a dog has emotions, feels pain, and can reason--maybe not as completely as most humans (again, excluding Republicans).

I think there's too much anthropomorphizing of humans, to the point where we forget that we are animals, with the same basic body mechanics as every other animal. Our systems may have developed skills that others lack--intelligence (except for.. Well, you know)--just as other species have skills we lack--speed, strength, venomous bite, or the ability to eat ants out of a hole with a long, sticky tongue.

At base, there is a common essence to life which ties all species together. That's one of the lessons of evolution. Teaching a child to respect that essence is a good thing to do, whether you want to go further and teach that kid to treat all life as equal to humans or not. (I don't, for the record, even though I don't kill animals for use). Kids can understand the difference between a human and Nemo, even if Nemo talks to them. Nemo can even stimulate them to think about that difference, and decide for themselves where the line should be drawn.

[BikeWriter]

239. Yes, but a cute intelligent Nemo can unrealistically influence them...

I've heard of PeTa demonstrators in animal suits doing their best to prevent children from eating "animals" like them. That's unfairly fuzzing the edges to me.

[Lilith Velkor]

62. How 'bout a local HFP chapter?

Granted, the name Hugs for Puppies lacks gravitas, but the cuteness factor could be good for PR. Just an idea.

[sakabatou]

8. "Will someone pelase think of the children?!"

Puh-LEEZE.

[rasputin1952]

9. Civil discourse is the way to approach this issue, and I thank all of the

posters to this thread for keeping it civil...

There are many sides to this issue, and I recall someone telling me once, that "if Fish could scream, no one would fish". I know that other animals scream, and there are plenty of people that simply don't let that bother them.

I don't know if PETA wants everyone to go vegan, I don't know if some of their people are Over The Top in the way they approach things. But I do believe that we should not be treating people or animals in ways that literally torture them, and kill them in ways that remain questionable.

In any case, thank you for keeping this thread civil, it will pay didvidends for doing that...

[jobycom]

11. Oh yeah?

How much will it pay me? Talk Cash! Or I post a flame!!!

(Nice post, btw. Probably premature, but nice post.)

[alphadog]

17. Going to get flamed for this, but...

what the heck.

As a pro-life Dem, I'm wondering (really, I'm wondering, not challenging), when you say "we should not be treating people or animals in ways that literally torture them" how do you feel about partial birth abortion?

[Beaverhausen]

19. Partial birth abortion does not exist- that is a made up right wing term

go research more about the issue then come back.

[arwalden]

26. Sounds Like An Interesting Topic For Another Thread...

... I don't think this thread should be hijacked to discuss the abortion issue.

Welcome to DU!!

[rasputin1952]

30. I'll answer that one: There is, in essence, no such thing as "partial

birth abortion". It is an absurd play on words that the RW anti-choice people came up with. In order for there to be a "partial birth" the cervix must have opened to a degree where the baby has passed into the birth canal. Until the mucus plug in the cervix dislodged, the fetus is still in the womb. What "partial birth abortion" would actually be, is the killing of a child while actually being born, and that is murder, in any court in the land.

What you are alluding to is 3rd trimester abortion, which is exceptionally rare, although the anti-choice people would have you believe that it happens 500x a day in the US. In essence, they are lying, and they need to be put under the light on this one. The vast majority of abortions are taken place in the 1st trimester, up to 12 weeks of gestation.

Now to answer the inevitable fol;low-up question, where do I stand on abortion. First and foremost, it is none of my business what an individual does with her body, but I am not "Pro-Abortion"; I am pro choice. I feel that i do not have the authority to tell someone what they can and can't do with their bodies. I am not "in favor" of abortion, but I would much rather ensure that a woman be able to have one in a clean and sterile environment, than have to go to a place where her chances of dying are increased many-fold because of someone else's ideology has demanded that they cannot obtain a service because of a morality that is seriously in question.

Like I said earlier, it is not my business what a woman I don't even know does in this instance.

[Igel]

113. I thought its official name was intact dilation and extraction.

At least one of it's official names. As though something needs an official name to exist, or can only be referred to by it's formal, committee-assigned name. Anyway ...

If the cervix dilates, that bodes poorly for the mucus plug.

In most descriptions of the procedure--some of the facts that aren't really disputed--the cervix is partially dilated; then part of the fetus is brought into the birth canal and even outside the woman's body. The fetus' skull is then punctured, drained, collapsed, and the head's removed from the uterus and birth canal. The fetus may be suffering from hydrocephaly, it may already be dead, or the fetus may be perfectly healthy.

The fetus is dead before the umbilical cord's cut, and never draws breath. It was never alive; therefore there was never anything to murder.

[rasputin1952]

155. Not trying to hijack this thread...but several states have

Fetal homicide laws, so that if you injure/kill the mother and the fetus dies as well, you can be charged w/2 murders.

I am no legal eagle, but I can assure you that no one would extract a term fetus/baby and crush it's head after 8.5-9 months in utero. Hydrocephalic people have lived into their teens, and older on occasion. I have no idea how the do this, but it is documented as having happened. Perhaps the brainstem/medulla or some other type of brain tissue keeps the individual alive, but on at least one occasion I know of, the individual was capable of speech and coherent thought??? Amazing to say the least.

My point is, that the RW anti-choice people would have people believe that this is a constant approach to abortion. To take this a step further, they are against "Plan B" or the "Morning After Pill" as well, this works by shedding the lining of the uterus before the process of fertilization has gone beyond the initial cell division stage. How can this be 'abortion'? It is a way for the fundy's to cease all sexual activity, something that is not their business in the first place. I'm sure they would be unhappy if I hung outside THEIR doors and brought up their sexual practices for the world to see....

[Beaverhausen]

172. Yes you are trying to hijack this thread!!!

this sub thread amuses me...well not really cause it's an important topic but still...

[rasputin1952]

234. Start one up...That's what GD is all about, and I think this is a good

topic as well...even though it has been beaten to death and no one seems to be able to budge on the issue....

[anotherdrew]

203. it's not pro-life, it's pro-life-imprisonment of women who get abortions

or big trouble for those who's miscarriage is deemed 'suspicious' by local authorities.

[Dangerously Amused]

12. I'm kind of new here.

So I'm curious, are you like the resident "anti-PETA" poster? I ask based on this post and the last (what could be interpreted as) anti-PETA post you made a day ago, coupled with your responses to that post.

Has PETA done you wrong?

[arwalden]

13. Hello, Dangerously Amused.

This thread is supposed to be about PETA's tactics, whether they are accurate and appropriate, and the fact that some outdoor advertising companies reject their ads.

It's not about me.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

18. hello arwalden--be aware that all posts may come under scrutiny

JSYK--
--you have the right to your opinion--and others have the right to question your statements and the motives behind your statements.

no free passes

[arwalden]

23. Just So That You Know, Night Tripper...

You might want to examine how you phrase things. I'm in no need of any "free passes". I'm not the subject of scrutiny, Peta is.

Any motives that someone may imagine me having are irrelevant to the topic of this thread. This is a subject that interests me. This is a current news story about Peta, not about me.

I think I should also let you know that messages which attack the messenger instead of the message aren't allowed. Messages that call-out or draw negative attention to another member are also not allowed.

[wtmusic]

25. Exactly

"Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden."

[flvegan]

29. Actually, this is a post about a billboard company

rejecting an ad. It really has little to do with PETA, unless you are referring to a possible bias on the part of said billboard company.

[arwalden]

32. What You Call Bias, I Call Wisdom.

It also talks about the design of the ad, and the accuracy of it, and whether or not it's appropriate.

[flvegan]

34. Bias is factual, wisdom opinion, I think.

But, I won't argue that issue. Regardless, Clear Channel is long known for rejecting PETA ads, regardless of the question of design, accuracy and if it is or isn't appropriate. They likely always will as a right-wing shill of a company that accepts tons of ad dollars from PETA's adversaries. Hell, Clear Channel won't even allow Sierra Club ads.

I have to respect their decision, it is their corporation, regarless of how much of a pile of shit they are, who they support, etc. I sure as hell wouldn't back a play they made, nor glorify it.

[arwalden]

38. Here's Your Reply.

<< "Bias is factual, wisdom opinion, I think." But, I won't argue that issue. >>

Then why bring it up at all?


<< Regardless, Clear Channel is long known for rejecting PETA ads, >>

Much to their credit. One might think that Peta would learn.


<< regardless of the question of design, accuracy and if it is or isn't appropriate. >>

Oh, yes. Certainly. None of those things are important.


<< They likely always will as a right-wing shill of a company that accepts tons of ad dollars from PETA's adversaries. Hell, Clear Channel won't even allow Sierra Club ads. >>

Oh well.


<< I have to respect their decision, it is their corporation, regarless of how much of a pile of shit they are, >>

Interesting. So it's okay to call that organization a "pile of shit", but not okay for anyone to express similar harsh words for Peta. I see.


<< who they support, etc. I sure as hell wouldn't back a play they made, nor glorify it. >>

Then you shouldn't.

[flvegan]

42. Thanks for kicking the thread again.

Why would PETA "learn" since they get more publicity by getting turned down than they otherwise would.

Yes...oh, well indeed. That says more than I ever could.

[arwalden]

46. I Addressed This In Another Post Further Down The Page...

<< Why would PETA "learn" since they get more publicity by getting turned down than they otherwise would. >>

Publicity for what? This message and this cause? Or self-serving publicity Peta itself (and for reinforcing its reputation as being an organization of cranks?)

<< Yes...oh, well indeed. That says more than I ever could. >>

LOL! I imagine so.

[friesianrider]

285. But you didn't post the story and walk away...

You are making statements about it and giving your opinion of the story. Therefore, your statements become the subject of scrutiny and questioning. No one on DU gets to have their opinion left unchallenged. If you had merely posted the story and walked away, then fine. But you've repeatedly given your thoughts on this, so prepare to have them challenged.

You should understand that because someone takes issue with what you said - that doesn't equal a "personal attack" on you.

Again, I suggest growing a thicker skin or taking up knitting or something.

[rinsd]

128. Really?

Should I suggest people here vehemently supporting PETA are likely on their payroll or are at the very least members because their reaction seems to be so personal?

Or is the agenda BS jsut a way of trying to silence the messenger?

Should we call into question DUers who seem to post exclusively on a few topics?

[Dangerously Amused]

48. ...

I understand what the article is about. With all due respect, I'm not sure the fact that an advertising company turned down a particular ad warrants a position on "Latest Breaking News."

Like I said, I haven't been here that long, and the only two threads I've seen you post, within days of each other, are the one attacking PETA a day ago and now this, also taking a negative view of PETA. Your personal comments on both threads also criticize PETA.

Certainly you are entitled to your opinion, but I am curious, so I will ask you directly:

Do you OP against any other organizations, or is it just PETA?

[arwalden]

52. Hello Again, Dangerously Amused...

<< I understand what the article is about. With all due respect, I'm not sure the fact that an advertising company turned down a particular ad warrants a position on "Latest Breaking News." >>

That's rather subjective, wouldn't you say? I suppose it all depends on who finds this particular subject matter interesting. I'm sure that the same argument could be made against any subject matter that someone wasn't particularly interested in.

<< Like I said, I haven't been here that long, and the only two threads I've seen you post, within days of each other, are the one attacking PETA a day ago and now this, also taking a negative view of PETA. >>

I don't know what to say about that. I cannot account for why you might have missed the other threads I've started and the other posts I've made.

In that same paragraph, you mention my negative opinion of Peta and you also note the following:

<< Your personal comments on both threads also criticize PETA. >>

Yes, and? So? What's your point? What exactly are you driving at?


<< Certainly you are entitled to your opinion, but I am curious, so I will ask you directly: Do you OP against any other organizations, or is it just PETA? >>

That's irrelevant. Why should this matter to anyone? What facts about this story would that change?

[Dangerously Amused]

80. It is relevant.

DA: << I understand what the article is about. With all due respect, I'm not sure the fact that an advertising company turned down a particular ad warrants a position on "Latest Breaking News." >>

ARW: That's rather subjective, wouldn't you say?

DA: No, I don't think it's being subjective. Advertising companies have been turning down ads for as many years as there have been advertising companies. I just don't think that's "breaking news." To me it seems that "Latest Breaking News" threads should be for something that has recently (thus "latest") become (thus "breaking") news. Like an announcement that a particular person just got indicted.

