Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Piston Honda wrote:
I once protested PETA protesting at my university by eating a double bacon cheese burger in front of them.

It did't end well.

SOUnds like it ended excellently. mmm bacon burger.....

I got smacked with a sign that had a picture of a concentration camp next to a photo of caged chickens with the words saying "There is No difference"

 Piston Honda wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Piston Honda wrote:
I once protested PETA protesting at my university by eating a double bacon cheese burger in front of them.

It did't end well.

SOUnds like it ended excellently. mmm bacon burger.....

I got smacked with a sign that had a picture of a concentration camp next to a photo of caged chickens with the words saying "There is No difference"

I can think of several that'd earn me a spot in Hell for a good few thousand years if I said them.

The funny thing about chickens in cages, the cages are actually better for the laying chickens.

Leghorns are EXTREMELY hyper birds. If they are kept in cages which allow more freedom of movement, they tend to injure themselves. Especially if spooked by something. And even the smallest wound can trigger cannibalism. And leghorns are horribly cannibalistic. A couple hours and the other 4-5 birds in the cage will kill and begin to eat the injured bird, which only leaves more room to run around in, and for the rest to injure themselves. And once a chicken tastes blood, its becomes prone to cannibalism and will actually start pecking at a healthy bird and open wounds itself.

This is on top of the drastic loss in feed efficiency. Instead of putting energy into laying eggs, the bird runs around its cage and doesn't lay as much.

 Orlanth wrote:

Pet ownership, or "animal companions" in animal right parlance is not against PETA conditions. From the US PETS site you get the same doctrines listed. So it is not against PETA ideology to keep pets, its against the ideology only of the crazies. Who let them in and why?

Many members of PETA would consider the keeping of pets to be equivalent to using animals for entertainment, especially if those pet animals are the result of selective breeding; which nearly all pets are. This line of thinking often leads to the conclusion that pet animals are necessarily having their rights violated by simply existing, and that death is the only way to grant them "freedom" from their state of exploitative servitude. PETA doesn't come right out and say this, because they're smart enough to know that the vast majority of people would think the organization was dominated by crazy people. However, it is absolutely borne out by the variance in the organization's treatment of traditional pet animals, and non-traditional pet animals or non-domesticated animals.

 Orlanth wrote:

There is a logical gaping hole in what is happening in PETA that begs the question of the actual real motives of some of those in authority in it. A question that could (not necessarily is) be more easily explained if some of those in authority in PETA do not have the interests of the animal rights movement at heart but are working to destroy it from the inside.

PETA doesn't have the interests of the entirety of the animal right's movement at heart. PETA has its own vision of what the animal right's movement should be at heart, and what that vision happens to be is demonstrably extreme.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Piston Honda wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Piston Honda wrote:
I once protested PETA protesting at my university by eating a double bacon cheese burger in front of them.

It did't end well.

SOUnds like it ended excellently. mmm bacon burger.....

I got smacked with a sign that had a picture of a concentration camp next to a photo of caged chickens with the words saying "There is No difference"

I can think of several that'd earn me a spot in Hell for a good few thousand years if I said them.

Spend a day at my Uni.

It's super liberal heaven. I don't mind liberalism or even conservatism, but when it gets to the extreme that it did at my school it becomes painful.

Some of the things they protest and petition for is an embarrassment.

Anyone want to petition for slavery free made paper that the school buys?

Then there was the bright idea of free hug day where I felt like a victim in Jurassic Park 2, chased by raptors.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Pet ownership, or "animal companions" in animal right parlance is not against PETA conditions. From the US PETA site you get the same doctrines listed. So it is not against PETA ideology to keep pets, its against the ideology only of the crazies. Who let them in and why?

Many members of PETA would consider the keeping of pets to be equivalent to using animals for entertainment, especially if those pet animals are the result of selective breeding; which nearly all pets are. This line of thinking often leads to the conclusion that pet animals are necessarily having their rights violated by simply existing, and that death is the only way to grant them "freedom" from their state of exploitative servitude. PETA doesn't come right out and say this, because they're smart enough to know that the vast majority of people would think the organization was dominated by crazy people. However, it is absolutely borne out by the variance in the organization's treatment of traditional pet animals, and non-traditional pet animals or non-domesticated animals.

Thanks for the input. However what you say doesnt tally up with PETA's own policies as indicated. PETA is against the pet industry, but not the keeping of 'animal companions'.
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/

In animal rights parlance "animal companion" and pet are interchangable terms, with the former being more politically correct.
Kidnapping of pets doesnt fit in with the above ethos.

