#2 2008-09-07 09:57:14
I fucking hate PETA.
One day, my obsession with PETA will earn me a one-way ticket to incarceration, I just know it.
Offline
#3 2008-09-07 10:48:05
ptah13 wrote:
I fucking hate PETA.
One day, my obsession with PETA will earn me a one-way ticket to incarceration, I just know it.
Ditto.
Offline
#4 2008-09-07 10:54:37
i'm thinking of joining.
Who else has such fun with advertising?
Offline
#5 2008-09-07 11:17:05
I was actually a PETA member for a couple of years--yes, I actually paid annual dues to be a member. This must be close to twenty years ago. Back then, believe it or not, they had a sane agenda. For instance, they were not opposed to all animal testing--only that which was deemed unnecessary and/or unnecessarily cruel (and back then, quite a bit of it was). They were not militantly vegetarian; they merely wanted more humane treatment of food animals. I considered these, and other positions, to be worthy (still do) and I gave them some of my money.
What happened to PETA is the same thing that happened to the NRA: the bugshit crazy fringe took it over completely and purged out all the sane people. I canceled my membership in both orgs the same year.
Offline
#6 2008-09-07 11:56:18
I (gasp) agree with WCL. Loonies notwithstanding, it's a brilliant piece of marketing. I wonder if their creative is done in-house or if they contract with an agency? They'd be fun as hell to work for.
Offline
#7 2008-09-07 12:21:52
George Orr wrote:
I was actually a PETA member for a couple of years--yes, I actually paid annual dues to be a member. This must be close to twenty years ago. Back then, believe it or not, they had a sane agenda. For instance, they were not opposed to all animal testing--only that which was deemed unnecessary and/or unnecessarily cruel (and back then, quite a bit of it was). They were not militantly vegetarian; they merely wanted more humane treatment of food animals. I considered these, and other positions, to be worthy (still do) and I gave them some of my money.
What happened to PETA is the same thing that happened to the NRA: the bugshit crazy fringe took it over completely and purged out all the sane people. I canceled my membership in both orgs the same year.
The same thing happened to Greenpeace... At one point in history Greenpeace had real scientists in their membership and went after honest to goodness threats.... Now all the scientists have fled the organization along with the Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore.... What we're left with is nothing but a politically motivated group of eco-terrorists who base everything they do on anti-corporatism....
Offline
#8 2008-09-07 12:56:55
Dirck... a very sloppy use of terms... 'eco-terrorists' So who have they bombed, who have they held hostage? See what I mean, you are degrading the term to Gov't usage...
Shame.
D
Offline
#10 2008-09-07 14:10:06
George Orr wrote:
NRA: the bugshit crazy fringe took it over completely and purged out all the sane people. I canceled my membership in both orgs the same year.
I remember that. In about half a year, it went from a columnist suggesting that maybe ordinary shooter and hunter types didn't really need 30-round military assault rifles to an editorial saying that Timothy McVeigh was not completely unjustified in blowing
168 people to shittaree because he had a gripe with the gummint.
Offline
#11 2008-09-07 14:37:26
sigmoid freud wrote:
I remember that. In about half a year, it went from a columnist suggesting that maybe ordinary shooter and hunter types didn't really need 30-round military assault rifles to an editorial saying that Timothy McVeigh was not completely unjustified in blowing
168 people to shittaree because he had a gripe with the gummint.
He wasn't completely unjustified. Unlike Morris I don't think that awful book had anything to do with it.
Offline
#12 2008-09-07 14:43:13
hedgewizard wrote:
He wasn't completely unjustified. Unlike Morris I don't think that awful book had anything to do with it.
Oh really? I knew a few that lost friends there. Children, teachers, social workers, oh yes real fucking oppressors of the Idiot Right. What a fucking stupid statement.
Offline
#13 2008-09-07 14:45:15
sigmoid freud wrote:
blowing 168 people to shittaree
It was written.
Offline
#14 2008-09-07 14:47:37
You try and take away my 30 rd (for sportsman use only!) clip and you'll find out what nutcase really means...
