In case you don't know what Peta is, it's an organization that's supposedly out to protect animals. I personally thought they went too far, I've also questioned their priorites of an animals life, since they seem to believe that it's ok to put a feral cat to sleep rather than just letting them live out their lives.
What I found out that someone posted at Fabulous Felines and Fidos board was rather sickening.
Here is the link to it. If you can't reach the link I can just post what it says in the topic.
I really don't pay much attention to PETA, I like to wear leather, eat meat, drink dairy, and hopefully hunt this year.
That being said, if a feral cat has Feline AIDS, then putting it to sleep is the best way to protect the rest of the feral cat population since cats breed, well, like a cat in heat.
Feral cats are a huge problem to songbird populations, and some areas have put feral cats on basically a "varmit" status, meaning that they are an unprotected species just because the bird population took such an incredible nosedive.
Anyways, if this is PETA's stance, it would be about the only stance they've ever put forth that I agree with.
Jimro
I'm an animal lover so you won't be shocked to here I was sickened by this. No room so they kill the animals even though they are (apparently) aiming to save them and find them homes. That's like the police catching a serial killer, then letting him go because they have no room in the cells.
Oh, and the last part about that women being opposed to having children. Human vanity? How? A baby isn't exactly a fashion statement now is it.
PETA and their affiliates sicken me, and not just because they're smelly hippies that value animal life over humans (I'm not kidding, read their mission statement, It basically says that they are for the displacement of humans for the convenience of a few brainless animals).
PETA and their toadie organizations are classified as Ecoterrorists in most nations where they operate, including some parts of the USA. They have been known to stalk people they deem 'cruel to animals' such as medical researchers that operate on mice, vandalizing their cars and homes, threatening them, and even physically assaulting them. Hell, there was a case over in britain about a month or so ago where an organization with strong ties to PETA actually stole the body of a dead person from their grave because they were once related to someone who was part of an organization that conducted research on guinea pigs. That is a sick and depraved act no matter what your stance on the so-called "animal rights" movement is.
But I digress, I'm off-topic, and this isn't the first time PETA has done something like this. "Animal Rights"? don't make me laugh.
Quote:
Oh, and the last part about that women being opposed to having children. Human vanity? How? A baby isn't exactly a fashion statement now is it.
That's all part of PETA's stance on how animal life should be valued above human, and in some extreme cases that there should be mass sterilization to decrease the human population so that animals can reclaim the land that we have 'ruined'. Liberating medical facilities and the like are just red herrings to distract the public from their real agenda of wanton destruction and ecoterrorism.
Quote:
It basically says that they are for the displacement of humans for the convenience of a few brainless animals
How many animals, exactly, lack brains?
Jellyfish.
And their supposed concern is for jellyfish only I suppose?
SUPPOSEDLY brainless animals. Their brains aren't as advanced as ours but that doesn't make them brainless. With the exception of dolphins, now they are smart mammals.
And chimps, but then again, animals have learned to survive and adapt in the harshest of environments eg the polar bear or the angler fish. They have the intelligence to survive and to know what to do to survive.
But lemmings, what's with the whole jumping off cliffs routine? Survival?XD
Sheep...those animals sure don't use their brains for much. They just follow the leader, even if the leader jumps off a cliff...
Said the guy who voted for Bush.
That's like the police catching a serial killer, then letting him go because they have no room in the cells.
It has happened, actually, to make room for all the casual pot users.
Quote:
Said the guy who voted for Bush
Bitter...
Because I can see no other reason why you had to mention that...
No... he's just laughing at the U.S. like the rest of the known world.
~Rico
Quote:
No... he's just laughing at the U.S. like the rest of the known world.
Well, right now, most of the world is in "Aww, poor US, they got hit by a hurricane" phase, but that won't last long.
And my earlier comments may have been the TINIEST bit exaggerated, but some of the animals are pretty stupid anyway.
I've never seen a mouse who could count, let alone use sign language.
And my general stance on animal rights is:
Humans, as a species, are physically pathetic.
We're not strong.
We're not fast.
We don't have good senses (except for binocular vision, but then have you ever seen an eagle catch a rabbit from the air? scary.)
We don't have fangs or claws or prehensile tails or anything that makes animals what they are.
