Reality Check for ARA's
Berosini
This will be a bit of a departure from the usual array
of facts, reports and features in AWARE's
newsletter....this is a "what if." That is...what if
the animal rights agenda succeeds. Animals are given
rights according to the constitutional amendment
because not enough people spoke up against it. Has
anyone thought about the chaos in store? Have you?
Many vegan or vegetarian activists self-righteously
talk of freeing the animals...oblivious to the fact
that their own food supply will be the first hit. The
fertile fields of lettuce, corn, wheat, beans and
other crops will be absolutely relished by sheep and
goats. After all they have a right ot be there...they
can't be fenced in and also can't be fenced OUT
(freedome remember?). Dangerous dogs will take down
the slower lambs and kids immediately...littering the
hillsides and roadsides with dead animals. Those
animals protected from the claws of cougars and
bobcats will not be left to die. The coyotes --
already moving in residential and urban areas...will
tear apart calves, sheep, goats and rabbits in front
of the eyes of toddlers. Cattle and horses will be hit
in the roadways...after so many years of domestication
most would never think that a vehicle would HIT them.
The large sow pigs would tear apart the first child
that grabs a baby pig ("Babe") to pet. Former pet
birds would starve or freeze to death, particularly
those in the northern regions. All the people who
complain at the THOUGHT of goats nibbling their
carefully trimmed yards will shriek in horror when
they find everything from six feet down will be
stripped...if not by goats then by sheep, horses,
cattle, llamas, etc. -- or torn up by pigs, which
because of earlier legislation now have large tusks
that weren't clipped as needle teeth when they were
babies. Rats, mice and insects...previously killed to
control disease...also have rights so you can't kill
them anymore either. All you can do is watch them
invade. Perhaps by then enough people will have snakes
and cats so when they're turned loose they will keep
the rodent population in check. Certainly your
children won't be safe on the street...forget about
gangs!! If not brought down by dogs, run over by
cattle or horses, nibbled on by sheep or goats, tossed
about by pigs or killed by predators who invade where
the prey goes they will be killed from diseases that
used to be cured with animal products and research.
The animals will merrily graze their way across yards
and hillsides owned by animal rights neighbors whom a
few years earlier were panicked because a few animals
were 'ruining' their grass or bushes or gardens.
Domestic geese and ducks will gleefully sit on front
porches that will quickly become covered with feces.
Poultry will be torn to shreds by dogs. Zoo exhibits
once protected and fed regularly will also be
freed...zebras, elephants, tigers, tropical birds and
animals subjected to cold weather in many parts of the
country when they've not adapted to the climate.
Hippos will love investigating swimming pools, rhinos
will charge through crowds of animal advocates
celebrating their success in freeing animals from
confinement. Alligators and crocodiles will enjoy the
additional food sources - anything from young animals
to children to goats, sheep, pigs and small animals
will be devoured. It will reduce wildfires though
because all those animals grazing things down will
eliminate vegetation and there's nothing to burn. On
the other hand you could walk out to your San Jose
California driveway to find the remains of a goat
killed by a lion or torn to shreds but still barely
alive by dog packs. Or perhaps a crippled sheep,
wounded horse or enraged cow in your north Texas yard.
Of course it will also be illegal to spay and neuter.
They think the animal population is bad now?!! The
animals have RIGHTS and can't be FORCED to undergo
anything they don't choose to. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO
CHOOSE IF THEY WANT THE SURGERY THE SAME AS A WOMAN.
How many dogs, cats, rabbits, goats, cattle etc. call
the local vet clinic now to schedule their own
appointment? YOu and I can't do that for them anymore.
We can't help the injured animals -- we can't assist
the mom-to-be in labor because they'll have the right
to "be free from harm caused by other beings in
unnatural pursuit of nonessential ends" and have an
"equal opportunity to manage their lives according to
their predetermined place in the Natural Order of
Life." No more humane societies, no more impounds
(they can't be confined).
Many of these groups rally to save the mustangs but
who FEEDS the mustangs? It's not enough to spare them
from slaughter....it's not humane to smugly sit in a
heated home writing letters of protest while the
mustangs starve to death because there isn't enough
feed to last all of them through the winter. The old
mare, the born-too-late colt, the colt with the
injured hip from a fall, the stallion injured in a
fight with a younger opponent will be the first to do
without...starvation comes slowly, painfully, surely.
These creatures and others are out of sight of the
extremists during that time, just as surely as the
Pescadero California goats starving in the summertime
out of sight of people advocating harsh punishment of
their owners (who offered to supply hay and were
turned down). These animals are out of sight of the
public eye. These are the ones that the public needs
most to see. Their life choices are being made by
people who have never seen them in the middle of
winter, who have never watched an animals starved to
death (in the wild or by inhumane treatment). It's up
to AWARE to show them. To do that we desperately need
donations.
There are other species who have their 'mustangs' --
the Santa Cruz and Hog Island sheep; the Obassaw
Island pigs; Cracker cattle and San Clemente
goats...all feral populations but not conjuring up the
romantic image of the mustangs, shown in the summer
with slick coats, plenty of grass in the background,
loping "happily" along in the open area. Is this not a
species-based view of rescue? Why are the mustangs
more important than the Cracker cow?
What fate awaits the freed animals? Thos in the
northern part of North America will do well in the
summer. Winters will take the lives of the youngest,
the oldest, the ill, the injured. Those not adapted to
cold weather will suffer the most. The people who
maintained pure breeding will see Afghans and Great
Danes crossing with poodles and spaniels. Alpine goats
crossing with pygmy goats; Shetland sheep with
Suffolks. How many die in labor trying to bring forth
resulting too-large babies? How many babies die from
lack of nutrition, disease, genetic problems or
stress?