Offline
#15 2008-09-07 14:52:38
I'm still unsure why the gubment thought it prudent to snipe a woman holding a baby and a 14-y-o boy in the back but hey, to each their own.
Offline
#16 2008-09-07 15:30:41
ptah13 wrote:
I'm still unsure why the gubment thought it prudent to snipe a woman holding a baby and a 14-y-o boy in the back but hey, to each their own.
Yes... that was pretty fucked up, unjustified and just plain sick.
Offline
#17 2008-09-07 15:39:57
ptah13 wrote:
I'm still unsure why the gubment thought it prudent to snipe a woman holding a baby and a 14-y-o boy in the back but hey, to each their own.
It's been years since I read up on Ruby Ridge but my recollection is that it wasn't a case of the shooter mentally registering "Yep, that's a woman holding a baby all right. Targeting.... Fire!" He fired into an open doorway without realizing what he was aiming at. Not that doing so wasn't criminal in itself...
Offline
#18 2008-09-07 16:01:16
Zookeeper wrote:
He fired into an open doorway....
Military training
vs
Civilian anything
easy bet.
Offline
#19 2008-09-07 16:20:56
Offline
#20 2008-09-07 16:48:07
PETA is just another nasty and hypocritical religious cult. The people running the organization suffer from a classic case of projection.
The Truth About PETA’s Concern For Homeless Dogs And Cats.
Offline
#21 2008-09-07 20:33:16
Dmtdust wrote:
Oh really? I knew a few that lost friends there. Children, teachers, social workers, oh yes real fucking oppressors of the Idiot Right. What a fucking stupid statement.
You're saying collateral damage makes something completely unjustified?
Offline
#22 2008-09-07 20:38:03
pALEPHx wrote:
Duh. Because you didn't cook it.
Offline
#23 2008-09-07 20:50:33
For The Record
I have knowingly eaten dog several times.
So what?
Offline
#24 2008-09-08 01:24:14
hedgewizard wrote:
Dmtdust wrote:
Oh really? I knew a few that lost friends there. Children, teachers, social workers, oh yes real fucking oppressors of the Idiot Right. What a fucking stupid statement.
You're saying collateral damage makes something completely unjustified?
Collateral damage takes you right down from the moral high ground to the ordinary jingoism moral morass.
WW2 was one thing. We burned thousands and thousands of civilians to end that. Somebody else condemn the methods.
Vietnam? The moral justification did not exist. The causus belli did not exist. We had no reason to go in to southeast asia beyond the stupid domino theory, which, you will observe, did not come to pass.
Last edited by sigmoid freud (2008-09-08 01:37:59)
Offline
#25 2008-09-08 01:28:09
sigmoid freud wrote:
jingoism
That is a term to toss around.
Offline
#26 2008-09-08 01:32:08
MSG Tripps wrote:
For The Record
I have knowingly eaten dog several times.
Did she roll over and beg for more?
Last edited by choad (2008-09-08 01:33:00)
Offline
#27 2008-09-08 01:37:07
choad wrote:
roll over
When I was a fixin to eat it, there werent no movement at all.
Offline
#28 2008-09-08 06:28:52
pALEPHx wrote:
Dog isn't so bad. It's good with hot sauce...
Ask anyone who has ever been to the Philippines.
Offline
#29 2008-09-08 06:30:48
Zookeeper wrote:
ptah13 wrote:
I'm still unsure why the gubment thought it prudent to snipe a woman holding a baby and a 14-y-o boy in the back but hey, to each their own.
It's been years since I read up on Ruby Ridge but my recollection is that it wasn't a case of the shooter mentally registering "Yep, that's a woman holding a baby all right. Targeting.... Fire!" He fired into an open doorway without realizing what he was aiming at. Not that doing so wasn't criminal in itself...
A court deemed it criminal.
On the other hand, I'm sure the other shooter knew he was shooting a kid in the back when said 14-y-o was running away from him.
Sick sick sick....
Offline
#30 2008-09-08 06:31:44
MSG Tripps wrote:
Zookeeper wrote:
He fired into an open doorway....
