*sigh* PETA.... your getting on my nerves

I don't know if I should put this here or in the Vegitarian section. If it should go there sorry.

Anyways, peta is really starting to piss me off. On myspace, PETA2 posted a bulletin about some man who said if you don't eat meat your going to turn into a vigina. Peta was basically poking fun at the man saying meat eaters suck blah blah blah, what peta usually says. Do these people not realieze that other people are intitled to their own opinions??? I mean jeeze not everyone is going to argee with you!!! I mean they had me going for a while Peta did, about all this stuff that the meat industry does, and that people who eat meat are bad and what not.

But man if it wasn;t for I think Slaughter (i think) posting the petakillsanimals website then I probley would have laughed at him and done the same. Peta, don't get me wrong does some get stuff for animals, but they go over board soimetimes.... okay okay most of the time. Its really getting stupid, I mean they even sent me an email saying how you should protest fish being in a bowl...please, give me a break! You think im going to go protest someone owning a pet?

Being veggie is a choice and a life style but with peta forcing it on people it doesn't seem like a choice or a life style! Standing up for what you believe in is one thing, but forcing your opinion is another.

 

Yep...I hate PETA and when I hear that name,I cringe.They are huge hypocripts and I wish they would go to hell.They are all for "saving animals"...yet,they are against having pets and even some of the members OWN pets...GAH!!!

http://www.petakillsanimals.com

 

That site is sponsored by some meat industry organization. I don't remember the details, but it's well-known. I wouldn't trust that site any more than I'd trust PETA. As far as I'm concerned, PETA are the embodiment of everything I hate about vegetarians. I am a vegetarian, but I have some major problems with a lot of other vegetarians. If you're interested, I go into detail in the thread "Pet Peeves" in the Vegetarian Forum.

 

every battle has it's opposite exremes. i typically find those extremes valuable in pushing the vast majority of people towards the sensible center. therefore i usually don't bitch about them unless they're violent. they may get embarassing, but they can serve a valuable purpose.

 

Fish in bowls upset me a great deal. What's wrong with that? Caging and cramping animals is wrong and fish are no exception. I also think that wild animals should be left in the wild. Most animal organizations think that. Maybe PETA shouldn't be making fun of people but it is their page. There are surely better ways, that they know of, of convincing people.

 

Well keeping fish in bowls is cruel anyway...like those little goldfish bowls.Goldfish are dirty fish and NEED a larger aquarium with a good filter and water changes.People buy small goldfish and shove them in a bowl and then when the fish dies in a week or so,they think goldfish only live short lives.If you actually give a goldfish space and the proper things,it can live 10-20 yrs!I have one goldfish I have had 3 yrs so far.


PETA tho think that you shouldn't keep fish AT ALL.Many fish are bred in captivity and so therefore only know the inside of a glass tank.Wild caught fish on the otherhand...I don't agree with that.

I dislike PETA in general tho.

 

What is a "vigina"? If you can't spell it you're not allowed to touch it! ;P

 

Birds in cages are the worst. They're made to fly, their whole life is flying. Then they get put in a cage too small for them to even spread their wings. Thats fucked up. I don't have too big a problem with fish in tanks if they're equipped properly. Bowls I don't agree with.

 

lol im a lousy speller sorryyy

 

I'm sorry, but PETA was a great concept that went way too far. Treating animals ethically is great, but when they say that people should only be allowed to have dogs, cats, fish and livestock (that's oversimplified, but basically true) as companions, it simply pisses me off. If they had their way, they'd take half the animals I have in my home away, and since they're not equipped to be cared for, they would then be destroyed. How's that for "ethical" treatment? As far as I'm concerned, PETA and the AZA (American Zoological Association) are some of the greatest criminals concerning animals. Any group that supports the concept of killing animals rather than letting them be cared for by responsible individuals isn't an animal protection group. The only animal organization that I have any respect for is the Jersey Trust.

 

You have wild animals as pets? That's wrong and, quite often, illegal. Wild animals should be left in the wild. Most of these groups take the animals and put them in a sanctuary where they can breed and then release the offspring back into the wild, where they should be and where they are most needed - because, as you know, a domesticated animal in the wild wouldn't make it far.

People don't have to like PETA but I wish they'd make up their minds as to whether PETA love animals too much that they start to have strict and unrealistic expectations for the care of them and want them to have far too many rights OR that they actually don't care about animals at all and only care about the money so they kill all the animals they can get away with.

 

Huge ditto there!

PETA have been pissing me off for a long time or so many levels. The paralells between them and cults (with a side of Nazism) are uncanny.
As for PETA2, it seems to be their shadow*; and presents an interesting theory as to why the Atlantic exists (i.e. to keep me from maiming self righteous middle class Yankee brats). I know you shouldn't judge and organisation by it's fuckwits but frankly do PETA actually have a decent representation of sane sensible members?

Well if PETA could make up their own mind on that score it'd certainly help. Even after almost four years of following them by proxy (as someone who suppourts the animal rights movement) I'm still none the wiser, if anything the more you know the more confused you end up. They seem to care more about their own PR than maintaning any kind of philosophical consistency.

I say that as someone who has made an educated choice to suppourt animal rights. So they not exactly doing themselves any favours with those who haven't.


*that's a Jung concept, if you don't get it look it up.

 

Reading the PeTA2 forums makes one want to put a head through a wall...I mean once you done sifting through all the "my mummy won't buy me tofu" or "my uncle iz teh suxx0r hunt3r" threads, you will find some seriously disturbed adolescents and adults. It's horrifying some of the things they say on those forums. The level of dellusions and brainwashing is staggering. PeTA is a dangerous organization because they target the highly impressionable..ie: our children.