Yet we, being the weak, slow, feeble, ill-equipped pinkish blobs that we are, rose to the top of the food chain and made nature our b****, to put it politely.
So I say if putting lipstick on a cow or shooting a couple monkeys full of drugs is going to further us as a race, go for it.
Note that, although I do not endorse wanton pollution and destroying of animal habitats and the like, I do beleive that if experimenting on mice is what it takes to cure cancer in 50 years, then by all means, that is our right.
Bitter... Because I can see no other reason why you had to mention that...
Actually, I mentioned that because I simply couldn't contain my lightning-fast wit. I'm on my third DSL modem because all the fiery quips I'm uploading burn them out. I'm just too droll -- nay, too apt for the Internet.
Tell Gore about your aptness with the Internet, maybe he can come up with a solution...
As for the animals...PETA is extremist and bigots with no sympathy for human beings at all (Or for the most part)...I bit they are wetting themselves over the prospect of Gulf oil drilling being hurt because of the hurricane...
Well let's see. They're the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals... therefore they're an animal rights organization... and they cosider the value of animal life to be equal to or greater than that of human life. That sounds about right. Personally, I disagree with many of their proclamations, however, I think there needs to be a strong voice for animal rights in politics, and if PETA has any effect whatsoever on policy decisions, then so much the better. As long as they're not blowing up trains or murdering veterenarians who euthanize feral cats, I honestly don't care. What -- did they eat your first-born son or something? Because I can't think of any other reasonable purpose for the personal vendetta you seem to have against them.
They have opinions and they make sure they are heard by the people who matter. If you have an opinion that you feel should be heard, by all means, crack your knuckles and get typing: tell the people who matter all about it. Just don't come moaning about how much you hate PETA to people who don't give a God damn.
Seriously -- you think they're extremist. Yeah, and I think a lot of fundamentalist Christians are extremists. Do I kvetch about them? Do I make new threads on a regular basis decrying Pat Robertson's douchebaggery? No. I have better things to think about, like why nothing rhymes with orange. I shake my head and move on with my day. Besides which, if I bothered I'd probably be drowned in the usual torrent of "OMG OMG TEH FLAME ON MY BELEEFS!" that usually comes when someone makes a negative comment about Christianity.
And another thing -- bigots? What the hell? Whose crunk juice have you been drinking this time?
Yes bigots. They don't give a darn about the rights of humans. Yes we ought to treat animals with respect but they take it to the extreme like animals are above humans. They will go out of their way to get some animals saved even if the end result causes problems for many people. They're practically a cult/religion...and if I had a personal vendetta against them, wouldn't I be making more topics about them? I didn't even make it, just stating my opinion just like I decry FF7...
Quote:
Actually, I mentioned that because I simply couldn't contain my lightning-fast wit. I'm on my third DSL modem because all the fiery quips I'm uploading burn them out. I'm just too droll -- nay, too apt for the Internet.
I nominate that for QOTW.
Quote:
They will go out of their way to get some animals saved even if the end result causes problems for many people.
I'm sure it caused problems for many when people campaigned for women's rights and black rights.
Yeah, I'm sure Lincoln wasn't happy when they decided to make enslavement illegal. And I'll bet it caused problems for a lot of animals when they flooded a large valley to build the Kootenay hydro dam up in the interior of BC, which powers a small town of 350.
I post this just a couple days ago and already it's become a hot topic. 
I agree with most of you, I'm all for Animal Rights as long as they don't go over the top. Seriously, it's our responsability to take care of Earth's creatures, but that doesn't mean they're gods or anything like that deserve worship or to be placed higher than us. I love animals, ESPECIALLY cats, but I do not worship my cats or think their lives are more important than my own or someone else I care about that's...human
Oh and Cycle, I do believe using Christians as an example of extremists is a bit cliche, couldn't you come up with a different example...say...athiests?
Yeah, because you know,
all you hear about in the news these days are all
those Atheist Suicide bombings.
Quote:
I'm sure it caused problems for many when people campaigned for women's rights and black rights.
Yes but all humans are equal. Last time I checked according to MY beliefs, humans are above animals. There are still plenty of human rights abuses to go after before you start giving a darn about animals, like say...I dunno Sudan...
