PETA To Get Long-Overdue Lesson
Mike Conrad
(RE: Animal rights group's ad angers New York's mayor
August 25, 2000
MILWAUKEE (AP) -- Advertisements that
parody the dairy industry's popular "Got
Milk?" ads have outraged New York Mayor
Rudolph Giuliani.
Two billboards by the People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals depict Giuliani wearing
a milk mustache and asking: "Got prostate
cancer?" The ad claims a connection between
drinking milk and prostate cancer, for which
the mayor is being treated... )
Unfortunately, PETA isn't doing animal rights any good with this
campaign. It's disgracefully insensitive, and founded on unproven
science to begin with. I think they don't like Giuliani. And you
have to wonder, if their campaign makes more enemies than friends for
animals, which side are they really on? This is hardly the first time
for them.
Mike
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:44:06 GMT, Sam Barber
<SamB...@prontomail.com> wrote:
--------------------------
Stupidity, alas, is seldom accompanied by humility.
History shows but one alternative to nationalism: tribalism.
B O Y C O T T ExxonMobil / Intel / Suzuki / Isuzu / Japan / China / Canada / Feld Entertainment / Doubleclick
David Lentz
Mike Conrad wrote:
<snip>
> Unfortunately, PETA isn't doing animal rights any good with this
> campaign. It's disgracefully insensitive, and founded on unproven
> science to begin with. I think they don't like Giuliani. And you
> have to wonder, if their campaign makes more enemies than friends for
> animals, which side are they really on? This is hardly the first time
> for them.
As a rule of thumb, I disregard health claims that only pertain
to one specific aliment. For example, even it PETA'a claim of a
linkage between drinking milk and prostate cancer were true, it
disregard milk effec5 on your total health. which I suspect is
positive. Milk calcium source is good for teeth and bones. So
PEAT is only telling one side, but we all knew that anyhow.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Ross
remember a couple of months ago they were attacking people fishing on
some rivers. Tell you what if they attacked me while I was
fishing.... well it's called self defense, fishing knives can be used
for other things.
On 29 Aug 2000 23:26:29 GMT, mike.conr...@usa.net (Mike Conrad)
wrote:
>
> (RE: Animal rights group's ad angers New York's mayor
>
> August 25, 2000
>
> MILWAUKEE (AP) -- Advertisements that
> parody the dairy industry's popular "Got
> Milk?" ads have outraged New York Mayor
> Rudolph Giuliani.
>
> Two billboards by the People for the Ethical
> Treatment of Animals depict Giuliani wearing
> a milk mustache and asking: "Got prostate
> cancer?" The ad claims a connection between
> drinking milk and prostate cancer, for which
> the mayor is being treated... )
>
>
>Unfortunately, PETA isn't doing animal rights any good with this
>campaign. It's disgracefully insensitive, and founded on unproven
>science to begin with. I think they don't like Giuliani. And you
>have to wonder, if their campaign makes more enemies than friends for
>animals, which side are they really on? This is hardly the first time
>for them.
>
John Saleeby
we just sit here while farmers are squeezing udders so milk squirts out
!? Those bastards!! Dirty sadistic farmer bastards! And then they make
em stand out in the field all day eating grass when they'd much rather
have those salads at McDonalds that you shake up like a martini!
Motherfuckers!
David Lentz wrote:
>
> Mike Conrad wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Unfortunately, PETA isn't doing animal rights any good with this
> > campaign. It's disgracefully insensitive, and founded on unproven
> > science to begin with. I think they don't like Giuliani. And you
> > have to wonder, if their campaign makes more enemies than friends for
> > animals, which side are they really on? This is hardly the first time
> > for them.
>
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
news:8ohmki$kha$2...@testinfo.cs.uoguelph.ca...
> In alt.tv.pol-incorrect Mike Conrad <mike.conr...@usa.net> wrote:
> : B O Y C O T T ExxonMobil / Intel / Suzuki / Isuzu / Japan / China /
Canada
> : / Feld Entertainment / Doubleclick
> Boycotting Canada I can understand but but have got against
Doubleclick???
>>>>
The logical conclusion to the eco-terrorist-wingnut-urban-nobody-at-home
rant is:
"Do The Planet A Favor - Kill Yourself"
unfortunately few if any eco-terrorist-wingnuts are willing to employ logic
to
.....................themselves.
---------------------------------
George of the Jungle
"Barry Gaudet" <bga...@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
news:8ohmki$kha$2...@testinfo.cs.uoguelph.ca...
> In alt.tv.pol-incorrect Mike Conrad <mike.conr...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> : B O Y C O T T ExxonMobil / Intel / Suzuki / Isuzu / Japan / China /
Canada
> : / Feld Entertainment / Doubleclick
>
> Boycotting Canada I can understand but but have got against
Doubleclick???
>
Doubleclick is spyware. It is used to track you as you surf using cookies,
web bugs, and web banners. Up until sometime last year, they did not really
have a reliable way to track individuals by name, address, etc. They were
successful in tracking people by machine cookie and by email address (via
browser variable), and other machine (GUID) and browser variable data.
However, in late 1999, they purchased a major demographic data base company,
which DID contain personally identifiable data, and promptly announced that
they would merge their data base with their new acquisition's, and would
sell the resulting web-demographic information to marketers.
That resulted in law suits, an FTC investigation, and several states
attorneys general either suing or opening state investigations as well, for
violation of privacy. Doubleclick has since backed down, at least for now..
Reference these web sites for further information:
http://www.zoesnet.net/spying_and_tracking.htm
http://www.tiac.net/users/smiths/privacy/banads.htm
http://www.tiac.net/users/smiths/privacy/wbfaq.htm
http://www.junkbusters.com/ht/en/cookies.html
http://www.accs-net.com/hosts/
As for Doubleclick, read the following paragraphs.
[Excerpts from the 1998 SEC Form S-1/A filing]
THE COMPANY
DoubleClick is a leading provider of comprehensive Internet advertising
solutions for advertisers and Web publishers. The Company's technology and
media
expertise enable it to dynamically deliver highly targeted, measurable and
cost-effective Internet advertising for advertisers and to increase ad sales
and
improve ad space inventory management for Web publishers. DoubleClick offers
three distinct Internet advertising solutions: (i) the DoubleClick Network,
a
leading Internet advertising network which provides ad delivery and related
services to over 60 Web sites, including AltaVista, The Dilbert Zone,
Macromedia
and U.S. News and World Report; (ii) DoubleClick's DART (Dynamic Advertising
Reporting and Targeting) Service, an Internet advertising management
solution
for Web publishers with internal ad sales forces, which is currently being
utilized by over 20 Web publishers, including NBC, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
INTERACTIVE EDITION, RealNetworks and THE SPORTING NEWS; and (iii)
DoubleClick
Direct, the Company's recently introduced advertising solution designed
specifically for direct marketers.
DoubleClick's proprietary DART technology provides the platform for the
Company's solutions. This technology enables advertisers to optimize ad
performance by dynamically targeting and delivering ads to Web users based
on
pre-selected criteria. As a user visits the Web sites of Web publishers
which
utilize the Company's solutions, DART collects information regarding the
user
and his or her viewing activities and ad responses, and applies this data to
improve its ability to predict the user's reaction and enhance DART's ad
targeting capabilities. The sophisticated tracking and reporting
functionality
incorporated into DART provides advertisers with accurate measurements of ad
performance based on selected criteria. In addition, DART provides Web
publishers with sophisticated ad space inventory management capabilities.
From:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1049480/0001047469-98-002198.txt
George of the Jungle
"Ross" <pa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5ujoqsc10t6bi10bj...@4ax.com...
> Yep they're nothing else but a bunch of miss-guided idiots. I
> remember a couple of months ago they were attacking people fishing on
> some rivers. Tell you what if they attacked me while I was
> fishing.... well it's called self defense, fishing knives can be used
> for other things.
PETA is the presumed "above ground" political front for one or more other
organizations which, due to their crminal and terrorist actions, are forced
remain underground. Contrary to their public denials, PETA appears to
cooperate with them and provide political cover. They may publically
disavow their methods, but not their goals -- just as Sien Fein did with the
provo-IRA.
In the United States, PETA and/or their members have applauded the
destruction of mink farms and medical research labs, the banning of rodeos
and circuses, and is pushing to change pet ownership into "pet guardianship"
where you lose all property rights to your pets and received "guardianship"
of them instead -- which of course, means that your pets -- which most of us
consider to be family members -- COULD be taken from you at some future date
without compensation or a hearing by some PETA supporting bureaucrat.
[And if you think I'm exaggerating, you ought to see some of their
literature.]
PETA, while distancing themselves from overt terrorist activities,
nevertheless sympathizes with the results of these underground groups.
In case people missed it, British Animal Liberation Front terrorists torched
a half dozen cars belonging to lab workers which where parked IN FRONT OF
THEIR HOMES this week, injuring an innocent person in the process. Yep, they
stalked lab employees to their homes and burned their vehicles while parked
right out front of their homes.
The US version of this group is on the FBI list of terrorist organizations,
by the way.
This "air headedness" over the "got prostrate cancer" and the "got beer" ads
is amusing, but like most terrorists, the animal rights zealots have no
intention to "win our hearts and minds" by using them. Their real goal is
to "grab us by our balls" and make us obey them by force. As proven in the
UK, they will not shirk terroism to achieve it, either.
I do indeed hope that the animal rights movement loses "face" over these
stupid ads. But mark my words, the minute the animal right cadre realizes
that they have lost the PR war, the gloves will come off and the violence
against the general American population will begin and it will go far
beyond the occasional "red paint" splash and overnight arson of buildings or
releasing of lab animals. We may look back on these days with a dufus PETA
as the halcyon days.
Paul Mitchum
> But what about aqueezing the cow's udders so milk squirts out!? How can we
> just sit here while farmers are squeezing udders so milk squirts out !?
> Those bastards!! Dirty sadistic farmer bastards! And then they make em
> stand out in the field all day eating grass when they'd much rather have
> those salads at McDonalds that you shake up like a martini!
The 'wisdom' goes like this:
As cattle age, they aren't as good at producing milk, and are more prone
to disease which could spread through the herd. Thus, they're
slaughtered for meat, just like beef cattle.
This means that milk, in addition to perhaps leading to prostate cancer,
also means horrific death for dairy cattle.
--
"In a world full of lies / Which tug at the truth
I'm taking no sides.. Now I recognize you."
-DS
Paul Mitchum
[..]
> Looks an awful lot to me like *all* they wanted out of this was media
> exposure, and in that sense, they succeeded beyond their dreams. They got
> to talk on the radio and TV all over the country, they were talked about in
> the print media and are still being discussed all over the internet...as
> long as people keep spelling their name right, they're happier and happier.