---------

ARW: I suppose it all depends on who finds this particular subject matter interesting. I'm sure that the same argument could be made against any subject matter that someone wasn't particularly interested in.

DA: I don't think the fact that one person finds a particular subject matter "interesting" necessarily makes it "news" to everyone else. If Martha Stewart comes out with a new color in her fall collection, I may find that interesting, but I don't think it qualifies as "news." I think the term "news" is intended to refer to things that have more of a universal effect.

--------

DA: << Like I said, I haven't been here that long, and the only two threads I've seen you post, within days of each other, are the one attacking PETA a day ago and now this, also taking a negative view of PETA. >>

ARW: I don't know what to say about that. I cannot account for why you might have missed the other threads I've started and the other posts I've made.

In that same paragraph, you mention my negative opinion of Peta and you also note the following:

(DA): << Your personal comments on both threads also criticize PETA. >>

ARW: Yes, and? So? What's your point? What exactly are you driving at?

DA: What I am driving at is below.

-----------

DA: << Certainly you are entitled to your opinion, but I am curious, so I will ask you directly: Do you OP against any other organizations, or is it just PETA? >>

ARW: That's irrelevant. Why should this matter to anyone?

DA: It is relevant to the purpose of the forum. If one person comes on to the "Latest Breaking News" forum and continually posts negative information about one particular organization, information that while it may be "interesting" to the poster is not generally considered "news" to most others, then I might respectfully suggest to the poster that there are other forums more suited to the airings of one's individual grievances. Perhaps that poster could even petition the administration to start up his or her own "Anti-PETA" forum. In fact, I am willing to bet that even those who disagree with the "anti-PETA" threads/posts would join in to lobby the administration for that separate forum. Otherwise it seems to me that if people begin to use a major news forum as a personal venting outlet, then others who must share the forum may get upset.

I'm just sayin.' After reading these posts, and seeing the amount of vitriol the subject stirs up, it might be better for everybody to have a separate forum for these discussions. I mean, surely you aren't posting this information on the LBN thread for the purpose of irritating those who you know will strongly disagree with you when they see it there.

Would you like me to get the ball rolling and approach the administration about getting you your own forum? I'd be happy to. Really.

[arwalden]

98. Comparing Peta News To Martha Stewart Is Silly.

Martha is much more sensible.

<< It is relevant to the purpose of the forum. If one person comes on to the "Latest Breaking News" forum and continually posts negative information about one particular organization, information that while it may be "interesting" to the poster is not generally considered "news" to most others, then I might respectfully suggest to the poster that there are other forums more suited to the airings of one's individual grievances.>>

Peta is a controversial political organization. This is a political discussion forum. I do not think it is inappropriate to post current news articles about Peta in the LBN forum.

What gives Peta supporters priority over people who are critical of Peta? What makes them more special and more "deserving" of special consideration?

<< Perhaps that poster could even petition the administration to start up his or her own "Anti-PETA" forum. In fact, I am willing to bet that even those who disagree with the "anti-PETA" threads/posts would join in to lobby the administration for that separate forum. >>

Ah... so you want to take the Peta criticism and hide-it-away. I see.


<< Otherwise it seems to me that if people begin to use a major news forum as a personal venting outlet, then others who must share the forum may get upset. >>

I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about.


<< I'm just sayin.' After reading these posts, and seeing the amount of vitriol the subject stirs up, it might be better for everybody to have a separate forum for these discussions. I mean, surely you aren't posting this information on the LBN thread for the purpose of irritating those who you know will strongly disagree with you when they see it there. >>

That's a very cynical point of view. Do you deny the existence of other people who are also critical of Peta? Do you think I'm the only person who is critical of Peta?


<< Would you like me to get the ball rolling and approach the administration about getting you your own forum? I'd be happy to. Really. >>

What you do, or don't do, is your own affair. I take no personal interest in that whatsoever.

[Dangerously Amused]

160. ANYONE SUPPORT A SEPARATE "ANTI-PETA" FORUM?

"Peta is a controversial political organization."

Controversial? Okay, I'll go along with that. But political? I haven't known them to promote an alliance with any particular party, nor have I known them to run any candidates... but I do not claim to be current with everything they do. Do you have other information? Do they promote themselves as a "Republican" (or whatever) organization? Have they run any candidates?

-----

"What gives Peta supporters priority over people who are critical of Peta? What makes them more special and more "deserving" of special consideration?"

Huh? - I never said one side was more special, or more deserving of consideration, than the other.

-----

<< Perhaps that poster could even petition the administration to start up his or her own "Anti-PETA" forum. In fact, I am willing to bet that even those who disagree with the "anti-PETA" threads/posts would join in to lobby the administration for that separate forum. >>

"Ah... so you want to take the Peta criticism and hide-it-away. I see."

Well I don't see how giving it a separate forum would be "hiding" it. To the contrary, I think that way it would be LESS likely to get lost (hidden) in a mass of other news. Then, people who wanted anti-PETA information wouldn't have to hunt for it, they could go straight to it.

------

"Do you deny the existence of other people who are also critical of Peta? Do you think I'm the only person who is critical of Peta?"

Not at all. I myself have been critical of PETA, on occasion. But again, I just don't think that a succession of articles critical of one particular organization is an efficient use of the LBN page.

------

<< Would you like me to get the ball rolling and approach the administration about getting you your own forum? I'd be happy to. Really. >>

"What you do, or don't do, is your own affair. I take no personal interest in that whatsoever."

Excellent! I am glad to be of service in this respect, and I will begin efforts to this end directly. I will likely begin by asking others for support of the separate forum. SO ANYONE ELSE READING THIS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU SUPPORT A SEPARATE ANTI-PETA FORUM. I will likely post for support in other areas as well. Furthermore, I will advise the administration of your position that you take "no personal interest" in whether or not you get an individual "anti-PETA" forum, which I interpret to mean that you have no objection.

Honestly, I am very excited by this proposition and sincerely feel it will best serve all interested parties. Thank you for your assistance and anticipated cooperation in this matter!

: )


Peace!

[arwalden]

226. I May As Well Be Talking To A Toaster.

<< Controversial? Okay, I'll go along with that. But political? >>

What exactly do you think "rights" are? Where do they come from? How are these "rights" enforced. Stop pretending you don't understand.

<< Huh? - I never said one side was more special, or more deserving of consideration, than the other. >>

Indeed, you never wrote or spoke those exact words. But that's what it boils down to. When people resort to such hair-splitting semantical games it's a good clue that they've run out of rational arguments.

<< Well I don't see how giving it a separate forum would be "hiding" it. >>

LOL! Not hidden, huh? I guess the "gun dungeon" just got that nickname because it sounded cool?

<< Not at all. I myself have been critical of PETA, on occasion. But again, I just don't think that a succession of articles critical of one particular organization is an efficient use of the LBN page. >>

Actually, you are remembering incorrectly. Yesterday's "Peta and Religion" thread was in the general discussion forum. This article about the billboard was in LBN.

Stop exaggerating!

<< Excellent! I am glad to be of service in this respect, and I will begin efforts to this end directly. I will likely begin by asking others for support of the separate forum. >>

Suit yourself.

<< SO ANYONE ELSE READING THIS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU SUPPORT A SEPARATE ANTI-PETA FORUM. I will likely post for support in other areas as well. >>

Have at it there, Tiger. Grandstand away.

<< Furthermore, I will advise the administration of your position that you take "no personal interest" in whether or not you get an individual "anti-PETA" forum, which I interpret to mean that you have no objection. >>

You would be wise to think twice about that. I think I should give you fair warning that you do not have any authority to speak on my behalf. You are not my proxy.

<< Honestly, I am very excited by this proposition and sincerely feel it will best serve all interested parties. Thank you for your assistance and anticipated cooperation in this matter!>>

Oh brother... give me a fucking break! You've GOT to be kidding me.

[friesianrider]

287. This is why you are wrong...

The only person looking a little strange here is you, with all due respect - not PETA. Like your thread last night, there are even people here now who dislike PETA but are calling your posts and stories out of line and biased.

I should just sit back and let you self-destruct and continue ranting and raving on your own accord - you're doing a pretty good job at it without any help from me (except that I'm antagonizing you a little, but what's a little aggitation between friends, right?)

[arwalden]

309. o

<< The only person looking a little strange here is you, >>

That's a personal attack.

<< with all due respect - not PETA. >>

So... let me get this straight. If you say "with-all-due-respect" at the end of a personal attack, then it's not a personal attack? I'll have to try that sometime.

<< Like your thread last night, there are even people here now who dislike PETA but are calling your posts and stories out of line and biased. >>

Yes, I'm biased against Peta. So?

<< I should just sit back and let you self-destruct and continue ranting and raving on your own accord - you're doing a pretty good job at it without any help from me (except that I'm antagonizing you a little, but what's a little aggitation between friends, right?) : ) >>

Sorry, you're only fooling yourself. You and I are not friends. That's not a word that I toss around as lightly and recklessly as some folks.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

16. there are some ANTI-PETA posters that come out every time PETA's mentioned

They love the freedom they have in thinking that animals are here for us humans to use.
Anything that strives to wreck that guiltless bubble and take away any of the "luxuries" they enjoy at the expense of animals is met with opposition(EXTREME)-

They are fighting for the very survival and preservation of their learned morality code within their own consciousness...if acceptance of animal cruelty occurs it would wreck their worlds and they'd have to question everything they'd ever learned.

For them I quote Frank Zappa:
"Everything you ever learned was WRONG"

peace to all creatures-
may we humans learn to respect all life.

[wtmusic]

24. Oh so I suppose plants are here for us humans to use then?

SAVE THE PLANTS!!!

[BikeWriter]

170. I'm going to EAT all the plants! Bwah ha ha! ;-)

[Lilith Velkor]

194. Hey man, don't bogart the spinach.

[BikeWriter]

204. I'll mangle all the veggies, I tell you!

Veggie sap EVERYWHERE!

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tatertop]

33. PETA is correct. Why I stopped fishing years ago:

1. Fish have nervous systems that recognize pain.
2. "Fish (like “higher vertebrates”) have neurotransmitters like endorphins that relieve suffering—of course, the only reason for their nervous systems to produce pain killers is to relieve pain."
3. Fish respond to pain by avoidance and listless resignation
4. Researcher William Tavolga found that fish grunted when they received an electric shock. In addition, the fish began to grunt as soon as they saw the electrode, clearly in anticipation of the torment that Tavolga was inflicting on them.

5. "Scientists at Edinburgh University and the Roslin Institute in the United Kingdom report that in response to pain, fish also feel emotional stress and engage in “a ‘rocking’ motion strikingly similar to the kind of motion seen in stressed higher vertebrates like mammals.” The research team concluded that fish clearly experience pain in the same way as mammals, both physically and psychologically."

Albert Schweitzer figured this out when he was still a young lad.
Even at a young age he realized a hooked fish is in pain. Once again, PETA is correct. I don't fish anymore.

[RebelOne]

133. But all anglers close their eye to these facts.

It is just like hunting, since the hunters think a deer does not feel pain when they are killed.

[Karmadillo]

213. Thank you for posting this. I can't wait for

an attempt at a rebuttal.

[arwalden]

58. Wow...

<< They are fighting for the very survival and preservation of their learned morality code within their own consciousness...if acceptance of animal cruelty occurs it would wreck their worlds and they'd have to question everything they'd ever learned. >>

Does anyone actually believe that?

[Dave Reynolds]

171. No.

Some folks just like to practice amateur pseudo-psychology.

[arwalden]

233. Interesting.

[jobycom]

63. And some of us anti-PETA posters believe PETA is an evil organization

that furthers their own egos and cause MORE pain and suffering for animals by angering people rather than legitimately trying to persuade them.

Some of us, like myself, are vegetarians and animal rights proponents who have witnessed too many people immediately reject any suggestion of better treatment for animals as "PETA nonsense," or worse.

So please adjust your sweeping accusations to account for people like me, instead of using them to create straw men.

Animal rights causes would be much further advanced by a group who does the legislative work that PETA does but who tried to actually make progress on public awareness than trying to bathe themselves in the perceived purity of their own egos.