Oh and it's easy to pick on Robertson because the guy acts like an idiot...
Yes but all humans are equal.
Said the guy who thinks gays shouldn't have the right to marry.
Quote:
Said the guy who thinks gays shouldn't have the right to marry.
Quote:
Yeah, because you know,
all you hear about in the news these days are all
those Atheist Suicide bombings
Nooo...I'm simply refering to the Atheists who treat evolution like it's a religion and it's fact, rather than simply a scientific theory
BACK to the discussion, obviously I feel humans are above other animals for several facts. For one, as a Christian I believe that God placed humans above animals, but it was also our responsability to take care of them.
Taking care of them =/= putting their lives above ours.
Secondly, for those of you who actually do believe in evolution, I will point out that if we trully have evolved intelligence, well...I believe that with our intelligence comes responsability. And we havn't been very responsable with this planet now have we?
Of course...you know my point of view on the whole evolving from apes thing, and that pretty much makes us animals anyway, so from those standards humans and animals should be treated equally, but one should not be above the other.
BUT, I don't believe in Evolution, therefore, I believe humans are more important than animals.
Nooo...I'm simply refering to the Atheists who treat evolution like it's a religion and it's fact, rather than simply a scientific theory
...what the hell are you talking about? Seriously: atheists who treat evolution as a religion and a fact? What the f--k? I deal with people whose control of the English language consists of a blended mass of jumbled syllables on a routine basis, and even they don't make my head hurt as much as that quote. How could an atheist treat evolution in a religious manner, when an atheist is by definition nonreligious? And how could they treat a religion as fact, when it is their opinion that religion is a pile of crap? And how could evolution possibly be treated as a religion in the first place?
Secondly, for those of you who actually do believe in evolution
Perish the thought.
I will point out that if we trully have evolved intelligence, well...I believe that with our intelligence comes responsability. And we havn't been very responsable with this planet now have we?
What does that have to do with anything?
For one, as a Christian I believe that God placed humans above animals but it was also our responsability to take care of them.
Good for you.
Taking care of them =/= putting their lives above ours.
I don't understand where this whole "animals > humans" thing came from in the first place. Since when has PETA ever specified that? To my knowledge all they've ever done is protest the new ways we come up with every day to unnecessarily and carelessly threaten other forms of life.
Of course...you know my point of view on the whole evolving from apes thing, and that pretty much makes us animals anyway
No, it doesn't. It makes us organisms that are subject to the same biological pattern as all other organisms. Besides which, an animal is defined as "an organism other than a human, especially a mammal." So there goes your point right there.
BUT, I don't believe in Evolution, therefore, I believe humans are more important than animals.
And I, as an Existentialist Buddhist, do believe in evolution, and I also believe that every time we hunt a species to extinction, or drive it from its habitat, or poison it with mercury, we are f--king with the natural order of things, and on the whole, that is rarely, if ever, in our best interests in the long run. I also consider all life to be infinitely and equally valuable (kind of like Christians were instructed to do both by Christ and the Lawrd Almighty himself) and that respecting and preserving nature should be a primary consideration in everything we do.
And how does not believing in evolution automatically translate to considering humans to be above other forms of life? As far as I know, Hindus believe in some form of creationism, and believe cows to be manifestations of the divine. And many Buddhists don't believe in evolution, but will sweep the ground behind them so they don't leave any mark on nature as they pass.
If you're going to keep on being ignorant, stop posting before you make a fool out of yourself.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 850,000 members, is the largest animal rights organization in the world. Founded in 1980, PETA is dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.
PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the abuse of backyard dogs.
PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns.
PETA's mission statement...enjoy.
Let nobody forget that, if humans are a part of nature just the same as animals, then whatever we do to satisfy our base instincts and desires (driving animals to extinction, eating anything that moves, nuking the world with our leet technology) is a part of the natural order of things. We're using the brains that nature gave us to act upon the desires that nature gave us, just like every other organism does.
Concepts such as animal conservation, animal rights, vegetarianism and environmentalism are extremely unnatural. Your dog doesn't consider your cat to have equal rights. Your cat doesn't eat lentils because it fears the long-term implications of widespread mouse culling. A cow wouldn't stop farting if it understood its actions intensify the greenhouse effect.