Actually, they're happy when they've raised the issue. Press coverage
and media exposure aren't the end for them, but the means.
It's the same thing as when a political candidate says their opponent is
a drug abuser, or has no personality. It's not meant to give any factual
information, but to cast a certain light, and to get people talking.
For instance, you can make reference to clubbing baby harp seals, and
everyone knows what you're talking about. Why? Cuzza PETA. Whale
extinction? Greenpeace. Spotted Owl? Earth First.
[..]
> Apparently, to PETA, *people* aren't worthy of ethical treatment.
The PETA retort to that: People are cruel to animals. Do they really
deserve better? <-- note question which is designed to promote
discussion, rather than be definitive.
PETA interests me, because they represent what happens when everyone
involved (PETA members, media, press, people seeeing the work) is
cynical. They're not just the squeaky wheel that gets the grease,
they're the REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY squeaky wheel. Unfortunately, in
this day and age, it turns out that if you have something to say, you
have to hit people over the head with it before they'll listen.
That said, I think the 'got cancer?' ads are too much. There are many
better ways to make that point, that don't raise the bar yet again on
tastelessness in media.
frank...@my-deja.com
reason. They really are hurting the cause. Guliani is a gun banner,
so I don't like him, but I don't blame him for being angry.
In article <39ac3747...@news.concentric.net>,
mike....@usa.net wrote:
>
> (RE: Animal rights group's ad angers New York's mayor
>
> August 25, 2000
>
> MILWAUKEE (AP) -- Advertisements that
> parody the dairy industry's popular "Got
> Milk?" ads have outraged New York Mayor
> Rudolph Giuliani.
>
> Two billboards by the People for the Ethical
> Treatment of Animals depict Giuliani wearing
> a milk mustache and asking: "Got prostate
> cancer?" The ad claims a connection between
> drinking milk and prostate cancer, for which
> the mayor is being treated... )
>
> Unfortunately, PETA isn't doing animal rights any good with this
> campaign. It's disgracefully insensitive, and founded on unproven
> science to begin with. I think they don't like Giuliani. And you
> have to wonder, if their campaign makes more enemies than friends for
> animals, which side are they really on? This is hardly the first time
> for them.
>
> Mike
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:44:06 GMT, Sam Barber
> <SamB...@prontomail.com> wrote:
>
> --------------------------
>
> Stupidity, alas, is seldom accompanied by humility.
>
> History shows but one alternative to nationalism: tribalism.
>
> B O Y C O T T ExxonMobil / Intel / Suzuki / Isuzu / Japan / China /
Canada / Feld Entertainment / Doubleclick
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Barry Gaudet
: B O Y C O T T ExxonMobil / Intel / Suzuki / Isuzu / Japan / China / Canada
: / Feld Entertainment / Doubleclick
Boycotting Canada I can understand but but have got against Doubleclick???
--
'I can't lead and I won't follow.'
Bird
Ross wrote:
> Yep they're nothing else but a bunch of miss-guided idiots. I
> remember a couple of months ago they were attacking people fishing on
> some rivers. Tell you what if they attacked me while I was
> fishing.... well it's called self defense, fishing knives can be used
> for other things.
>
> On 29 Aug 2000 23:26:29 GMT, mike.conr...@usa.net (Mike Conrad)
Bill Bonde
Henry Glenworthy wrote:
>
> "Barry Gaudet" <bga...@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
> news:8ohmki$kha$2...@testinfo.cs.uoguelph.ca...
> > In alt.tv.pol-incorrect Mike Conrad <mike.conr...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > : B O Y C O T T ExxonMobil / Intel / Suzuki / Isuzu / Japan / China /
> Canada
> > : / Feld Entertainment / Doubleclick
>
> > Boycotting Canada I can understand but but have got against
> Doubleclick???
>
> >>>>
>
> The logical conclusion to the eco-terrorist-wingnut-urban-nobody-at-home
> rant is:
>
> "Do The Planet A Favor - Kill Yourself"
>
> unfortunately few if any eco-terrorist-wingnuts are willing to employ logic
> to
> .....................themselves.
>
Actually, some do say that they want to kill themselves to make room for
more plants and butterflies and crap like that but they are too valuable
right now working to make suicide legal and getting more people to do
away with themselves. Once everyone else is dead, they will either off
themselves and make themselves park rangers.
Bill Bonde
Bird wrote:
>
> Ummm....PETA is that the 'People for Tasty Animals' group???
>
No, silly, that PFTA, a completely different group.
Clave
news:39ac3747...@news.concentric.net...
<...>
> Unfortunately, PETA isn't doing animal rights any good with
> this campaign. It's disgracefully insensitive, and founded
> on unproven science to begin with. I think they don't like
> Giuliani. And you have to wonder, if their campaign makes
> more enemies than friends for animals, which side are they
> really on? This is hardly the first time for them.
PETA is an extreme and terroristic PITA, but they're hardly stupid. The
thing is, as with any other terrorist organization, normal standards of
rationality don't apply. You can't expect their methods to make sense until
you look at the results.
Looks an awful lot to me like *all* they wanted out of this was media
exposure, and in that sense, they succeeded beyond their dreams. They got
to talk on the radio and TV all over the country, they were talked about in
the print media and are still being discussed all over the internet...as
long as people keep spelling their name right, they're happier and happier.
The thing I *don't* see people talking about much is their abject
hypocrisy -- an organization supposedly promoting ethics abandoning all
semblance of such in pursuit of their hand-wringingly moralistic,
self-righteous goals. Goals which, since they can't be achieved by
legislation or persuasion, must apparently be achieved through terrorism.
Apparently, to PETA, *people* aren't worthy of ethical treatment.
Jim
Bill Bonde
George of the Jungle wrote:
>
> "Barry Gaudet" <bga...@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
> news:8ohmki$kha$2...@testinfo.cs.uoguelph.ca...
> > In alt.tv.pol-incorrect Mike Conrad <mike.conr...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> > : B O Y C O T T ExxonMobil / Intel / Suzuki / Isuzu / Japan / China /
> Canada
> > : / Feld Entertainment / Doubleclick
> >
> > Boycotting Canada I can understand but but have got against
> Doubleclick???
> >
>
> Doubleclick is spyware. It is used to track you as you surf using cookies,
>
And remember that your cookies in Internet Explorer 5.0 and before are
visible to anyone who wants to take a look. Cookies can most certainly
include personal information.
In netscape, the cookies are in a file called cookies.txt so you can
just get rid of that file and replace it with a directory by the same
name.
> Reference these web sites for further information:
>
> http://www.zoesnet.net/spying_and_tracking.htm
> http://www.tiac.net/users/smiths/privacy/banads.htm
> http://www.tiac.net/users/smiths/privacy/wbfaq.htm
> http://www.junkbusters.com/ht/en/cookies.html
> http://www.accs-net.com/hosts/
>
And don't forget:
for more interesting stuff as well as free software to kill these
bastards.
A quote:
"As you will see on the page below, if you use the RealNetworks
RealDownload, Netscape/AOL Smart Download, or NetZip Download
Demon utilities in their default configuration . . .
"EVERY TIME you use one of these utilities to download ANY FILE
from ANYWHERE on the Internet, the complete "URL address" of the
file, along with a UNIQUE ID TAG that has been assigned to YOUR
machine, and — in the case of Netscape's SmartDownload only
— YOUR computer's individual Internet IP address, is immediately
transmitted to the program's publisher.
"This allows a database of your entire, personal, file download
history to be assembled and uniquely associated with your
individual computer . . . for whatever purpose the program's
publishers may have today, or tomorrow."
Clave
news:1eg59c6.1yacdwl1f0orjvN%mil...@usa.net...
> Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> [..]
> > Looks an awful lot to me like *all* they wanted out of this was
> > They got to talk on the radio and TV all over the country, they
> > were talked about in the print media and are still being
> > discussed all over the internet...as long as people keep spelling
> > their name right, they're happier and happier.
>
> coverage and media exposure aren't the end for them, but the means.
Gotta disagree with ya on this one, Paul. As was pointed out quite
eloquently by G o'J, PETA is merely the Sinn Fein for a host of underground,
but blatantly terroristic groups. As such, publicity for PETA is an end in
itself.
> It's the same thing as when a political candidate says their
> opponent is a drug abuser, or has no personality. It's not meant
> to give any factual information, but to cast a certain light, and
> to get people talking.
Exactly -- the publicity *is* the point. For PETA, it's by whatever means
necessary...
I don't believe for a second that they're deluded enough to not realize the
pathetically Quixotic nature of trying to de-meat and de-pet the world.
<...>
Jim
MrFalafel
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
> "Paul Mitchum" <mil...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:1eg59c6.1yacdwl1f0orjvN%mil...@usa.net...
> > Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> > > Looks an awful lot to me like *all* they wanted out of this was
> > > exposure, and in that sense, they succeeded beyond their dreams.
> > > They got to talk on the radio and TV all over the country, they
> > > were talked about in the print media and are still being
> > > discussed all over the internet...as long as people keep spelling
> > > their name right, they're happier and happier.
> >
> > Actually, they're happy when they've raised the issue. Press
> > coverage and media exposure aren't the end for them, but the means.
>
> Gotta disagree with ya on this one, Paul. As was pointed out quite
> eloquently by G o'J, PETA is merely the Sinn Fein for a host of
underground,
> but blatantly terroristic groups. As such, publicity for PETA is an
end in
> itself.
PETA is not a front for the ALF, but there are ALF affiliates who are
part of PETA. Calling PETA a terrorist organization is silly. PETA is a
diverse organization with many different people involved and each one
of them has their own opinions.
Many Democrats are anti-death penalty...does that make the Democratic
party anti-death penalty? Some Republicans want to put abortionists in
jail. Does that make the Republican anti abortion?
The strong media messages generated by PETAs marketing campaign are
designed to get the attention of a targeted group of people: the 16-25
year olds who are more open to new ideas. This demographic is attracted
to sardonic humour and controversy which is exactly what their
billboards do. Plus, for the meager expenditure of a few billboards
they get national exposure.
I find the fear generated by PETA quite interesting. If they were a
truly insignificant group, why all the interest? This interest says to
me that their message is being heard. Their increased membership says
to me that it is being heard and understood and adopted by an
increasing amount of 'reachable' people.
--
"Without deviation from the norm, 'progress' is not possible."