[Beaverhausen]

74. and the organization most hell bent on destroying PETA isn't evil?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_...

This is the group responsible for a lot of the anti-PETA crap that is posted here.

Please take time to explore the information. See who funds them, see what their mission is.

[jobycom]

105. What kind of non-sequitar is that?

The Nazi Party was evil, the Republicans were evil, and Idi Amin Dada was evil, too.

[Beaverhausen]

110. As I said in my post, many of the anti-PETA articles posted here

come from that website. That is why I referenced them. People post website that that group has created but when it is pointed out who is behind the website...crickets chirping.

edit- I don't mean here on this particular thread but here at DU.

[jobycom]

141. Why post it if it isn't applicable to this thread (or my post)?

For the record, I haven't seen that website. My objections to PETA come from my beautiful (well, it's got a nice personality, anyway) mind.

[superconnected]

132. how do you defend petas own news releases on it's own site.

the we will kill dogs release.

If you really care if a fish gets hooked, which I doubt you do, then you would be screaming when a dog gets euthanzined.

You are likely on petas payroll. I smell a fake. And I do not smell someone who believes in animlas not being killed. If you believed that you would stop supporting peta until they apologize and swear to never kill animals again.

[Beaverhausen]

137. can you give me a link to that press release?

and PETA couldn't afford me.

And the unfortunate fact is that there are just too many animals in the world who don't have homes and there aren't enough shelters for them all so some have to be euthanized. That is better than letting them starve.

[superconnected]

143. That is not a fact and that is an opinion animal rights activists

do not have. Not when they believe in the animals right to live.

I've posted the link here before. Do a search.

I do not see you in any way as an animal rights supporter. At least leaving those dogs at the humane society would have given them a 15% chance of being adopted. A no kill shelter is also a great way to go. Posting on DU almost ALWAYs gets animals adopted. I've seen it many times.

Gee, you give up on their lives awefully quick.

[Beaverhausen]

146. I have volunteered at a no kill shelter

until the city closed it down and took the dogs away.

Maybe where you live there are enough shelters for all the unwanted animals but not around here. We are overrun with strays. The shelter I volunteered at was a woman's private home and she had nearly 100 dogs...mostly pits bull and pit mixes. Some were simply unadoptable but she kept them alive. She tried for years to keep it going but the cities she was in kept closing her down. She kind of went nuts and toward the end she couldn't get people to help her, myself included.

Some of the animals went to another rescue around here but some went to the city's "humane society." Where I'm sure if they weren't adopted in a few weeks were put down.


And I AM searching PETA's website but I can't find the link you mentioned.

[superconnected]

149. search this site for my posts and you will see the link.

It's in peta press releases. You have to go back about 4 months.

Your reasoning for peta killing animals doesn't stand to even the story you just posted.

I will stick with my observation. I hope someday you become an animal rights supporter and adopt the belief that killing animals is wrong.

Goodbye.

[flvegan]

165. I'm sorry, but you're way off here.

PETA has long stood in this situation as a LAST RESORT for the NC animals.

You got homes for any of the other 5 to 7 million animals we'll euthanize in this country this year?

No-kill is "limited intake" meaning they turn dogs and cats away to find their fate elsewhere.

I'm vegan, run a rescue for abused animals, and have served on the board of my local humane society, which was an open intake ("kill") shelter, and I dare anyone call me fake or a non-activist...

[Zomby Woof]

91. Your last sentence nails it

Perfect.

I think PETA sets BACK animal welfare because of their tactics, not their beliefs. They are too smugly self-righterous and narcissistic to realize their shortcomings in advancing a humane agenda.

In other words, as with fundies, you can't reason with dogmatic, sanctimonious mindsets.

[jobycom]

Thanks. So does yours!

"In other words, as with fundies, you can't reason with dogmatic, sanctimonious mindsets."

Ed Zachary.

[Zomby Woof]

83. And ironically, Frank Zappa ate meat

On the Food Channel not too long ago, his widow Gail Zappa said Beef Stroganoff was his favorite dish. He also enjoyed Pepper Steak, and almost any meat as long as it was fried.

Remind me to tell the lions on the African savannahs that the gazelles are no longer there for their use. Let 'em eat carrots!

The food chain and cycle of life are wonders to behold.

[spunky]

84. Thats not a fair characterization of everyone who dislikes PETAs tactics

I don't like their tactics, and I'm a vegetarian animal rights supporter.

They try to shock/scare children in order to get to the parents. That is WRONG in my opinion. If they want to try to change children they should do it in a child friendly way--put out childrens stories about animals, sponsor programs to teach children about animals and their lives in the wild, etc. They should NOT use scare tactics and gross/shocking imagery to try and frighten children into seeing things their way. That drives people AWAY from the cause, not towards it.

I mean, don't we all critize Bush and Co. when they use fear and terrorism to try to get their way? Same tactic.

There is a right and wrong way to accomplish all goals. A noble cause does not negate common decency, sound judgement, and common sense.

Afterall, they just make all animal rights supporters look bad.

[friesianrider]

235. *cough*

Must be something in my throat.

[madrchsod]

14. another (attempted) dumb stunt by peta

dog=fish? just how many people are going to stop eating fish for the buck? these people need to go back to marketing 101.
i will admit that peta does do some really important work but this sort of marketing gets them no where but a smaller bank account

[arwalden]

15. It Also Gets Them Ridiculed...

... and it reinforces the belief that many have about Peta being a crackpot organization. Surely they are not completely UNaware of their reputation and how people perceive them. It doesn't appear to be the smartest thing to do.

[friesianrider]

238. Ahh, yes, but it got you talking about them, didn't it?

For a "crackpot" organization, you sure devote a lot of time to it, and by your own admission - you're interested in PETA issues/stories/etc. That means their goal has been accomplished - only you can't seem to see that.

I can guarantee you that someone will see this thread you posted and realize PETA has a point. They may still dislike PETA as a whole, but I can guarantee someone will say "well I can't stand them but they've got a point there." Mission accomplished - again I thank you for keeping PETA in the news

[arwalden]

243. Yes, Peta's Goals Are Self-Serving And Opportunistic.

... it just reinforces the bad reputation they have. As some other poster said elsewhere in this thread... and very succinctly: "PETA ascribes to the philosophy that shock value changes people's minds. It doesn't. People join PETA because they agree with the basic philosophy not the latest barrage of attention getting."

<< Mission accomplished - again I thank you for keeping PETA in the news : hug : >>

Oh dear! More of that double-double-reverse-psychology? LOL... oh god... stop it, please... I can't take any more! HA HA HA HA HA!

[friesianrider]

247. I don't think that's what I said..

It may pain you to admit it, but the fact is you are helping PETA out by keeping them in the news. That's just the truth. If you honestly think they don't know that they are creating controversy, then you're very naive to business. They do it for the shock value and it works - they're a huge organization and they didn't get there by not having at least SOME effect on people.

[arwalden]

252. More BrerRabbit Tar-Baby Double-Double-Reverse Psychology?

Nice try.

<< They do it for the shock value and it works - they're a huge organization and they didn't get there by not having at least SOME effect on people. >>

I guess that's why some teachers grade on a curve.

[friesianrider]

254. No, it is the truth.

I'm sorry you are too swept up in whatever it is you're trying to do that you can't see what is so obvious to other people.

The fact is that PETA is a huge organization that has the money and ability to take on (and win) many animal welfare battles. They do not accomplish this by being ineffective.

I respect that you disagree with them and think they're extreme and outlandish, but you have to admit - you've posted stories where they've been effective in several areas. That means they are doing something right.

[arwalden]

263. How Very Odd...

... for someone who is supposedly done with me and wants to hand it all over to the mods, why do you keep engaging me on this topic?

<< I'm sorry you are too swept up in whatever it is you're trying to do that you can't see what is so obvious to other people.>>

Frankly, I think you're being insincere. I do not believe that sanctimonious "I-feel-so-sorry-for-you" bullshit. Save it for someone else.

<< The fact is that PETA is a huge organization that has the money and ability to take on (and win) many animal welfare battles. They do not accomplish this by being ineffective. >>

Again... there's a reason that teachers grade on a curve.

<< I respect that you disagree with them and think they're extreme and outlandish, but you have to admit - you've posted stories where they've been effective in several areas. That means they are doing something right. >>

Effective only in getting their name in the paper and reinforcing their already existing reputation of being extremist fringe kooks. If that's the goal, then they are successful. Too bad about whatever "issue" they thought they were making people care about. For most folks, it's just another "wacko-peta-headline" that will be forgotten again in a couple of days. The memory of Peta being a fringe group remains, but whatever the issue was is quickly forgotten.

Until the next time. And even then, the reaction is one of "oh-that-peta-crap-again" change the channel... what kooks! what else is on, Maude?

PETA ascribes to the philosophy that shock value changes people's minds. It doesn't. People join PETA because they agree with the basic philosophy not the latest barrage of attention getting.

It's no different than the preachers that holds real aborted fetuses in people's faces.

[friesianrider]

277. Not odd at all :)

"Frankly, I think you're being insincere. I do not believe that sanctimonious "I-feel-so-sorry-for-you" bullshit. Save it for someone else."

Can you show me where I said I feel sorry for you?

"Effective only in getting their name in the paper and reinforcing their already existing reputation of being extremist fringe kooks."

Well that is debatable, but you're entitled to your opinion.

"If that's the goal, then they are successful."

Well by golly, you've managed to admit it!

"Too bad about whatever "issue" they thought they were making people care about. For most folks, it's just another "wacko-peta-headline" that will be forgotten again in a couple of days."

Actually, that is how it is for you - not for everyone, and probably not even most folks. You do a great job of keeping PETA in the headlines and keeping them a hot topic. So long as that continues, their mission is accomplished. I'll try and find you the link to PETA's President saying that as long as they're being discussed, they're accomplishing their goal. I'll go look for it and see if I can find it.

"Until the next time. And even then, the reaction is one of "oh-that-peta-crap-again" change the channel... what kooks! what else is on, Maude?"

Well, this topic has been discussed for several hours now - hardly "changing the channel" right away, eh?

PETA ascribes to the philosophy that shock value changes people's minds. It doesn't. People join PETA because they agree with the basic philosophy not the latest barrage of attention getting."

Again, your opinion. I disagree. People may not run out and join PETA as a result of their shock campaigns, but what they do do is exactly what PETA wants - they talk about it. They argue about it. They insult it. And then, at least a few of them THINK about it. If one mind is changed, our goal has been accomplished. And I can guarantee you at least one person is thinking "well, if we can't put hooks in dog's mouths, why is it OK to do it to fish? I hate PETA but they have a point."

Discussion = thinking = mission accomplished.

[arwalden]

290. Peta Is Dismissed As A Fringe Oddity

If their mission is to be dismissed and ridiculed... THAT's an accomplished mission.

One might think that their "mission" would be whatever the cause was, but that gets lost in the shuffle. The only thing anyone remembers is that Peta is just a bunch of fringe kooks that can be ignored until the next time they rear their heads and lie and exaggerate some other imagined problem.

Everyone will get a good laugh, tomatoes will be thrown, out comes the tar and feathers and Peta will be run out of town on a rail, again. And the cause du jour is quickly forgotten.

<< Well, this topic has been discussed for several hours now - hardly "changing the channel" right away, eh? >>

I seriously doubt Lud and Maude are hanging out in LBN at DU.

<< If one mind is changed, our goal has been accomplished. >>

One mind changed. Zero anglers' minds changed. A dozen new people who think Peta is fringe and kooky.

Yet they are so proud of that "one" mind that was changed. Awesome! Way to go!

[friesianrider]

292. Again..your opinion is not everyone's

Am I talking to a right-winger here and just don't know it?

"If their mission is to be dismissed and ridiculed... THAT's an accomplished mission."

This is what YOU think, but clearly not everyone feels that way. I don't and can think of many other people who don't.

"The only thing anyone remembers is that Peta is just a bunch of fringe kooks that can be ignored until the next time they rear their heads and lie and exaggerate some other imagined problem."

Ok, again that is your opinion, which you're entitled to. "All anyone" remembers is also a blanket statement. That isn't all I remember.

"Everyone will get a good laugh, tomatoes will be thrown, out comes the tar and feathers and Peta will be run out of town on a rail, again. And the cause du jour is quickly forgotten."

