# The dumbass-ery of PETA



## murakami (Sep 20, 2011)

The nonprofit organization, whose controversial campaigns draw criticism from women's rights groups, said it hopes to raise awareness of veganism through a mix of pornography and graphic footage of animal suffering.
"We're hoping to reach a whole new audience of people, some of whom will be shocked by graphic images that maybe they didn't anticipate seeing when they went to the PETA triple-X site," said Lindsay Rajt, PETA's associate director of campaigns.
PETA has been accused of campaigning for animal rights at the cost of exploiting women. A Facebook group, Real Women Against PETA, was launched after the organization paid for a billboard showing an obese woman with the message: "Save the Whales. Lose the Blubber. Go Vegetarian."
Another critical Facebook group is called, "Vegans (and Vegetarians) Against PETA."
"PETA is extremely disingenuous," said Jennifer Pozner, executive director of the New York-based advocacy group Women In Media & News. "They have consistently used active sexism as their marketing strategy to garner attention. Their use of sexism has gotten more extreme and more degrading.
"This may be in their minds the only thing left at their disposal to lower the bar," she said.
PETA has filed paperwork to launch its pornography site when the controversial new .xxx domain becomes active in early December. While many nonprofits and corporations are scrambling to protect their website names from being hijacked by a pornographer slapping on a .xxx domain, PETA is embracing the new domain as just another way to conduct business.
"We try to use every outlet that we can to speak up for animals," Rajt said. "We anticipated that this new triple-X domain name would be a hot topic and we immediately decided to use it and take advantage of it to try to promote the animal rights message."
Jill Dolan, director of the program in gender and sexuality studies at Princeton University, was critical of the PETA campaigns.
"Exploiting porn to get people's juices going seems lame; exploiting pornographic images only of women to make their point is retrograde and misogynist," Dolan said in an email. "Come on, PETA. Don't be Neanderthals."
Rajt denied that PETA has been insensitive to women.
"Our demonstrators, the models, all chose to participate in our campaigns... It's not a very feminist thing to do to turn to women and tell them whether or not they can use their voices, their bodies to express their voice."
Visitors to the X-rated site will initially be presented with pornographic content as well as images from PETA's salacious ads and campaigns, Rajt said. Those images will be followed by pictures and video shot undercover of the mistreatment of animals. The site will also include links to vegetarian and vegan -- using no animal products -- starter kits as well as recipes.
PETA's ad campaigns have featured adult film stars Sasha Grey, Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jameson. In 2008, the organization's YouTube account was temporarily shut down after showing racy videos of celebrities and others posing nude.
"When people first visit the site, it will be very enticing and once they go just a little bit deeper, that's when they'll be confronted with images that we hope will make them stop and think and get them talking and hopefully encourage them to make a lifestyle change to a plant-based diet," Rajt said.

PETA to launch porn site in name of animal rights | Reuters - original article.

seriously... are these guys that fucking stupid? who wants to wank off to porn and then get fucking violent animal brutality thrown in their face? 

no one, NO ONE, will want to go to that site unless they enjoy sick shit like that. this will encourage people who get off on porn and violence rather than turn away people. shit, people can just go to a REGULAR FUCKING PORN SITE!

seriously, PETA fucking fail


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 20, 2011)

I don't think anyone doesn't know by now that the people who are in charge of PETA are crazy, extremist hypocrites.


----------



## sell2792 (Sep 20, 2011)

What a fucking joke...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 20, 2011)

Gore and porn? They're just making 4chan 2.0.


----------



## ZXIIIT (Sep 20, 2011)

Being vegan, I consider PETA to be the same as WBC.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 20, 2011)

ZOMB13 said:


> Being vegan, I consider PETA to be the same as WBC.


I've never met a vegan or vegetarian, that wasn't 12-16 years old, who didn't find PETA ridiculous: Myself included.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 20, 2011)

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


----------



## Mexi (Sep 20, 2011)

if anything, theres probably a segment of society that gets off on the juxtaposition of violence towards animals and degrading women


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 20, 2011)

Man, PETA creating an XXX site is something I would expect to read in The Onion. Facepalming to see it's real.


Rev.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 20, 2011)




----------



## MikeH (Sep 20, 2011)

Being an extreme advocate for animal rights, I hope everyone in PETA dies.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 20, 2011)




----------



## Sephael (Sep 20, 2011)

To be fair though, some of those "I'd rather be naked than wear fur" ads are HOT.