With that said, I wonder where resident PeTAphile, PeTA2forums member, and serial petitioner, Vinceneilsgirl is? One would think she'd be here to defend her beloved organization.

BTW, I remember I comment on those forums made by some woman who claimed to be a firefighter whom stated that if she came to a burning house and had to choose between saving the kids or the family pets...she's save the pets first.

Lovely.

 

Why don't you worry about what the leaders of the group say and not some freaky members. I suppose you think that everyone who attends the same church as the firefighter shares her views, too?

 

That is screwed up completely... me being the person I am would try to save both...but holly fuck innocent kids I mean thats horrifying. And I hope that woman isn't a fire fighter in my town shit.

I watched a special on A&E on the KKK (a whole other bag of shit) the guy of this one particular group said that "once you have the children you have the future, Young people always want to change the world in a day." And although this man was a complete psycho path he opened my eyes a bit further to how many people and how many organizations really are just going after the youth...its scary! Not to mention how this man went after young boys (only boys for some reason) that had trouble with there family.

So just because a group seems just and out to save the world could just be the opposite. Question everything ...and if im not mistaken that one of the peta slogans....question them...

Make your own choices ....but in the process respect others choices

 

RANT WARNING: Please avoid if you don't want to listen to someone spout off at length on animal issues.

MaccaByrd...

Just to reassure you, we have no "wild" animals. Every animal we have was domestically born and raised. Every animal we have we raised by hand from infancy, and the "exotics" (which are hugely different from "wild" animals) are all animals which would have been destroyed had we been unwilling to take them and care for them. Yes, there are restrictions on how such creatures must be cared for and housed, and yes, proper licensing is required in certain cases. Rest assured, I would no more go out and capture a wild animal to keep as a companion than I would go out and kidnap a child from its parents to keep as my own. As you said, it is often illegal, and in every case I can think of, repugnant to me. Our four-legged housemates are those who would certainly have been destroyed by PETA or the AZA due to their infant health issues, but we went through the care and expense of seeing that they have received excellent housing and nutrition, proper and qualified veterinary care, and the best care and love we could provide personally. We are not well-meaning but largely ignorant animal enthusiasts. We are trained and qualified for such care, and must pass rigorous inspection standards as any person who engages in such care should. We have passed inspection by the local Humane Society, who has absolutely no jurisdiction over exotics but were called out for "nuisance value". On the topic of qualifications, we have even been contacted by local law inforcement when they were dealing with an animal they couldn't identify and needed assistance in it's rescue.

RANT BEGINS HERE: To reassure those of you who feel that it's wrong to breed exotic animals in captivity, almost every animal I have dealt with in my time with exotics is an animal which is being threatened or has actually been classified as "endangered" due to habitat loss. It may be that soon the only surviving examples of these creatures are those born in captivity. I detest that this is true, but since we can't control what others do with the rest of the world and the lands these creatures are native to, the only method of perpetuating some species is to see that they are still viable in captivity. It's only in this way that we'll be able to guarantee some species survival so that one day they may be successfully reintroduced to the wild. This is one reason I object to the legislation which would place responsibility solely in the hands of the AZA.

Some private individuals have far better breeding success with endangered species than public zoos simply because they can devote more care and attention where zoos must be concerned with public exhibition. I personally am acquainted with several individuals who have done more for the perpetuation of endangered species through private breeding programs than any zoo in the region. I researched this quite thoroughly the last time my home state tried to pass a universal ban on the private breeding of exotic animals.

Also, a huge objection I ofter have with the AZA is that their member zoos know that baby animals bring in the paying public, and will often breed animals they already have too many of simply to have "show babies". This results in zoos instituting kill policies... the euthenasia of surplus animals due to this intentional over-breeding. Not all zoos do this, but some of the biggest names in the field do. And the AZA permits this. I find this criminal, but due to current bureaucracy, it is both legal and completely without repercussion. When I think of this, I realize why I often prefer the company of my four-legged housemates to that of so many "civilized" humans.

I will now turn over the soap-box to the next speaker...

 

Good god. I shouldn't respond to you because you are obviously so brainwashed by PeTA, that they could burn people alive in a field and claim it was for animal rights and you'd lick it up.

With that said, your little analogy was quite stupid. I don't give a shit about what church a PeTA member goes to nor do I think about those people. I base my assertion on what she says. If she goes around telling people that she'd save a dog from a fire before saving a child, than I assume she means that she'd save a dog from a fire before saving a child. That has nothing to do with what her fellow church members would do.

Your logic is retarded.

Secondly, it's called personal responsibility. Just because Ingrid Newkirk says that burning down labs and shooting hunters is good does not make it acceptable for her "followers" to go out and set fires and shoot people.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. please repeat that to yourself over and over.

 

cynical otter...

I'm going to skip virtually everything in your post since it has nothing to do with me, but I want to applaud your emphasis on responsibility. I'm a huge believer in balance, and my personal credo might be "maximum freedom/maximum responsibility". I think people should be able to do most anything so long as it doesn't infringe on others (and please note I include all living creatures in the catagory of "others", not just humans). If you want to do something, take responsibility for it, personal views included. And when you step over the line, be willing to own up, take responsibility and pay for your actions/views.

 

Aren't peta and handgun, inc (or whatever this month's name is) cut from the same cloth?

Has someone already mentioned nazis/terrorists?
It not they should be...

 

i can understand that the people with peta are passionate about what they do, but they don't have to be obnoxious and annoy the fuck outa everyone else.