Hun, PETA has been the subject of constant controversy for YEARS now. Are you telling me they are backing down because YOU think they're a bunch of kooks?! Have you not noticed that the more controversy they get the more they bring it the next time they go on a campaign? "run out of town"...hahahaha!


"One mind changed. Zero anglers' minds changed. A dozen new people who think Peta is fringe and kooky."

Again, your opinion. Not too many big movements are accomplished by mass awakenings. Do you think civil rights were accomplished overnight? Were women's rights accomplished overnight? Of course not! It happens slowly, one person at a time. Surely someone as intelligent as you realizes that

[arwalden]

297. o

"Again..your opinion is not everyone's"
Posted by friesianrider

<< Am I talking to a right-winger here and just don't know it? >>

That's a personal attack.

<< This is what YOU think, but clearly not everyone feels that way. I don't and can think of many other people who don't. >>

If their objective is NOT to be ridiculed, then their mission is a failure. Simple. What are you so confused about?

"The only thing anyone remembers is that Peta is just a bunch of fringe kooks that can be ignored until the next time they rear their heads and lie and exaggerate some other imagined problem."

Ok, again that is your opinion, which you're entitled to. "All anyone" remembers is also a blanket statement. That isn't all I remember.

<< Hun, >>

Yes SWEETIE?

<< PETA has been the subject of constant controversy for YEARS now. >>

And people still eat meat. Steak houses are open for business, mama fries chicken every Sunday, people have pets, people ride horses, and animals don't have the vote.

<< Are you telling me they are backing down because YOU think they're a bunch of kooks?! Have you not noticed that the more controversy they get the more they bring it the next time they go on a campaign? "run out of town"...hahahaha! >>

No. I'm not as arrogant as some folks we know.

<< Again, your opinion. Not too many big movements are accomplished by mass awakenings. Do you think civil rights were accomplished overnight? Were women's rights accomplished overnight? Of course not! It happens slowly, one person at a time. >>

Oh that's being far to generous. Peta is no "civil rights" movement.

<< Surely someone as intelligent as you realizes that : ) >>

Insincere flattery will get you nowhere with me.

[friesianrider]

300. p

<< Am I talking to a right-winger here and just don't know it? >>

"That's a personal attack."

HWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Wow, that is just SO sad on so many levels!


"If their objective is NOT to be ridiculed, then their mission is a failure. Simple. What are you so confused about?"

I'm not confused love - you are. Where did I say that? You may think they are kooks, but obviously their shock campaigns get people talking and result in some progress. That = accomplishments.

"And people still eat meat. Steak houses are open for business, mama fries chicken every Sunday, people have pets, people ride horses, and animals don't have the vote."

And? What is your point?

"Oh that's being far to generous. Peta is no "civil rights" movement."

Did I ever say PETA was like a civil rights movement? No. What I said was that like ANY movement, progress happens one person at a time.

Try slowing down, taking a breath, nad actually opening your ears (or eyes) before responding. It is obvious to anyone reading this that you enjoy taking words, twisting them around, and hearing only what you want to hear. Maybe that is your problem, Allen.

[arwalden]

306. -

<< Am I talking to a right-winger here and just don't know it? >>

"That's a personal attack."

<<HWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Wow, that is just SO sad on so many levels!>>

And that's a personal attack.

"If their objective is NOT to be ridiculed, then their mission is a failure. Simple. What are you so confused about?"

<< I'm not confused love - you are. >>

More passive-aggressive terms of endearment.

<<Where did I say that? You may think they are kooks, but obviously their shock campaigns get people talking and result in some progress. That = accomplishments. >>

Talk about Peta = "progress".
Original issue forgotten = "progress".
Okay... I understand now. Thanks.

The logic just astounds me.

<< And? What is your point? >>

That the progress you see is a figment of your imagination.

<< Did I ever say PETA was like a civil rights movement? No.>>

Oh brother... more hair-splitting word games. No you did not use those exact words. But you compared Peta to the civil rights movement.

<< What I said was that like ANY movement, progress happens one person at a time. >>

Sure you did.

<< Try slowing down, taking a breath, nad actually opening your ears (or eyes) before responding. >>

A personal attack.

<< It is obvious to anyone reading this that you enjoy taking words, twisting them around, and hearing only what you want to hear. >>

Your opinion. Incorrect. But yours nevertheless. Enjoy it.

<<Maybe that is your problem, Allen. >>

Another personal attack.

[Kenroy]

244. And I suspect for every one of those people

there are two who, like me, are sympathetic to the cause of animal welfare but refuse to be associated with such tactics, and therefore don't get involved at all in this cause.

They drive people away, despite the strange claim that people talking about how crazy they are somehow helps them.

[friesianrider]

248. Well I highly doubt your "statistics"

Because if you really cared THAT much about animal welfare, you wouldn't refuse to participate just because of what one group says. And if you did, then I think that is unfortunate.

There are a lot of fringe liberal groups that I detest but I don't refuse to get involved with liberal causes because there's a group or two I disagree with.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. Scientific illiteracy

A dog is a highly evolved mammal. It has a brain with a neocortex. It is aware of its suffering. It is capable of emotions. Empathy. Dare I say - love.

Fishes are exceedingly primitive. If anything, fishing is more ethical than raising cattle.

There IS such a thing as difference in degree, which is nearly universally overlooked. That old Abrahamic ideology of "humans are worthy and everything else is meat period" doesn't help either.

[tatertop]

35. I disagree

Please see my post above.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Selteri]

37. Again, PETA proves to me why I don't support their reasonable side NT

PETA has some reasonable stances that I can agree with, things that are good for us and for animals, yet they keep going way too far over and over. I'm a fish owner and I'll still go fishing because I know how fish are.

[superconnected]

73. That's where I am.

I won't kill a fish, but I still feel they go over board even for me.

No dogs and fish are not equal in my book Peta. Even though I wouldn't kill either.

[The Stranger]

86. It always baffles me how people post in AGREEMENT with PETA,

but somehow feel the need to take some kind of moral stand AGAINST PETA.

Help me out here. I am trying to understand.

[Kenroy]

89. I think it's been established here

why people do that.

A lot of people are offended by PETA's tactics, finding them extremist and fundamentally dishonest.

[The Stranger]

96. I'm sure that there are people here at DU who engage in tactics I would

find reprehensible. But they seek the same better world that I seek. This is key however: This does not make all of DU a bad thing, or all DU posters and administrators bad people.

And -- this is also key -- for some reason, many (many, many, many) other people do not seek that same better world, and may violently oppose efforts by DU and DU posters and administrators to make a better world.

So, rather than focus my attention on attacking those other DUers whose tactics I condemn, who form a minority, and with whom I, nevertheless, still share a hope for a better world, I focus my attention on working towards that same better world using the tactics I choose.

[Kenroy]

117. some of us feel, though

that PETA actually does damage to the progressive cause, and we'd like them to stop doing that. Ignoring them isn't the way.

[The Stranger]

169. You seem to agree that their intent is to support a Progressive cause.

Whether or not they do damage to the cause is really a question to which neither you nor I have the answer. The notion that PETA does "damage" to the Progressive cause is very attenuated, at best.

But this is what is most important: It is a well-known Right Wing tactic to villify and seek to isolate Progressives. Often Hollywood actors are held up for ridicule, and this modus operandi of the Right has two purposes: First, it removes focus from the cause and places it on the person, or some foible of the person; Second, it is a lesson to anyone else in what will happen to them if they speak out as well; fall into line, or you will be smeared as well, and you will be all alone.

Attacking PETA is supporting this well-known Right Wing tactic. It is doing exactly what the enemies of Progressivism want you to do. More damage is done by turning on fellow Progressives, where there is simply a disagreement as to tactics, than could possibly be done by the Progressives themselves.

And, again, even assuming they were somehow doing "damage" to the cause, not everyone at PETA is doing this. Arguably, it is only a small minority. And, returning to the analogy above, I don't stop posting on the Democratic Underground because I disagree with the tactics of a few.

[Kenroy]

182. So they're above criticism?

I don't agree with that.

[nvliberal]

314. PETA isn't any more "progressive" than the crackpots who support

euthanasia for the old, the sick, the handicapped.

Strange, isn't it, that the vile Peter Singer is the common denominator here.

[superconnected]

109. It's easy to agree with animals rights and not killing animals.

and it's easy to have a point where to disagree with how far peta takes that.

An example is when they let the minks out years ago and the minks died.

I was upset with them for years over extreme ads and messages but their behavior this summer lost me when they killed the dogs and released a press report that said they will continue and they kill the dogs in a more humane way than the humane society does. Sorry, IMO no company that kills dogs - or person, gets my support.

So I can easily support animal rights and that they shouldn't be killed, WHILE being against peta.

I also fully consider peta bad for vegetarianism and veganism. They turn too many people off from taking the fist step - vegetariansism - with their extreme point that vegetarians are doing no good and are animal killers because they eat fish. That's a paraphrased version of what I've gotten from their messages. It really bothers me because I do want people to stop eating meat.

All the way or nothing, except when it's us, is also the message I get from peta.

[Selteri]

273. I'll explain my stance

I agree with the basic stance PETA maintains - treat animals with ethics. Don't make them eat themselves or other animals when they are herbaviores. Don't shove them into small enclosed areas where they can't move. Don't abuse them. Etcetera.

I also believe in People Eating Tasty Animals - Healthy Animals. I am not a Vegan, I beleive that we should have the right to eat meat as it is part of why we became the species we did, being omniviors means not only can we eat vegetables, but we can also eat meat. We need to live in a balance....

PETA seems to forget it a lot of the time.that yes, we need to treat animals ethically, but that doesn't mean we need to treat animals like they cannot even be touched by human hands except to care for them.

My opinion is the same for the ACLU, they've gone too far with things like sueing to allow NAMBLA march in the Gay Rights Parade for example. They have the right aim but go too far.

[benburch]

39. A fish lacks any power of retrospection...

There is no "me" there.

The fish does not think "I am in pain", the fish only reacts to stimulus.

It is essentially a machine made of flesh, not a conscious being.

47. how would you like it if somone summarily described

you in that way. Pain is pain. Our ancestors killed animals, but they also payed great respect to them in the process. Reverence for all life.

[Dangerously Amused]

101. Questions here.

"The fish does not think "I am in pain", the fish only reacts to stimulus.

In what way is a "stimulus" that causes bodily injury and different from "pain"?

---


"It is essentially a machine made of flesh, not a conscious being."

Please, what are the parameters for determining whether a "machine made of flesh" is conscious or not?

[benburch]

178. When it can ask questions like these, it is conscious.

I'll be charitable and accept any animal with a cerebral cortex of any size, which a fish does not have, but the only ones I am totally sure about are the primates who can learn languages of any sort as being conscious beings, but we do see problem solving skills and tool usage in other creatures.

One sea creature I would afford the assumption of consciousness is the octopus, which does seem to be capable of planning and problem solving. But it is not a fish, either.

[Dangerously Amused]

191. You are very charitable, indeed.

Could I persuade you to bestow consciousness upon fish who school, which appears to be a coordinated (planned) approach to solving a group vs. individual mass disparity with predators?

[benburch]

264. Nope...

No more than you can get me to bestow it upon insects that swarm or bees that make pretty hexagonal hives.

[jobycom]

118. Hm. Kind of like Republicans.

I disgree with you, btw. But I couldn't resist jabbing at Republicans.

Humans tend to assume that our particular brand of self awareness is the only one that exists. Fish feel pain, there's no scientific dispute of that. They shy away from painful stimuli just as other animals do. That means they have some self-awareness, even if it is purely a reflex. They exhibit other forms of behavior guided by some form of motivation other than direct reastion to stimuli. Some school, for instance. Some gaurd their young. These may be instictual, but they are not chemical reactions to stimuli--there is something inside them that causes these reactions.

They may not contemplate Descartes, but the ancient idea that they are meat plants is wrong, too.

[Catchawave]

186. But can fish suffer ? nt

[benburch]

267. I don't believe so. nt

[flvegan]

40. What's actually pretty cool...

Is that rather than reaching, oh, however many thousands of folks with this billboard, if they even pay attention to it, they're effectively reaching hundreds of thousands, what with the attention given them. "Top story" on KUTV, papers will pick this up, even the anti-PETA folks will be ranting about it.