----------



## Sicarius (Sep 20, 2011)

I'm sure they'll still get dozens and dozens of followers.

or at least make a bunch of people done with porn for a while.

But I think we all need to ask ourselves.

What kind of a person goes to peta.xxx expecting some good wankin' material?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 20, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> What kind of a person goes to peta.xxx expecting some good wankin' material?



Yeah...what sort of person...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 20, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> I'm sure they'll still get dozens and dozens of followers.
> 
> or at least make a bunch of people done with porn for a while.
> 
> ...


 


Who the fuck would have ever gone there if not for this thread? I would have never known about it til Jon Stewart called them out otherwise...


----------



## The Munk (Sep 20, 2011)

murakami said:


> "The site will also include links to vegetarian and vegan -- using no animal products -- starter kits as well as recipes."




Who goes to a .xxx site looking for recipes? New Crab cake recipe perhaps?
Freaks.....


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 20, 2011)

Saddistic vegans...?

EDIT: Vegans can't eat crab cakes you insensitive fuck.


----------



## murakami (Sep 20, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> I'm sure they'll still get dozens and dozens of followers.
> 
> or at least make a bunch of people done with porn for a while.
> 
> ...


 
i dont know, man... but in japan they have disgusting porn that people get off on as well like a squid going in a woman's special place... and poop eating


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 20, 2011)

^ Japanese porn is such a trainwreck... and I mean the _real shit_, not Americanized schoolgirl made-in-CA "The Assfuck Twins" type stuff... I find myself not being able to look away! Girls doing that weird crying thing while they lay there and barely move, lots of "weird" toys, and yeah... poop. WTF? I mean if my hands weren't so busy I'd change the channel. 

And to think, PETA found a way to one-up that? Well played...


----------



## murakami (Sep 20, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> ^ Japanese porn is such a trainwreck... and I mean the _real shit_, not Americanized schoolgirl made-in-CA "The Assfuck Twins" type stuff... I find myself not being able to look away! Girls doing that weird crying thing while they lay there and barely move, lots of "weird" toys, and yeah... poop. WTF? I mean if my hands weren't so busy I'd change the channel.
> 
> And to think, PETA found a way to one-up that? Well played...


 

haha, i know what you mean.

awful disgusting shit.... but i cant look away  aside, from the poop eating; that is just sick.


----------



## nojyeloot (Sep 20, 2011)




----------



## Guitarman700 (Sep 20, 2011)

Go away PETA, no one likes you.


----------



## Daemoniac (Sep 20, 2011)

Fuck PETA. Seriously. I cannot express in words how much their 'campaigns' and methods enrage me.


----------



## Sicarius (Sep 20, 2011)

murakami said:


> haha, i know what you mean.
> 
> awful disgusting shit.... but i cant look away  aside, from the poop eating; that is just sick.



Scat/ hardcore fetish films are prevalent in all the lands. It's not just there.


----------



## BrianUV777BK (Sep 21, 2011)

I'm a member of PETA. 

People Eating Tasty Animlas


----------



## Origin (Sep 21, 2011)

They fund and teach terrorists and lie with a straight face about stupid shit. Not to mention their leader is a complete self-contradictory cunt. 
I hated this group so, so much before. Then I saw the Penn and Teller episode about them and I foaming-at-the-mouth hated them.

Now this shit...is just kind of ridiculous so I'm a little placated.  Still, to hell with them, and with the ALF, and with Greenpeace's more recent forms, forever.
Terrorism and militant, inflammatory crusades are not how you teach compassion.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

I just find it hilarious that they preach preserving the life of animals, and will use violence against people to get their way, however the animals being tested on are being used to save the lives of people. PETA are using the whole 'end justifies the means argument' which is exactly what animal testing facilities use. It makes no sense.

I'm not saying I'm for animal testing, but the hypocrisy overwhelms me.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ (Sep 21, 2011)

Origin said:


> They fund and teach terrorists and lie with a straight face about stupid shit. Not to mention their leader is a complete self-contradictory cunt.
> I hated this group so, so much before. Then I saw the Penn and Teller episode about them and I foaming-at-the-mouth hated them.
> 
> Now this shit...is just kind of ridiculous so I'm a little placated.  Still, to hell with them, and with the ALF, and with Greenpeace's more recent forms, forever.
> Terrorism and militant, inflammatory crusades are not how you teach compassion.