 Orlanth wrote:

There is a logical gaping hole in what is happening in PETA that begs the question of the actual real motives of some of those in authority in it. A question that could (not necessarily is) be more easily explained if some of those in authority in PETA do not have the interests of the animal rights movement at heart but are working to destroy it from the inside.

PETA doesn't have the interests of the entirety of the animal right's movement at heart. PETA has its own vision of what the animal right's movement should be at heart, and what that vision happens to be is demonstrably extreme.

 d-usa wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Without the article actually talking about how the animal was "stolen" it seems like it could be a fairly routine "pick up a stray, put it down because shelters are not nice" kind of situation.

This op-ed is not even trying to be an article.

How does taking the family's pet from their front porch constitute "pick up a stray"?

Is the porch enclosed or open? Did the dog have a collar and a tag?

We have cats, rabbits, and even a dog or two on our porch sometimes. All of them were strays and did not belong to us.

Who has the right to decide what is and isn't a stray and take it off the street for euthanising? Is just anyone allowed to do it? I thought the local authority performs that service not members of the public taking their own initiative.

The porch of a house is someone's property. What other things could you just take because anyone could have left it there?

Did these people not watch John Wick or something? Don't mess with people's dogs

 Orlanth wrote:
Good analysis includes evidence presented by recognising the boundaries of a void of information; and even so the possibility of infiltration is only raised as said, a possibility, no direct claim is made.

Is it possible that you're actually a reptilian alien come to Earth to infiltrate as many internet forums as possible? Sure is.

Hey, I'm not making a direct claim, I'm only pointing out the possibility.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Good analysis includes evidence presented by recognising the boundaries of a void of information; and even so the possibility of infiltration is only raised as said, a possibility, no direct claim is made.

Is it possible that you're actually a reptilian alien come to Earth to infiltrate as many internet forums as possible? Sure is.

Hey, I'm not making a direct claim, I'm only pointing out the possibility.

We also may or may not be controlled by a kitten super genius.

orrrr

A mastermind dog is controlling us D:



I mean it is a possibility we got keep our preferences open.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Good analysis includes evidence presented by recognising the boundaries of a void of information; and even so the possibility of infiltration is only raised as said, a possibility, no direct claim is made.

Is it possible that you're actually a reptilian alien come to Earth to infiltrate as many internet forums as possible? Sure is.

Hey, I'm not making a direct claim, I'm only pointing out the possibility.

gak, they are onto me.
Gotta report to Xenu

Analyst is not equal to conspiracy theorist.

Standard workday question for a professional political analyst:

What is <insert name> group thinking and why?
You cant just Google up the answer, and they wont tell you. It's not that easy, but you can search for clues. I could explain further but i think its wasted on you three..

 Orlanth wrote:
Analyst is not equal to conspiracy theorist.

Standard workday question for a professional political analyst:

What is <insert name> group thinking and why?
You cant just Google up the answer, and they wont tell you. It's not that easy, but you can search for clues. I could explain further but i think its wasted on you three..

There's also this thing called Occam's Razor, but seeing as you post conspiracy theories in pretty much every thread you're in and insist that they're not, I'd say that's wasted on you too...

Again there appears to be a void between PETA's declared policies and those carried out by extremist members. This begs the question who is running the organisation, and how many subfactions there are, as the groups policies are directly contradictory and only makes sense if we conclude that some PETA organisers have directly contradictory goals.

Their goals are only contradictory if you're incapable of reading between the lines. PETA is an animal liberation movement. To them, even having a pet is animal abuse (and this is their official stated position). Their practice is that a pet is better dead than alive, which is bonkers, but that's always been their position.

Seriously Orlanth. This is a top down centrally controlled organization. You really think they've been infiltrated by crazies? PETA has always been crazy.. They didn't need to be infiltrated. If anything the centralization of the organization and the closing of its local chapters across the US kicked all the moderate members of the organization out years ago.

 LordofHats wrote:
PETA is an animal liberation movement. To them, even having a pet is animal abuse (and this is their official stated position) -needs citation.

Come, now. They're messed up enough without just making up stories you'd like to be true. They claim no such thing as their official stance.

Did you even read that page?

we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed.