- Frank Zappa
Ross
river a terrorist act. Face it these people are fanatic nuts who
don't abide by any reason or logic.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 08:54:41 GMT, MrFalafel <mrfa...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>In article <lZ0r5.1236$Nq.4...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>> "Paul Mitchum" <mil...@usa.net> wrote in message
>> news:1eg59c6.1yacdwl1f0orjvN%mil...@usa.net...
>> > Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > [..]
>> > > Looks an awful lot to me like *all* they wanted out of this was
>> > > exposure, and in that sense, they succeeded beyond their dreams.
>> > > They got to talk on the radio and TV all over the country, they
>> > > were talked about in the print media and are still being
>> > > discussed all over the internet...as long as people keep spelling
>> > > their name right, they're happier and happier.
>> >
>> > Actually, they're happy when they've raised the issue. Press
>> > coverage and media exposure aren't the end for them, but the means.
>>
>> Gotta disagree with ya on this one, Paul. As was pointed out quite
>> eloquently by G o'J, PETA is merely the Sinn Fein for a host of
>underground,
>> but blatantly terroristic groups. As such, publicity for PETA is an
>end in
>> itself.
>
MrFalafel
Ross <pa...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Well I'd say attacking people with legal fishing licenses fishing on a
> river a terrorist act. Face it these people are fanatic nuts who
> don't abide by any reason or logic.
>
So are you saying that all PETA members attack fisherman? Exactly who
are 'these people'? All PETA members? Even the little old ladies? Or
maybe they are a radical bunch from a splinter animal rights group?
What was the nature of this attack? Was violence used? Or was it merely
a spirited confrontation?
Your knee-jerk reaction to this story leads me to believe that you do
not have all of the facts on this issue. It also leads me to believe
you have no interest in learning about the real issue but wish to make
sweeping generalisations about things you don't know about. Oh well,
ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Tim Crowley
<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
I don't get it Jim. What did they do that was unethical? The mayor of NY is
a public figure who publically brought out his cancer as part of his public
campaign for public office.
Randy
<bga...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> In alt.tv.pol-incorrect Mike Conrad <mike.conr...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> : B O Y C O T T ExxonMobil / Intel / Suzuki / Isuzu / Japan / China / Canada
> : / Feld Entertainment / Doubleclick
>
> Boycotting Canada I can understand but but have got against Doubleclick???
I don't know what he has against them but they have never gotten any insertion
order of mine correctly, they bill for services never delivered, their account
executives don't return calls. On the bright side, I don't approve their
invoices
for payment.
Randy
Mitchum) wrote:
> John Saleeby <g...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>
> > But what about aqueezing the cow's udders so milk squirts out!? How can we
> > just sit here while farmers are squeezing udders so milk squirts out !?
> > Those bastards!! Dirty sadistic farmer bastards! And then they make em
> > stand out in the field all day eating grass when they'd much rather have
> > those salads at McDonalds that you shake up like a martini!
>
> The 'wisdom' goes like this:
>
> As cattle age, they aren't as good at producing milk, and are more prone
> to disease which could spread through the herd. Thus, they're
> slaughtered for meat, just like beef cattle.
>
> This means that milk, in addition to perhaps leading to prostate cancer,
> also means horrific death for dairy cattle.
Hmmmm, let's see, the treatment of cows vs. something to dunk
my Oreos in. Bzzzt, cows lose.
David Lentz
George of the Jungle wrote:
<snip>
> This "air headedness" over the "got prostrate cancer" and the "got beer" ads
> is amusing, but like most terrorists, the animal rights zealots have no
> intention to "win our hearts and minds" by using them. Their real goal is
> to "grab us by our balls" and make us obey them by force. As proven in the
> UK, they will not shirk terroism to achieve it, either.
Is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) a
legitimate organization, or just a Delta House fraternity gag?
The evidence seems to lean towards the latter. One could also
argue that PETA is really just a secret conservative organization
intended to mock all liberal causes. What ever and who ever PETA
is, you can't take them seriously.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
rob...@my-deja.com
> "In a world full of lies / Which tug at the truth
> I'm taking no sides.. Now I recognize you."
> -DS
>
Please explain how this is a bad thing.
z
forget the name right now) that went belly up last spring? Founded with
apparently the best intentions, only high quality educational
nonviolent toys, promise never to sell their customer list to anyone or
otherwise use the customer list for anything else than improving
customer service. Got like 40% funding by Disney, etc. But typically,
Disney the big old style company management couldn't deal with an
internet startup so they never really got their act together and when
the downturn hit they went belly up. So..... the bankruptcy folks took
over and are selling off their assets, which mainly consists of the
customer list. Some upset customer/privacy advocates have sued to stop
that; the bankruptcy guys say 'your privacy deal was with the company
who are now defunct; our responsibility is to the creditors to dispose
of the assets in as efficient a manner as possible'. Should be
interesting how it turns out.
In article <50uho8...@news5.mc.net>, "George of the Jungle"
<anti...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote:
> "Barry Gaudet" <bga...@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
> news:8ohmki$kha$2...@testinfo.cs.uoguelph.ca...
> > In alt.tv.pol-incorrect Mike Conrad <mike.conr...@usa.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > : B O Y C O T T ExxonMobil / Intel / Suzuki / Isuzu / Japan /
> China /
> Canada
> > : / Feld Entertainment / Doubleclick
> >
> > Boycotting Canada I can understand but but have got against
> Doubleclick???
> >
> Doubleclick is spyware. It is used to track you as you surf using
> cookies,
> web bugs, and web banners. Up until sometime last year, they did
> not really
> have a reliable way to track individuals by name, address, etc.
> They were
> successful in tracking people by machine cookie and by email
> address (via
> browser variable), and other machine (GUID) and browser variable
> data.
> However, in late 1999, they purchased a major demographic data
> base company,
> which DID contain personally identifiable data, and promptly
> announced that
> they would merge their data base with their new acquisition's, and
> would
> sell the resulting web-demographic information to marketers.
> That resulted in law suits, an FTC investigation, and several
> states
> attorneys general either suing or opening state investigations as
> well, for
> violation of privacy. Doubleclick has since backed down, at least
> for now..
> Reference these web sites for further information:
> http://www.zoesnet.net/spying_and_tracking.htm
> http://www.tiac.net/users/smiths/privacy/banads.htm
> http://www.tiac.net/users/smiths/privacy/wbfaq.htm
> http://www.junkbusters.com/ht/en/cookies.html
> http://www.accs-net.com/hosts/
* Sent from Novell Discussion Forums http://novell.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
z
>It seems like ages since we’ve seen you at the AtomFilms site. To make
your return easier, we've gathered some of our latest and greatest
stuff for you right here:
In article <39ADD232...@mail.com>, Bill Bonde <std...@mail.com>
wrote:
> machine, and — in the case of Netscape's SmartDownload only
> — YOUR computer's individual Internet IP address, is immediately
> transmitted to the program's publisher.
> "This allows a database of your entire, personal, file download
> history to be assembled and uniquely associated with your
> individual computer . . . for whatever purpose the program's
> publishers may have today, or tomorrow."
* Sent from Novell Discussion Forums http://novell.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
z
up and torch the animal labs if they ever got a good look at what goes
on in there. But in their back of their minds they know enough to look
away because they want the results. But all the 'great improvements' in
animal care that researchers keep patting themselves on the back about
were only accomplished after a huge struggle dragging them screaming
every inch of the way.
In article <ni0io8...@news5.mc.net>, "George of the Jungle"
<anti...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote:
> "Ross" <pa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:5ujoqsc10t6bi10bj...@4ax.com...
> > Yep they're nothing else but a bunch of miss-guided idiots. I
> > remember a couple of months ago they were attacking people
> fishing on
> > some rivers. Tell you what if they attacked me while I was
> > fishing.... well it's called self defense, fishing knives can be
> used
> > for other things.
> This "air headedness" over the "got prostrate cancer" and the "got
> beer" ads
> is amusing, but like most terrorists, the animal rights zealots
> have no
> intention to "win our hearts and minds" by using them. Their real
> goal is
> to "grab us by our balls" and make us obey them by force. As
> proven in the
> UK, they will not shirk terroism to achieve it, either.
> I do indeed hope that the animal rights movement loses "face" over
> these
> stupid ads. But mark my words, the minute the animal right cadre
> realizes
> that they have lost the PR war, the gloves will come off and the
> violence
> against the general American population will begin and it will go
> far
> beyond the occasional "red paint" splash and overnight arson of
> buildings or
> releasing of lab animals. We may look back on these days with a
> dufus PETA
> as the halcyon days.
* Sent from Novell Discussion Forums http://novell.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
ras...@my-deja.com
MrFalafel <mrfa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>...
> Many Democrats are anti-death penalty...does that make the Democratic
> party anti-death penalty?
loosely, yes.
Some Republicans want to put abortionists in
> jail. Does that make the Republican anti abortion?
loosely, yes.
>...
> I find the fear generated by PETA quite interesting. If they were a
> truly insignificant group, why all the interest?
oh, you didn't know that fringe radicals always get more attention than
the mainstream?
Ras
ras...@rasiel.com
http://www.rasiel.com
z0ck
indicating my desire to learn more about this life style. The last question
in that mail was "If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of
meat?"
Oddly, I never got a reply...
z0ck
"Bird" <thebi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39AC7B53...@earthlink.net...
> Ahhhh....People Eating Tasty Animal group?
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
Clave
news:8x5r5.547390$MB.82...@news6.giganews.com...
<...>
> I don't get it Jim. What did they do that was unethical? The mayor of NY
is
> a public figure who publically brought out his cancer as part of his
public
> campaign for public office.
First of all, remember that I'm not claiming that they did anything illegal.
Second, if you don't see ethical questions with their ad, that's OK -- I'm
not here to evangelize. But if you don't already see the questions, nothing
I say is going to make you. Ethics are highly personal, and you're entitled
to your own.
But remember, these are also the people who throw paint on people for
wearing fur, among other things.
Jim
Ross
wrote:
>In article <u1npqssdhr9mu7uno...@4ax.com>,
> Ross <pa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Well I'd say attacking people with legal fishing licenses fishing on a
>> river a terrorist act. Face it these people are fanatic nuts who
>> don't abide by any reason or logic.
>>
>
>So are you saying that all PETA members attack fisherman? Exactly who
>are 'these people'? All PETA members? Even the little old ladies? Or
>maybe they are a radical bunch from a splinter animal rights group?
>
I saw it on the nightly news report, they also had a member of PETA
defending thier actions.
>What was the nature of this attack? Was violence used? Or was it merely
>a spirited confrontation?
An actual group from PETA attacked people fishing on a river, not
commercial fisherman but every day Joes. They were attacked
physically and their equipment destroyed.
