horrible videos of animal torture

[Kilik]

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=3890247&Mytoken=20050702233252

I a was thinking, not only are animals tortured on a widescale, but many in nature have also been hunted to near extinction in the last century

Personally, I don't think I even should eat much chicken, even though it won't have Mad Cow disease

[Cleon]

I have a sudden hankering for a cheeseburger.


Sorry, I just have trouble taking PETA propaganda seriously. They might have a point, but they drown it in so much sheer, wholesome, grade-A b***s*** that I just tune it out.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleon
I have a sudden hankering for a cheeseburger.


Sorry, I just have trouble taking PETA propaganda seriously. They might have a point, but they drown it in so much sheer, wholesome, grade-A b***s*** that I just tune it out.

Mmmmm, bacon cheeseburger.

[c0rbin]

It's hard to feel the compassion from a guy who uses a scene from Friday the 13th part 4 as an avatar.

Oh, yeah:

http://www.wwltv.com/medical/stories/L_IMAGE.100c6c60ffc.93.88.fa.7c.9cc63d56.jpg

[Jas]

PeTA are just wierd.

That being said, the treatment of animals in commercial facilities of often abhorent, but at the same time, PeTA isn't giving you the full story, and often their videos aren't representative of the industries as a whole.

A good example of this would be their PMU farm footage.

[Psiload]

I wonder where PETA got those videos? From their Norfolk headquarters perhaps?

http://caltechgirlsworld.mu.nu/archives/093118.php

According to accounts just coming to light, PETA may have been picking up dogs and cats from animal control facilities in North Carolina for months or even years and bringing them back to PETA headquarters in Norfolk with the stated purpose of "attempting to find them good homes" when, in fact, they may have been killing and dumping them before they ever crossed the North Carolina state line.

We should give PETA a call. Maybe they can "find a good home" for Kilik.

[toddjh]

Those videos (especially the raccoon dog being skinned alive) literally made me feel sick -- and that takes a lot. Whoever does stuff like that has shown himself to be completely compassionless and cruel, and should be prosecuted and put away.

However, I'm skeptical about the video's origin. I know that, in the past, "animal rights" groups themselves have produced similar videos with seals, apparently believing that it's okay to commit an outright atrocity in order to use it as propaganda to help prevent a larger number of what they consider lesser offenses.

Watching the video, it's quite clear that keeping the animal alive and struggling only makes the process harder -- note the amount of effort put into subduing the animal before they can skin it. It would not only be more humane to kill the animal first, but it would also simply be easier all around. That's why I suspect that this video was created just for our benefit, on behalf of the very people who claim to oppose that sort of thing. At the very least, it's absurd to think that this is standard procedure for the fur industry.

Jeremy

[Bentspoon]

Penn and Teller did a PETA expose on B***S***

It was an eye opener. Apparently PETA ordered a big walk in freezer for their headquarters. When they can't find homes for their rescued animals they euthanize them and store them in the freezer.

What bunch of wackos

I found it humorous as Penn noted that all the pro meat people had a fair girth while all the PETA people were rather gaunt. So true.

Now being one that has fought with weight for most of his life, you might think that I would look at the health of a vegan and admire the physique

Instead, I found these people to appear quite ill looking. They looked like their arms were hanging from shoulderless frames and their faces seemed drawn.

Gaunt is the word I would use.

I know that this smack of generalization but these vegans are a sick looking bunch of people.

Bentspoon

[CapelDodger]

Why is the PETA position so well-known? Since it's so extreme, biased and obviously outside the credible, why is their message the one that gets reported? There are, of course, many reasonable voices pointing out the nastiness of meat-production, but there seem only to be two positions arguable - don't give a toss, and PETA's. A strong polarisation.

[Lisa Simpson]

Here's a website that tells how many animals PETA kills each year:

http://petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Here's a website that tells how many animals PETA kills each year:

http://petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm

I would like to nominate "Your Mommy Kills Animals!" for the funniest thing, ever. I can't believe nobody's made a prime time cartoon series based on an animal-killing, knife-wielding, evil-grinning mommy! It hurts to laugh so hard...

[slingblade]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Why is the PETA position so well-known? Since it's so extreme, biased and obviously outside the credible, why is their message the one that gets reported? There are, of course, many reasonable voices pointing out the nastiness of meat-production, but there seem only to be two positions arguable - don't give a toss, and PETA's. A strong polarisation.

Could it be that PETA has a lot of money? Money will get you all the attention you can buy. Or just a lot of loud voices? That, too, will get you attention. The media often plays into who gets heard and who doesn't, as well. Or maybe it's a combination of those factors, plus others I haven't yet considered.

I have no idea, one way or the other. I'm just speculating.

