The dumbass-ery of PETA

[Dvaienat]

I am a strict vegetarian, and the more and more I hear about PETA the more I am disgusted by them. They are not representing compassion for animals well at all.

[AdAstra2025]

Originally Posted by vampiregenocide

Several high ranking PETA members have been found to have taught bomb making classes to activists who plan on raiding labs. They're ....ing terrorists.

If I could "Like" this 100 times, I would. PETA are terrorists for sure. Besides, I didn't climb to the top of the food chain so I could eat carrots. BALOGNA FTW!

[Xaios]

Originally Posted by groph

I've got my own version of this poster...

[ghstofperdition]

^

[ZEBOV]

Originally Posted by Xaios

I've got my own version of this poster...

Those red letters look 3D on my Galaxy S2!

[Alimination]

[ZEBOV]

^There were a lot of grammatical mistakes in that.

[Alimination]

oh nuts ah well, was in my photobucket for years, been waiting for a place to put it on the interwebs xp

[Alimination]

Lol I got a neg rep for that picture being tasteless and abusive?

Man, good thing I didn't post the picture of those dead bunnies put together saying Peta sucks. XD

[ZEBOV]

The rep syste m on here is pointless. Whenever I get negged, it's just a troll that's using a bunch of abusive language, or it's for threads I've started that haven't had any new posts in months

[Alimination]

lol It's okay mang, I figured as much

[groph]

Also, aren't thousands of cute, adorable animals like rabbits or gophers killed terribly during harvests? JUST IMAGINE THEIR LITTLE EYES CRYING AS THEY GET FLAYED AND MINCED BY A COMBINE HARVESTER! HOW CAN YOU, AS AN ETHICAL VEGETARIAN SUPPORT SUCH BRUTALITY? THINGS ARE DYING AND YOU'RE DOING NOTHING!

Also, did you know that SHARKS use their TEETH to RIP APART little BABY SEALS?! Just try to picture the little defenseless seal's terror as a BIG MEAN UGLY SHARK THAT LOOKS LIKE THE FISH WE ALSO DON'T GIVE A .... ABOUT TEARS into its warm, cuddly body!

PETA should be People for the Ill-defined Wishy Washy Preferential Treatment of Animals with Fur and Eyes and are Generally Considered to be Cute, or PIWWPTAFEGCC.

They want hospitals to stop using glue traps so little helpless mice don't die in way that displeases their sense of aesthetics. Here's a quote from the page


"Glue traps are some of the worst rodent-control products on the market, causing immense and prolonged suffering. Panicked rodents often rip themselves to pieces in their frantic struggle to escape the sticky mess. Exhausted and terrified, they die from shock, dehydration, asphyxiation, or blood loss. Death can take days."

Oh. My. GOD.

They're FOR spaying and neutering. Have they not considered the TORMENT and sheer HORROR that must go through the mind of that CUTE LITTLE ....ING DOG WITH ADORABLE WIDDLE EYES OH MY GOD as some SADISTIC BUTCHER of a veterinarian HACKS into that dog's ADORABLE WIDDLE BALLSACK and SURGICALLY REMOVES his WIDDLE TESTICLES!??

What about the kitten that gets spayed? Does she not feel TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE PAIN with BLOOD AND HITLER as the vet SLASHES her ovaries out of her FUZZY WIDDLE abdomen? Do they not care for female animals?

...Oh. They don't.

[Dvaienat]

Originally Posted by groph

Also, aren't thousands of cute, adorable animals like rabbits or gophers killed terribly during harvests? JUST IMAGINE THEIR LITTLE EYES CRYING AS THEY GET FLAYED AND MINCED BY A COMBINE HARVESTER! HOW CAN YOU, AS AN ETHICAL VEGETARIAN SUPPORT SUCH BRUTALITY? THINGS ARE DYING AND YOU'RE DOING NOTHING!

Also, did you know that SHARKS use their TEETH to RIP APART little BABY SEALS?! Just try to picture the little defenseless seal's terror as a BIG MEAN UGLY SHARK THAT LOOKS LIKE THE FISH WE ALSO DON'T GIVE A .... ABOUT TEARS into its warm, cuddly body!

PETA should be People for the Ill-defined Wishy Washy Preferential Treatment of Animals with Fur and Eyes and are Generally Considered to be Cute, or PIWWPTAFEGCC.

They want hospitals to stop using glue traps so little helpless mice don't die in way that displeases their sense of aesthetics. Here's a quote from the page


"Glue traps are some of the worst rodent-control products on the market, causing immense and prolonged suffering. Panicked rodents often rip themselves to pieces in their frantic struggle to escape the sticky mess. Exhausted and terrified, they die from shock, dehydration, asphyxiation, or blood loss. Death can take days."

Oh. My. GOD.

They're FOR spaying and neutering. Have they not considered the TORMENT and sheer HORROR that must go through the mind of that CUTE LITTLE ....ING DOG WITH ADORABLE WIDDLE EYES OH MY GOD as some SADISTIC BUTCHER of a veterinarian HACKS into that dog's ADORABLE WIDDLE BALLSACK and SURGICALLY REMOVES his WIDDLE TESTICLES!??