>
>Your knee-jerk reaction to this story leads me to believe that you do
>not have all of the facts on this issue. It also leads me to believe
>you have no interest in learning about the real issue but wish to make
>sweeping generalisations about things you don't know about. Oh well,
>ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Let's see humans are Omnivores, we eat both flesh and vegetables,
just like other Omnivores. We just happen to be the top of the food
chain. I guess ignorance is bliss.
z
too far.
In article <vTbr5.2748$En4.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, "Clave"
* Sent from Novell Discussion Forums http://novell.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Erasmus Brown
>
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 06:58:55 -0400, rdo...@pipeline.com (Randy) said:
>
> >In article <1eg5939.1bsb7pz4or88jN%mil...@usa.net>, mil...@usa.net (Paul
> >Mitchum) wrote:
> >
> >> John Saleeby <g...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > But what about aqueezing the cow's udders so milk squirts out!? How can we
> >> > just sit here while farmers are squeezing udders so milk squirts out !?
> >> > Those bastards!! Dirty sadistic farmer bastards! And then they make em
> >> > stand out in the field all day eating grass when they'd much rather have
> >> > those salads at McDonalds that you shake up like a martini!
> >>
> >> The 'wisdom' goes like this:
> >>
> >> As cattle age, they aren't as good at producing milk, and are more prone
> >> to disease which could spread through the herd. Thus, they're
> >> slaughtered for meat, just like beef cattle.
> >>
> >> This means that milk, in addition to perhaps leading to prostate cancer,
> >> also means horrific death for dairy cattle.
> >
> >my Oreos in. Bzzzt, cows lose.
>
> Randy Redneck.
Randy's from New York City, loser.
Paul Mitchum
> In article <1eg5939.1bsb7pz4or88jN%mil...@usa.net>,
> mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > The 'wisdom' goes like this:
> >
> > As cattle age, they aren't as good at producing milk, and are more
> > prone to disease which could spread through the herd. Thus, they're
> > slaughtered for meat, just like beef cattle.
> >
> > This means that milk, in addition to perhaps leading to prostate
> > cancer, also means horrific death for dairy cattle.
>
> Please explain how this is a bad thing.
It means cows get hurt so we can eat meat. PETA is trying to show that
the wholesome, happy, cheerful image of cow milk has a horrific
underside, including cancer and death and dismemberment.
Also: I never said I agreed. I just think it's funny that so many voices
are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
Paul Mitchum
> Let's see humans are Omnivores, we eat both flesh and vegetables,
> just like other Omnivores. We just happen to be the top of the food
> chain.
There are some flesh-eating bacteria who have a different opinion.
Clave
> <rob...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1eg5939.1bsb7pz4or88jN%mil...@usa.net>,
> > mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > The 'wisdom' goes like this:
> > >
> > > As cattle age, they aren't as good at producing milk, and are more
> > > prone to disease which could spread through the herd. Thus, they're
> > > slaughtered for meat, just like beef cattle.
> > >
> > > This means that milk, in addition to perhaps leading to prostate
> > > cancer, also means horrific death for dairy cattle.
> >
> > Please explain how this is a bad thing.
>
> It means cows get hurt so we can eat meat. PETA is trying to show that
> the wholesome, happy, cheerful image of cow milk has a horrific
> underside, including cancer and death and dismemberment.
>
> Also: I never said I agreed. I just think it's funny that so many voices
> are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
Some of us though, are condemning PETA knowing full well what their message
is, but in disgust over their methods.
Jim
David Lentz
Paul Mitchum wrote:
<snip>
> It means cows get hurt so we can eat meat. PETA is trying to show that
> the wholesome, happy, cheerful image of cow milk has a horrific
> underside, including cancer and death and dismemberment.
>
> Also: I never said I agreed. I just think it's funny that so many voices
> are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
The life of diary cattle much more serene than the life of any
natural animal in the wild. They get plenty eat, drink, shelter
and some medical attention. There seem to few things with less
worries than a cow. For the most part, they don't seem overly
concerned about anything, and don't seem to get excited about
anything.
I say this based on first hand experience. The basis of PETA's
allegation are who knows what. I still say PETA are just
escapees from Delta House.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
[snip]
> Also: I never said I agreed. I just think it's funny that so many voices
> are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
>>>>
Au contraire - I think most of those "condemning" PETA
know exactly what they're trying to say: that animals have
"rights".
--
"Such behavior is not just inappropriate, it's
immoral, it is harmful..."
Senator Joe Lieberman regarding W.J.Clinton
"President Clinton is one of the great Presidents."
Al Gore
"Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco.
I want you to know that with my own hands,
all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and
transferred it. I hoed it. I've sprayed it, I've
chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put
it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."
Al Gore - New York Newsday - 02-26-88
"I didn't know I was in a Buddhist temple."
Al Gore - 05-23-97
"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason?
For it to prosper, none dare call it treason."
Sir John Harrington
"African Americans watch the same TV programs
as normal Americans."
Al Gore - 1996
"We have the highest ethical standards in this White
House, you can be assured of that."
Al Gore - 1995
-------------------------------------------------------
Matt Nichols
wrote:
><rob...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1eg5939.1bsb7pz4or88jN%mil...@usa.net>,
>> mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>> > The 'wisdom' goes like this:
>> >
>> > As cattle age, they aren't as good at producing milk, and are more
>> > prone to disease which could spread through the herd. Thus, they're
>> > slaughtered for meat, just like beef cattle.
>> >
>> > This means that milk, in addition to perhaps leading to prostate
>> > cancer, also means horrific death for dairy cattle.
>>
>> Please explain how this is a bad thing.
>
>It means cows get hurt so we can eat meat. PETA is trying to show that
>the wholesome, happy, cheerful image of cow milk has a horrific
>underside, including cancer and death and dismemberment.
>
>Also: I never said I agreed. I just think it's funny that so many voices
>are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
I know what they are saying; I just think what they are saying is
ridiculous. Violent death is mother nature's grocery store. Violence
is how resources are distributed in the natural world. Every living
organism commits lethal violence to survive, from one-celled bacteria
on up. People who quail from this reality are, quite simply, deluded.
-Matt
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep
the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be
led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless
series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-- H.L. Mencken
Ross
wrote:
><rob...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1eg5939.1bsb7pz4or88jN%mil...@usa.net>,
>> mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>> > The 'wisdom' goes like this:
>> >
>> > As cattle age, they aren't as good at producing milk, and are more
>> > prone to disease which could spread through the herd. Thus, they're
>> > slaughtered for meat, just like beef cattle.
>> >
>> > This means that milk, in addition to perhaps leading to prostate
>> > cancer, also means horrific death for dairy cattle.
>>
>> Please explain how this is a bad thing.
>
>It means cows get hurt so we can eat meat.
So what's the point? They're food
PETA is trying to show that
>the wholesome, happy, cheerful image of cow milk has a horrific
>underside, including cancer and death and dismemberment.
Cancer, well the human race has been eating cow and drinking milk
since the begining of time. Let's see, let's also make the rest of
the food chain not eat each other and we can all live in bliss and
harmony.
>
>Also: I never said I agreed. I just think it's funny that so many voices
>are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
We've listened and have judged that they're a bunch of ignorant
lunatics.
Bama Brian
People Eating Tasty Animals?
Well, given that mankind is exercising the biblical injunction to 'be
fruitful and populate the earth' - and doing extremely well at it, it seems
that the only animals that have hopes of surviving as species are those that
are domesticated and raised for man's benefit.
So if PETA has their way, soon enough we will have shoulder-to-shoulder
humanity packed across the continents while all of the 'liberated' animals
are driven into extinction by the complete loss of their habitats.
'Scuse me, I got to go pull a steak out of the freezer.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
NRA Life, GOA Life, Libertarian
Voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL voting for an evil.
Vote Libertarian. You'll be glad you did.
"Paul Mitchum" <mil...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1eg6hfh.qojjrl1lylhnvN%mil...@usa.net...
> <rob...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1eg5939.1bsb7pz4or88jN%mil...@usa.net>,
> > mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > The 'wisdom' goes like this:
> > >
> > > As cattle age, they aren't as good at producing milk, and are more
> > > prone to disease which could spread through the herd. Thus, they're
> > > slaughtered for meat, just like beef cattle.
> > >
> > > This means that milk, in addition to perhaps leading to prostate
> > > cancer, also means horrific death for dairy cattle.
> >
> > Please explain how this is a bad thing.
>
> It means cows get hurt so we can eat meat. PETA is trying to show that
> the wholesome, happy, cheerful image of cow milk has a horrific
> underside, including cancer and death and dismemberment.
>
> Also: I never said I agreed. I just think it's funny that so many voices
> are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
>
Bama Brian
"George of the Jungle" <anti...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in message
news:ni0io8...@news5.mc.net...
Some of the animal adoption groups out here in the Golden 'warm and fuzzy
thoughts' state are already at this level.
When I was looking to adopt a cat, I read their agreement and noted that the
adopter surrenders all rights to the adoption group and allows them into
his/her house at any time, day or night, at the request of the adoption
group, to investigate whether the animal is being treated properly.
Even worse, this agreement is begin SIGNED by the idiots who don't bother to
read it or understand it.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
'99 Victory V92C, '97 Triumph Thunderbird
Matt Nichols
Glenw...@xteleport.com> wrote:
>"Paul Mitchum" <mil...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Also: I never said I agreed. I just think it's funny that so many voices
>> are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
>
>>>>>
>
>Au contraire - I think most of those "condemning" PETA
>know exactly what they're trying to say: that animals have
>"rights".
This is an interesting point, philosophically - after all, *we* are
animals, and we have Rights.
I figure it's not the particular *type* of animal, but rather the
state of sentience. A creature must be able to understand and function
within the philosophical framework of Rights in order to "have" them.
An alien being from another planet who is understandably sentient and
can comprehend and work within our system would have Rights. A
standard house cat would not.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>John Saleeby <g...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>
>> But what about aqueezing the cow's udders so milk squirts out!? How can we
>> just sit here while farmers are squeezing udders so milk squirts out !?
>> Those bastards!! Dirty sadistic farmer bastards! And then they make em
>> stand out in the field all day eating grass when they'd much rather have
>> those salads at McDonalds that you shake up like a martini!
>
>The 'wisdom' goes like this:
>
>As cattle age, they aren't as good at producing milk, and are more prone
>to disease which could spread through the herd. Thus, they're
>slaughtered for meat, just like beef cattle.
>
>This means that milk, in addition to perhaps leading to prostate cancer,
>also means horrific death for dairy cattle.
And hamburger for me!!! : )
Meet you at Wendys....