Yes animal rights is a tough battle -- but who wins? A
minority of self righteous people. The breeders,
owners, raisers, caretakers might lose their income,
their pets, their companions, their food source, their
ability to get out into the world (the guide and
service dogs for the disabled must be loosed too). The
real losers will be the animals. Many will pay with
their lives, not quickly to be killed and processed
for meat but slowly, with lots of time to wonder why
they were abandoned and why no one cares enough to
feed them. They'll no longer have anyone to teach them
"proper" (according to people's standards!) behavior.
By whose law is punishment handed out? After all the
sheep picking your garden clean is adhering to a
sheep's law -- eat what is available before it's gone.
The dogs who breed on your front porch are adhering to
the dog's law of breeding when she's in heat. The cow
or pig who attacks someone is adherin gto the law of
protecting their babies. Who translates so all these
animals who do survive get to vote? They must be
allowed to serve on juries, given employment, job
training and other benefits. Are they often not
employed now? As it is now they have room, board,
health insurance (vet care when needed), job
training/employment. There will be no welfare for
government assistance so surely they must do
something? The dairy goat or cow can't do anything but
raise babies and milk -- the draft horse or service
dogs already receive job training and lifelong
employment, often with retirement benefits better than
most PEOPLE get. How do they pay taxes? Draft horses
that are ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY in tilling the
fields without complaint...guard dogs are happy to
work. What if the animals don't WANT to be free?
The animal rights agenda HAS ALREADY attacked the fur
industry - HAS ALREADY in some areas eliminated the
legal breeding of pets - HAS ALREADYU been working on
the hunting/fishing rights even with common species
(such as the cougar in California where even one
attacking livestock can't be shot or run off). They've
ALREADY impacted using animals for entertainment and
sports - racing, rodeo and other events where animals
HAVE jobs and good care. They've succeeded in some
areas in banning animal agriculture. How long will
animal owners close their eyes to the truth? How much
to you really care about having your animals? What
will you do to protect them? GET ACTIVE!!!!!
DC
The ARseholes never think of the ultimate outcome of their misguided
"idealism".
For them, animal issues are a hobby, a weekend activity, and a passing
fancy. While its all a game for them, they never think of the real
ramifications of their "ideals"....and, as frightening as it is, these
people take themselves seriously, and will do the bidding of deranged AR
cult leaders like Newkirk, Singer, Hindi, and Fox..
Much of the current AR propaganda speaks of man "leaving the earth", and
"voluntary extinction of mankind" - if these clowns wish to "depart", I
say, fine. May the "gods" grant them the strength to offer-up themselves
as the first "voluteers".
But some of us want to continue on with life on this planet. What kind
of deranged thinking drives them to want to die themselves, and leave
the rest of us to struggle in a bizarre "Island of Doctor Moreau" kind
of battle with the animale those suicidal misfits wish to liberate ?
What has happened to these people, what has filled them with such
self-loathing, such a drive for self-destruction, and such a hatred and
contempt for their fellow humans ?
Its impossible to reason with minds as sick as these, yet we can't just
ignore them. It is vital that we pay close attention to AR cults, and
not allow them to influence the creation of laws that spell doom for
humanity.
Never forget that the nut carrying the sign about "save the veal calves"
is also carrying a wish for YOUR demise in his
troubled mind.
DC
stepha...@my-deja.com
(ARA). Whats wrong with wanting to help animals and give them a better
life? I see nothing wrong in having compassion. ARA have big hearts
when it comes to animals. "Minds as sick as these?" who are you to
judge someone like that? why should any animal have to die a cruel and
painful death? would you like to die that same exact way? Their are
some people out in the world that catch wild animals and make them a
pet. THey should be free and not stuck in a cage. Can you please direct
me to the place where ARA's say they want domesticated cats and dogs
free to roam? Their point is NOT to produce anymore cows, pigs, goats,
chicken and that will end suffering because we will not be adding to
the population. We cannot expect animals to run free when they have
been raised by a human. Why steal wild animals and make them your pet?
don't you think they are better off being wild regardless if they die.
That is part of nature. I really don't get your own hatred towards a
group of people. You are looking much angrier and hateful then any ARA
I have every talked with. Instead why don't you reason with the ARA's
and come to somekind of understanding. All this bad mouthing is making
the non-ARA's look bad. Stephanie
In article <12639-38...@storefull-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
DC
Like so many others, you are misunderstanding what "animal rights"
groups are all about...and this is confusion is exactly what the cults
like PETA and HSUS want.
There is nothing wrong with "taking care" of animals, but that is the
agenda of animal WELFARE groups, not animal RIGHTS groups - there is a
world of difference.
The 'net is full of pages in which the AR groups agendas are laid out,
but apparently you have not attempted to find these pages if you had,
you would know that some AR groups don't "want to let domestic dogs and
cats run free", at least one group, PETA, wants domestic dogs and cats
EXTINCT - they don't want to "free" them, they don't want to feed them -
the head of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk clearly states that domestic dogs and
cats should be EXTERMINATED --is that what YOU call "helping" them,
Stephanie ?
All their talk of "fighting for the animals" is a smokescreen - of
course people are going to want to help little puppies and kittens, and
they send in their money -BUT does PETA operate any shelters ? NO. Does
PETA spend ten cents per year to buy protected habitat for wild animals
? NO.