Hell, this thread is helping too. Helping, regardless of people calling the billboard's message dumb, etc.

And yeah, one could say that they're turning people off, scaring them away, etc, but considering the numbers, I don't think that's the case. People that say things like that, probably already don't care for them or their campaigns, which is fine, of course. I don't like everything they do, either.

Thanks again!! Keep this thread kicked!!!!

[arwalden]

44. It Always Amuses Me That Folks Think Bad Publicity Changes Minds.

It just reinforces the perception that Peta has for being a crackpot organization. Yet that's the one thing that seems to bother them the most (being thought of as being cranks or kooks).

How odd.

<< Thanks again!! Keep this thread kicked!!!! >>

Yeah, right. It's helping, eh? Who are you trying to convince? Anyone who really believed such a claim would likely not say anything about it (so as not to alert the "enemy" how beneficial it was). When I see "keep-it-up-you're-actually-helping-us" announcements like that one, I'm convinced that a nerve has been struck.

[flvegan]

45. Maybe to you

But that was already your perception. Which, of course you have the right to, and have the right to scream from the mountains.

No, no nerve. Just pointing something out.

I'm glad we've helped teach you how to frame your debate. Come visit us anytime in the "tofu ghetto"

[arwalden]

49. I'm Not Buying It.

<< No, no nerve. Just pointing something out. >>

Then why would you want to ruin the "positive" effect by letting everyone in on the super-double-reverse-reverse psychological secret?

I do understand that the encouragement to continue (because it's "helping" Peta) is actually a plea to stop because it's not helping Peta at all.


<< I'm glad we've helped teach you how to frame your debate. >>

Sorry, I don't have a clue what that's supposed to mean.


<< Come visit us anytime in the "tofu ghetto" >>

You must know my aunt... she's been using that funny expression since the early 90's.

[friesianrider]

289. Look at Paris Hilton.

All press is good press, baby. When your 80-year-old woman's ass and non-existent boobs have been shown all over the internet and you're more popular now that you were before...all press is good press.

If you think no one in PETA hasn't the slightest clue that they are controversial, you're terribly naive. If that weren't the goal (and the goal that produced desired results) it wouldn't continue. It's basic human philosophy - people do not continue to do anything unless there is some kind of pay-off to them. Same is true for businesses.

[arwalden]

315. o

<< All press is good press, baby. When your 80-year-old woman's ass and non-existent boobs have been shown all over the internet and you're more popular now that you were before...all press is good press.>>



<< If you think no one in PETA hasn't the slightest clue that they are controversial, you're terribly naive. >>

Another personal attack. I'm not allowed to say such things why should you be allowed?

If their goal is to make headlines and be controversial, then they are great successes. If they are trying to persuade people's opinions to be more sympathetic to animals, then they are complete failures.

<< If that weren't the goal (and the goal that produced desired results) it wouldn't continue. It's basic human philosophy - people do not continue to do anything unless there is some kind of pay-off to them. Same is true for businesses.>>

Indeed, the pay-off in this case is self-serving. Selfish and opportunistic. It does not serve any cause, it serves their organization. It exists to feed itself.

[friesianrider]

240. LOL....

Well, you aren't some ninny off the street - you seem fairly educated and intelligent and PETA repeatedly peaks your interest and it interests you enough to post about it pretty regularly. So for a "crackpot" organization, some intelligent people spend an AWFUL lot of time discussing it

And like flvegan said before...I don't know one single animal rights supporter who has been so put off by PETA they no longer consider themselves animal rights supporters. I do, on the other hand, know people who never thought about animal rights but PETA has opened their eyes enough that they'd consider joining them or other animal rights causes.

Thanks to you, PETA is a regular topic of discussion on DU - a place with a lot of traffic. Sounds like they're working pretty darn good if you ask me.

[arwalden]

282. Triple-Double-Reverso Tar Baby Psychology!

<< Well, you aren't some ninny off the street >>

You would be wrong about that. Yes I am. No wait... I'm not. Oh dear... this double-triple-reverso psychology has gotten me so confused and befuddled. You win!

<< you seem fairly educated and intelligent and PETA repeatedly peaks your interest and it interests you enough to post about it pretty regularly. >>

Yes, it's true that it's a subject that interests me. So does astrology, and talking to the dead, and pet psychologists, and water dowsing, and alchemy, and perpetual motion, and all sorts of fringe crackpot groups and theories.

When you say that I "post about it pretty regularly", that is untrue.

<< So for a "crackpot" organization, some intelligent people spend an AWFUL lot of time discussing it : ) >>

What are you driving at? I'm sure you must think it's something that's awfully clever, but at this late hour, whatever word game or insinuation you're trying to make just escapes me.

<< And like flvegan said before...I don't know one single animal rights supporter who has been so put off by PETA they no longer consider themselves animal rights supporters.>>

So, in your reality, if you don't know of them, then surely such a person does not exist.

<< I do, on the other hand, know people who never thought about animal rights but PETA has opened their eyes enough that they'd consider joining them or other animal rights causes. >>

Oh yeah... well I know a hundre... a thousa... a hundred-thousand people who used to be animal lovers and now because of Peta they go out and look for small animals to torture. On purpose.

<< Thanks to you, PETA is a regular topic of discussion on DU - a place with a lot of traffic. Sounds like they're working pretty darn good if you ask me. >>

Oh mary, pleeze. If I hadn't been the one to start that thread about Peta's billboard troubles, SOMEONE ELSE would have. I just happened to see it first and post it first.

It's not about me. Don't even try that shit. Why do you continue to pursue me? What's your personal fascination with me? Haven't you had a battle of the wills with the me before? It isn't worth your time really, right? *yawn*

[Gormy Cuss]

59. Same strategy works for Fred Phelps

Many people know his name and have seen his God Hates Fags signs in all their disgusting glory. He has succeeded in reaching many people through media coverage of his stunts. I guess that helps his cause or he wouldn't keep doing it. Based on the opposition at some of his recent campaigns I'd say he's successful only if the goal is to engender more sympathy for gay rights.

I used to respect and support PETA for raising awareness of our relationship to animals. I even found the early attention-getting gimmicks to be quite amusing (changing the name of the town of Fishkill, for example.) IMHO the organization expends far too much capital using these gimmicks rather than focusing on constructive ways to engage people in their cause. I'm for the ethical treatment of animals but I wouldn't give PETA one dime.

But hey, as long as PETA believes it's a successful strategy we'll continue to see gimmicks.

[arwalden]

61. Exactly... Fred Phelps Is A Self-Serving Opportunist.

I see many similarities between Phelps and Peta.

[rinsd]

119. Let's put it this way.....

Hot actresses in the nude taking a stand against fur - good and effective publicity.

Fish hook in Fido's mouth - total turnoff.

Same goes for these billboard ads/ideas, Sharks are fighting back when that boy was attacked during the summer of sharks, the comic book informing young children that if Mommy wears fur she's going to kill the family pets, chicken housing = the holocaust etc.

PETA ascribes to the philosophy that shock value changes people's minds. It doesn't. People join PETA because they agree with the basic philosophy not the latest barrage of attention getting.

[flvegan]

145. Good points, but

The first one, many see as exploitive or sexist, so "good and effective" is still subjective, but if it causes folks to think, it works.

The second one may be a turn-off, but if it causes folks to think, it works.

As I've said many times (not a rant at you, as you likely didn't know this) lots of what PETA does is questionable at best. The shark billboard, yeah, I didn't care for that, either.

The thing with shock value is that it sometimes does miss, but sometimes it does change people's minds when the message found by the initial "shock" so to speak makes sense or causes folks to think.

I wanted to add that when I said "Good points, but" I wasn't saying that you made good points but were wrong in my opinion. The "but" was just for me to add my thoughts to what you said.

[rinsd]

148. Understood....

Most PETA tactics in terms of ad campaigns just rub me the wrong way.

Though I would tend to agree with your first point, I have never seen a DU thread on that as opposed to many on various other campaigns. That of course does not mean they don't exist. I just think people are more "comfortable" (not sure if that's the right word there) with it.

I do think they serve an important purpose but I haven't seen comments like "did you see that great PETA ad the other day?"

[flvegan]

153. I agree with everything you've said

I think they need to be A LOT more clear on what they're saying (the Holocaust one (and the slavery one), for example was like a punch in the face to many because I don't think they were clear enough...and the images? Bad strategy, IMO.)

The nekkid women are never going to get many flames, as that type of "advertising" and imagery are sooo accepted, you'd go crazy trying to trump every beer/soda/car etc ad that featured scantily clad women (or men).

Agreed. Though they DID have a really great spay/neuter one with two cats going at it. That was funny (and a topic most folks can easily...um, get behind).

[rinsd]

157. *chuckle*

I also thought their "Drink Beer!" campaign was creative and funny even though colleges and anti-drinking people went absolutely apeshit.

[flvegan]

159. I had forgotten that one!

The anti-milk one, right?

Oh, yes...that was a good one. One I could support 120%, too!

[JackieO]

187. That's my all-time favorite PETA ad

I wish I had a poster of it.

Can't even find the graphic now, but here's a nice beer cozy:



They're sold out, unfortunately.

[flvegan]

198. Oh, man...I have to have one of those.

[WhollyHeretic]

43. So how much time do you spend searching the internet for stories

about PETA? You must have a really interesting life.

[Earth_First]

50. "You must have a really interesting life."

-is that necessary?

[WhollyHeretic]

51. I'm sick of the constant flame bait and insults. This is an every day

thing. Here is yesterdays installment:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Earth_First]

66. Enjoy the trolling...

[Catchawave]

192. Hi GreenJ.....did you see where that article came from?

LOL...methinks you're right! I noticed the source of that article...

"ConsumerFreedom.com
Tuesday, October 18, 2005"

Consumer Freedom also calls supporters of MADD "soccer moms by day, terrorists by night". They are a freaking right wing thug group that lobbys for the food, restaurant, alcohol and tabbacco industries!

So sad our OP didn't check out his source

[WhollyHeretic]

208. He knows the source and continues to post stuff from them anyway

It's sad enough that the media parrots right wing propaganda without progressives doing it as well.

[Catchawave]

224. Exactly, just like posting quotes

from Rush or O'Lielly !

I don't think any news item with PETA in the subject line belongs in DU's LBN anyhow. As I mentioned in another post here, it's an old campaign tactic with the billboards, and worse yet, it was news on a local news station that I believe is still in a state with HIGH Bush approval ratings.



A few months ago I did a simple DU poll on "Do You Support Animal Rights" and I believe it was about 80% in support with a few hundred voters. That was nice

[arwalden]

53. Well GreenJ...

... that's a personal comment about the messenger and not the actual message. I don't know what that has to do with anything.

[WhollyHeretic]

54. It's about the absurd obsession that the post displays

[arwalden]

55. That's Your Personal Opinion Of Me... And You're Welcome To It

... but it's really not appropriate for this thread, GreenJ.

[WhollyHeretic]

56. Your threads are not appropriate, they are pure flame bait

[arwalden]

60. Anyone Who Is Not Interested In The Subject Matter...

... is very likely to find many other threads that will interest them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

64. Pipe down on the personal attacks, willya?

It's not considered good etiquette in this neck of the e-woods.

[WhollyHeretic]

67. I'm just responding to constant flame baits and insults

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WhollyHeretic]

71. This isn't a one time things, he constantly posts about PETA

calling the members of PETA kooks, there are quite a few members of PETA on this board so yes he does post many personal insults.

[Beaverhausen]

72. Whenever people do point out the good PETA has done, it is ignored

and only these more sensational acts are discussed.

Trust me on this...people have pointed out all the successes PETA has had in bettering the lives of animals used in research, in entertainment, for food, etc. but when these things are posted the anti-PETA posters ignore them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

75. I don't know about stats, but I don't ignore them.

And I DO see enough people praising such acts that the use of the following image becomes apropos:

[WhollyHeretic]

78. Pipe down on the condescending remarks willya?

[arwalden]

77. What Does Peta Want? A Medal?

<< but when these things are posted the anti-PETA posters ignore them.>>

Or perhaps the preponderance of negative impressions still outweigh any positive impressions. That sounds like Peta has an image problem. Either they aren't smart enough to fix it, or they just don't care.