---
"Okay Chrissy, you cock-sucking saucer-lipped booger-eating
monkey-fucking nigger, I hereby announce that I can say any word and
your cynical manipulation of my expression won't ever make me a racist
or a bigot. I don't give a fuck." - Lee Harrison (lha...@amaonlon.com)
Robert S. Fourney
Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>"Paul Mitchum" <mil...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:1eg6hfh.qojjrl1lylhnvN%mil...@usa.net...
>> Also: I never said I agreed. I just think it's funny that so many voices
>> are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
I guess if their ad campaign was working, people might know what they
were trying to say?
--
Scout
> John Saleeby <g...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>
> > But what about aqueezing the cow's udders so milk squirts out!? How can
we
> > just sit here while farmers are squeezing udders so milk squirts out !?
> > Those bastards!! Dirty sadistic farmer bastards! And then they make em
> > stand out in the field all day eating grass when they'd much rather have
> > those salads at McDonalds that you shake up like a martini!
>
> The 'wisdom' goes like this:
>
> As cattle age, they aren't as good at producing milk, and are more prone
> to disease which could spread through the herd. Thus, they're
> slaughtered for meat, just like beef cattle.
>
> This means that milk, in addition to perhaps leading to prostate cancer,
> also means horrific death for dairy cattle.
Actually, dairy cattle live a much longer life than beef cattle.......
Far longer than they would live "in the wild".
Scout
> <rob...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1eg5939.1bsb7pz4or88jN%mil...@usa.net>,
> > mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > >
> > > As cattle age, they aren't as good at producing milk, and are more
> > > prone to disease which could spread through the herd. Thus, they're
> > > slaughtered for meat, just like beef cattle.
> > >
> > > This means that milk, in addition to perhaps leading to prostate
> > > cancer, also means horrific death for dairy cattle.
> >
>
> It means cows get hurt so we can eat meat. PETA is trying to show that
> the wholesome, happy, cheerful image of cow milk has a horrific
> underside, including cancer and death and dismemberment.
>
> are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
On the contrary, I think most people know what they are trying to say, and
simply disagree with it......totally.
Scout
"Paul Mitchum" <mil...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1eg6hfh.qojjrl1lylhnvN%mil...@usa.net...
> <rob...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1eg5939.1bsb7pz4or88jN%mil...@usa.net>,
> > mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > The 'wisdom' goes like this:
> > >
> > > As cattle age, they aren't as good at producing milk, and are more
> > > prone to disease which could spread through the herd. Thus, they're
> > > slaughtered for meat, just like beef cattle.
> > >
> > > This means that milk, in addition to perhaps leading to prostate
> > > cancer, also means horrific death for dairy cattle.
> >
> > Please explain how this is a bad thing.
>
> It means cows get hurt so we can eat meat.
If God didn't want me to eat cattle, he wouldn't have made them out of
meat...
Tim Crowley
> "Tim Crowley" <tcro...@olywa.net> wrote in message
> news:8x5r5.547390$MB.82...@news6.giganews.com...
>
> <...>
>
>> I don't get it Jim. What did they do that was unethical? The mayor of NY
> is
>> a public figure who publically brought out his cancer as part of his
> public
>> campaign for public office.
>
>
> First of all, remember that I'm not claiming that they did anything illegal.
> Second, if you don't see ethical questions with their ad, that's OK -- I'm
> not here to evangelize. But if you don't already see the questions, nothing
> I say is going to make you. Ethics are highly personal, and you're entitled
> to your own.
>
> But remember, these are also the people who throw paint on people for
> wearing fur, among other things.
>
> Jim
>
>
Ok, with that, property destruction, I can see how someone can claim that is
unethical. But the ad, tha's simply political speech. I don't see any
ethical questions. I was hoping you would elaborate....
Paul Mitchum
> >Au contraire - I think most of those "condemning" PETA know exactly what
> >they're trying to say: that animals have "rights".
>
> This is an interesting point, philosophically - after all, *we* are
> animals, and we have Rights.
>
> I figure it's not the particular *type* of animal, but rather the state of
> sentience. A creature must be able to understand and function within the
> philosophical framework of Rights in order to "have" them. An alien being
> from another planet who is understandably sentient and can comprehend and
> work within our system would have Rights. A standard house cat would not.
>
> -Matt
Interestingly, though, we protect animals from abuse and neglect by
humans, much as we protect children or the elderly. You don't have to be
a PETA member to be horrified by, say, a person strangling a kitten. And
I think it says a lot about humans that we're not OK with someone
strangling a kitten, but put that same kitten in a science experiment
where it's going to experience something much worse, and it's just a lab
animal, and acceptable.
This isn't to say that animals have rights like humans do, but instead
that we're screwed in the head WRT our hypocrisy, and I think that's
what PETA is trying to get across, however poorly.
Paul Mitchum
> PETA
> People Eating Tasty Animals?
>
> Well, given that mankind is exercising the biblical injunction to 'be
> fruitful and populate the earth' - and doing extremely well at it, it
> seems that the only animals that have hopes of surviving as species are
> those that are domesticated and raised for man's benefit.
>
> So if PETA has their way, soon enough we will have shoulder-to-shoulder
> humanity packed across the continents while all of the 'liberated' animals
> are driven into extinction by the complete loss of their habitats.
>
> 'Scuse me, I got to go pull a steak out of the freezer.
That has to be the most convoluted and silly justification for being a
meat-eater I've yet seen. It doesn't even warrant a serious reply, even
if I *was* arguing PETA's point.
Just enjoy your steak, without justification.
Paul Mitchum
> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > It means cows get hurt so we can eat meat. PETA is trying to show that
> > the wholesome, happy, cheerful image of cow milk has a horrific
> > underside, including cancer and death and dismemberment.
> >
> > Also: I never said I agreed. I just think it's funny that so many voices
> > are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
>
> The life of diary cattle much more serene than the life of any
> natural animal in the wild. They get plenty eat, drink, shelter
> and some medical attention. There seem to few things with less
> worries than a cow. For the most part, they don't seem overly
> concerned about anything, and don't seem to get excited about
> anything.
Who are you arguing this with?
> I say this based on first hand experience. The basis of PETA's
> allegation are who knows what. I still say PETA are just
> escapees from Delta House.
>
> David
You must be too old to remember punk rock.
Paul Mitchum
> >This means that milk, in addition to perhaps leading to prostate cancer,
> >also means horrific death for dairy cattle.
>
> And hamburger for me!!! : )
>
> Meet you at Wendys....
Wendy's no good. Me eat meat at Red Mill (local to Seattle, and serves
veggie burgers for those so inclined).
Scout
> Matt Nichols <ma...@vuent.com> wrote:
>
> > >Au contraire - I think most of those "condemning" PETA know exactly
> > >they're trying to say: that animals have "rights".
> >
> > This is an interesting point, philosophically - after all, *we* are
> > animals, and we have Rights.
> >
> > I figure it's not the particular *type* of animal, but rather the state
of
> > sentience. A creature must be able to understand and function within the
> > philosophical framework of Rights in order to "have" them. An alien
being
> > from another planet who is understandably sentient and can comprehend
and
> > work within our system would have Rights. A standard house cat would
not.
> >
> > -Matt
>
> Interestingly, though, we protect animals from abuse and neglect by
> humans, much as we protect children or the elderly. You don't have to be
> a PETA member to be horrified by, say, a person strangling a kitten. And
> I think it says a lot about humans that we're not OK with someone
> strangling a kitten, but put that same kitten in a science experiment
> where it's going to experience something much worse, and it's just a lab
> animal, and acceptable.
If that experiment has the least chance in resulting in a medication that
with save human lives, line up the kittens.....
So tell me how many kittens is a human life worth?
Better be careful how you answer, many of the immunizations you have are a
result of "animal research".
Bill Bonde
Mike Conrad wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 21:57:41 GMT, ma...@vuent.com (Matt Nichols)
> wrote: [...]
>
> >
> >I know what they are saying; I just think what they are saying is
> >ridiculous. Violent death is mother nature's grocery store. Violence
> >is how resources are distributed in the natural world. Every living
> >organism commits lethal violence to survive, from one-celled bacteria
> >on up. People who quail from this reality are, quite simply, deluded.
>
> Your "reality" is, in part, imaginary. And your defense of violence
> specious: we are not hooking geese up to force-feeding machines in
> order to ensure our survival. It's done in the interest of increased
> profits. And we don't actually need to kill any animals, "humanely"
> or otherwise, in order to live.
>
You don't need your computer in order to live. Give it to me.
Bill Bonde
Is the human a member of PETA?
D. Staples
Trim your groups.
"Robert S. Fourney" wrote:
> In article <HBer5.3076$En4.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
> >"Paul Mitchum" <mil...@usa.net> wrote in message
> >news:1eg6hfh.qojjrl1lylhnvN%mil...@usa.net...
>
> >> Also: I never said I agreed. I just think it's funny that so many voices
> >> are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
>
> I guess if their ad campaign was working, people might know what they
> were trying to say?
>
>
>
> --
>
--
The door to my web page: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
For forestry commentary see bionet.agroforestry and alt.forestry news groups, as
well as http://www.delphi.com/ab-forestry/ for a continuing conversation on
forestry.
Paul Mitchum
> "Paul Mitchum" <mil...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:1eg6ujv.1j0xeh01hfqc4mN%mil...@usa.net...
>
> <...>
> > This isn't to say that animals have rights like humans do, but instead
> > that we're screwed in the head WRT our hypocrisy, and I think that's
> > what PETA is trying to get across, however poorly.
>
> I understand that, and personally, I think the living conditions of lots of
> food animals ought to be improved too. But isn't one of their other goals
> to do away with *all* forms of animal domestication? INCLUDING cats and
> dogs?
From <http://www.peta-online.org/about/index.html>:
"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than six
hundred thousand members, is the largest animal rights organization in
the world. Founded in 1980, PETA is dedicated to establishing and
protecting the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple
principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use
for entertainment.
PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest
numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of
time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the fur trade, and in the
entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues,
including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the
abuse of backyard dogs.
PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research,
animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and
direct action."
Paul Mitchum
> > Interestingly, though, we protect animals from abuse and neglect by
> > humans, much as we protect children or the elderly. You don't have to be
> > a PETA member to be horrified by, say, a person strangling a kitten. And
> > I think it says a lot about humans that we're not OK with someone
> > strangling a kitten, but put that same kitten in a science experiment
> > where it's going to experience something much worse, and it's just a lab
> > animal, and acceptable.
>
> If that experiment has the least chance in resulting in a medication that
> with save human lives, line up the kittens.....