What PETA and similar cults do is pour money into their own accounts,
pay enormous salaries to their "executives", and spend some to raise
more funds thru mail outs, and nutty campaigns like the "got beer"
fiasco.
I see you have not bothered to look into the meaning of "voluntary
extinction of mankind" ......what it means is mass-suicide. These cults,
just like Heavens Gate, and the Peoples Temple feel that man has no
place on earth, and that all people should be dead...YOU need to study
and understand what animal RIGHTS groups have a socialistic / political
agenda. They are not about "caring for animals", they are about
CONTROLLING people. Right now these groups say you CANNOT educate
yourself by visiting zoos, you CANNOT have pets, even goldfish, you
CANNOT use any medication that was developed with animal testing, You
CANNOT eat what you want, you CANNOT go fishing...
An awful lot of rules for people, but none for animals. By AR doctrine
you cannot keep any animal in any kind of restraint, meaning, yes, they
all run free. This is not a secret, the goals of the AR movement are
well-known.
How did YOU, Stephanie, miss this ? By blindly believing that all these
cults want to do is "help animals". This is not about me being full of
hate , this is about understanding what you are supporting. This is
about being aware of what is really going on.
I believe what you are really interested in is animal WELFARE, this is a
different subject all together....I am in full support of groups who
actually operate shelters, and actually buy and maintain protected
habitat for wild animals.....but Animal RIGHTS cults do neither.
Please take the time to learn the difference - too often people take the
bait that groups like PETA dangle--but if you really look into their
agenda, you will not want anything to do with them. And ask yourself "if
the Humane Society of The United States cares about animals, why do they
not operate a SINGLE animal shelter (NOT ONE , Stephanie) ?" (there are
local humane groups that run shelters, but they are not connected to
HSUS) No. this cult is strictly involved in politics and lobbying for
laws that will restrict YOUR freedom of choice....and they do not feed a
single little puppy or kitten.....
You have much to learn, Stephanie.
DC
Swamp
Hi Stephanie, welcome.
<stepha...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8bdk86$72j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I think you spend way too much time worrying about a group of people
> (ARA).
Speaking for myself, the only ARA's I worry about are the ones that vote.
There is also a mild concern over the fringe terrorists.
> Whats wrong with wanting to help animals and give them a better
> life? I see nothing wrong in having compassion. ARA have big hearts
> when it comes to animals.
The "wrong" occurs as soon as they attempt to further restrict my
already-restricted-enough freedom, thank you very much.
> "Minds as sick as these?" who are you to
> judge someone like that?
Just judging the judges. Fair enough?
> why should any animal have to die a cruel and
> painful death?
Because there is also mercy and pleasure in life.
> would you like to die that same exact way?
I would prefer not to die in *any* fashion, just yet.
> Their are some people out in the world that catch wild animals and make them a
> pet. They should be free and not stuck in a cage. Can you please direct
> me to the place where ARA's say they want domesticated cats and dogs
> free to roam? Their point is NOT to produce anymore cows, pigs, goats,
> chicken and that will end suffering because we will not be adding to
> the population.
So instead now we "exploit" the wild species even further?
It is impossible to end suffering, unless you seek to end pleasure as well.
> We cannot expect animals to run free when they have
> been raised by a human. Why steal wild animals and make them your pet?
I doubt if many here promote such activity. This is what is often called
a strawman argument.
> don't you think they are better off being wild regardless if they die.
> That is part of nature. I really don't get your own hatred towards a
> group of people. You are looking much angrier and hateful then any ARA
> I have every talked with. Instead why don't you reason with the ARA's
> and come to somekind of understanding. All this bad mouthing is making
> the non-ARA's look bad. Stephanie
Some people react rather defensively when they think their lifestyle is in
jeopardy. Some people even see it as a part of a larger conspiracy to end
personal freedoms. Wars have been fought over such.
There are enough of us willing to speak plainly, if you look.
But you must realize that the soldiers come in many forms.
--
¥¥Swamp¥¥
Rat & Swan
look at this wild-eyed, hysterical rant,
laugh heartily, and move on to a
rational post elsewhere. I suggest
this ding-bat take a look at the concept
of rights as it applies to those currently
regarded as rights-holders -- humans --
and see if he can determine why his
imaginary scenario is an obvious crock.
If not, it's not ARAs who need a reality
check.
<snip >
Rat
stepha...@my-deja.com
don't see how they are doing harm? I truly believe that PETA and HSUS
help animals rather then hurt them. If the internet is full of pages
then you wouldn't mind directing me in the right place so I can read
about it. You keep saying they say this and they believe in that and
do this. Well if they do prove it? I would love to read about it and
contact them. Just because PETA or HSUS doesn't operate a shelter
doesn't mean they are not helping animals. Actually PETA encourages
you to adopt a pet from a shelter
(http://www.helppuppies.com/pmill.html) but so does the HSUS. I have
been to most of the sites and I am shocked every. The things they
uncover is unbelievable and horrifying. I was just reading about
slaughtering of cats and dogs to make fur coats(this is a HSUS
campaign). Now do you think they are just making this up or trying to
inform the public and put a stop to it? I mean that really doesn't make
much sense how an organization helping animals are going to control
your life? I believe they are trying to stop these horrible things from
happening so they are informing the public. The public can do alot of
damage to a company since we are the consumer. Neither one of us is
their accountants you cannot prove where the money goes. I'm sure the
employees make lots of money. More then most of us do in a year. I am
most concerned about animal welfare but I feel the issues these
organizations deal with are for the welfare of the animals. That is
why they want us to write to Proctor and Gamble and stop them from
testing on animals. I really don't think it helps to insult anyone who
believes differently. By the way these groups are not controlling me
at all. In fact I have a dog and 2 cats all from a shelter. They all
live a very happy life. I have been freed since I brought them home
from the pound. I have to use medications that are tested on animals
when I am sick or I will suffer. I would also expect others to use
products tested on animals to save their life. A rat and a baby are not
the same thing at all. I would with out a thought save a baby then a
rat. I don't think they should do cruel tests over and over again and
some companies waste tax payers money doing just this. I don't use
cosmetics/household products that are tested on animals because so many
companies already DO NOT test on animals. They will only control you if
you allow them to control your life. I am curious what campaigns
bother you the most? You mentioned the got beer? and I agree with that
one since alcohol leads to alcoholism, diseases and death . What other
campaigns bother you enough that you hate this organization?