I'm not saying that these things are wrong, I'm not saying that we should abandon environmentalism and conservationism, I don't believe that in the least. It just bothers me when people 
declare that humanity is reverting to the natural order of things when they practice environmentalism. On the contrary, I feel that it's an insult to nature or to God or to Gaia or whoever to claim that. After all, nature survived perfectly well for billions of years without humanity around to dictate how it should sustain itself. Humanity invented environmentalism, no other organism in existence practices it.
Quote:
Humanity invented environmentalism, no other organism in existence practices it.
No other organism has singlehandledly destroyed the environment as much as humanity either. Usually when other organisms are part of ruining the environment, it's due to human interference first, such as moving the organism from its natural habitat, "removing" its natural predators, etc. 😉
No other organism has singlehandledly destroyed the environment as much as humanity either.
And do we destroy the environment because of alien robots who shoot mind control beams from Jupiter, or because we use the brains that nature gave us to act upon the survival instincts that nature gave us? Let's not kid ourselves, it's not our fault that we happen to have bigger brains than any other animal, that's nature's "fault". Some of us choose to live the way nature intended by ensuring our survival at any cost, using the intelligence we have been granted by nature. This results in destruction of the environment. Some of us choose to defy nature's instructions because we have decided they are, in the long run, self-destructive. This is called environmentalism, working against nature in order to save it from itself.
Animals were succumbing to extinction long before humans arrived on the scene, and actually at a much larger rate. But nobody cares, why? Because when animals destroy their own environment and drive each other to extinction, it's "natural". When humans do the exact same thing, it's somehow "unnatural", suddenly we're like robot invaders from Mars who deliberately infiltrated this delicate ecosystem in order to destroy it. Why is it that we're supposedly the only creature on Earth who has no place in the food chain whatsoever, to the end that some people even "sweep the ground behind them so that they leave no mark upon nature"? What do you think would happen to the web of life if any other creature decided to do that?
We're either special, or we're not. We're either different to the animals, or equal to them. And if we're equal to them, then there's really no ethical dilemma in simply breaking down into an orgy of environmental destruction right now. It's what the animals would do. And it just goes to show that "what nature wants" (ultimate destruction) isn't necessarily in anyone's best interests, man or beast.
Usually when other organisms are part of ruining the environment, it's due to human interference first, such as moving the organism from its natural habitat, "removing" its natural predators, etc. 😉
The same thing happens when two land masses drift into each other, or an ice age causes the oceans to freeze over, allowing organisms from one closed system to cross over into another. Or when a natural disaster wipes out one particular food source in a certain area, causing imbalance in predator-prey relationships. The difference is that when it happens like this, it's natural and harmonic. When it happens because of man's actions, it's an epic tragedy. 😉
Quote:
...what the hell are you talking about? Seriously: atheists who treat evolution as a religion and a fact? What the f--k? I deal with people whose control of the English language consists of a blended mass of jumbled syllables on a routine basis, and even they don't make my head hurt as much as that quote. How could an atheist treat evolution in a religious manner, when an atheist is by definition nonreligious? And how could they treat a religion as fact, when it is their opinion that religion is a pile of crap? And how could evolution possibly be treated as a religion in the first place?
I'm using a figure of speech. 
OBVIASLY I know that atheists don't treat evolution as a religion. They certainly ACT like it is though. "You're a fool to believe in God, there is no God, it's all in your head...blahblahblahblahblahblahblah."
Quote:
What does that have to do with anything?
I'm simply pointing out my point of view of why we should work to protect the environment, by BELIVING, not stating as fact, that we have a responsability to it BECAUSE of our intelligence.
Quote:
I don't understand where this whole "animals > humans"thing came from in the first place. Since when has PETA ever specified that? To my knowledge all they've ever done is protest the new ways we come up with every day to unnecessarily and carelessly threaten other forms of life.
PETA are simply extremists when it comes to human rights. To be honest, I don't even know that they were sayign that or not, I think what they ARE saying is that humans are on an equal playing field with animals, but I was simply agreeing with everyone else here that PETA thinks animals are above humans.