Military training
vs
Civilian anything
easy bet.
I thought they were military-trained ATF agents? Who knows, you're probably right.
Offline
#31 2008-09-08 06:35:27
sigmoid freud wrote:
hedgewizard wrote:
Dmtdust wrote:
Oh really? I knew a few that lost friends there. Children, teachers, social workers, oh yes real fucking oppressors of the Idiot Right. What a fucking stupid statement.
You're saying collateral damage makes something completely unjustified?
Collateral damage takes you right down from the moral high ground to the ordinary jingoism moral morass.
WW2 was one thing. We burned thousands and thousands of civilians to end that. Somebody else condemn the methods.
Vietnam? The moral justification did not exist. The causus belli did not exist. We had no reason to go in to southeast asia beyond the stupid domino theory, which, you will observe, did not come to pass.
Yeah, I'll never forgive Kennedy and Johnson for Vietnam. Thank god the Republicans had enough sense to get us out of that mess.
Also, on WW2, one would say hundreds of thousands, not just thousands and thousands.
Offline
#32 2008-09-08 07:35:03
Nobody to talk to at home? Having a conversation with yourself on the interweb is a little McVeigh like , thinks I.
Offline
#33 2008-09-08 07:42:29
Bigcat wrote:
Nobody to talk to at home? Having a conversation with yourself on the interweb is a little McVeigh like , thinks I.
Yep, I almost lost my mind over that 3 minute span...
Offline
#34 2008-09-08 11:04:20
MSG Tripps wrote:
choad wrote:
roll over
When I was a fixin to eat it, there werent no movement at all.
Sounds like you weren't doing it right.
Offline
#35 2008-09-08 11:08:53
ptah13 wrote:
sigmoid freud wrote:
hedgewizard wrote:
You're saying collateral damage makes something completely unjustified?
Collateral damage takes you right down from the moral high ground to the ordinary jingoism moral morass.
WW2 was one thing. We burned thousands and thousands of civilians to end that. Somebody else condemn the methods.
Vietnam? The moral justification did not exist. The causus belli did not exist. We had no reason to go in to southeast asia beyond the stupid domino theory, which, you will observe, did not come to pass.Yeah, I'll never forgive Kennedy and Johnson for Vietnam. Thank god the Republicans had enough sense to get us out of that mess.
Also, on WW2, one would say hundreds of thousands, not just thousands and thousands.
Interestingly enough, it so happens that it was by virtue of a coup that Kennedy's folks engineered in Iraq that Saddam and the Baath Party got put into power in the first place. I'm old enough to remember that one. I know everyone seems to love JFK, but IMHO the guy was a fucking rolling disaster. The only thing he did right was to kick-start the space program.
Last edited by whosasailorthen (2008-09-08 11:12:31)
Offline
#36 2008-09-08 11:21:24
ptah13 wrote:
Zookeeper wrote:
ptah13 wrote:
I'm still unsure why the gubment thought it prudent to snipe a woman holding a baby and a 14-y-o boy in the back but hey, to each their own.
It's been years since I read up on Ruby Ridge but my recollection is that it wasn't a case of the shooter mentally registering "Yep, that's a woman holding a baby all right. Targeting.... Fire!" He fired into an open doorway without realizing what he was aiming at. Not that doing so wasn't criminal in itself...
A court deemed it criminal.
On the other hand, I'm sure the other shooter knew he was shooting a kid in the back when said 14-y-o was running away from him.
Sick sick sick....
Again, it's been a while since I read up on this but my recollection is that the marshal who shot the boy was returning fire on somebody who had shot at him and was running away. As I recall the events of that shooting were 1) the kid's dog was going after the marshals possibly endangering them directly (attacking) and definitely endangering them indirectly by (drawing armed combatants and giving away their position). 2) At least one marshal shot the dog. 3) The boy was outraged that his dog had been killed and exchanged fire with marshals. One of the marshals was killed. 4) The remaining marshal shot the boy while he was running away carrying his rifle. I believe that a family friend was with the boy so it may not have been the boy who actually killed the marshal.