Is it mostly the hunting, vegetarianism lifestyle or fishing. I can
tell you that no time in the near future will anyone be forced to stop
hunting, fishing or eating meat. They do not pose a threat to your
lifestyle. They do uncover cruel things that farm animals go through
which is hard to ignore. I would sort of agree about zoos. The zoo by
my house is wonderful and the best I have ever seen (San Diego Zoo and
Wildlife Park, CA). I also visited one zoo in London that was not very
nice. Penguins lives in a pool like envirment, monkeys in small cages,
African Elephants/rhinos also in a small encloser. I would much rather
see them in the wild then in a zoo but man has also destroyed that.
Circuses, bull fighting, dog fighting, greyhound racing are unnecessary
and cruel to the animals. For the short time I have been on this earth
I have seen alot of things that could be chanced. If there is an
alternative to something we should try it(most people would agree with
this). Until I see concrete evidence(quotes, articles) that these
groups want just money and power, I will support them. Doesn't mean I
agree with everything they say and I will argue with any of them if I
feel them are in the wrong. You should also beable to read someone
elses viewpoint without name calling and profanity. I'm still young
and I know I have lots to learn. Thanks for the response. Stephanie
In article <12768-38...@storefull-222.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Pete Terrier
> I think you spend way too much time worrying about a group of people
>(ARA).
Do you not worry about groups of people who lobby to change laws that
affect your current legal rights? Do you worry about people who, if
they had their way, would tell you what you could eat, wear as
clothing, where you could/could not live, and many other things that
would definately have an negative impact on your current lifestyle and
on the lifestyles of those you care about?
> Whats wrong with wanting to help animals and give them a better
>life?
Absolutely nothing. I am a strong supporter of improvement of
conditions for animals (both domestic and non). I am also a strong
supporter of improvement of conditions for humans. Sometimes the two
conflict, when they do, my own species gets more of my concern
usually, it depends on the individual situation.
> I see nothing wrong in having compassion. ARA have big hearts
>when it comes to animals. "Minds as sick as these?" who are you to
>judge someone like that?
How else can you qualify those who advocate "liberating" human-raised
animals to their deaths? Or someone who equates the value of a rat's
life with the value of your child's life?
Do you think that anything _but_ a sick mind would advocate car bombs
and shooting people in the streets?
(see final statement at bottom of post)
> why should any animal have to die a cruel and
>painful death?
Is death from disease, starvation, or being eaten alive "cruel and
painful"? I think your answer may be below, when you mention the way
of "Nature", so it is clear that you don't really plan on eliminating
either cruelty or suffering, except for in _some_ cases.
And what about when human interactions affect the above types of
death? How about deaths involved when humans modify the habitat
formally/currently used by animals to build human housing and grow
human food?
How do you plan on eliminating these?
> would you like to die that same exact way? Their are
>some people out in the world that catch wild animals and make them a
>pet.
Where I live, it is illegal to make pets of animals taken from the
wild; of course the laws that apply to me are not global, perhaps for
good reason in some cases. My sister works with a wildlife
rehabilitator, someone who works with injured or orphaned animals.
Should those animals simply be left to die? If that is the AR
position, then I think there is a distinct LACK of wanting to help
them or improve conditions for them.
Using your comparison above (asking if a human would like to die that
way, etc), would you rather just be left to die if you fell and broke
your leg? If the answer is no, how would you justify the animals used
and the animal death that would be involved in diagnosing and
repairing your broken leg? Is that "helping" or "improving" any
conditions for those animals?
> THey should be free and not stuck in a cage. Can you please direct
>me to the place where ARA's say they want domesticated cats and dogs
>free to roam?
Take a look at the Animal Liberation Front webpages.
Their ideal (from their statements and thier actions) is that an
animal is better off dying "free" than living in captivity.
From PeTA's statements:
"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the
fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and
following their natural instincts."
"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from
them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding
of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ...
they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come
home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1,1990.
> Their point is NOT to produce anymore cows, pigs, goats,
>chicken and that will end suffering because we will not be adding to
>the population.
No, their point is the extermination of those species as well as those
who are considered "pets".
Also from PeTA:
"It is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby
perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive."
"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the first
step ... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has
been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of
animals as 'pets.'" -New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, "Should
Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog! February 1991, p.20
"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of
animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be
ending the concept of pet ownership."
-Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, "In Defense of
Animals," Spring 1997
> We cannot expect animals to run free when they have
>been raised by a human. Why steal wild animals and make them your pet?
At some point in time _all_ animals were wild.
Why have a "pet" at all? It's an exploitation for human enjoyment.
Something that many ARA's and AR groups appear to promote as a no-no
(see above).
>don't you think they are better off being wild regardless if they die.
>That is part of nature. I really don't get your own hatred towards a
>group of people.