Quote:
No, it doesn't. It makes us organisms that are subject to the same biological pattern as all other organisms. Besides which, an animal is defined as "an organism other than a human, especially a mammal." So there goes your point right there.
Really? Because I actually AGREE with your definition but most athiests would disagree with you.
Quote:
And how does not believing in evolution automatically translate to considering humans to be above other forms of life? As far as I know, Hindus believe in some form of creationism, and believe cows to be manifestations of the divine. And many Buddhists don't believe in evolution, but will sweep the ground behind them so they don't leave any mark on nature as they pass
I was simply comparing Christians with Athieism, and I do realize that other religions believe otherwise, but that was not my primary focus. I ALSO realize that Buddhists are TECHNICALLY athiests, but they follow a religion don't they?So I guess they can't be Non-Religious either, you're defeating your own statement: "An athiest is by definition, Non-Religious" I was of course refering to the athiests who DON'T follow a religion but they certainly act like time and Evolution is the replacement for God. Again, I was using a figure of speech, quit putting words in my mouth.
Quote:
If you're going to keep on being ignorant, stop posting before you make a fool out of yourself.
Yeah? I'd love to see a show of hands of the people at this board who are PERFECT. If you are going to sit here and make insults, I would recommend you keep your mouth shut or your fingers off the keyboard in this case. 
I don't like PETA when they make comic books for children about mommy being a murderer with her leather shoes. I do like PETA when they make a list for me of products that weren't tested on animals. (Going to animal friendly products was about 2.7 times easier than I thought it would be).
Really now? Hmm...well I don't like the idea of products being tested on animals, I rather eat Dolphin Safe tuna fish (not that I eat tuna fish that much anyway) but I think switching from a normal diet to a vegan diet is extreme, though I've got nothing against the people who do it. Some people do it for health reasons. But yeah, I do think that it's going a bit far making children think their parents are murderers for wearing leather.
....I quite like my leather jacket
I do think it's good that they make a list of things that havn't been animal tested, but there are some positive things to animal testing, if it CAN help prevent cancer or cure it, or any other disease (except a Rat's immune system is obviously different from ours...they tend to carry diseases, but are they actually affected by them?) AND animal testing helps animals too believe it or not? Wouldn't you like to see a cure for Feline Leukemia?
Hmmm, animal testing. Obviously, I'm against it if the tests are unecessary eg to discover how a cat's eyes react to foreign liquid for example. No use whatsoever.
Quote:
Wouldn't you like to see a cure for Feline Leukemia?
Of course that would be great, but doesn't that mean that several felines will die to discover the cure? I'm not too sure. If the testing doesn't hinder the animals life in any way and the animal is not in any distress, then I suppose, at a stretch, it's ok since it is for the greater good of finding a cure.
I might be wrong, but who knows.
I agree with you for the most part, as a cat lover I'd hate to see any kitties die. It breaks my heart when I see a dead cat along side of the road. Unfortunatly I am not certain that these tests wouldn't be harmful to the test subjects. The only way I could think of to safely test a possible cure for Feline Lukemia and FIV would be to take a sample of the kitty's blood, or use cats that are already infeceted with the disease.
Of course, OBVIOUSLY I wouldn't want to see how a cats eyes would react to some foreign fluids, what I don't like is unnessessary testing.
At the end of the day it's all about how selfish you are. Do you want to help others (animals and humans) live happier lives, or do you just not give a damn? None of us are perfect, but the good people at least try their best, whilst the bad take pride and satisfaction in the pain they inflict upon others whether it be through their actions or lack of action.
Better life for humans? Yes.
For Animals? Yes with a but.
I beleive that animals should enjoy basic quality of life,
as good as or better than they would have in nature BUT If it is necessary to forgo that to improve the lives of humans or other animals, then I beleive that the ends justify the means by far.
Quote:
None of us are perfect, but the good people at least try their best, whilst the bad take pride and satisfaction in the pain they inflict upon others whether it be through their actions or lack of action.
So what about the apathetics? The people who don't give a rip either way? This is far too big an issue for such simplistic 'black and white' reasoning.