Trust me on this, if they cared, they'd work more on their image than they do on harassing and assaulting private citizens.

If THEY don't care what their image is, then why do YOU care what people say about them?

[Beaverhausen]

90. They don't care about their image as much as they care about

helping animals.

You are ignoring all the good they are doing.

Do you think all activists are sweet and polite? Would anyone talk about them if they didn't do things that caused controversy?

Ever heard of CodePink? Greenpeace? Sierra Club?

Heck...ever heard of the suffragettes?

[arwalden]

104. That's Clearly Untrue...

... if they are viewed as crackpots and cranks (and you can't deny this fact) they their concerns are likely to be dismissed as being irrelavent or hyped-up and over-blown exaggerations.

They have a reputation, and it's not good. The "good work" they want to do is being hampered by their own self-serving arrogance.






Nooooo, Beaverhausen... I've NEVER heard of those groups.

[friesianrider]

245. What you fail to see...

Is the outrageous success of PETA - and you, whether you care to admit it or not - are contributing to it. Look at how many people throw in their two cents! People don't talk about things that no one cares about or groups that don't deserve attention. An organization that has had as much success and been around like they have don't survive if they don't resonate with at least some people. Maybe they don't resonate with you, or even the majority of Americans. But that's okay. They're clearly doing something right because if they weren't they would have been gone loooooong ago.

If you really hated them that much, you'd ignore them. Again, you may not want to admit it, but the truth is whenever you post about them you're giving them free press about their issues.

All press is good press - just as Paris Hilton.

[Catchawave]

212. No CommiePD, if you insult an Organization,

you insult it's members and supporters. It's like when the right wing bloviators insult Liberals, doncha think ? It's a sensitive issue on DU, that's for sure.

[arwalden]

70. Being Critical Of Peta Is Not The Same As Personally Insulting You.

Unless you're a Peta officer, I fail to understand why you'd take criticisms of Peta so personally.

And even if someone actually HAD attacked you personally, that doesn't mean that you are allowed to break the rules and make personal attacks in return.

While you may be tired of news stories that highlight Peta's failures and misjudgement... it's unfair for Peta supporters to pretend to be "personal victims" of those who disapprove of Peta.

It's also unfair for Peta-supporters to try an insulate Peta from scrutiny by intentionally engaging in antisocial behavior in a blatant attempt to get Peta-critical threads locked as "flame bait".

[Beaverhausen]

79. How do you feel when you hear democrats and liberals criticized?

Maybe you don't but I take it personally.

As if every democrat agrees on everything.

As if we should all be blamed for what one person or one small part of the group does.



Do you acknowledge that PETA has done some good for animals?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

87. I got news fer ya.

This isn't "Vegetarian Underground."

You know what? There is a poster that constantly posts about another unrelated subject that irks me to no end, because s/he obviously has a propaganda agenda. But I'd never DREAM on alerting or calling out or insulting him/her (although s/he has in occasion construed posts of mine as insults when they weren't) because... IT DOES NOT BREAK THE RULES OF THIS BOARD! I am aware this isn't "(Insert my pet issue here) Underground." This is DEMOCRATIC Underground.

</rant>

[Beaverhausen]

107. Does this poster criticize something you believe in?

Does he/she insult a group you support and call them names like "asswipe", "crackpot" and "looney." If so then I think you are justified in alerting. That is flaming and it isn't allowed.

and I am fully aware this is a political website. and I think the discussion of animal rights and welfare are important because it goes to the larger issue of how we treat our planet and all living beings on it.

[BikeWriter]

175. 'This isn't "Vegetarian Underground."' Too true!

[superconnected]

88. Hey, the republican party have passed good bills before.

Take it personally if you want. That's your trip.

I bet scott peterson is a nice guy and a great husband...he just does things wrong now and then.

I should add - it's amazing how people lost support for scott after it became apparent he killed someone. One little mistake...

[Beaverhausen]

103. dang...where's that bunny with the pancake on it's head when you need it

[arwalden]

93. Your Reply, Beaverhausen

<< "How do you feel when you hear democrats and liberals criticized?"
Posted by Beaverhausen >>

I look at the criticism to see if it's deserved or warranted. If it's unwarranted, I'll try to make rational arguments as to why it's wrong or unwarranted.

What I won't do is break DU rules and make personal attacks against the messenger in an attempt to get the thread locked as "flame bait" or to have the subject become prohibited. I won't try to insulate my favorite organizations from being scrutinized with my own bad behavior.

<< Maybe you don't but I take it personally. >>

Well, frankly... that sounds like a personal problem to me, Beaverhausen. I don't know how to help you cope when an ORGANIZATION that you happen to support is the target of criticism.

<< As if every democrat agrees on everything. >>

Irrelevant. That's not the point.

<< As if we should all be blamed for what one person or one small part of the group does. >>

Also irrelevant. I'm not blaming you for anything.

<< Do you acknowledge that PETA has done some good for animals? >>

I think any good that they may have accomplished in the area of animal advocacy is undone by the fact that people universally view Peta as crackpots and kooks. They are extremists, and self-serving opportunists.

[Beaverhausen]

99. Where do you get that they are "universally" viewed as crackpots

when there are people right here in this thread who think otherwise?

And it is entirely relevant that all members of a group generally don't agree on everything that group does or stands for. You attack PETA as a "crackpot" organization for some of the actions a few of its members take. Well, haven't some democrats done some crackpot things? for instance, should all dems be called "liars" or "adulterers" because of what Clinton did?

I think if your criticism was more along the lines of "Some of this shit PETA pulls is over the line" (which in fact I would agree with some of the time) you wouldn't get such arguments from others. But you paint with such a broad brush that I do feel it necessary to point out that they have done a lot of good over the years and I can't just let your "crackpot" and "looney" statements stand without at least giving my side.

[arwalden]

111. I Could Ask You A Similar Question.

<< And it is entirely relevant that all members of a group generally don't agree on everything that group does or stands for. >>

So because YOU might disagree with "everything that group does or stands for"... are they insulated from criticism? How convenient.

<< You attack PETA as a "crackpot" organization for some of the actions a few of its members take. >>

I attack Peta for their support of such things. And for their notion that animals have "rights" and that they are equal to people. They aren't.

<< Well, haven't some democrats done some crackpot things? for instance, should all dems be called "liars" or "adulterers" because of what Clinton did? >>

I don't follow. Clinton's actions were for himself. Hos blow-job and adultery was NOT something that was done ON BEHALF OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY and IN THE NAME of the Democratic party. Good grief!

[Beaverhausen]

120. ok

<< And it is entirely relevant that all members of a group generally don't agree on everything that group does or stands for. >>

your response:So because YOU might disagree with "everything that group does or stands for"... are they insulated from criticism? How convenient.

My response: WHAT? I'm trying to get that one but I don't. What I was trying to say is that to call a whole organization "looney" for some of it's stands or actions is, in my opinion, wrong. You can call certain actions wrong but to call the whole group wrong...not so much.


****

I said: << You attack PETA as a "crackpot" organization for some of the actions a few of its members take. >>

You said: I attack Peta for their support of such things. And for their notion that animals have "rights" and that they are equal to people. They aren't.

My response: You and I may be disagreeing on the term "rights." I think animals have the right not to be harmed, injured or tortured for human's amusement.

*****
I said:<< Well, haven't some democrats done some crackpot things? for instance, should all dems be called "liars" or "adulterers" because of what Clinton did? >>

You said:I don't follow. Clinton's actions were for himself. Hos blow-job and adultery was NOT something that was done ON BEHALF OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY and IN THE NAME of the Democratic party. Good grief!

My response: OK that was a bad example. How's this: are all republicans bad because of the actions of some of them?

[arwalden]

151. Whoops... Ick! Wow!

That was poorly constructed... and I don't understand that myself. Chalk that up to bad "word processing" skills on a simple web page text-input box.

What I was trying to say is this: Even though you may disagree with some of Peta's actions and tactics... does that mean that I should refrain from criticizing Peta? Does your tepid agreement with me (on one or two points) mean that I ought not criticize Peta?

<< What I was trying to say is that to call a whole organization "looney" for some of it's stands or actions is, in my opinion, wrong. You can call certain actions wrong but to call the whole group wrong...not so much.>>

I do not think it's fair for Peta to be insulated from criticism because you feel personally offended at criticism that's clearly intended for Peta.

If you don't agree with those actions either, then you should reevaluate your support for Peta and find some other group. If you don't agree with all of their actions and if you choose to stay with Peta, then you'll just have to learn to suck-it-up when Peta gets criticized.

<< You and I may be disagreeing on the term "rights." I think animals have the right not to be harmed, injured or tortured for human's amusement. >>

Yes. The term rights is not appropriate for animals.

<< are all republicans bad because of the actions of some of them? >>

Generally speaking, yes. I'm loathed to tolerate my own family members who are republicans.

[Beaverhausen]

167. Ok...

I said:<< are all republicans bad because of the actions of some of them? >>

you said:Generally speaking, yes. I'm loathed to tolerate my own family members who are republicans.

I say: Most of my family are republican too but because of that I have to think that not all republicans are bad. They are just on the wrong side of all the issues!

*****

you said: What I was trying to say is this: Even though you may disagree with some of Peta's actions and tactics... does that mean that I should refrain from criticizing Peta? Does your tepid agreement with me (on one or two points) mean that I ought not criticize Peta?

I say: No, but if you can criticize them, I can defend them. I think I've been consistent on defending their basic mission but not necessarily all of their campaigns.

I repeat what I said below...somewhere...it's really the name calling, "asswipe," etc that feels like a personal attack.

and you have to admit...this whole thing certainly got a lot of people talking about PETA. and fish. They meant to do that!!!

[arwalden]

214. Your Reply...

<< I repeat what I said below...somewhere...it's really the name calling, "asswipe," etc that feels like a personal attack. >>

That sounds like a personal problem that you'll have to work out for yourself. Peta doesn't get a free pass simply because you feel personally offended whenever Peta gets scorned or ridiculed.

And for the record... I've never used that term in any Peta thread.

<< and you have to admit...this whole thing certainly got a lot of people talking about PETA. and fish. They meant to do that!!! >>

Oh was that the topic? As I pointed out earlier when I quoted another poster:

"PETA ascribes to the philosophy that shock value changes people's minds. It doesn't. People join PETA because they agree with the basic philosophy not the latest barrage of attention getting."

Self serving shock value opportunistic vandalism assault stalking only serves Peta... not their cause.

Why do you think that so many people look down on the humble non-Peta non-political vegan? The vegan has done nothing to deserve such treatment... all she did was eat her vegetables... yet the cranks at Peta have done such a good job at alienating ANYONE who might actually give a damn... and isolating themselves further out there as a lunatic fringe group.

I think you know that too. In your heart you know I'm right. That's why you fight me so hard... because you can't admit the truth. It's easier to be "offended" than it is to admit Peta's failures and shortcomings.

[Catchawave]

216. Mr/Ms arwalden, if I may......

You stated:

"I think any good that they may have accomplished in the area of animal advocacy is undone by the fact that people universally view Peta as crackpots and kooks. They are extremists, and self-serving opportunists."

Would "they" be Consumer Freedom? Well, among other groups who support industries that abuse animals for profit.

Otherwise, please show me the orgs "they" and "people universally" and "good undone" are stated as FACT please. I guess you can say I've had alot experience debunking PETA lies and smears

[arwalden]

232. I'm On To You Already.

[Catchawave]

246. My work is done here then :)

Keep on keeping on

[Beaverhausen]

100. you know when you post these threads they will be flamebait

are you denying that?

[arwalden]

116. I Disagree...

I participate in Peta threads, but you make it sound as though I do nothing but START Peta threads. That's incorrect.

I am not at all surprised that someone would want to hold the Peta critics accountable for the uncontrolled outbursts of Peta supporters.

Peta think they are above the law in real life, and on line as well.

[Beaverhausen]

127. No I didn't say you do nothing but start PETA threads

I said that when you do start them you have to know that it will degenerate into a big flame session.

I just want you to know that I accept that you think what PETA does is wacked. But I want you to know that I feel very strongly about the treatment of animals - I am an empathetic and sensitive person and I wouldn't want to be any other way.