I don't "hate" anyone... well, not that I can think of. I do,
however, DISLIKE EXTREMELY the fact that AR groups lie in an attempt
to gain support. If animals should have "rights", why do ARs and AR
groups feel the need to lie to attempt to gain support?
Perhaps it isn't exactly a hatred of a group of people, but a hatred
of ideas (or ideals) that they are promoting.
> You are looking much angrier and hateful then any ARA
>I have every talked with.
They were probably being polite.
Some are not so polite.
> Instead why don't you reason with the ARA's
>and come to somekind of understanding.
Can you reason with the closed mind that sticks the fingers in the
ears and hums in order not to hear reason?
> All this bad mouthing is making
>the non-ARA's look bad. Stephanie
Bad-mouthing is just that... talk. Sometimes frustration shows, and
sometimes there is a bit of hard cold truth that shines even through
the frustration.
I don't hear of cases of where non-ARA's are throwing paint on ARAs,
gluing the locks or firebombing their businesses, etc. I haven't heard
of non-ARA's sending ARA's razor blades and death threats through the
mail. I also don't see cases where non-ARA's are trying to take away
the livelyhoods of ARAs by legislation that is commonly based on
emotion instead of logic. I also do not see how wildlife will benefit
by legislation created by human emotion rather than scientific
theory/facts.
One thing I do see is where ARA's appear to have no problem in
exploiting and supporting the exploitation of animals when it benefits
them personally.
Final thought, Stephanie... is this the kind of hatred you are talking
about?
"In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I
can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under
cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on
their doorsteps. It's a war, and there's no other way you can stop
vivisectors."
-Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front Leader
Pete
====--------====
I don't usually pass along sad news like this, but sometimes we need
to pause and remember what life is about:
There was a great loss recently in the entertainment world. Larry
LaPrise, the Detroit native who wrote the song "Hokey Pokey," died
last week at 83. It was especially difficult for the family to keep
him in the casket. They'd put his left leg in and.... well ... you
know the rest ...
====-------====
Lisa
wants domestic dogs and cats extinct and that Ingrid Newkirk clearly stated
that domestic dogs and cats should be exterminated.
DC <pier6s...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12768-38...@storefull-222.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Jon Inge Bragstad
wrote:
>Ok, reference check here. Please give references to your statement that PETA
>wants domestic dogs and cats extinct and that Ingrid Newkirk clearly stated
>that domestic dogs and cats should be exterminated.
-"One day we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of
animals. (Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild...They
would have full lives, not waiting at home for someone to come home in
the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
Ingrid Newkirk
Founder, PETA
-"...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would
return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance."
Ingrid Newkirk
Founder, PETA
Harpers
-"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of
human interference, dogs and cats would part of the ecological
scheme."
PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals
------------- Jon Inge Bragstad --------------
-------- Visit Jonis Huntingpages. -----------
-- http://home.sol.no/~sbragsta/hunters.htm --
------- Member of the Hunting Trail. ---------
G Boggs
= Maybe I don't know that much about animal rights activists but I also
=don't see how they are doing harm?
Oh, i suppose the firebombings are all just good, clean fun.
=I truly believe that PETA and HSUS
=help animals rather then hurt them. [...]
Aside from your beliefs, what, exactly have they done?
Actually, peta has killed a number of inconvenient animals. Check
Aspin Hill.
_______________
G Boggs
The plural of anecdote is not data. (R. Brinner)
farr...@yahoo.com
siv...@online.no (Jon Inge Bragstad) wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:48:04 -0500, "Lisa" <bls...@provide.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Ok, reference check here. Please give references to your statement
that PETA
> >wants domestic dogs and cats extinct and that Ingrid Newkirk clearly
stated
> >that domestic dogs and cats should be exterminated.
>
> -"One day we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of
> animals. (Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild...They
> would have full lives, not waiting at home for someone to come home in
> the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
> Ingrid Newkirk
> Founder, PETA
>
> -"...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would
> return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance."
> Ingrid Newkirk
> Founder, PETA
> Harpers
>
> -"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of
> human interference, dogs and cats would part of the ecological
> scheme."
> PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals
My first reaction is that none of these
quotes supports *extermination* which I
took to denote an active campaign to seek
out and kill all domestic animals. Ms.
Newkirk obviously does not support such
a position. She favors a phaseout of
domestic animals by an end to breeding them.
.
However I checked my nearby dictionary
and it defines "exterminate" as "To get
rid of by destroying completely." So I
suppose that there are those who would
say that "phasing out by an end to breeding"
amounts to "exterminating", but IMO use
of the word "exterminate" is misleading
here and maybe inaccurate.
.
And of course all of us here want to strive
for accuracy, right?
.
- Bob
.
stepha...@my-deja.com
know what you are talking about. Thanks! Stephanie
In article <38db77ad....@news.privatei.com>,
gbo...@privatei.com wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 03:39:31 GMT, stepha...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> = Maybe I don't know that much about animal rights activists but I
also
> =don't see how they are doing harm?
>
> Oh, i suppose the firebombings are all just good, clean fun.
>
> =I truly believe that PETA and HSUS
> =help animals rather then hurt them. [...]
>
> Aside from your beliefs, what, exactly have they done?
>
> Actually, peta has killed a number of inconvenient animals. Check
> Aspin Hill.