Having pets is bad. They then proceed to use the page to describe all the ways pet ownership is abusive. Seriously. Read between the lines here (I'm not even asking for any assumptions, this is basic train of thought leading to the unspoken reality that is PETA's stance on pets). The rest of that page is just hilarious, given that they spend their time killing large numbers of perfectly adoptable animals and then dumping the corpses in dumpsters.

 LordofHats wrote:
Did you even read that page?

we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed.

Having pets is bad. They then proceed to use the page to describe all the ways pet ownership is abusive. Seriously. Read between the lines here

1.) You have a moving line of logic: first they say they wish the institution of private pet ownership didn't exist. They don't claim this is "abuse".

2.) Then they list ways some pets are actually abused while being kept as pets, and call it abuse (which in their examples, clearly are). They don't claim owning a pet is abuse, or even being a lousy pet owner is abuse (although clearly not ideal) - they first use the word "abuse" when they get into things like duct-taping a dogs mouth closed, or dogfighting, and so on. Clearly not just mere ownership as abuse, which is your erroneous characterization of what their position is.

leading to the unspoken reality that is PETA's stance on pets).

3.) I thought it was their "official position"? Now it's an "unspoken reality"? This is a bit of goalpost moving.

Again, you are making up something in your head and pretending it's reality, using the all-encompassing phrase "read between the lines" as a kind of lazy intellectual spackle.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Man our cat loved snow (odd, cause she's blacker than black and watching her try to sneak up up anything in all that was kind of hilarious). We had to go out there and collect her to get her back inside

My dog is old he is quite stubborn and sometimes refuses to go inside. I mean.... look at him:

Spoiler:

He never wants to go inside, I have to sometimes drag him inside. He's a Yellow Labrador its kind of his home to live in the snow. It is unnecessarily cruel to see him in the summer, he's really sad, but during the winter, he always wants to be outside. Much to my parents disapproval.

Its Statue Dog!

I so Statue Dog Sun so Good So still hot though

 Ouze wrote:
1.) You have a moving line of logic: first they say they wish the institution of private pet ownership didn't exist. They don't claim this is "abuse".

That's just being obtuse.

PETA from its onset has favored a gradual phase out of pet ownership. It was one of PETA's founding positions when it first came up in the 80's. They claim they want all animals to be adopted from shelters, but they protest no kill shelters, and run all kill shelters themselves.

2.) Then they list ways some pets are actually abused while being kept as pets, and call it abuse (which in their examples, clearly are).

No. They start with a list that looks like it's talking about actual abuse, but in reality is basically just an attack on pet ownership. Really Ouze. READ;

This is a best-case scenario. Millions of dogs spend their lives outdoors on heavy chains in all weather extremes or are kept locked up in tiny chain-link pens from which they can only watch the world go by.

I've been all over the US, and the world. This number is pulled from the ass. it's not even remotely realistic, and ignores that this is already illegal and grounds for an animal to be seized by public servants. This is also about the only reasonable thing they list, and it's horribly inflated.

Millions more are confined to filthy wire cages in puppy mills, forced to churn out litter after litter until they wear out, at which time they are killed or dumped at the local animal shelter.

This one is just ironic coming from PETA, and also not true. Also another number pulled from the ass. The term 'puppy mill' was literally invented by PETA in the 90's to slander dog breeding by conflating a small number of horribly abusive places with the much larger number of not so abusive breeding facilities.

You only go with it because the image is ugly. Ignore that it's not real.

Even in “good” homes, cats must relieve themselves in dirty litterboxes and often have the tips of their toes amputated through declawing.

And this is where the insanity comes in. Also notice the air quotes by "good." Because people don't clean the litter box every time a cat makes a boom boom. Who doesn't clean the litter box regularly? People okay with cat gak around the house, which is already illegal and grounds for seizure and not that common a problem.

I get the people who say that declawing is invasive and unnecessary, but seriously. Abusive? That's kind of pushing the boundry of sense. I even checked their Declawing cats page, and it's fething comical. Yes PETA. I'm sure if some psycho comes along wanting to abuse an escaped cat, those little claws are totally going to save them. Trauma? Declawed cats go their whole lives not even realizing their claws are gone. I've seen declawed cats use scratching posts daily, as if they still had them, and bare their paws as if they still had them, and knead as if they still have them. They literally can't even tell the claws are gone.

Not to mention their claim of medical problems is completely bat gak. Bladder problems? From declawing? I even checked around on Google for this, and everyone either pulls this factoid from PETA or offers no reference what so ever. I find numerous cites, conflating declawing with cats peeing all over the house, but offering not one iota of reason for why this even happens, and as a life long cat owner I've never seen or heard of this happening, so calling shenanigans on that gak.