While peta are fuckwits, one can NEVER believe Penn and Teller. They're *libertarians*, for fuck's sake.


----------



## groph (Sep 21, 2011)

kgad0831 said:


> While peta are ....wits, one can NEVER believe Penn and Teller. They're *libertarians*, for ....'s sake.



Do you have a valid criticism of libertarianism, or does bolding the word as if the flaw is obvious a good enough argument nowadays?



I'd like to know how much the meat industry thrives on the suffering of animals IE whether or not it would be a crippling expense to not treat them like shit, or if it wouldn't be much of an expense, rather other taxes and regulations are what's getting in the way. The suffering of animals is another shitty part of living in a capitalist world*, you may oppose a certain practice, but it's the only option you're given. I eat meat because it tastes awesome and it does have nutritional value but I don't like the idea of animals being raised in cages so small they can barely move. I couldn't care less about the fact that we kill and eat animals, that shit happens all the time elsewhere in nature and food animals obviously aren't smart enough to organize a revolt. Still, I don't see why that justifies needless cruelty because as humans we have the capacity to treat things well, at least by our standards, if nothing else for our own peace of mind.

I'd never be a vegetarian or vegan, but I'd advocate eating meat in reasonable portions for health purposes. Food here is abundant so it's not like we need to stock up for the winter any more. The moral issues are a problem for someone else to deal with, I've already picked a problem to work on so opinions are all I have.

Since "PETA" is pretty much synonymous with "completely deranged and unreasonable," I don't have anything new to add. They put animals above humans, as superiors, not equals, they won't allow "pets" but Ingrid Newkirk has several, I don't give a .... what she calls them, they fund violent groups, they want to set back medical research hundreds of years, and they'll degrade women to no end. All while ignoring the worse treatment of humans by other humans.








No, they don't.







*I'm not a commie, calm down.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ (Sep 21, 2011)

groph said:


> Do you have a valid criticism of libertarianism, or does bolding the word as if the flaw is obvious a good enough argument nowadays?



I'm about to go to work, so I'll just copypasta this:



> This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy.
> I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility.
> After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.
> At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
> ...



It highlights the main logical fallacy in libertarianism, one I used to believe and P&T still do. There are others; mainly the belief in a mythical "free" market and a gross misunderstanding about what government was in the 18th century vs what it is now.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 21, 2011)

groph said:


> I couldn't care less about the fact that we kill and eat animals, that shit happens all the time elsewhere in nature



Well, yes and no. Nothing bar humans farms animals. Indeed humans have only done it for 10% of our existence at the very most.

I say this as a meat-eater, mind. It's just not really a valid argument that eating animals is fine because it happens in nature.


----------



## BigBaldIan (Sep 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Nothing bar humans farms animals.


 
Actually there are other examples of this in nature:

Ants farming aphids and caterpillars, termites as well if I remember correctly, unusual yes, but not confined to humanity.


----------



## groph (Sep 22, 2011)

^ ZEBOV IS A ZOMBIE, RUN


----------



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

ZEBOV said:


> The brains weren't labeled...


 

we're talking about woman, right?


----------



## groph (Sep 22, 2011)

kgad0831 said:


> I'm about to go to work, so I'll just copypasta this:
> 
> 
> 
> It highlights the main logical fallacy in libertarianism, one I used to believe and P&T still do. There are others; mainly the belief in a mythical "free" market and a gross misunderstanding about what government was in the 18th century vs what it is now.



I agree, a truly free market doesn't exist and probably never has, but you can have libertarian socialism. Libertarianism just maintains that liberty is the most important principle. It's associated with a right-wing ultra conservative free market capitalist economy and probably would work the best like that, but I don't see how a certain degree of socialism precludes libertarianism.

(I'm not an expert)


----------



## ZEBOV (Sep 23, 2011)

murakami said:


> we're talking about woman, right?



Yes.... Whether she uses them or not, the brain is there.


----------



## ittoa666 (Sep 23, 2011)

Their HQ is an hour away from my house. I know what to do.....

Threats aside, I hate them, and this is coming from someone who cares more about animals than people. I don't back extremists that use shock tactics to change opinions.


----------



## Edika (Sep 23, 2011)

I'd eat that!