>
> _______________
>
> G Boggs
>
> The plural of anecdote is not data. (R. Brinner)
>
stepha...@my-deja.com
OPINION doesn't mean this will ever happen. We should all spay and
neuter our pets. Pet owners should not be allowed to breed and add
more unwanted pets to the population. If breeding accures it should be
controlled so no puppies or kittens will be homeless or unwanted. To me
that would be a perfect world. Reality check? this is not a perfect
world. Nor will it ever be a perfect world. In a perfect world pigs
might fly too. she says "eventually companion animals will be phase
out". the word EVENTUALLY doesn't mean tomorrow or necessarily anytime
soon. This one day might be in a three hundred years. We will all be
dead and gone by then and so will Ingrid Newkirk. They pose no threat
to anyone. What rights are they taking away from you? Not one of these
groups will ever impact a whole nation to stop eating meat or wearing
what they want. Everyone will eat,wear, and do whatever they want
regardless of what PETA or any other organization says. Get over it!
PETA/ARA are not the problem here. Stephanie
In article <38db6449...@news1.online.no>,
siv...@online.no (Jon Inge Bragstad) wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:48:04 -0500, "Lisa" <bls...@provide.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Ok, reference check here. Please give references to your statement
that PETA
> >wants domestic dogs and cats extinct and that Ingrid Newkirk clearly
stated
> >that domestic dogs and cats should be exterminated.
>
> -"One day we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of
> animals. (Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild...They
> would have full lives, not waiting at home for someone to come home in
> the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
> Ingrid Newkirk
> Founder, PETA
>
> -"...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would
> return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance."
> Ingrid Newkirk
> Founder, PETA
> Harpers
> -"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of
> human interference, dogs and cats would part of the ecological
> scheme."
> PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals
>
> > ------------- Jon Inge Bragstad --------------
> -------- Visit Jonis Huntingpages. -----------
> -- http://home.sol.no/~sbragsta/hunters.htm --
> ------- Member of the Hunting Trail. ---------
>
Jon Inge Bragstad
<snip>
>> -"One day we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of
>> animals. (Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild...They
>> would have full lives, not waiting at home for someone to come home in
>> the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
>> Ingrid Newkirk
>> Founder, PETA
>>
>> -"...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would
>> return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance."
>> Ingrid Newkirk
>> Founder, PETA
>> Harpers
>>
>> -"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of
>> human interference, dogs and cats would part of the ecological
>> scheme."
>> PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals
>.
>My first reaction is that none of these
>quotes supports *extermination* which I
>took to denote an active campaign to seek
>out and kill all domestic animals. Ms.
>Newkirk obviously does not support such
>a position. She favors a phaseout of
>domestic animals by an end to breeding them.
And that's not an extermination ? How exterminated can one be ?
>However I checked my nearby dictionary
>and it defines "exterminate" as "To get
>rid of by destroying completely." So I
>suppose that there are those who would
>say that "phasing out by an end to breeding"
>amounts to "exterminating", but IMO use
>of the word "exterminate" is misleading
>here and maybe inaccurate.
Cut the crap, and stop twisting the words, please. Phasing out
companion animals means that they'll be extinct. No more, no less.
It's not something I'll waste time arguing about...
>And of course all of us here want to strive
>for accuracy, right?
Suuuure...
When we hunters say that we harvest animals, we really don't say that
we're killing anything are we ? Because "harvest" (if you care to look
it up - I don't) doesn't directly mean "to kill" now does it ?
Swamp
The Aspen Hill thing has been debated fairly well here, in the past.
If you know how, do a Deja search for the threads.
--
¥¥Swamp¥¥
<stepha...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8bgekl$b69$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Do me a favor and show me the proof. DO NOT just say thing and assume I
> know what you are talking about. Thanks! Stephanie
> > Actually, peta has killed a number of inconvenient animals. Check
> > Aspin Hill.
farr...@yahoo.com
Personally I don't think that that's what
extermination suggests to people. I may
be wrong, but that's the way I honestly
see it.
.
.
> >However I checked my nearby dictionary
> >and it defines "exterminate" as "To get
> >rid of by destroying completely." So I
> >suppose that there are those who would
> >say that "phasing out by an end to breeding"
> >amounts to "exterminating", but IMO use
> >of the word "exterminate" is misleading
> >here and maybe inaccurate.
>
> Cut the crap, and stop twisting the words, please. Phasing out
> companion animals means that they'll be extinct. No more, no less.
> It's not something I'll waste time arguing about...
I'm talking about the use of the term
"exterminate" and the quotes you provided
in support of a claim about it.
Those quotes do not use the word "exterminate,"
which I think is generally taken by most
people to mean something different from
what your quoted people intended.
.
.
> >And of course all of us here want to strive
> >for accuracy, right?
>
> Suuuure...
Good. Now what does "exterminate" suggest
to you? Does the commonly heard phrase
"exterminate the vermin" mean phase out
the vermin over maybe several hundred
years? No it doesn't typically mean
that. Rather it refers to an active
campaign to go out and do some killing
and eliminate the target animals quickly.
.
.
> When we hunters say that we harvest animals, we really don't say that
> we're killing anything are we ? Because "harvest" (if you care to look
> it up - I don't) doesn't directly mean "to kill" now does it ?
Then "harvest" would be inaccurate in that
context, or at the least, a euphemism to
soften the impact of what is actually being
done intentionally to the animals. If
I'm correct about the nuances of the word
"exterminate," then use of it as above
would be actually changing what was meant
by those quoted, in a way that hardened -
not softened - the claims in question.
.
Swamp
<stepha...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8bgftn$cp6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
G Boggs
=Do me a favor and show me the proof. DO NOT just say thing and assume I
=know what you are talking about. Thanks! Stephanie
=
=[...]
Proof of what?
G Boggs
=who died and made Ingrid Newkirk god?[...]