Dogs often have to drink water that has been sitting around for days,

Because... Wait what? Water doesn't go bad sitting around for a few days its fething water. Most people probably get it from the tap which is drenched in 'kill bad stuff' chemicals.

are hurried along on their walks, if they even get walked,

Who the feth doesn't walk their dog? Someone okay with dog gak in their house, illegal, and also not even a remotely common problem. I could buy hurrying a dog along, but I don't see how that's abusive so much as not the most loving way to treat the dog.

and are yelled at to get off the furniture or be quiet.

Does anyone like neighbors with dogs that bark all through the night? And heaven forbid they ruin the resale value of that 10 year old couch (the last one again, is kind of a silly thing people do when you think about it, but not abusive).

They don't claim owning a pet is abuse, which is your claim of what their position is.

They literally conflate basic aspects of pet ownership like walks and litter boxes, with leaving a dog out in the snow and rain and breeding them to death, and use the word good in air quotes in reference to homes. This isn't even hard reading. It's practically trolling how they dangle what they really think in front of you.

lazy intellectual spackle.

Lazy intellect is refusing to observe an organizations actions, read their position, and see the obvious conclusion. Seriously. This is not hard. They are literally using the most basic means of manipulating people; stating things that are obviously objectionable, then moving on to lies that are twisted to make something look objectionable, and then finally to just plain nonsense, but don't worry! They understand basic psychology and that most people will only remember the first and last things they read, so they finish off with a completely hypocritical paragraph about how terribly treated so many pets are. I imagine whoever wrote it was also pushing the 'inject the lethal death poison' button at the local PETA shelter.

PETA doesn't care about pets. They don't think Pets should exist at all, and actively promote a philosophy that wants Pets eliminated.

3.) I thought it was their "official position"? Now it's an "unspoken reality"? This is a bit of goalpost moving.

I will admit to poor word choice though. Sorry. See when PETA actually acts a certain way, I consider their actions their official stance. The lies they sell people tend to get tuned out by the rational part of the brain that detects bull gak.

 Asherian Command wrote:
He never wants to go inside, I have to sometimes drag him inside. He's a Yellow Labrador its kind of his home to live in the snow. It is unnecessarily cruel to see him in the summer, he's really sad, but during the winter, he always wants to be outside. Much to my parents disapproval.

Watch out for PETA vans in the summer, then...

 LordofHats wrote:
I will admit to poor word choice though. Sorry. See when PETA actually acts a certain way, I consider their actions their official stance.

There goes more of that spackle, I see. "I admit I was wrong, but I'm gonna just patch over that part and look, I was right, after all!".

Claiming they have an official stance, and then proving it by extrapolating out what you think they actually mean instead of what they literally publish as their actual official stance is not "poor word choice", it's making up a narrative you want to be true. The best case scenario would be contrasting their official stance by claiming they don't abide by that in practice, but that's not what you're doing.

 Ouze wrote:
There goes more of that spackle, I see. "I admit I was wrong, but I'm gonna just patch over that part and look, I was right, after all!".

More of that obtuseness I see.

OK bro

it's making up a narrative you want to be true.

Its like you've never heard of people doing one thing while proclaiming to do another. If someone's website says something other than what they actually do, I don't really care... It's official in only the most technical sense of the word, and in any practical sense is otherwise completely meaningless.

But now we're arguing semantics, which I guess is funner when you like to be Juicy juicy obtuseness.

 Ouze wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I will admit to poor word choice though. Sorry. See when PETA actually acts a certain way, I consider their actions their official stance.

There goes more of that spackle, I see. "I admit I was wrong, but I'm gonna just patch over that part and look, I was right, after all!".

Claiming they have an official stance, and then proving it by extrapolating out what you think they actually mean instead of what they literally publish as their actual official stance is not "poor word choice", it's making up a narrative you want to be true. The best case scenario would be contrasting their official stance by claiming they don't abide by that in practice, but that's not what you're doing.

If they are driving a PETA van, under the law I would make a winning case that they were acting under the color of the group.

 LordofHats wrote:
[
Its like you've never heard of people doing one thing while proclaiming to do another. If someone's website says something other than what they actually do, I don't really care... It's official in only the most technical sense of the word, and in any practical sense is otherwise completely meaningless.

But now we're arguing semantics, which I guess is funner when you like to be Juicy juicy obtuseness.