What about testing shampoo for possible toxicity? Or hair dye, or skin
cream? These sorts of tests involve squirting the substance in question
into the eyes of the little critters. Do you think that's worth it?
> So tell me how many kittens is a human life worth?
How many kittens is a bottle of shampoo worth?
> Better be careful how you answer, many of the immunizations you have are a
> result of "animal research".
I don't disagree with animal testing; if we're going to even begin to
have meat herds of animals, we can't justify not testing lifesaving
drugs and so forth on animals. However, lifesaving drugs aren't the
whole of the animal testing spectrum.
Christopher Morton
>>Also: I never said I agreed. I just think it's funny that so many voices
>>are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
>
>We've listened and have judged that they're a bunch of ignorant
>lunatics.
Ignorant SELF LOATHING lunatics.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Just enjoy your steak, without justification.
I'm about to enjoy some sashimi with the sole justification that it
tastes great!
Bill Bonde
Paul Mitchum wrote:
>
> Scout <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>
> > > Interestingly, though, we protect animals from abuse and neglect by
> > > humans, much as we protect children or the elderly. You don't have to be
> > > a PETA member to be horrified by, say, a person strangling a kitten. And
> > > I think it says a lot about humans that we're not OK with someone
> > > strangling a kitten, but put that same kitten in a science experiment
> > > where it's going to experience something much worse, and it's just a lab
> > > animal, and acceptable.
> >
> > If that experiment has the least chance in resulting in a medication that
> > with save human lives, line up the kittens.....
>
> What about testing shampoo for possible toxicity? Or hair dye, or skin
> cream? These sorts of tests involve squirting the substance in question
> into the eyes of the little critters. Do you think that's worth it?
>
I've always thought that once you know the stuff dissolves eyeballs, you
don't need to prove that on more eyeballs. The opposite question is if
you think that doesn't hurt eyes and your small scale tests seem to
confirm that. Before letting people use the product where it will likely
get in some of their eyes, large scale animal testing is warranted.
Bill Bonde
Christopher Morton wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 18:36:29 -0700, mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum)
> wrote:
>
> >Just enjoy your steak, without justification.
>
> I'm about to enjoy some sashimi with the sole justification that it
> tastes great!
>
Tuna's better than sole.
Bill Bonde
MrFalafel wrote:
>
> In article <lZ0r5.1236$Nq.4...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
> > "Paul Mitchum" <mil...@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:1eg59c6.1yacdwl1f0orjvN%mil...@usa.net...
> > > Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > [..]
> > > > Looks an awful lot to me like *all* they wanted out of this was
> > > > exposure, and in that sense, they succeeded beyond their dreams.
> > > > They got to talk on the radio and TV all over the country, they
> > > > were talked about in the print media and are still being
> > > > discussed all over the internet...as long as people keep spelling
> > > > their name right, they're happier and happier.
> > >
> > > Actually, they're happy when they've raised the issue. Press
> > > coverage and media exposure aren't the end for them, but the means.
> >
> > Gotta disagree with ya on this one, Paul. As was pointed out quite
> > eloquently by G o'J, PETA is merely the Sinn Fein for a host of
> underground,
> > but blatantly terroristic groups. As such, publicity for PETA is an
> end in
> > itself.
>
> PETA is not a front for the ALF, but there are ALF affiliates who are
> part of PETA. Calling PETA a terrorist organization is silly. PETA is a
> diverse organization with many different people involved and each one
> of them has their own opinions.
>
> Many Democrats are anti-death penalty...does that make the Democratic
> party anti-death penalty? Some Republicans want to put abortionists in
> jail. Does that make the Republican anti abortion?
>
Can you come up with anything that PETA says that isn't dumbassed?
> The strong media messages generated by PETAs marketing campaign are
> designed to get the attention of a targeted group of people: the 16-25
> year olds who are more open to new ideas.
>
Who are stupid and abusing illegal drugs.
> This demographic is attracted
> to sardonic humour and controversy which is exactly what their
> billboards do. Plus, for the meager expenditure of a few billboards
> they get national exposure.
>
By being insane.
> I find the fear generated by PETA quite interesting. If they were a
> truly insignificant group, why all the interest?
>
Why did PETA sue the guy with the anti PETA dot whatever it was website?
Was he not insignificant?
> This interest says to
> me that their message is being heard.
>
I've heard it. Pass the cooked dead animal.
> Their increased membership says
> to me that it is being heard and understood and adopted by an
> increasing amount of 'reachable' people.
>
An increasing number of crazy people.
Bill Bonde
MrFalafel wrote:
>
> In article <u1npqssdhr9mu7uno...@4ax.com>,
> Ross <pa...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > Well I'd say attacking people with legal fishing licenses fishing on a
> > river a terrorist act. Face it these people are fanatic nuts who
> > don't abide by any reason or logic.
> >
>
> So are you saying that all PETA members attack fisherman?
>
So you are saying that all Catholics bomb abortion clinics?
> It also leads me to believe
> you have no interest in learning about the real issue but wish to make
> sweeping generalisations about things you don't know about. Oh well,
> ignorance is bliss, I guess.
>
There is no real issue. These people are insane.
Robb
wrote:
><rob...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1eg5939.1bsb7pz4or88jN%mil...@usa.net>,
>> mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>> > The 'wisdom' goes like this:
>> >
>> > As cattle age, they aren't as good at producing milk, and are more
>> > prone to disease which could spread through the herd. Thus, they're
>> > slaughtered for meat, just like beef cattle.
>> >
>> > This means that milk, in addition to perhaps leading to prostate
>> > cancer, also means horrific death for dairy cattle.
>>
>> Please explain how this is a bad thing.
>
>It means cows get hurt so we can eat meat. PETA is trying to show that
>the wholesome, happy, cheerful image of cow milk has a horrific
>underside, including cancer and death and dismemberment.
>
>Also: I never said I agreed. I just think it's funny that so many voices
>are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
I still don't see the bad part.
Lower on the food chain = on my plate.
Robb
Robb
>"Paul Mitchum" <mil...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Also: I never said I agreed. I just think it's funny that so many voices
>> are condemning PETA without knowing what they're trying to say.
>
>>>>>
>
>Au contraire - I think most of those "condemning" PETA
>know exactly what they're trying to say: that animals have
>"rights".
Of course animals have rights! They hgave the right to life until I
get hungry.
Robb
Clave
<...>
> Ok, with that, property destruction, I can see how someone can claim that
is
> unethical. But the ad, tha's simply political speech. I don't see any
> ethical questions. I was hoping you would elaborate....
It's just too subjective for much elaboration. For me, doing something like
that (capitalizing on the potentially terminal illness of even a public
figure) would be unethical. A lot of perfectly legal behaviors are, in my
opinion, unethical. I find examples quite regularly in politics, especially
during election years.
There's a lot of relatively common ground among people regarding what is and
isn't ethical, but there's a lot of differences of opinion too (obviously),
with neither side able to point to anything beyond their own subjective
personal beliefs to back up their opinions. That's all I have in this case.
I wish I could answer more satisfactorily.
Jim
Clave
<...>
> Interestingly, though, we protect animals from abuse and neglect by
> humans, much as we protect children or the elderly. You don't have to be
> a PETA member to be horrified by, say, a person strangling a kitten. And
> I think it says a lot about humans that we're not OK with someone
> strangling a kitten, but put that same kitten in a science experiment
> where it's going to experience something much worse, and it's just a lab
> animal, and acceptable.
>
> This isn't to say that animals have rights like humans do, but instead
> that we're screwed in the head WRT our hypocrisy, and I think that's
> what PETA is trying to get across, however poorly.
I understand that, and personally, I think the living conditions of lots of
food animals ought to be improved too. But isn't one of their other goals
to do away with *all* forms of animal domestication? INCLUDING cats and
dogs?
Jim
Mike Conrad
>
>-Matt
--------------------------
Stupidity, alas, is seldom accompanied by humility.
History shows but one alternative to nationalism: tribalism.
B O Y C O T T ExxonMobil / Intel / Suzuki / Isuzu / Japan / China / Canada / Feld Entertainment / Doubleclick
Mike Conrad
wrote:
>
>
>Mike Conrad wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 21:57:41 GMT, ma...@vuent.com (Matt Nichols)
>> wrote: [...]
>>
>> >
>> >I know what they are saying; I just think what they are saying is
>> >ridiculous. Violent death is mother nature's grocery store. Violence
>> >is how resources are distributed in the natural world. Every living
>> >organism commits lethal violence to survive, from one-celled bacteria
>> >on up. People who quail from this reality are, quite simply, deluded.
>>
>> Your "reality" is, in part, imaginary. And your defense of violence
>> specious: we are not hooking geese up to force-feeding machines in
>> order to ensure our survival. It's done in the interest of increased
>> profits. And we don't actually need to kill any animals, "humanely"
>> or otherwise, in order to live.
>>
>You don't need your computer in order to live. Give it to me.
Well, you might have a convert here. But show me how I can shop at
buy.com with cattle carcasses, okay?
Mike
Mike Conrad
>Of course animals have rights! They hgave the right to life until I
>get hungry.
>
>Robb
Good News for Animal Lovers!
...more ways to eat your fellow creatures!
This, from today's Washington Post:
--------------------------------------------------------
EYE ON THE AISLES: "Jump for Jerky"
By Carole Sugarman
Wednesday, August 30, 2000
What's the hottest snack food in the country? Chips? Cookies?
Chocolate bars? No, none of them. Thanks to Atkins and other
high-protein diets, it's meat snacks. Think Slim Jim, Turkey Jerky,
Texaco.
Sales of meat snacks last year increased more than any other nibble,
shooting up a whopping 28.5 percent, according to a recently released
report from the Snack Food Association. Pork rinds came in second,
with an 18 percent increase in sales last year.
Some of this can be attributed to awareness generated by Dr. Atkins et
al., but the meat snack industry has also been launching some
high-profile ad campaigns and has gotten better at distribution, says
Ann Wilkes, spokeswoman for the SFA. It has also been reaching out to
target audiences by sponsoring country music festivals and extreme
sports events.
Even poultry-giant Tyson Foods is jumping into jerky, with Tyson Dried
Sausage Sticks currently in test markets. Meat snacks are coming in a
range of new flavors, too: mesquite, teriyaki, nacho, Tabasco, pizza
and Philadelphia cheese steak. And Shannon Wright, brand manager for
Slim Jim, says she's seen just about every kind of meat or fish dried
into jerky lately, including ostrich, salmon, tuna and alligator.
Mike Conrad
wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 18:36:29 -0700, mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Just enjoy your steak, without justification.
