Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (102494)	4/29/2005 5:31:30 PM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

Gee, I‘m kind of surprised you resorted to using a web discussion by people who seem on close reading to be less than well informed (or at least have no factual knowledge at all) to mount an attack on PETA. First of all, however, I would like to point out that my role in life is not to defend PETA. I think it is really an easy tactic to try and make PETA the subject of this debate. But I am more interested in talking about animal rights in general on the occasions when the subject comes up. I think people who are uncomfortable with the fact that PETA keeps graphically pointing out that the meat you ate suffered enormously may focus their wrath on PETA, but PETA is just delivering a message that all animal rights’ organizations and anti-fur and anti-factory farming groups also are trying to get out. PETA attracts most of the ire because they are big and successful at what they do, but I could show you photos and graphic descriptions of factory farming all day, every day without ever using any information from PETA at all. Did you watch the video about those poor suffering chickens yet? Whether you eat meat is up to you--I just believe in full knowledge and disclosure as a general rule--but I don’t understand why you would post such, um, the most polite thing I can call it is unsubstantiated garbage. Penn & Teller are libertarian atheists. According to this link, the CATO Institute is a major source of their material: begonias.typepad.com There is nothing wrong with that, of course, if it is true, but libertarians inherently argue for the right to hunt, kill, fish and eat anything they want to, and to wear furs (did you know fur animals are anally electrocuted? How fashionable to wear such a garment!) Libertarians, the entire worldwide meat industry, the fast food industry—there are a lot of groups out to get PETA, because PETA, when successful, challenges their worldview and/or profit margins. The Dalai Lama is an avid supporter of PETA. He is someone I respect. Ted Nugent, one of the people on that website you shared with all of us--not so much! To each his own, of course. I’m citing a url to a rebuttal to the Penn & Teller piece written by a woman who is an Episcopal priest. She takes on most of the points Penn & Teller make and refutes them. For anyone interested in vegetarianism as it relates to a Christian viewpoint, her entire site is informative if you click around on it: all-creation.franciscan-anglican.com I know from my own reading that PETA has been heavily scrutinized by the U.S. government and always manages to keep its nonprofit status. It is probably the most scrutinized laage charity organization in the U.S. It is not a terrorist organization. Ingrid Newkirk herself goes out and tries to rescue animals that have been hit by cars, etc. on highways near their headquarters. If PETA euthanizes animals, it is because a lot of the animals they rescue have been smashed up horribly and cannot survive. Note that they fully disclosed those numbers. They are not trying to hide anything at all. You seem to be an intelligent person—do you think that a woman who writes books about how to save the lives of spiders and ants, and during her career as an animal control officer cited more people for animal abuse than any other officer, and has devoted her entire life's energy to animal rights, would callously cause a lot of rescued animals to be euthanized? Does that really make sense to you? As to their concern for donkeys used in terrorist attacks, they are by definition an animal rights organization! There are lots of other organizations working for rights for victims of terror (including the terror the U.S. government creates when it kills civilians in places like Iraq). Who has the moral upper hand on terrorism? Is there one?