What about the kitten that gets spayed? Does she not feel TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE PAIN with BLOOD AND HITLER as the vet SLASHES her ovaries out of her FUZZY WIDDLE abdomen? Do they not care for female animals?

...Oh. They don't.

You're right, PETA are complete hypocrites in many areas.

As a non-hypocritical vegetarian myself, I would be in favour of crop farming methods being revised to prevent harm to animals e.g. rabbits and gophers. I would strongly urge hospitals to stop using glue-traps. It would not take much effort to catch mice through non-harming methods and then releasing them elsewhere.

The shark is simply living as it does in the wild, and it isn't up to humans to interfere with the workings of nature outside of the societies we create. Thereby we would be taking the shark's right to live a natural life away from it, which would be cruelty on our behalf. Remember, the shark doesn't have the capability to show compassion to its prey.

Now, I'm not for speying and neutering unless it is absolutely neccesary. Animals do have the right to keep their reproductory organs. However bear in mind that animals are always given anaesthetics beforehand, so the procedure does involve limited pain.

[Konfyouzd]

Originally Posted by NatG

it isn't up to humans to interfere with the workings of nature outside of the societies we create

However, it does seem to be in OUR nature to do so...

[Dvaienat]

Originally Posted by Konfyouzd

However, it does seem to be in OUR nature to do so...

I did say outside of our societies. Think of the way we structure our societies... we help the weak and vulnerable. Profoundly unnatural, yet we do it because we have the ability to rebel against nature.

[Konfyouzd]

And the point I was making is that we tend to do it within the societies we create as well as beyond on many levels.

Thus while it isn't up to us to do it, it still seems very much in our nature to do so. It's not up to us to do A LOT of things we take it upon ourselves to do.

[Dvaienat]

Originally Posted by Konfyouzd

And the point I was making is that we tend to do it within the societies we create as well as beyond on many levels.

Thus while it isn't up to us to do it, it still seems very much in our nature to do so. It's not up to us to do A LOT of things we take it upon ourselves to do.

I think in our societies it is very much neccesary, because we've evolved to be able to care for eachother (this is also noted to happen in the animal kingdom, just within close groups of animals though). Without that we'd have women with small children starving to death on the street through no fault of their own, just unfortunate victims of circumstance. At least our governments offer some kind of help. It could be much better though.

But outside of society, it isn't our job to interfere with the workings of nature, I agree

[Konfyouzd]

Well I completely agree that it's fine for us to interfere with nature within our own societies, but only to an extent. Namely the situations you described. To say I agree with that statement whole-heartedly as is would be... Bad.

But I think it is in our nature to want to help each other. I'd like to think that has something to do with the development of our emotions and our ability to use cognitive thought effectively on occassion.

Plus, we're but one organism in a world FULL of organisms all competing whether we choose to view it that way or not. There is strength in numbers and it's to our advantage to help each other survive when looking at it through those shades. Not to mention the moral fulfillment some may receive from it.

[Dvaienat]

Originally Posted by Konfyouzd

Well I completely agree that it's fine for us to interfere with nature within our own societies, but only to an extent. Namely the situations you described. To say I agree with that statement whole-heartedly as is would be... Bad.

But I think it is in our nature to want to help each other. I'd like to think that has something to do with the development of our emotions and our ability to use cognitive thought effectively on occassion.

Plus, we're but one organism in a world FULL of organisms all competing whether we choose to view it that way or not. There is strength in numbers and it's to our advantage to help each other survive when looking at it through those shades. Not to mention the moral fulfillment some may receive from it.

If you actually look at evolution itself, life evolves to adapt to its surroundings. Evoultion benefits all. So therefore the 'evolution' of society would be for us all to unite, to act as one and move forward together. I think the so called 'social Darwinists' have got it slightly wrong.

With humans, you get acts of extreme good, notably helping others, and acts of extreme evil - harming others and selfishness in the context of more serious issues. Both are in our nature, but one is destructive and therefore is to be supressed. Whereas in the animal kingdom, things are not so complex. Animals just 'do', and don't take into consideration the impacts of their actions upon those around them. This voids them of choosing to harm or not to harm, and therefore voids them of bad and good. With regards to humans, because of their intelligence, things get far more complicated.

[Konfyouzd]

I don't want to be a stickler but since when are humans not a part of the animal kingdom? I'm not bringing this up to start an argument it's just that people seem to forget this. The only reason we feel the need to supress these things is that we have a different point of view and we're supposedly the only animal that "reasons" hence the discussion we're able to have right now.

And let me get this right... Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but it seems like you've said that the difference between wild animals and humans is the ability to designate something as good or bad. Thus right and wrong only exist if you have the means to define them. But I don't really see how that changes much other than the fact that in our particular society we frown upon things that are commonplace in another.

So I suppose you're absolutely right... Our so-called intelligence causes us to overcomplicate things that would otherwise just be.