You know, I couldn't agree more. But I'm most curious why she cares
what I eat or wear.
Jonathan Ball
>
> [...]
> .
> > >However I checked my nearby dictionary
> > >and it defines "exterminate" as "To get
> > >rid of by destroying completely." So I
> > >suppose that there are those who would
> > >say that "phasing out by an end to breeding"
> > >amounts to "exterminating", but IMO use
> > >of the word "exterminate" is misleading
> > >here and maybe inaccurate.
> >
> > Cut the crap, and stop twisting the words, please. Phasing out
> > companion animals means that they'll be extinct. No more, no less.
> > It's not something I'll waste time arguing about...
> .
> I'm talking about the use of the term
> "exterminate" and the quotes you provided
> in support of a claim about it.
> Those quotes do not use the word "exterminate,"
> which I think is generally taken by most
> people to mean something different from
> what your quoted people intended.
You're hoist by your own petard, Bob. You're quibbling over the use of
a word, when that word clearly covers the elimination of a species by
whatever means: killing them off, or preventing them from breeding.
"Work", on the other hand, can't possibly cover a book review.
> .
> .
> > >And of course all of us here want to strive
> > >for accuracy, right?
> >
> > Suuuure...
> .
> Good. Now what does "exterminate" suggest
> to you? Does the commonly heard phrase
> "exterminate the vermin" mean phase out
> the vermin over maybe several hundred
> years? No it doesn't typically mean
> that. Rather it refers to an active
> campaign to go out and do some killing
> and eliminate the target animals quickly.
Various jurisdictions in California attempted to exterminate the
Mediterranean fruit fly during the '80s and '90s by introducing huge
numbers of sterile flies in the areas of infestation. They also
augmented those efforts by widespread helicopter spraying of pesticides,
killing the target animals. The goal was the same in both efforts.
Pete Terrier
wrote:
>Ok, reference check here. Please give references to your statement that PETA
>wants domestic dogs and cats extinct and that Ingrid Newkirk clearly stated
>that domestic dogs and cats should be exterminated.
Here is one example of where PeTA obviously doesn't have a problem
with "exterminating" cats. The fact that these cats are feral, rather
than living in someone's home is irrelevant, they are still cats, and
according to PeTA's stated policies _should_ have the same treatment
as other animals. It is but one example of their hypocrisy.
From their [PeTA's] webpage at
http://www.peta-online.org/cmp/crcafs10.html
"Between 11 million and 19 million feral cats live in the United
States. Each of these cats is at risk of being killed by a car,
tortured by a sadist, or dying of starvation or disease. Despite
their seemingly overwhelming numbers, it is possible to help these
cats by humanely trapping them.
Once caught, the cats should be transferred to a humane animal
shelter or to a veterinarian to be spayed or neutered, treated for
worm and flea infestation, and then adopted. Because of a shortage of
homes, the difficulty of resocialization, and the perils of our
concrete jungle, it may be necessary to euthanize most unwanted cats
who are trapped. You can ask your veterinarian to do this or, if your
local shelter uses a painless method, take the cats there."
Note the last two sentances and realize that most shelters (in the US,
at least) do not even bother to put feral cats up for adoption, they
are euthanized as unadoptable.
There is a poster on this group who tends to champion feral cats,
perhaps she can explain more fully what happens to feral cats, what
their reaction to being trapped (and confinement) is, and what the
position and action that PeTA, and PeTA's president (Ingrid Newkirk)
takes on feral cats.
Some of this was discussed on this newsgroup (and others) in the past
as well, and actions do tend to speak even louder than words... One
notable post (in case you don't have the time to do a search on
Dejanews) is at
http://x45.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=315781127&CONTEXT=953961639.410779652&hitnum=1
The website listed in the post above no longer exists, nor have I been
able to find a new website address for The Eternal Pet or it's editor,
Robert Day. The reaction (and an explaination of sorts) generated by
the article (and the post) can be found elsewhere on the net though...
at
http://cats.about.com/pets/cats/library/weekly/aa010798.htm?once=true&
[...]
Pete
Jon Inge Bragstad
<snip>
>> >And of course all of us here want to strive
>> >for accuracy, right?
>>
>> Suuuure...
>.
>Good. Now what does "exterminate" suggest
>to you?
It means that a species (or breed?) disappears from this planet
forever.
> Does the commonly heard phrase
>"exterminate the vermin" mean phase out
>the vermin over maybe several hundred
>years? No it doesn't typically mean
>that. Rather it refers to an active
>campaign to go out and do some killing
>and eliminate the target animals quickly.
Ok. Scientists say that icebears are becoming sterile due to buildup
of chemicals in their fat tissue. If that continues, and icebears
stops breeding, you claim that they will not be extinct ?
Oh, no I forgot - they're phased out... Biiiig difference...
>> When we hunters say that we harvest animals, we really don't say that
>> we're killing anything are we ? Because "harvest" (if you care to look
>> it up - I don't) doesn't directly mean "to kill" now does it ?
>.
>Then "harvest" would be inaccurate in that
>context, or at the least, a euphemism to
>soften the impact of what is actually being
>done intentionally to the animals. If
>I'm correct about the nuances of the word
>"exterminate," then use of it as above
>would be actually changing what was meant
>by those quoted, in a way that hardened -
>not softened - the claims in question.
Excuse me ?
"Kill" changes to "harvest" = softened
"exterminate" changes to "phase out" = hardened
Please show me the logic...