Insensitive sexual innuendo aside I actually have no opinion about animals or animal rights or if they are possessions or if they have souls. My relationship with animals is I don't bother them, they don't bother me. I am not cruel with animals, I just don't care about them. I found some of them beautiful but I don't want to adopt or take care of one of them. We had cats and dogs in my house but after a while I got annoyed by their presence. It seems to me that most people that have an animal in their house is either for a useful purpose or to fill some emotional voids and not feel lonely. Especially when putting another species over your own species and even start giving human traits to animals (animals good, pure, saints - humans evil, destructive etc) then the emotional/psychological disturbance is even greater. To be clear I am not against people having animals (think about though the reasons why you have them and what traits you assign to them). But I do find sickening to a point people that treat animals like human beings or even worse like children. 

Not to derail much the thread PETA sucks. Aside from their crude and vulgar campaigns they focus in only part of the problem as most organizations of the sort do. It's like any group with fanatics, they think they know the truth about everything and everybody else is a moron unless they become enlightened and follow their cause.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 23, 2011)

BigBaldIan said:


> Actually there are other examples of this in nature:
> 
> Ants farming aphids and caterpillars, termites as well if I remember correctly, unusual yes, but not confined to humanity.



Well, "farming" is a personifying things a bit. They stop other animals killing them so that they can drink their fluids, don't they?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 23, 2011)

Categorically, by a large margin, the stupidest idea I have ever come across.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 23, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Well, "farming" is a personifying things a bit. They stop other animals killing them so that they can drink their fluids, don't they?



I believe they also transport them. Either way, its as close to farming as you're going to find in nature.


----------



## ShadowFactoryX (Sep 23, 2011)

just sound like an outlet of weird fetish porn.

"grisly animal murder and sex?! we're sure to get supporters then"

PETA is nothing but an anal wart of organizations.


----------



## murakami (Sep 23, 2011)

ZEBOV said:


> Yes.... Whether she uses them or not, the brain is there.


 
you know, i wasn't just talking about pamela anderson


----------



## chronocide (Sep 23, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I believe they also transport them. Either way, its as close to farming as you're going to find in nature.



But isn't farming as we understand it, which was my point


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 23, 2011)

chronocide said:


> But isn't farming as we understand it, which was my point



Well nah, they're only ants.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior (Sep 23, 2011)




----------



## Blind Theory (Sep 23, 2011)

My uncle told me a great story once. It goes something like this:

A guy from his chain of command (USAF) was headed back from work one day when he saw a woman, frantic, on the side of the road. He pulled over thinking her car might be broken down and went to assist. When asked what was wrong, she told him that there was a poor deer stuck in some barbed wire fencing. She pleaded with him to help her free the deer from the fence. He took a look at the deer and realized the extent of the damage was too great at this point to justify leaving it suffer and it needed to be put down or it would die slowly. He went to his truck and got out a gun. He went back to the deer. At this point the woman was hysterical. She absolutely did not want him to shoot the deer. Well, he did. After he shot the deer, the woman started to threaten him with meaningless action. It was at this moment that he found out she was the president of PETA. 


Needless to say, this man is a personal hero of mine. I told this story to show my stance on PETA. My stance on PETA.....I want to shoot a deer in front of the president of PETA....because I hate PETA. Fuck PETA, Eat MEAT!

Edit: Due to neg rep, it has come to my attention that my story might have been offensive..or my final remarks might have been. Either way, get over it. I stand by what I say. Fuck PETA, eat MEAT!


----------



## murakami (Sep 23, 2011)




----------



## Dvaienat (Sep 24, 2011)

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 (Sep 26, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


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


----------



## tacotiklah (Oct 6, 2011)

^


----------



## Alimination (Oct 7, 2011)




----------



## ZEBOV (Oct 8, 2011)

^There were a lot of grammatical mistakes in that.


----------



## Alimination (Oct 8, 2011)

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


----------



## Alimination (Oct 8, 2011)

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 (Oct 9, 2011)

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 (Oct 9, 2011)

lol It's okay mang, I figured as much


----------



## groph (Oct 9, 2011)

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 FUCK 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 FUCKING 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 (Oct 13, 2011)

groph said:


> 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 FUCK ABOUT TEARS into its warm, cuddly body!
> 
> ...


 
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 (Oct 13, 2011)

NatG said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2011)

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 (Oct 13, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2011)

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 (Oct 13, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2011)

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 (Oct 13, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2011)

NatG said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 fuck 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 fucking "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 (Oct 14, 2011)

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 fucking retarded. And I mean that in the most offensive way possible.


----------



## Dvaienat (Oct 14, 2011)

groph said:


> 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 fuck 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 fucking "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.


----------