[epepke]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Why is the PETA position so well-known? Since it's so extreme, biased and obviously outside the credible, why is their message the one that gets reported? There are, of course, many reasonable voices pointing out the nastiness of meat-production, but there seem only to be two positions arguable - don't give a toss, and PETA's. A strong polarisation.

Because there are a hell of a lot of PETA members, and they have a lot of money.

They may be extreme and biased and egregiously cruel to animals, but apparently that appeals to an awful lot of people.

You know, I'd love to think in my dream world that most people were reasonable and moderate, but they just aren't.

[plindboe]

I won't even click on that link. Nothing pisses me more off and depresses me more than seeing such kind of stuff. It's effective though for PETA and other such loonies to use in their propaganda, because it causes people to stop thinking, and just reacting with their emotions instead.

Originally posted by toddjh
However, I'm skeptical about the video's origin. I know that, in the past, "animal rights" groups themselves have produced similar videos with seals, apparently believing that it's okay to commit an outright atrocity in order to use it as propaganda to help prevent a larger number of what they consider lesser offenses.

I'd like to read about this, if you have time to provide a link.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by plindboe
I'd like to read about this, if you have time to provide a link.

Well, the only link I can find that has details is this one (http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsC7.htm), which is hardly unbiased.

The video was named "Les Phoques" ("The Seals"). The man in question was Gustave Poirier, who signed an affidavit that he was paid by the photographers to ignore usual skinning practices and deliberately torment a seal for the camera.

According to Second Nature: The Animal-Rights Controversy (by Alan Herscovici, ISBN 0887941494):

The Federal Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forests conducted hearings in April 1968 and concluded that 'grossly misleading information had been purveyed by the Artek film' and that 'irresponsibility had been shown by the producers of the film and by the CBC for not enquiring into its accuracy before screening.'


Jeremy

[plindboe]

Originally posted by toddjh
Well, the only link I can find that has details is this one (http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsC7.htm), which is hardly unbiased.

The video was named "Les Phoques" ("The Seals"). The man in question was Gustave Poirier, who signed an affidavit that he was paid by the photographers to ignore usual skinning practices and deliberately torment a seal for the camera.

According to Second Nature: The Animal-Rights Controversy (by Alan Herscovici, ISBN 0887941494):

Thanks for the great link! There were many interesting examples it seems, though it is indeed from a biased source, so I'll try to find some more neutral sites, which shouldn't be too difficult with all the information provided at that link.

[David Carroll]

Oh, boy, more torture porn. Aras just eat that stuff up. I'm glad to see that I was spared having to post that FCUSA link. When animal rights activists say they will acheive "animal liberation" by any means possible, many of them mean just that. Animal rights has great appeal to the young and easily hoodwinked and I sure don't envy our British friends as they are suffering from the effects of this woo-woo philosophy more than anyone else.

Interesting to see how peta and scientology are both effectively exploiting the cult of celebrity. One based on an invalid syllogism, the other just plain invented. and both just raking in the most easily duped celebrities Hollywierd has to offer. Everyone has been (rightly) picking on Tom Cruise lately but for every Cruise there are ten Pamela Andersons, empathy being easier to exploit than intellect.

*edited for P.S.*

The best site on the web dedicated to debunking animal rights is this one (http://www.animalrights.net) and there is a message board there as well for anyone who might be in a mood to debate aras. Mostly trolls there on the ara side at the moment but occasionally some more thoughtful ones show up for a discussion.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by slingblade
Could it be that PETA has a lot of money? Money will get you all the attention you can buy. Or just a lot of loud voices? That, too, will get you attention. The media often plays into who gets heard and who doesn't, as well. Or maybe it's a combination of those factors, plus others I haven't yet considered.

I have no idea, one way or the other. I'm just speculating. In the same spirit, I'd suggest that the media chooses an extreme view. The media generally determines who gets heard. The PETA position is also likely to be popular with people who don't want to address the moral implications of their meat-eating, and are happy to see it as the only alternative position. Speculation, of course, and none the worse for that.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by David Carroll
Animal rights has great appeal to the young and easily hoodwinked and I sure don't envy our British friends as they are suffering from the effects of this woo-woo philosophy more than anyone else. It's my impression that the sort of people who'll commit themselves to the ALF are going to commit to something, the only question being which subject they're presented with first. In a different environment they could be skinheads, Islamists, survivalists, Black Banner anarchists, Aum, anti-abortion bombers, whatever. They're angry, violent people looking for a righteous justification. This make them red meat for cult recruitment during the most vulnerable years - 15-25, I'd estimate. They form very small sects within a wider ideology, but they tend to attract the most media attention and are used to discredit more reasoned, moderate positions.

[Rat]

Originally posted by Bentspoon
...

I found it humorous as Penn noted that all the pro meat people had a fair girth while all the PETA people were rather gaunt. So true.