It's not that I want you to change your mind, its just that I want you to acknowledge how I feel.

[arwalden]

144. Your Words Suggested That It Was A Common Occurrence ... And It's Not.

<< I said that when you do start them you have to know that it will degenerate into a big flame session. >>

So you're suggesting that the bad behavior of others should make threads which are critical of Peta off limits, or forbidden? That doesn't seem quite fair that the Peta supporters can pre-emptively cut-off all discussion about Peta by doing nothing more than establishing a reputation of their own for being "delicate", "offended" and "offenSIVE". Wow. Is it really that simple?

<< I just want you to know that I accept that you think what PETA does is wacked. >>

Yes, I think their methods are "wacked" (as you say). And I think that they do more harm than good.

<< But I want you to know that I feel very strongly about the treatment of animals >>

As so I. I don't think that animals should be tortured.

<< I am an empathetic and sensitive person and I wouldn't want to be any other way. >>

That's fine. But I also don't think that it's cruel to have pets, ride horses, attend dog shows, watch performing dolphins, go fishing, eat crabs, eat beef, trap mice, kill snakes. I don't think that animals are equal to people.

<< It's not that I want you to change your mind, its just that I want you to acknowledge how I feel. >>

I understand and acknowledge how you feel about animals. As I said, you and I probably think alike on some issues. But I do not understand why you take it personally when Peta is criticized or ridiculed. They do it to themselves... they are asking for it.

And... as some other poster told me... it's apparently part of some "master plan" of double-reverse-reverse-psychology to get MORE PUBLICITY by being controversial and kooky. So if that's the case then the Peta-supporters should be celebrating, eh?

[Beaverhausen]

156. ooh- we're almost there

I know we can do this!

you said:
<<I understand and acknowledge how you feel about animals. As I said, you and I probably think alike on some issues. But I do not understand why you take it personally when Peta is criticized or ridiculed. They do it to themselves... they are asking for it.>>

I hope I can explain this in a way that makes sense.

You know that old phrase "The squeaky wheel gets the grease?" Well most activist groups will employ methods that are controversial in order to either get attention or get their point across. I think one can support that group's mission but not necessarily their methods.

So what I take personally is not when one of PETA's actions is called "looney" or whatever, it is when the entire organization is called that. We see PETA called "asswipe," "crackpot," "loony" etc when in fact it is SOME of their actions and SOME of their members who are.

I also want to just agree to disagree that their methods harm their cause. I understand that you think they do but I know that a lot of people, once the topic comes up and is discussed, can learn something and maybe take PETA's side on an issue. Of course there will be people who will be turned off not matter what but I tend to think they have their minds made up about the issue to begin with.

Did that make sense?

[arwalden]

188. That Is Flawed...

<< I hope I can explain this in a way that makes sense. >>

I don't know.

<< You know that old phrase "The squeaky wheel gets the grease?" Well most activist groups will employ methods that are controversial in order to either get attention or get their point across. I think one can support that group's mission but not necessarily their methods. >>

That's a naive and foolish approach. It's unsophisticated and arrogant. Are Peta supporters completely UNAWARE of the reputation that Peta has?

Do Peta supporters honestly think that such crackpot and cranky self-serving opportunistic tactics do anything to win people's support for the cause? Or does it just give Peta the self-serving publicity that it wants.

It's very revealing that my personal disapproval of Peta is translated by some folks around here as my being "anti-Vegetarian". Just to be clear, I'm not anti-vegetarian... but surely you'd find it difficult to deny that Peta's reputation for being kooky crackpots might make other people feel that way about vegetarians.

<< So what I take personally is not when one of PETA's actions is called "looney" or whatever, it is when the entire organization is called that. >>

That's not my problem. That's your problem.

<< We see PETA called "asswipe," "crackpot," "loony" etc when in fact it is SOME of their actions and SOME of their members who are. >>

That's oversimplifying it. It's not just a few bad apples that I oppose. I think that Ms. Newkirk herself is a loon.

<< I also want to just agree to disagree that their methods harm their cause. >>

Suit yourself. I'm not here to convert you.

<< I understand that you think they do but I know that a lot of people, once the topic comes up and is discussed, can learn something and maybe take PETA's side on an issue. >>

Another poster in this thread summed it up nicely...

"PETA ascribes to the philosophy that shock value changes people's minds. It doesn't. People join PETA because they agree with the basic philosophy not the latest barrage of attention getting. "

Peta has become a caracature of itself... it's a joke. And a bad one at that.

<< Of course there will be people who will be turned off not matter what but I tend to think they have their minds made up about the issue to begin with. >>

That's not very realistic.

<< Did that make sense? >>

I understood the words... but I still think that Peta is a crackpot organization that turns more people OFF from animal welfare issues than might otherwise care.

[Beaverhausen]

189. and what does the constant name-calling do for your cause?

I tried to be civil and reason with you. But you resort to the name calling.

[arwalden]

222. I've Called YOU No Names. I've Scorned And Ridiculed PETA.

How odd it is that others in this thread are permitted to make DIRECT personal attacks with impunity. Where's your moral outrage at that?

<< I tried to be civil and reason with you. >>

Sorry... any attempts to defend the indefensible is not what I'd consider to be reasonable.

<< But you resort to the name calling. >>

Again... I've called YOU no names. You may choose to run interference for, and you may choose to personally "own" and intercept the scorn that I have for Peta, but that's your choice. Not my problem.

[friesianrider]

253. Why are you unable to remain civil?

You've made repeated snarky comments - while maybe you didn't shout "YOU'RE A FUCKING KOOK!!" You clearly are being a little out-of-line and Beaver was trying very hard to have a reasonable discussion with you. Do you really want to have a reasonable discussion or do you want to make blanket statements and twist words around to suit your own needs?

You can play the "I didn't break any rules" game, but you are clearly being uncivil here.

[arwalden]

270. o

<< You've made repeated snarky comments - while maybe you didn't shout "YOU'RE A FUCKING KOOK!!" You clearly are being a little out-of-line and Beaver was trying very hard to have a reasonable discussion with you. >>

I disagree.

<< Do you really want to have a reasonable discussion or do you want to make blanket statements and twist words around to suit your own needs? >>

"Reasonable?" You must be kidding me. You want a "reasonable" discussion? Mary, pleeze! Talk about your loaded "push-poll" style question! LOL.

<< You can play the "I didn't break any rules" game, but you are clearly being uncivil here. >>

Oh don't give me that, you're no little Pollyanna shrinking violet yourself.

Your indignant outrage might be believable if you were just as vigilant and personally affronted at the rather obvious direct personal attacks that appear with impudence throughout this thread.

Yet... you say nothing. Hmm. Interesting, no? I smell hypocrisy.

[friesianrider]

283. I'm just using your own words from last night...

You chided me for not "contributing to the discussion" which you claim is what you wanted. Beaver tried to contribute reasonable to the discussion and you got snarky and rude.

"Oh don't give me that, you're no little Pollyanna shrinking violet yourself."

As you said before...this isn't about me. I am talking about your responses to Beaver. They were you writing them, no? If so, own them. I think they were snarky and rude.

"Your indignant outrage might be believable if you were just as vigilant and personally affronted at the rather obvious direct personal attacks that appear with impudence throughout this thread."

May I suggest growing a thicker skin? I don't see anyone attacking you, but you always seem to scream it whenever anyone posts something you can't argue with. You even accused a moderator of personally attacking you last night. Yes, Allen, the whole world is after you.

Grow a thicker skin. You'll get farther in life, I promise you.

[arwalden]

295. o

<< As you said before...this isn't about me. I am talking about your responses to Beaver. They were you writing them, no? If so, own them. I think they were snarky and rude. >>

Running interference for someone else? Is this any of your business? If someone else has anything to say to me (other than publicly calling me an "asshole") I'm sure that this other person is fully capable of taking it up with me.

I don't do arguments by proxy. Sorry. Take it someplace else.

<< May I suggest growing a thicker skin? >>

Personal attacks do not bother me. But if the rules are in place for one person, oughtn't they be enforced equally and fairly for everyone.

<< I don't see anyone attacking you, >>

Ah... okay then. I guess you must have just been looking-the-other-way. Fair enough.

<< but you always seem to scream it whenever anyone posts something you can't argue with. >>

That's untrue. There's a difference between attacking the message and making direct personal attacks on the messenger. If I must obey these rules then others ought to as well.

<< You even accused a moderator of personally attacking you last night. >>

That's untrue too. It was a personal crack.

<<Yes, Allen, the whole world is after you. Grow a thicker skin. You'll get farther in life, I promise you. : ) >>

[Name removed]

298. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

301. o

<< LOL, doll, >>

Well, HONEY

<< whoever told you you run my life... Was wrong Please don't tell me what to do, ok? Thanks >>

I really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

<< I'm going to come to the defense of someone who did nothing to you other than try to engage you in a fair discussion - which you appear to be incapable of handling. >>

You're wasting your time. And mine.

<< No one is attacking you. >>

She said.

<< Grow up and grow a set. >>

Not realizing that this was a personal attack.

<< Show me where someone attacked you. >>

Sorry... I'm not going to take your bait. I'm afraid you'll have to find them yourself. If I were to name-names and point them out by LINKING to them, that would be calling-out and drawing negative attention to another poster. That's ALSO against the rules.

<< The difference is, you see anyone challenging your blanket and inflammatory statements as an "attack on the messenger." >>

I think someone needs to learn to read more closely.

<< You're just a little sensitive to it and cry foul at every opportunity. >>

No, being "sensitive" has nothing to do with it. Fact is, I've just been caught at it too many times myself to NOT know what constitutes a direct personal attack and a direct personal insult.

<< Again, if you want to post topics like this, be prepared to have people challenge you.>>

I know the difference between a challenge that sticks to the subject and a personal attack on the messenger.

<< No one called you a psycho or a lunatic or a kook. >>

I've never made that assertion.

<< If you can't handle having your opinions challenged, I suggest you find a play group or cartoon to watch or something.>>

Oh this is so silly. I've never made that assertion either.

<< Like I said: grow a thicker skin. >>

Rules for one are rules for everyone. Right. I'll continue to point out rules violations and personal attacks on the messenger.

<< You'll get much farther in life.>>

Yet another personal crack.

[Name removed]

302. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

308. Yet you find time to reply to a message you "didn't read."

<< "Sadly, I didn't even bother to read your response." >>

Yet you find time to reply to a message you "didn't read."

I really can't blame you for being "bored". It's a smart person who knows when they're beat and when to feign being "disinterested" and "too bored" to continue.

<< It's obvious you're backing down just like you did last night, >>

It's obvious that you have a vivid imagination, especially considering that you didn't even read my reply.

<< so my job here is done (plus, I have an 8 am class tomorrow - and it's Spanish so hopefully I won't get called on without knowing the correct answer lol) >>

That's nice.

<< I also need to hit up ebay too before bed - for some reason I have the urge to buy The Princess Bride and To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything on VHS. >>

That's pretty creepy! For someone who claims not to be fascinated with me, it's very strange that you're stalking and monitoring my Ebay listings. (And that you feel compelled to tell me about it for some reason.) What's up with that?

<< Have a wonderful night, Al! : hi : >>

??

[Kenroy]

311. Really?

She's monitoring your activities on e-Bay?

How creepy!

[arwalden]

312. Yes... That's Stalking.

[superconnected]

122. You are trying to start a flame war and have this thread locked.

That is obvious.

People post peta threads because that organization is of interest here. I'm sure many of us use to support it.

I have to agree that peta is UNIVERSALLY known as kooks and crackpots by everyone except their extreme supporters. They will support Peta no matter what it does.

Sad because you would think they would be animal rights and no killing animals first. Maybe they are of the same extreme mind as peta, I don't know. I dont' understand any animal rights supporter supporting them after the dog killings.

Peta needs to appologize profusely and tell us they will NEVER kill an animal again. Instead they said they'll roll their sleeves up and do the killing - to make sure its done more humanely. WTF.

[Beaverhausen]

134. I'm starting the flamewar?

Oh that's rich.

you think this statement:
"...peta is UNIVERSALLY known as kooks and crackpots by everyone except their extreme supporters. They will support Peta no matter what it does." isn't a flame?

You just called me a kook and a crackpot. Please, go on. What other names can you call me? I can't wait to hear it!