Rat & Swan
> who died and made Ingrid Newkirk god? I mean just because she says her
> OPINION doesn't mean this will ever happen. We should all spay and
> neuter our pets. Pet owners should not be allowed to breed and add
> more unwanted pets to the population. If breeding accures it should be
> controlled so no puppies or kittens will be homeless or unwanted. To me
> that would be a perfect world. Reality check? this is not a perfect
> world. Nor will it ever be a perfect world. In a perfect world pigs
> might fly too. she says "eventually companion animals will be phase
> out". the word EVENTUALLY doesn't mean tomorrow or necessarily anytime
> soon. This one day might be in a three hundred years. We will all be
> dead and gone by then and so will Ingrid Newkirk. They pose no threat
> to anyone. What rights are they taking away from you? Not one of these
> groups will ever impact a whole nation to stop eating meat or wearing
> what they want. Everyone will eat,wear, and do whatever they want
> regardless of what PETA or any other organization says. Get over it!
> PETA/ARA are not the problem here. Stephanie
Yes, true. Wild-eyed hysterics like DC and
Berosini (who makes his living using
Orangutans in silly stage shows and has been
accused of abusing them)confuse the ultimate
goals of AR with immediate goals, and invent
claims about totalitarian methods no one in
the AR movement has suggested. PETA and HSUS
have never suggested just releasing domestic animals.
Both groups talk about our obligations to make
their lives better here and now. What AR is about
is gradually convincing people to become vegetarians,
gradually phasing out the death-camps and slaughter
houses and factory-farms for "Meat" animals and
companion animals, and working toward an eventual
goal of assuring each individual subject-of-a-life
animal is given equal consideration with humans
as a fellow being worthy of moral standing. That
does not mean humans cannot defend themselves, their
crops, their children, or their homes -- any more
than giving humans rights means we can't defend
ourselves against humans who are directly trying to
hurt us.
Read in the works of the AR theorists, and you will
see what these absurd alarmists are saying is pure
nonsense and propaganda.
Rat
farr...@yahoo.com
>
> <snip>
> >> >And of course all of us here want to strive
> >> >for accuracy, right?
> >>
> >> Suuuure...
> >.
> >Good. Now what does "exterminate" suggest
> >to you?
>
> It means that a species (or breed?) disappears from this planet
> forever.
Are you confusing "exterminate" with "extinct?"
A species or breed can become extinct in several
ways, but an extermination requires direct active
action, as far as I can tell.
.
.
> > Does the commonly heard phrase
> >"exterminate the vermin" mean phase out
> >the vermin over maybe several hundred
> >years? No it doesn't typically mean
> >that. Rather it refers to an active
> >campaign to go out and do some killing
> >and eliminate the target animals quickly.
>
> Ok. Scientists say that icebears are becoming sterile due to buildup
> of chemicals in their fat tissue. If that continues, and icebears
> stops breeding, you claim that they will not be extinct ?
No I haven't said anything about "extinct."
I've been talking about the word "exterminate"
and what I think that it generally means to
people.
.
.
> Oh, no I forgot - they're phased out... Biiiig difference...
>
> >> When we hunters say that we harvest animals, we really don't say
that
> >> we're killing anything are we ? Because "harvest" (if you care to
look
> >> it up - I don't) doesn't directly mean "to kill" now does it ?
> >.
> >Then "harvest" would be inaccurate in that
> >context, or at the least, a euphemism to
> >soften the impact of what is actually being
> >done intentionally to the animals. If
> >I'm correct about the nuances of the word
> >"exterminate," then use of it as above
> >would be actually changing what was meant
> >by those quoted, in a way that hardened -
> >not softened - the claims in question.
>
> Excuse me ?
> "Kill" changes to "harvest" = softened
> "exterminate" changes to "phase out" = hardened
Your second line should read like this:
"phase out" changes to "exterminate" = hardened.
.
.
> Please show me the logic...
Some people use "harvest" rather than "kill"
to soften the impact. Some people here used
"exterminate" instead of "phase out" to
harshen the impact.
DC
Its been demonstrated that Newkirk wants domestic dogs and cats "gone".
Period. Thats the point.'
You can't explain reality away, so you, as usual, resort to word games
and semantics. What a load of crap ! If these animals are
"exterminated", "phased-out",
"extinguished", "rubbed-out", "wiped out", "erased", or "destroyed",
the point is they are gone. That is the point I, and others, were
making.
Stephanie is unaware of PETA / Newkirks
position on dogs and cats, a few people ACCURATELY explain it to her. No
amount of whining about semantics changes the fact that PETA / Newkirk
want these animals to become extinct. They don't want to save them, they
don't want to care for them --they WANT THEM EXTINCT.
Why are you in denial about this ? You cannot 'whitewash" PETAs position
about the semantics.. To do so just makes you look deluded and
dishonest.
(Now watch Bob start whining that he is not "lame", but actually has two
good legs....anything to misdirect the point, eh, Bob? )
DC
Jon Inge Bragstad
<snip>
>> Excuse me ?
>> "Kill" changes to "harvest" = softened
>> "exterminate" changes to "phase out" = hardened
>.
>Your second line should read like this:
>"phase out" changes to "exterminate" = hardened.
Nope...
>> Please show me the logic...
>.
>Some people use "harvest" rather than "kill"
>to soften the impact. Some people here used
>"exterminate" instead of "phase out" to
>harshen the impact.
Nope, hunters use "harvest" instead of kill.
PeTA uses "phase out" instead of "exterminate".
Same thing.
Lisa
For you to believe that just proves how extreme your paranoia is concerning
PETA. I am still waiting for some references to this statement of
extinction. Your buddy Jon tried helping you but all's he did was p