Personally, I think PETA is a corrupt organization mostly staffed with people who have good-intentions but are also naive as hell. This makes it easier for the extremely corrupt and self-serving higher-ups to get them to do their dirty work under the guise of 'saving' the topic of the day. These same higher-ups who also have financed eco-terrorist groups like the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front who have been implicated in hundreds of arsons and assaults dozens of bombings.
PETA had good intentions, but the actions they've taken worked only to nullify their goal. As it stands, I think PETA should be outright abolished.
Quote:
So what about the apathetics?
They're apathetic.
Apathetic? What does that mean 
CastorTroy makes sense with the 'higher ups' being corrupt and the people below them being naive. Not saying that theory is correct or incorrect but you cannot deny that is a possibility.
How long has PETA been around for? Can't say I have ever heard of them (perhaps for good reason).
Quote:
And do we destroy the environment because of alien robots who shoot mind control beams from Jupiter, or because we use the brains that nature gave us to act upon the survival instincts that nature gave us?
Personally, I believe neither based on how you seem to be defining the terminology in your posts. If it were based on survival instincts then technology would've stopped a long time ago as we've moved long beyond survival. On your first possibility, that is an interesting mention considering there are those that do believe that the advancement of human culture is the result of aliens arriving here at some point and helping (or stringing) us along. ^_^
Quote:
Let's not kid ourselves, it's not our fault that we happen to have bigger brains than any other animal, that's nature's "fault".
That depends on what you consider to have "bigger brains," which is not something easily measured. Studies using the so-called "intelligence criteria" have shown other organisms with similar levels as humans. Before you decide to mention the ability to build/create or whatever, do take into consideration that there are plenty of things humans can't do because they're not constructed in a way to do it. By the same token, many organisms that are considered on the level of humans aren't constructed in a way to do the things that humans do. It's not just "brains" that matter, which is even why some humans are really bright but can't do things because they're not tall enough or strong enough or vice versa. There are a lot of factors involved in things, so let's not make things out to be "black or white" when everything in life is shades of gray.
Quote:
Some of us choose to live the way nature intended by ensuring our survival at any cost, using the intelligence we have been granted by nature. This results in destruction of the environment. Some of us choose to defy nature's instructions because we have decided they are, in the long run, self-destructive. This is called environmentalism, working against nature in order to save it from itself.
Actually, that doesn't make much sense considering most humans eat meat, plants, etc. and if humans kill off all their source of food then humans'll end up dying themselves. It is that destructive fear that has created environmentalism and its widespread acceptance. What you are calling environmentalism is actually more inline with the way many cultures lived thousands of years ago. Some small segments of those cultures that exist still live that way in some parts of the planet.
Quote:
Animals were succumbing to extinction long before humans arrived on the scene, and actually at a much larger rate. But nobody cares, why? Because when animals destroy their own environment and drive each other to extinction, it's "natural". When humans do the exact same thing, it's somehow "unnatural", suddenly we're like robot invaders from Mars who deliberately infiltrated this delicate ecosystem in order to destroy it.
No one cares because no one was around to document whether or not they cared in a way that "we" would understand (though I tend to disagree with that general viewpoint since there are those that try to protect organisms from other organisms besides humans). Anyway, no one really knows what other organisms think or don't think and we'll probably never know that. As for the human side of it, most humans do believe that humans are special and therefore it should be obvious why it would be considered "unnatural." As for those that think humans are equals, it's considered "unnatural" due to the fact that most humans on this planet are not acting in survival mode. Once any species (that includes domesticated pets) stops acting out of survival mode, they've become "unnatural."
Quote:
We're either special, or we're not. We're either different to the animals, or equal to them. And if we're equal to them, then there's really no ethical dilemma in simply breaking down into an orgy of environmental destruction right now. It's what the animals would do. And it just goes to show that "what nature wants" (ultimate destruction) isn't necessarily in anyone's best interests, man or beast.