[Dvaienat]

Originally Posted by Konfyouzd

I don't want to be a stickler but since when are humans not a part of the animal kingdom? I'm not bringing this up to start an argument it's just that people seem to forget this. The only reason we feel the need to supress these things is that we have a different point of view and we're supposedly the only animal that "reasons" hence the discussion we're able to have right now.

And let me get this right... Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but it seems like you've said that the difference between wild animals and humans is the ability to designate something as good or bad. Thus right and wrong only exist if you have the means to define them. But I don't really see how that changes much other than the fact that in our particular society we frown upon things that are commonplace in another.

So I suppose you're absolutely right... Our so-called intelligence causes us to overcomplicate things that would otherwise just be.

I would agree completely that humans are part of the animal kingdom. We are the most advanced animal. I was just using the phrase 'animal kingdom' to avoid using over-complicated terminology. Perhaps 'non-human animals would've been a better phrase to use.

With regards to what we consider 'right and wrong', it is about consciously harming others when you have the choice not to and lacking empathy with humans and non-human animals. I've no problems with meat eaters who want the best possible conditions and method of killing possible for animals, which is probably the category you fall under. Just wanted to make that clear so you don't think I'm a stereotypical vegetarian/vegan who thinks they are superior. Ideally we don't kill animals at all, though.

I agree with your final sentences completely

[groph]

Originally Posted by NatG

You're right, PETA are complete hypocrites in many areas.

As a non-hypocritical vegetarian myself, I would be in favour of crop farming methods being revised to prevent harm to animals e.g. rabbits and gophers. I would strongly urge hospitals to stop using glue-traps. It would not take much effort to catch mice through non-harming methods and then releasing them elsewhere.

The shark is simply living as it does in the wild, and it isn't up to humans to interfere with the workings of nature outside of the societies we create. Thereby we would be taking the shark's right to live a natural life away from it, which would be cruelty on our behalf. Remember, the shark doesn't have the capability to show compassion to its prey.

Now, I'm not for speying and neutering unless it is absolutely neccesary. Animals do have the right to keep their reproductory organs. However bear in mind that animals are always given anaesthetics beforehand, so the procedure does involve limited pain.

I was being completely facetious. Sharks are not committing moral atrocities by being apex predators. I was just mocking PETA's insistence on scare tactics and stupid brainwashing methods aimed at young kids, making them associate their mothers with sadistic murder, for example. Way to go. The use of other social problems such as the sexualized abuse of women, violence, genocide, slavery, etc. to forward their agenda is disgusting. Makes it pretty clear to me that PETA doesn't give a .... about people and they're not in this game for any kind of real change. It's kind of a similar concept as Dean or the Abbott family cashing in on the death of Dimebag. They just want people eating leaves so we don't offend the sensibilities of fuzzy mammals or gross out some people by getting fat.

Gallery: Stupid PETA Ads | TheGloss

They take the worst of the worst and use it to try to end animal cruelty. In my opinion, it's absolutely reprehensible to jerk off to a woman getting beaten, it's reprehensible to enslave someone, and it's reprehensible to attempt to kill an entire ethnic group. This is the ....ing "BUSH/OBAMA/THE TEA PARTY = HITLER" argument. Come up with something better that actually makes some goddamn sense that doesn't contribute to other existing problems. What makes the "unethical" treatment of animals more important than the "unethical" treatment of humans? By using these tactics in ads, I think PETA is saying that it is perfectly okay to perpetuate inequalities and cruelty towards other humans, as long as the adorable rabbit is free to shit in a field unperturbed.

[AxeHappy]

Peta is also opposed to pets. Like having a housecat and taking care of it and whatnot.

Their goal is total animal liberation. Which is ....ing retarded. And I mean that in the most offensive way possible.

[Dvaienat]

Originally Posted by groph

I was being completely facetious. Sharks are not committing moral atrocities by being apex predators. I was just mocking PETA's insistence on scare tactics and stupid brainwashing methods aimed at young kids, making them associate their mothers with sadistic murder, for example. Way to go. The use of other social problems such as the sexualized abuse of women, violence, genocide, slavery, etc. to forward their agenda is disgusting. Makes it pretty clear to me that PETA doesn't give a .... about people and they're not in this game for any kind of real change. It's kind of a similar concept as Dean or the Abbott family cashing in on the death of Dimebag. They just want people eating leaves so we don't offend the sensibilities of fuzzy mammals or gross out some people by getting fat.

Gallery: Stupid PETA Ads | TheGloss

They take the worst of the worst and use it to try to end animal cruelty. In my opinion, it's absolutely reprehensible to jerk off to a woman getting beaten, it's reprehensible to enslave someone, and it's reprehensible to attempt to kill an entire ethnic group. This is the ....ing "BUSH/OBAMA/THE TEA PARTY = HITLER" argument. Come up with something better that actually makes some goddamn sense that doesn't contribute to other existing problems. What makes the "unethical" treatment of animals more important than the "unethical" treatment of humans? By using these tactics in ads, I think PETA is saying that it is perfectly okay to perpetuate inequalities and cruelty towards other humans, as long as the adorable rabbit is free to shit in a field unperturbed.

Alrighty I see what you're saying now

They're hypocrites, no more no less.