My take on it when I read about it was that the marshals handled it wrong from the get-go and made things worse at just about every opportunity. They put themselves in a position that erupted into a fire fight and both sides had someone die.
Offline
#37 2008-09-08 11:57:12
We had to take care of some abandoned kittens a couple of months ago... fed them with little bottles and got them all vetted and finally found homes for all 5 of them. When we went to look to shelters and the SPCA we were told there was no room and that SPCA would just kill'em.
Funny enough, I never found a PETA-sponsored place where we could get help for those little guys. In fact, there is *no* number for any PETA shelters. Seems they are a lot of talk and no service.
(Damn, I really want to end this with "and those kitties were delicious with some fava beans and a nice chianti"... [insert sick slurping sounds here])
Last edited by whosasailorthen (2008-09-08 11:59:59)
Offline
#38 2008-09-08 12:01:16
MSG Tripps wrote:
Zookeeper wrote:
He fired into an open doorway....
Military training
vs
Civilian anything
easy bet.
Military Mission: Locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy's assault by fire and close combat.
Civilian Mission: Apprehend the suspect with minimum use of deadly force.
Offline
#39 2008-09-08 12:55:58
Zookeeper wrote:
Again, it's been a while since I read up on this but my recollection is that the marshal who shot the boy was returning fire on somebody who had shot at him and was running away. As I recall the events of that shooting were 1) the kid's dog was going after the marshals possibly endangering them directly (attacking) and definitely endangering them indirectly by (drawing armed combatants and giving away their position). 2) At least one marshal shot the dog. 3) The boy was outraged that his dog had been killed and exchanged fire with marshals. One of the marshals was killed. 4) The remaining marshal shot the boy while he was running away carrying his rifle. I believe that a family friend was with the boy so it may not have been the boy who actually killed the marshal.
My take on it when I read about it was that the marshals handled it wrong from the get-go and made things worse at just about every opportunity. They put themselves in a position that erupted into a fire fight and both sides had someone die.
You're right. The whole mess was set in motion by the ATF trying to entrap Randy Weaver. The Federal Marshals got involved becasue someone sent Weaver a letter with the court date a month later than they actually wanted him to show up. The Marshals tossed some rocks at the Weavers cabin to see if they could stir up the dogs. When that worked they ran away until they got tired of running. Then they shot one of the dogs, and killed the boy during the fire fight they started by shooting the dog. Later the FBI joined in and killed the mother. The FBI rules of engagement said they can and should use deadly force against armed males ouside the cabin. So walking to the shed and back was a perfectly good reason for being shot under the ROE. It was handled wrong by the ATF, US Marshals, FBI, and the US Probation Office. Sort of like Waco, where the ATF started off by doing the wrong thing and the FBI finished the mess off in grand style. It's no great wonder that our congress critters made so much noise about the ATF back then. I knew several people who had dealings of a mildly unpleasant nature with the ATF around that time. I personally have always had gracious dealings with ATF agents and have never felt the need to set off bombs. However if I don't say or do something when they come for Fnord and his buddies...
Last edited by hedgewizard (2008-09-08 16:27:45)
Offline
#40 2008-09-08 15:54:34
whosasailorthen wrote:
Funny enough, I never found a PETA-sponsored place where we could get help for those little guys. In fact, there is *no* number for any PETA shelters. Seems they are a lot of talk and no service.
Then you are lucky you didn't find out that they DO take animals. But it's a one-way ticket.
Offline
#41 2008-09-08 17:09:47
GooberMcNutly wrote:
whosasailorthen wrote:
Funny enough, I never found a PETA-sponsored place where we could get help for those little guys. In fact, there is *no* number for any PETA shelters. Seems they are a lot of talk and no service.
Then you are lucky you didn't find out that they DO take animals. But it's a one-way ticket.
Fuck, craigslist has a better adoption rate than PETA.
I remember coming out of rock concerts when I was younger, and the PETAphiles passing out the most disgusting literature on the way out.
It's a cult.
Offline