**points above** Oh, and remember, it depends on a person's definition of "best interests" as to whether or not "what nature wants" is a good/bad thing. 😉
Quote:
The same thing happens when two land masses drift into each other, or an ice age causes the oceans to freeze over, allowing organisms from one closed system to cross over into another. Or when a natural disaster wipes out one particular food source in a certain area, causing imbalance in predator-prey relationships. The difference is that when it happens like this, it's natural and harmonic. When it happens because of man's actions, it's an epic tragedy. 😉
Well, of course. The first one is due to nature, which no one has control over. The second one is due to things that can be controled. That's the difference. When someone dies in a car accident due to a sudden earthquake, that's unforeseen and unfortunate. When someone dies in a car accident due to a drunken driver, while it's still unforeseen, it's tragic because it shouldn't have happened due to the actual cause being "preventable." ^_~
I'm using a figure of speech.
No you're not. Figures of speech tend to follow certain rules like making sense.
OBVIASLY I know that atheists don't treat evolution as a religion. They certainly ACT like it is though. "You're a fool to believe in God, there is no God, it's all in your head...blahblahblahblahblahblahblah."
That's the worst generalization ever. I have never heard anyone tell someone they're "a fool for believing in God". Further, what does that have to do with evolution, or with your imaginary Evolution Religion?
I'm simply pointing out my point of view of why we should work to protect the environment, by BELIVING, not stating as fact, that we have a responsability to it BECAUSE of our intelligence.
There you go again with that stupid "stating as a fact" thing. There is no such thing as "stating something as a fact". In an expository piece of writing (ie: a post), everything contained therein is the opinion of the writer. It goes without saying. Just because they're not being a big pusssy by carefully wording it so as not to give you the chance to be offended, or reminding you every few sentences of the sheer obvious truth that it is their opinion, does not mean they're "stating it as a fact".
It is my opinion that Alberta premier Ralph Klein is an idiot. While this theory is debatable, I personally consider it to be true. I could just say "Ralph Klein is an idiot" to save myself some time and bandwidth. It'd still be an opinion and it'd still be a debatable theory. The fact that I did not remind you that it is my opinion does not mean I do not acknowledge that there are those who would disagree with me.
Basically my point is this. The fact that what I write about Ralph Klein is my opinion goes without saying, and does not make it any less worthy of an addition to the conversation. My neglecting to remind you -- because I think you're intelligent enough to realize this -- does not mean I am contending that it is a scientifically-proven, well-accepted fact that Ralph Klein is stupid.
PETA are simply extremists when it comes to human rights.
What the hell are you talking about? Since when were killing an animal so you can wrap it around yourself when you can have clothes made from cotton, which comes from a tree; or smothering birds, fish and other marine life with mercury, zinc, and other toxic substances; or cutting down rainforests in order to build houses for about one-hundredth the number of people as there were animals, plants and insects living there; or taking thousands of pigs or cows or chickens, stuffing them into a warehouse, force-feeding them the rendered remains of their own kind, and killing them once they get fat enough to feed a bunch of fatass North Americans, intrinsic and inalienable human rights?
Really? Because I actually AGREE with your definition but most athiests would disagree with you.
There's another outright generalization.
I ALSO realize that Buddhists are TECHNICALLY athiests, but they follow a religion don't they?So I guess they can't be Non-Religious either, you're defeating your own statement: "An athiest is by definition, Non-Religious"
Many Buddhists believe in God or gods, and many worship the Buddha as a god. Either way, you're absolutely right. However, atheism hardly qualifies as a religion, and evolution even less so. Since a religion is defined as "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe," and as "a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship", neither atheism nor evolution can be defined as a religion, nor can they be treated as such.
I was of course refering to the athiests who DON'T follow a religion but they certainly act like time and Evolution is the replacement for God.
Again, what the hell are you talking about? How can a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future, and a highly complex and debatable group of scientific theories surrounding the origin and nature of life be replacements for a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe? And since when were either time or evolution the principal object of faith and worship in atheism? And why would somebody who outright does not believe in God want a replacement for God?
Apathetic? What does that mean
Do it yourself.
O...K, I wasn't serious Cycle!
Quote:
I have never heard anyone tell someone they're "a fool for believing in God".
Not literally, but I have heard someone say I was naive for believing in God.
Quote:
Not literally, but I have heard someone say I was naive for believing in God.
So you took it to mean that ALL atheeists beleive that?
Holy Crap, Rico's Right; As soon as the word 'God' comes up in a conversation, it INSTANTLY turns into a religious debate.