Now being one that has fought with weight for most of his life, you might think that I would look at the health of a vegan and admire the physique

Instead, I found these people to appear quite ill looking. They looked like their arms were hanging from shoulderless frames and their faces seemed drawn.

Gaunt is the word I would use.

I know that this smack of generalization but these vegans are a sick looking bunch of people.

Bentspoon
Once again, I must point out that the vegans I know look the same healthwise as all the other people I know. Some are overweight, some are underweight, most are 'normal'.

I'm glad you qualify your judgment with an admission of generalization, but I hope that by "these vegans" you mean the specific people you refer to earlier, and not vegans generally. If that is what you mean, though, the admission of generalization is not necessary, which makes me think otherwise.

Cheers,
Rat.

[jimlintott]

Today I was speaking to a man who used to be a trapper. Trapping is still a trade for many in these parts. I asked him if he would ever skin an animal while it was alive. He looked completely surprised by the question and said that skinning an animal alive would be torture and cruel. He said that any trapped animals would be killed when taken from the traps. He considered skinning alive to be unethical.

[David Carroll]

Rat wrote:
Once again, I must point out that the vegans I know look the same healthwise as all the other people I know. Some are overweight, some are underweight, most are 'normal'.

I'm glad you qualify your judgment with an admission of generalization, but I hope that by "these vegans" you mean the specific people you refer to earlier, and not vegans generally. If that is what you mean, though, the admission of generalization is not necessary, which makes me think otherwise

If you had never known any vegans and watched the Penn and Teller episode on peta it would be easy to conclude that they are a sickly lot because all of the ones interviewed were thin to the point of gauntness. Especially Jerry "kill the researchers" Vlasik and his mate, Pamelyn "animal control is murder" Ferdin.

[Rat]

Originally posted by David Carroll
If you had never known any vegans and watched the Penn and Teller episode on peta it would be easy to conclude that they are a sickly lot because all of the ones interviewed were thin to the point of gauntness. Especially Jerry "kill the researchers" Vlasik and his mate, Pamelyn "animal control is murder" Ferdin.
And if you had never met any black people and watched...oh, never mind. Anyway, I get the point. I have no truck with PETA and their kind. I just hate to see vegans characterized the way they often are, and tend to jump in wherever I suspect it may occur. I'm not familiar with the people you name, but they are there as animal rights activists (for good or for bad), rather than as vegans, so to characterise vegans on the basis of animal rights people would be misleading.

Cheers,
Rat.

[David Carroll]

Rat wrote:
And if you had never met any black people and watched...oh, never mind. Anyway, I get the point. I have no truck with PETA and their kind. I just hate to see vegans characterized the way they often are, and tend to jump in wherever I suspect it may occur. I'm not familiar with the people you name, but they are there as animal rights activists (for good or for bad), rather than as vegans, so to characterise vegans on the basis of animal rights people would be misleading.

I quite agree. I have nothing against vegans in general, just the nutters. In fact, earlier today on a travel message board I was providing a list of vegetarian and vegan-friendly restaurants here in Pinellas to a vegan couple in Ohio who are planning to vacation here.

[clarsct]

Hmmmmm.

Vegan are ok, I suppose. I've known a few. I haven't met any overweight ones, but, then again, I haven't met many. Here in the Midwest, they're cursed hard to come by.
One of them claimed that she didn't eat meat because they loved animals, but rather because she hated plants more.


PETA. Bah. I noticed JAS kept spelling it PeTA. A few times. This leads me to believe it is purposeful..is it?

I always tell any PETA kooks I meet "Well, that's ok. We don't HAVE to use animals. We can use your kids!"


That usually end the conversation.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It's my impression that the sort of people who'll commit themselves to the ALF are going to commit to something, the only question being which subject they're presented with first. In a different environment they could be skinheads, Islamists, survivalists, Black Banner anarchists, Aum, anti-abortion bombers, whatever. They're angry, violent people looking for a righteous justification. This make them red meat for cult recruitment during the most vulnerable years - 15-25, I'd estimate. They form very small sects within a wider ideology, but they tend to attract the most media attention and are used to discredit more reasoned, moderate positions.

Well said. :)

[David Carroll]

PETA. Bah. I noticed JAS kept spelling it PeTA. A few times. This leads me to believe it is purposeful..is it?

That's the way peta writes its acronym. I've never cared enough to enquire why. Won't myself dignify them with any caps.

[username]

Originally posted by c0rbin
[B]It's hard to feel the compassion from a guy who uses a scene from Friday the 13th part 4 as an avatar.



That was the first thing that I noticed as well. I am reading an anti animal cruelty post from someone with an avatar showing a person with an object jammed into their eye socket.

The messenger discredits the message.