[superconnected]

138. Everybody knows you are trying to start a flame war.

Sad. I hope someday you read your posts.

[Beaverhausen]

142. Hey Everybody! AM I TRYING START A FLAMEWAR?

[WhollyHeretic]

147. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain. You're obviously the

instigator here.

[BikeWriter]

202. Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Oh, yeah, and you're such an innocent, aren't you? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

[friesianrider]

259. Ha!

Sorry, just thought another "HA!" was needed.

[BikeWriter]

261. Thank you, that "HA!" added balance. ;-)

[friesianrider]

281. No problem :)

[friesianrider]

258. I'm going to say no.

You've clearly made admirable attempt at a reaosnable discussion but for some people - that isn't at all what they want.

[friesianrider]

242. Where are you seeing personal attacks by GreenJ?

I don't really see any on here. Maybe you should try a thicker skin.

[rinsd]

123. How so?

Because alot of DUers disagree on PETA's tactics and a few DUers consider any criticism on PETA to be fundamentally wrong?

[rinsd]

124. How so?

Because alot of DUers disagree on PETA's tactics and a few DUers consider any criticism on PETA to be fundamentally wrong?

[Catchawave]

196. Your messenger was Consumer Freedom.....

do you know anything about that group? Or do you just drink their kool aid? Honey, it's a right wing lobby hate group against everything progressives are for!

[friesianrider]

241. When looking at the validity of any story...

You must consider the source, I think. I mean, would you take something Paul Wellstone said with more seriousness and authenticity than something Ann Coulter says? I know I would.

If one posts stories from right-wing propaganda sites or clearly biased organizations, it is fair to question the authenticity of the story itself.

[rinsd]

121. self delete because it was rude

[spunky]

76. I actually have to side with the Billboard company on this one.

They make a valid point that they are the ones who will get complaints from people about the billboard, so why should they take on the hassle? It wastes the time of their employees and costs them money, not PETA.

Of course, I am a bit biased as I really don't like PETA. I'm a life long animal lover and supporter of animal rights, and have been a vegetarian for 10 years, and in my opinion, PETA hurts our cause more than they help it by naking us all look like nutjobs.

[superconnected]

81. I don't consider a fish and a dog the same. Is peta killing fish now?

-to be humane because they don't have homes?

I wouldn't kill a fish or a dog and I don't support peta. Until they stop killing dogs, I will not support them. Just like I won't give a dime to the "humane" society.

This sign is just more of their wacked extremeism. I'm sure Peta considers itself allowed to kill fish... humanely of course.

[Catchawave]

106. Good for PETA !

This campaign is several years old, the value of it is in the media exposure and discussion.

BBC News: Fish do feel pain, scientists say
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm

Nice to see PETA's still capable of making the LBN over a 2-3 year old campaign !

[William Bloode]

108. I am not a Peta fan by no means.

I don't see any reason not to run the add. Maybe the billboard company fears losing revenue by alienating present or prospective customers how may be offended.

I have a pretty twisted sense of humor. I would in all probability find the billboard amusing.

[superconnected]

112. I think it's turning animal rights activism into a joke

and making people hate animal rights activists.

But that's just my opinion. I hope everyone takes it like you do, if signs like that go up.

[William Bloode]

152. Thats why i am not a huge Peta fan.

It is my opinion they make animal rights activists look bad. I'm sure they do some good stuff. But i all i ever see is the bad, so my opinion may be biased.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

126. Fish Empathy Project Manager

Now there's a catchy title for the old resume...

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flvegan]

154. Like me?

That'd make you happy? To see a billboard with a fishhook through my lip, damntexdem?

[Lilith Velkor]

176. Do you have a pierced lip?

If so, or if you are willing to get one (they heal quickly, so it needn't be permanent), that would make a powerful statement.

[flvegan]

177. How so?

No, I don't, so I'd like clarification. Who knows?

[Lilith Velkor]

181. You could put a fishook in it

Then take a photo of you with it in your lip, looking unhappy about it. That on a billboard would make your point.

[BikeWriter]

184. Not with me it wouldn't. He's not a fish.

He's a vegetablearian.

[flvegan]

193. But, don't confuse me with

members of the vegetablearyan-nation.

I'm no racist.

[BikeWriter]

195. LOL! Not an aryan, are ya? ;-)

[flvegan]

197. Truthfully

I'm as "aryan" as they come. White, blonde hair (sort of), blue eyes...descended from the Brits, Swedes, Swiss and French (little Nemasket Indian in there, too).

But I ain't no skinhead/hater!

[BikeWriter]

199. Irish, Scot, and England here, and eastern Cherokee.

No skinhead/hater, either!

[flvegan]

209. Egads.

You realize that through many, many generations of descendants...you and I...could be related.

Admit it. That's funny.

[BikeWriter]

219. Scary, ain't it? Hey, do you know what vegetarian means in...

Cherokee? Lousy hunter.

[flvegan]

221. Ah, yes, handed down from the great

Whittles Crooked Arrows.

He had no choice.

[BikeWriter]

227. Aww yes, a, uh, point well made. ;-)

[flvegan]

190. Well, I think

that a fishhook and a piercing barbell or whatever are very different. If the loop end was a bigger gauge, how would I get it out.

Besides, how would that make my point? That makes no sense.

[Lilith Velkor]

210. You would use a smaller gauge for the hook

As long as everything is sterile, you would sustain no permanent harm.

Do you not see how such a photograph could evoke sympathy for a fish? Isn't that the point? The same image using a dog is stupid IMO.

[flvegan]

211. No, I don't see it.

The same thoughts about how dog v. fish would be even MORE in opposition to the DUer v. fish idea, I'd think.

[BikeWriter]

218. Yep, no comparison!

[Lilith Velkor]

225. True, however

The DUer would be seen as suffering in solidarity with the fishies. The dog image just looks cruel, and may inadvertently promote the already existing meme that PETA has a problem with dogs.

[BikeWriter]

229. You're right, though I shouldn't help refine...

their already shocking promotions. ;-(

[flvegan]

250. Hmmmm...okay

Well, I don't see the "solidarity" but whatever. You do, and that's cool. The fact that it's not looking cruel but the dog image is, sort of, well...isn't right.

I don't see your point on PETA's problems with dogs. Your teaser leads me to believe you have more info you'd like to share.

Please do.

[Lilith Velkor]

268. Your posts lead me to believe you are being deliberately obtuse.

And no, I have no further info to share. If your confusion persists, I suggest you check recent headlines concerning PETA. Good night.

[BikeWriter]

217. It sounds gross to me. Besides, he'd drool out of it...

:ICKY:

[BikeWriter]

183. That sounds damned painful to me, uh, for people to do.

[flvegan]

173. I'll ask again, damntexdem...

like me? I'm a PETA member. Would I suffice for that billboard? A nice hook through my mouth, huh?

[BikeWriter]

180. I wouldn't like to see that! ;-(

Then again you are a warm blooded and intelligent animal, on my end of the political spectrum, and not a fish.

[flvegan]

158. Only 44 more posts before this thread passes the Delay arrest warrant

thread!

Woo hoo! Go PETA!!

Ridiculous? You bet.

[BikeWriter]

162. Will it be locked before then? Only time will tell! ;-)

[flvegan]

163. Ooohhh...do you think Vegas has odds on that one?

*snort*

Good one, BikeWriter.

[BikeWriter]

166. Thanks! ;-)

[flvegan]

201. We're soooo close (201 this thread, 202 the other one)!

[BikeWriter]

205. What's this'n?

[BikeWriter]

206. A PeTa thread this long without a lock?

Amazing!

[flvegan]

207. And now it's 207 (this) to 202 (the other)!!!!

What do we all win?

In. Your. Face. Delay/real political issues!!!!

[BikeWriter]

215. I'll buy you a steak and a whisky! Uh, tofu and carrot juice?

[flvegan]

220. As long as I don't have to buy you a

fish dinner.

D'oh! Original post!

[BikeWriter]

230. Mmm, I make an exquisite Redfish Ponchartrain! ;-)

[BikeWriter]

200. 200? ;-)

[friesianrider]

236. Playing right into PETA's wishes...

You're talking a hot topic that has people talking, Allen. Thank you for helping our PETA group out We always like to bring new people into the organization.

[Lilith Velkor]

251. If PETA wishes to look like fools

...they are doing a great job of it.

[friesianrider]

255. Perhaps to you they do...

But as I said - they have accomplished a lot. arwalden just posted a story a few days ago about them getting some ducks released to a sanctuary. An group doesn't become an organization like PETA without doing something right. Just doesn't happen. They get their money from donations, and no one will keep giving them money if they don't either agree with what they're doing or see results.

PETA produces results...period. As long as they do, they will keep getting a monthly $35 check from me.

[BikeWriter]

271. What portion of that will they funnel to ELF and ALF?

[friesianrider]

280. Have any proof of that statement?

[BikeWriter]

284. Don't bullshit me. You know the urls by now.

[friesianrider]

288. I seriously do not - point me in the direction...

Of a REPUTABLE source that PROVES PETA funnels money to the ALF or whatever.

[BikeWriter]

291. The PETA-ELF connection (How about ESPN?)

On April 20, 2001, PETA donated $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front to "support their program activities."

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/columns/guest_...

[friesianrider]

293. Ha! And whose testimony is this piece based on?

Based on the testimony of Richard Berman, from the Center for COnsumer Freedom, a coalition of restaurants and food companies. Just look at their homepage for all you need to know.

Yeah, I'm sure he's not biased against PETA one little bit!

the Center for Consumer Freedom has also attacked groups like Greenpeace. Read on here:

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q1/ddam.html

"ActivistCash.com and ConsumerFreedom.org are merely the latest in a string of organizations that Berman has created to advance his clients' interests. Another Berman front group, the Employment Policies Institute (EPI), calls itself a "non-profit research organization dedicated to studying public policy issues surrounding employment growth." In reality, EPI's mission is to oppose increases in the minimum wage so restaurants can continue to pay their workers as little as possible."

[BikeWriter]

294. He had paperwork, too. You're in denial. Save the Baby Limas!

[friesianrider]

296. I'm sure he did...and I'm sure it was TOTALLY legit, too.

Sounds like a great guy. I can see being against PETA but do you really want to align yourself with a right-wing whacko who opposes raising the minimum wage?

[BikeWriter]

305. Would you rather I quote PeTa's whacko founders? :-)

[Name removed]

299. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BikeWriter]

303. I'm not at all embarassed, thank you. ;-)

[Lilith Velkor]

276. The Church of Scientology also makes money from donations.

They must be doing something right as well. And they do produce results.

They also have a reputation for being a bunch of lunatics, as does PETA.

[friesianrider]

278. Well, again...that's a matter of opinion.

Obviously, the Church of Scientology is accomplishing a lot - so they clearly are doing something right.

Aside from my own personal feelings about PETA - the only thing I'm saying is that PETA is effective...they, like the Church of Scientology, are controversial and viewed by some as outlandish, but they are effective.

[Kenroy]

313. What is the church of scientology doing right?

Is your opinion that any group supported by donations is "doing something right"?

Is Operation Rescue doing something right? The Family Resource Council? Concerned Women for America?

The fact is, ignorant and misguided people will support a variety of causes, many of which are reprehensible.

[flvegan]

256. Fools?

How so?

[BikeWriter]

266. Au contraire, the fiendish anti-Peta factions recruited thousands!

[flvegan]

257. As of now, 258 posts

The MOST popular thread on LBN. Delay? Whatever. Wilma? Wilma who?

Heh heh heh...

[ErisFiveFingers]

272. Another day...

Another PETA thread.

[BikeWriter]

274. Free the enslaved veggies! The carrots are screaming!

Help me!!!!

[Catchawave]

275. Do vegetables feel pain?

And can you back that up

[BikeWriter]

279. Yes, they do. Just like all animals, but I eat them anyway.

How about you?

[CardInAustin]

304. Why all this attention to PETA?

What do you have against PETA? If you disagree with them and/or their motives....fine. But why the multiple posts? We get it....you don't like them?

[BikeWriter]

307. Uh, that what we do here is post. ;-)

[rasputin1952]

316. Locking

PETA is a valid subject for debate. It is not a launching pad for flamefests.