Not at all, I didn't say that. And a good point about God being mentioned creates a religious debate. When did the topic change exactly? Anyway, animals have rights too. Probably not as much as humans but they are living creatures the same as us. They breathe the same air, eat food, drink water (or blood if you are a vampire ) and live on the same rock as us.
Well considering that Andira Hinkle and Andrew Cook, two PeTA employees have been charged with 31 counts of animal cruelty each*, I would say that I would trust PeTA as far as I can throw them. Why? They were caught dumping healthy animals that they euthinized in a dumpster behind a grocery store, not to mention neither of them were qualified to euthinize the animals in the first place.
Not to mention that over 12,400 of the 15,600 or 80% of the animals PeTA took into their shelter were euthinized when they have hounded other shelters to adopt a no kill policy. Their excuse for this double standard is that they don't have enough money to care for all these animals until they can be adopted. That's a blantant lie, PeTA has a $29 million budget and could easily care for those animals if they wanted to.
No, most of their money is spent on these silly (not to mention distasteful) displays that compare chicken farming to the holocaust, fruitless protests againsts fast food restaurants. Not to mention encouraging the 'Direct Action Teams' of PeTA2 to vandalize property or harrass the the familes of the CEOs of the the companies they protest. If you want the truth PeTA does almost nothing to save the animals they claim to protect. I think Jimro would agree with me on this, many wildlife conservation intiatives are actually funded by the fees that hunters pay for their lisences not animal rights groups like PeTA or HSUS. All the while PeTA yells at people when they want to eat at KFC.
PeTA is not about animal rights or welfare, it's about forcing their own flawed facts and opinions on people and restrict human rights. If you truly care about animals donate your money to the ASPCA or your local Humane Society**.
____
Footnotes:
* home.hamptonroads.com/sto...11&tref=po
** The Humane Society of the United States is a similar organization to PeTA that capitalizes on the name of 'Humane Society'. HSUS does not operate even one animal shelter.
I punched a PETA member in the face yesterday because he was hassling me and tried to stop me from going into Burger King at lunch time. No point to this, just thought you should know.
PETA doesn't even have a headquarters or anything here, but there's a couple of dicks who say they represent PETA and go around making arses of themselves.
That isn't right. They shouldn't harrass the American public for the choices they make. It's none of their buisiness if we're eating cows or not!
And all of this has to do with feral cat populations how?
We've drifted into Cycle's endless liberal propaganda stream, the aftermath of Katrina, and God.
As far as animals that radically change the environment, goats, ants, beavers, and to a lesser extent deer and elk. Most of the public has this idea that "environment" is pristine land that never gets used by humans... If you think about that for a little bit and don't see anything funny about it, change your perspective.
Habitat is where animals live. All habitats meet three needs, food, water, and shelter of some sort. Humans general habitat is housing of some sort, ranging from tents to condos. Habitat change is the single biggest threat to wildlife. Habitat change doesn't always happen from a human source, see the above animals for examples.
PETA has an unscientific vision of ecology management, one that is not viable or sustaneable. PETA has a political agenda fueled by anthropomorphizing animals into humans with fur which is emotionally appealing to those who don't know any better. PETA has endorsed terrorist acts against researchers, and raised public awareness about animal testing. Thank PETA for cruelty free makeup and tell them to go away now, they are doing more harm than good.
Jimro
It should be noted that I honestly don't really know all that much about PETA and am only defending them for the sake of discussion. In fact, all I ever really said in their defense was "Personally, I disagree with many of their proclamations, however, I think there needs to be a strong voice for animal rights in politics, and if PETA has any effect whatsoever on policy decisions, then so much the better. As long as they're not blowing up trains or murdering veterenarians who euthanize feral cats, I honestly don't care."
I'm a supporter of animal rights in general, so I figured it'd make for good conversation.
Cycle's endless liberal propaganda stream
Bite me.
As far as animals that radically change the environment, goats, ants, beavers, and to a lesser extent deer and elk.
I don't see how the few-million-or-so beavers that exist in North America chomping up a few trees each can compare to the 800 000 hectares of forest that are obliterated by humans in Canada alone each year. Besides which, the Europeans brought the beavers over here in the first place. They're not native to the land.