No, this works in that it dilutes anyone's "official stance" to be a slogan devoid of any real meaning, and the only real way to objectively consider the merits of anyone or anything is based upon their actions. In this case, we see PETA people showing up in PETA van, doing PETA business, which happens to be horrible business.

 Ahtman wrote:

LordofHats wrote:SO what your saying is that beef is like drugs. Quitting cold turkey feths you up

It isn't just meat, but really just about anything you go a long time without changes your taste. Knew a guy who cut out all chocolate from his diet and after about a year or so couldn't stand the taste of chocalate. I would think cutting out sugar would have a similar effect.

I cut sugar from my tea when I was about 11 years old and soon came to dislike sweet tea.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Analyst is not equal to conspiracy theorist.

Standard workday question for a professional political analyst:

What is <insert name> group thinking and why?
You cant just Google up the answer, and they wont tell you. It's not that easy, but you can search for clues. I could explain further but i think its wasted on you three..

There's also this thing called Occam's Razor, but seeing as you post conspiracy theories in pretty much every thread you're in and insist that they're not, I'd say that's wasted on you too...

Please put that down, only grown ups should play with knives.

If you wish to apply Occam's Razor to analysis of an organisation where one part does the complete opposite to what the orgnisation officially stands for, then the simplest explanation is that the orgnisation is divided and some members have a completely different agenda to the others.
Exploring the motives behind this is a logical next step.

 LordofHats wrote:

Again there appears to be a void between PETA's declared policies and those carried out by extremist members. This begs the question who is running the organisation, and how many subfactions there are, as the groups policies are directly contradictory and only makes sense if we conclude that some PETA organisers have directly contradictory goals.

Their goals are only contradictory if you're incapable of reading between the lines. PETA is an animal liberation movement. To them, even having a pet is animal abuse (and this is their official stated position).

I already posted links showing a contrary position from the PETA website (US branch). To them, keeping "animal companions" is ok, commercial farming of animals for the pet industry is not.

 LordofHats wrote:

Their practice is that a pet is better dead than alive, which is bonkers, but that's always been their position.

Again their website and official communication contradict this.

 LordofHats wrote:

Seriously Orlanth. This is a top down centrally controlled organization.

This is the rub, it obviously isnt, as you have totally contradictory doctrines doing on. You are right in that to some keep9ng pets is wrong, and a pet is better dead than alive, you are wrong in that this is not PETA's official position, quite the opposite in fact. Please look at their website, and read what they say about themselves, the you will see the contradiction for yourself.

 LordofHats wrote:

You really think they've been infiltrated by crazies? PETA has always been crazy..

A lot of PETA's work is quite reasonable, remember this is an international organisation. PETA UK and PETA India for examplwe dont do the gak you are reading in the American press.
Secondly the US branch of PETA doesnt support the extremist activities we are reading in the press, and contradicts them.
The only logical conclusion is that there is a rift between what PETA officiallty stands for and what some members are doing.
The next question is why.

 LordofHats wrote:

They didn't need to be infiltrated. If anything the centralization of the organization and the closing of its local chapters across the US kicked all the moderate members of the organization out years ago.

Please make up your mind If you are saying (and I dont know if this is true) that PETA is kicking out the moderate members, then by logical extension crazies have infiltrated the organisation. PETA didn't start as a crazy organisation.

 Frazzled wrote:
If they are driving a PETA van, under the law I would make a winning case that they were acting under the color of the group.

"Color of" only applies to government employees, I believe, yes? I think you're talking about liability. And while I think they're liable civilly, I still want to back it up a bit and know why the criminal charges weren't pursued (I'm saying that in general, you've already explained why you specifically think they were dropped).

I'm not one of those criminal conspiracy, Alex Jones truther types who can't believe what I see. The problem is what I see is so bogglingly unlikely that the facts as described, I can't reconcile it. I believe PETA would steal a dog and know they would kill one as they kill an average of however many a day, it's the above part that I'm stuck on.

Also, knocking on someone's door to announce that you're the one who stole and killed their dog seems like a good way to make that front yard the scene of two crimes.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If they are driving a PETA van, under the law I would make a winning case that they were acting under the color of the group.

"Color of" only applies to government employees, I believe, yes? I think you're talking about liability. And while I think they're liable civilly, I still want to back it up a bit and know why the criminal charges weren't pursued (I'm saying that in general, you've already explained why you specifically think they were dropped).

That is a term of art often applied as you note. However the agrument applies to businesses etc.