>>
>> I'm about to enjoy some sashimi with the sole justification that it
>> tastes great!
>>
>Tuna's better than sole.
Judging from his .sig diatribe, I'd say Chrissy meant "soul".
banmilk
mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> Ross <pa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's see humans are Omnivores, we eat both flesh and vegetables,
> > just like other Omnivores. We just happen to be the top of the food
> > chain.
>
> There are some flesh-eating bacteria who have a different opinion.
>
> --
> "In a world full of lies / Which tug at the truth
> I'm taking no sides.. Now I recognize you."
> -DS
>>>
And they let you know it....
---
"NO" to WTO, "NO to NATO, "NO" to NAFTA
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ross
wrote:
>Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>> "Paul Mitchum" <mil...@usa.net> wrote in message
>> news:1eg6ujv.1j0xeh01hfqc4mN%mil...@usa.net...
>>
>> <...>
>> > This isn't to say that animals have rights like humans do, but instead
>> > that we're screwed in the head WRT our hypocrisy, and I think that's
>> > what PETA is trying to get across, however poorly.
>>
>> I understand that, and personally, I think the living conditions of lots of
>> food animals ought to be improved too. But isn't one of their other goals
>> to do away with *all* forms of animal domestication? INCLUDING cats and
>> dogs?
>
>From <http://www.peta-online.org/about/index.html>:
>
>"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than six
>hundred thousand members, is the largest animal rights organization in
>the world. Founded in 1980, PETA is dedicated to establishing and
>protecting the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple
>principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use
>for entertainment.
>
>PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest
>numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of
>time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the fur trade, and in the
>entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues,
>including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the
>abuse of backyard dogs.
>
>PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research,
>animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and
>direct action."
Animals are food and they also make great clothes and furniture. If
you don't like it, don't use the products or eat meat. That's fine
with me, but don't force your lunatics on the rest of us. If anyone
attacks me or throw's blood on my animal skin clothes, well be
prepared to take the consequences.
MrFalafel
Ross <pa...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:33:17 GMT, MrFalafel <mrfa...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <u1npqssdhr9mu7uno...@4ax.com>,
> > Ross <pa...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> Well I'd say attacking people with legal fishing licenses fishing
on a
> >> river a terrorist act. Face it these people are fanatic nuts who
> >> don't abide by any reason or logic.
> >>
> >
> >are 'these people'? All PETA members? Even the little old ladies? Or
> >maybe they are a radical bunch from a splinter animal rights group?
> >
> I saw it on the nightly news report, they also had a member of PETA
> defending thier actions.
>
> >What was the nature of this attack? Was violence used? Or was it
merely
> >a spirited confrontation?
>
> An actual group from PETA attacked people fishing on a river, not
> commercial fisherman but every day Joes. They were attacked
> physically and their equipment destroyed.
>
This is interesting. What part of the world was it? I'd like to follow
up with the PETA branch in question. If you tell me the location of the
incident and an approximate date, then I'll contact them and find out
what happened. If this story is true, then this is very un-typical of
mainstream PETA.
> >
> >Your knee-jerk reaction to this story leads me to believe that you do
> >not have all of the facts on this issue. It also leads me to believe
> >you have no interest in learning about the real issue but wish to
make
> >sweeping generalisations about things you don't know about. Oh well,
> >ignorance is bliss, I guess.
>
> Let's see humans are Omnivores, we eat both flesh and vegetables,
> just like other Omnivores. We just happen to be the top of the food
> chain. I guess ignorance is bliss.
>
Food chains only matter in a the natural world. Humans live in a
manufactured world and are omnivores. Humans can live healthily on
vegetable matter alone. Some humans choose to eat meat for a 'luxury'.
I say this is a luxury we can to without.
--
"Without deviation from the norm, 'progress' is not possible."
- Frank Zappa
MrFalafel
Bill Bonde <std...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>
> MrFalafel wrote:
> >
> > In article <u1npqssdhr9mu7uno...@4ax.com>,
> > Ross <pa...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > Well I'd say attacking people with legal fishing licenses fishing
on a
> > > river a terrorist act. Face it these people are fanatic nuts who
> > > don't abide by any reason or logic.
> > >
> >
> > So are you saying that all PETA members attack fisherman?
> >
> So you are saying that all Catholics bomb abortion clinics?
Exactly my point! If a couple of people who claim to be PETA supporters
commit a crime, do you blame the entire organization? No!
Nixon & Clinton lied to the US public, does that make all republicans &
democrats liars? oh wait...let me rephrase that...
>
> > It also leads me to believe
> > you have no interest in learning about the real issue but wish to
make
> > sweeping generalisations about things you don't know about. Oh well,
> > ignorance is bliss, I guess.
> >
> There is no real issue. These people are insane.
>
When you think everybody around you is insane, what does that make you?
MrFalafel
ras...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8oii4b$ngo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> MrFalafel <mrfa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >...
> > Many Democrats are anti-death penalty...does that make the
Democratic
> > party anti-death penalty?
>
>
> Some Republicans want to put abortionists in
> > jail. Does that make the Republican anti abortion?
>
>
So you are implying that all PETA members loosely want to attack
fishermen?
> >...
> > I find the fear generated by PETA quite interesting. If they were a
> > truly insignificant group, why all the interest?
>
> oh, you didn't know that fringe radicals always get more attention
than
> the mainstream?
I disagree. AR is not new but has been getting lots more public
attention as it grows and enters the mainstream. PETA has 600,000
members and that doesn't count the hundreds of other AR groups as well
as sympathizers. Hardly the 'fringe radicals' as you call it.
MrFalafel
I guess it's a bit difficult for some people to understand some of the
deep morality based questions posed by PETA. Maybe one day you'll be
able to understand and grasp the message.
>
> > The strong media messages generated by PETAs marketing campaign are
> > designed to get the attention of a targeted group of people: the 16-
25
> > year olds who are more open to new ideas.
> >
> Who are stupid and abusing illegal drugs.
ha ha! So people you don't agree with are stupid and/or use drugs?
>
> > This demographic is attracted
> > to sardonic humour and controversy which is exactly what their
> > billboards do. Plus, for the meager expenditure of a few billboards
> > they get national exposure.
> >
> By being insane.
If they're insane why is their media campaign so effective? Why don't
you try and get national media attention with a tiny budget and see how
hard it is.
>
> > I find the fear generated by PETA quite interesting. If they were a
> > truly insignificant group, why all the interest?
> >
> Why did PETA sue the guy with the anti PETA dot whatever it was
website?
> Was he not insignificant?
All's fair in politics. If the NY mayor wants to sue PETA, so be it.
>
> > This interest says to
> > me that their message is being heard.
> >
> I've heard it. Pass the cooked dead animal.
You are obviously not in the target demographic.
>
> > Their increased membership says
> > to me that it is being heard and understood and adopted by an
> > increasing amount of 'reachable' people.
> >
> An increasing number of crazy people.
Take a look at some of the famous 'crazy people' that are hearing the
vegetarian message: http://www.chickpages.com/veggiefarm/famousveg/ and
more are growng
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Scout <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>
>> > Interestingly, though, we protect animals from abuse and neglect by
>> > humans, much as we protect children or the elderly. You don't have to be
>> > a PETA member to be horrified by, say, a person strangling a kitten. And
>> > I think it says a lot about humans that we're not OK with someone
>> > strangling a kitten, but put that same kitten in a science experiment
>> > where it's going to experience something much worse, and it's just a lab
>> > animal, and acceptable.
>>
>> If that experiment has the least chance in resulting in a medication that
>> with save human lives, line up the kittens.....
>
>What about testing shampoo for possible toxicity? Or hair dye, or skin
>cream? These sorts of tests involve squirting the substance in question
>into the eyes of the little critters. Do you think that's worth it?
Can we squirt it into yours instead? If you were really serious about
"saving" the animals, you wouldn't mind.
>> So tell me how many kittens is a human life worth?
>
>How many kittens is a bottle of shampoo worth?
As many as it takes.
>> Better be careful how you answer, many of the immunizations you have are a
>> result of "animal research".
>
>I don't disagree with animal testing; if we're going to even begin to
>have meat herds of animals, we can't justify not testing lifesaving
>drugs and so forth on animals. However, lifesaving drugs aren't the
>whole of the animal testing spectrum.
How many blind toddlers is it worth to avoid testing reactions of baby
shampoo on kittens?
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:41:13 -0700, Bill Bonde <std...@mail.com>
>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mike Conrad wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 21:57:41 GMT, ma...@vuent.com (Matt Nichols)
> >> wrote: [...]
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I know what they are saying; I just think what they are saying is
> >> >ridiculous. Violent death is mother nature's grocery store. Violence
> >> >is how resources are distributed in the natural world. Every living
> >> >organism commits lethal violence to survive, from one-celled bacteria
> >> >on up. People who quail from this reality are, quite simply, deluded.
> >>
> >> Your "reality" is, in part, imaginary. And your defense of violence
> >> specious: we are not hooking geese up to force-feeding machines in
> >> order to ensure our survival. It's done in the interest of increased
> >> profits. And we don't actually need to kill any animals, "humanely"
> >> or otherwise, in order to live.
> >>
> >You don't need your computer in order to live. Give it to me.
>
>Well, you might have a convert here. But show me how I can shop at
>buy.com with cattle carcasses, okay?
You don't need to shop at buy.com. : )
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>
>
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 18:36:29 -0700, mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Just enjoy your steak, without justification.
>>
>> I'm about to enjoy some sashimi with the sole justification that it
>> tastes great!
>>
>Tuna's better than sole.
Maguro, mmmmmmm.....
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>> "Paul Mitchum" <mil...@usa.net> wrote in message
>> news:1eg6ujv.1j0xeh01hfqc4mN%mil...@usa.net...
>>
>> <...>
>> > This isn't to say that animals have rights like humans do, but instead
>> > that we're screwed in the head WRT our hypocrisy, and I think that's
>> > what PETA is trying to get across, however poorly.
>>
>> I understand that, and personally, I think the living conditions of lots of
>> food animals ought to be improved too. But isn't one of their other goals
>> to do away with *all* forms of animal domestication? INCLUDING cats and
>> dogs?
>
>From <http://www.peta-online.org/about/index.html>:
>
>"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than six
>hundred thousand members, is the largest animal rights organization in
>the world. Founded in 1980, PETA is dedicated to establishing and
>protecting the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple
>principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use
>for entertainment.
Non-human animals don't HAVE rights.
>PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research,
>animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and
>direct action."
They also "work through" harassment of small children trying to sing
the Oscar Mayer song.
They're the next best thing to NAMBLA.
z
citizens by releasing their sealed juvenile criminal records on the
grounds that the right to privacy does not extend past death, I'm not
really weeping for the painful intrusion into sensitive areas of his
public life. Throw in his informing the press of his impending divorce
before he informed his wife, his public discussions of said divorce and
his illness and his publicly hanging out with the 'other woman', and
I'm a little surprised that he would object to anything as an intrusion
on his privacy.
In article <cCir5.932$XH1.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>, "Clave"
* Sent from Novell Discussion Forums http://novell.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
John Saleeby
Cause I try and try to get along with the cool people on the newsgroup
but all I get is the proverbial cold shoulder! Am I missing something?
Is it politically incorrect to be a Paula Prentiss fan? Did she blow G.
Gordon Liddy or something? I am stymied!
Ross
wrote:
>In article <qaiqqsobnlsu4u02f...@4ax.com>,
> Ross <pa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:33:17 GMT, MrFalafel <mrfa...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <u1npqssdhr9mu7uno...@4ax.com>,
>> > Ross <pa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >> Well I'd say attacking people with legal fishing licenses fishing
>on a
>> >> river a terrorist act. Face it these people are fanatic nuts who
>> >> don't abide by any reason or logic.
>> >>
>> >
>> >So are you saying that all PETA members attack fisherman? Exactly who
>> >are 'these people'? All PETA members? Even the little old ladies? Or
>> >maybe they are a radical bunch from a splinter animal rights group?
>> >
>> I saw it on the nightly news report, they also had a member of PETA
>> defending thier actions.
>>
>> >What was the nature of this attack? Was violence used? Or was it
>merely
>> >a spirited confrontation?
>>
>> An actual group from PETA attacked people fishing on a river, not
>> commercial fisherman but every day Joes. They were attacked
>> physically and their equipment destroyed.
>>
>
>This is interesting. What part of the world was it? I'd like to follow
>up with the PETA branch in question. If you tell me the location of the
>incident and an approximate date, then I'll contact them and find out
>what happened. If this story is true, then this is very un-typical of
>mainstream PETA.
>
I saw it on the Fox News Channel around June, July time frame. They
had one of PETA's directors on defending thief actions. Fox also
brought up the fact that Laura Dern (a PETA supporter) had to start
eating meat again because of health reasons.
>> >
>> >Your knee-jerk reaction to this story leads me to believe that you do
>> >not have all of the facts on this issue. It also leads me to believe
>> >you have no interest in learning about the real issue but wish to
>make
>> >sweeping generalisations about things you don't know about. Oh well,
>> >ignorance is bliss, I guess.
>>
>> Let's see humans are Omnivores, we eat both flesh and vegetables,
>> just like other Omnivores. We just happen to be the top of the food
>> chain. I guess ignorance is bliss.
>>
>
>Food chains only matter in a the natural world. Humans live in a
>manufactured world and are omnivores. Humans can live healthily on
>vegetable matter alone. Some humans choose to eat meat for a 'luxury'.
>I say this is a luxury we can to without.
Certain animals are food, and a it's called the natural order of
things. I prefer seafood, but I also have to have a good thick,
bloody red steak every now and then. If you choose to be a
vegetarian, fine. But don't try to force the majority into your
lifestyle. Eating animals are the natural order of things and are an
excellent source of protein the human body requires, and they taste
good. MMM I think I'm off to eat a breakfast, a Ham and Cheese
Omelet, and a big glass of milk. After that I'm going to go over my
schedule for the month with my leather planner. So basically what I'm
saying is I like animals, on my plate, wearing their skin, and using
what ever is left over from their carcass. It's the natural order of
things.
z0ck
monkey's brain up to a car battery means that somebody isn't gonna die of
AIDS in 20 years, I've got to things to say...Red is positive and black is
negative."
z0ck
"Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote in message
news:nfjr5.17243$Y51.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>
> "Paul Mitchum" <mil...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:1eg6ujv.1j0xeh01hfqc4mN%mil...@usa.net...
> > Matt Nichols <ma...@vuent.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >Au contraire - I think most of those "condemning" PETA know exactly
> what
> > > >they're trying to say: that animals have "rights".
> > >
> > > This is an interesting point, philosophically - after all, *we* are
> > > animals, and we have Rights.
> > >
> > > I figure it's not the particular *type* of animal, but rather the
state
> of
> > > sentience. A creature must be able to understand and function within
the
> > > philosophical framework of Rights in order to "have" them. An alien
> being
> > > from another planet who is understandably sentient and can comprehend
> and
> > > work within our system would have Rights. A standard house cat would
> not.
> > >
> > > -Matt
> >
> > Interestingly, though, we protect animals from abuse and neglect by
> > humans, much as we protect children or the elderly. You don't have to be
> > a PETA member to be horrified by, say, a person strangling a kitten. And
> > I think it says a lot about humans that we're not OK with someone
> > strangling a kitten, but put that same kitten in a science experiment
> > where it's going to experience something much worse, and it's just a lab
> > animal, and acceptable.
>
> If that experiment has the least chance in resulting in a medication that
> with save human lives, line up the kittens.....
>
> So tell me how many kittens is a human life worth?
>
z0ck
z0ck
"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:a7gsqsori3ukg9af7...@4ax.com...
z0ck
"MrFalafel" <mrfa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ol541$pmc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<SNIP>
>
> Food chains only matter in a the natural world. Humans live in a
> manufactured world and are omnivores. Humans can live healthily on
> vegetable matter alone. Some humans choose to eat meat for a 'luxury'.
> I say this is a luxury we can to without.
>
Actually, research has shown that certain members of the human race fare
better on meat than veggies, while others do better on veggies than meat.
There are others still who are best on a balance of the two.
Be that as it may, even if we were to regard meat as a luxury, it's one that
I want to keep. You and your PETA-freak friends keep your hands off. If
you don't like it, fine, don't eat it. I do like it, so I will continue to
eat meat.
I've never told a single person that they couldn't eat veggies or that they
had to eat meat. PETA has no place telling me that I can't eat meat.
z0ck
HUMAN<>HYBRID
MrFalafel wrote:
>
> In article <8ojd7n$ni9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ras...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8oii4b$ngo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > MrFalafel <mrfa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >...
> > > Many Democrats are anti-death penalty...does that make the
> Democratic
> > > party anti-death penalty?
> >
> > loosely, yes.
> >
> > Some Republicans want to put abortionists in
> > > jail. Does that make the Republican anti abortion?
> >
> > loosely, yes.
> >
>
> So you are implying that all PETA members loosely want to attack
> fishermen?
>
> > >...
> > > I find the fear generated by PETA quite interesting. If they were a
> > > truly insignificant group, why all the interest?
> >
> > oh, you didn't know that fringe radicals always get more attention
> than
> > the mainstream?
>
> I disagree. AR is not new but has been getting lots more public
> attention as it grows and enters the mainstream. PETA has 600,000
> members and that doesn't count the hundreds of other AR groups as well
> as sympathizers. Hardly the 'fringe radicals' as you call it.
>
Bill Bonde
z0ck wrote:
>
> Thanks, I'll just stick to smoked salmon.
>
You really should try raw fish.
Paul Mitchum
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 20:24:42 -0700, mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum)
> wrote:
[..]
> >I don't disagree with animal testing; if we're going to even begin to
> >have meat herds of animals, we can't justify not testing lifesaving drugs
> >and so forth on animals. However, lifesaving drugs aren't the whole of
> >the animal testing spectrum.
>
> How many blind toddlers is it worth to avoid testing reactions of baby
> shampoo on kittens?
That depends. Do you actually *need* to test the shampoo in that way?
What's in the shampoo that you're worried about burning out the eyeballs
of toddlers? Would I really want to buy a product for my toddler if you
had to worry about it burning out his eyeballs?
Hundreds of products make it to market without animal testing, such as
shampoo and hair dye and skin cream. You can identify them because they
say 'Cruelty-free' on the label.
Sorry if I'm making sense over here. I know you were hoping to find a
laughingstock.
z0ck
the texture for some reason.
z0ck
"Bill Bonde" <std...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:39AEA4AB...@mail.com...
Bill Bonde
If the material isn't really harmful to the eyes, what are you worried
about?
Bama Brian
"Mike Conrad" <mike.conr...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:39adb106...@news.concentric.net...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 21:57:41 GMT, ma...@vuent.com (Matt Nichols)
> wrote: [...]
>
> >
> >I know what they are saying; I just think what they are saying is
> >ridiculous. Violent death is mother nature's grocery store. Violence
> >is how resources are distributed in the natural world. Every living
> >organism commits lethal violence to survive, from one-celled bacteria
> >on up. People who quail from this reality are, quite simply, deluded.
>
>
> Your "reality" is, in part, imaginary. And your defense of violence
> specious: we are not hooking geese up to force-feeding machines in
> order to ensure our survival. It's done in the interest of increased
> profits. And we don't actually need to kill any animals, "humanely"
> or otherwise, in order to live.
>
Nutritionally speaking, it is very difficult for growing children, who are
fed as vegetarians, to get all of the trace elements, nutrients, and
proteins that they need in order to achieve their growth potential in terms
of stature, strength, and I.Q.
So if you, and your fellow Vegans, really believe in what you're saying,
then it's going to be very interesting to hear your defense when the state
takes your children away because they're malnourished.
BTW, even the enamel on one's teeth prove that we are NOT vegetarians; it's
too thin to withstand a lifetime's diet of roughage. By any medical
standard, the human race is a race of omnivores.
If you want to become a Jain, you go right ahead. But I'm not going to dust
the path ahead of you.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
NRA Life, GOA Life, Libertarian
Voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL voting for an evil.
Vote Libertarian. You'll be glad you did.
Robert Frenchu
>And we don't actually need to kill any animals, "humanely"
>or otherwise, in order to live.
Speak for yourself.
--
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
Scout
"Mike Conrad" <mike.conr...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:39adb106...@news.concentric.net...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 21:57:41 GMT, ma...@vuent.com (Matt Nichols)
> wrote: [...]
>
> >
> >I know what they are saying; I just think what they are saying is
> >ridiculous. Violent death is mother nature's grocery store. Violence
> >is how resources are distributed in the natural world. Every living
> >organism commits lethal violence to survive, from one-celled bacteria
> >on up. People who quail from this reality are, quite simply, deluded.
>
>
> Your "reality" is, in part, imaginary. And your defense of violence
> specious: we are not hooking geese up to force-feeding machines in
> order to ensure our survival. It's done in the interest of increased
> or otherwise, in order to live.
Actually, you can't avoid it.