Peta

skunkstripe

Let's start with a quote from one of PETA's founders, "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are `acceptable crimes' when used for the animals' cause." Alex Pacheco, former director of PETA Charleston W. Va. Gazette-Mail Jan. 15 1989). That kind of starts things off on the right foot, don't you agree? As a matter of fact, PETA thinks so highly of arson (quote: "If I had more guts, I’d light a match." Ingrid Newkirk, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 11/12/99) that PETA has been channeling some of the donations that had been received under conditions of tax exemption to the legal defense of arsonists acting on behalf of ALF, but more on that in detail further down.

But you asked for PETA examples so please scroll down about halfway for a felony arson case.
http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/99/6/peta.html
Another nice trick they have is recruiting interns from Asia to commit crimes on their behalf. Here is the page from the FBI files:
http://www.animalscam.com/references/peta_fbi1.cfm
How cool is that? When the intern gets arrested, they can just get deported!
More criminal charges further down in connection with killing animals.

Oh, and why they haven't lost their tax-exempt status because of the crimes, is pretty easy. Tax-exempt status is determined by the IRS. If the president of say, the Red Cross were to murder someone, that would be a crime alright, but it would have no bearing on the tax status. If however the president of the Red Cross were to authorize the purchase of a vacation home in Maui for personal use, THAT would interest the IRS. At any rate, it does not happen overnight, the IRS has to do an audit, and even so, PETA has the money to fight it in court since they are not going to just roll over and give up without a fight. But if you want to see the activities that led to the complaint, here you go:
http://www.cdfe.org/CDFEPetaComplaint.pdf

Ten years ago I would have agreed with you, not anymore. They once filled a needed role in raising awareness of how we as humans co-exist with animals, but are now far from the "perfect" way of getting national attention. As a matter of fact, PETA is against zoos altogether. As far as not stepping up to the plate to help, goes I specifically meant to help pet owners. PETA is against pet ownership and strives to eliminate it (quote "In a perfect world, all other-than-human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme, as they were before humans domesticated them and as they remain in some parts of the undeveloped world." From The PETA Statement on Companion Animals). It seems that there are differing opinions as to what "perfect" means. The last time my cat got out and stayed out for any length of time, he came back with tapeworm and roundworm. I took him to the vet and now he is healthy again. I guess I am an evil person in the eyes of PETA.

Ummm, why are you mentioning RICO? Who said anything about racketeering, which is what RICO was developed for? As you correctly state, I mention bombs and releasing animals, not financial crimes. Please try to keep them straight. And I am not the one lumping all groups together, since PETA is already doing exactly that. They openly support ELF and ALF
http://epw.senate.gov/109th/Exhibit_6.pdf
http://epw.senate.gov/109th/Exhibit_5.pdf

And this is their own literature so careful calling it misinformation!

Perhaps you can explain why PETA uses the donations it receives to pay the legal expenses of ALF members who commit arson
http://epw.senate.gov/109th/Exhibit_11.pdf
http://www.the-aps.org/pa/action/news/peta.htm
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=247266

Gee, PETA even loaned Rodney Coronado's father $25,000, wasn't that nice of them. That in addition to donating $45,000 to his legal defense. I guess there are perks to being a fugitive from justice accused (and later convicted of) arson.
http://www.the-aps.org/pa/action/news/peta.htm

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050...3902-4686r.htm
http://www.the-aps.org/pa/action/news/peta.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0316-06.htm
http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...eye.cfm/oid/21

Excuse me but that is misinformation. Please provide reliable sources proving your statement. Here are some objective stories on one of the more recent incidents:
http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald....ews/anews1.txt
http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=3557732
http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald....news/news3.txt

Note that these euthanasia procedures were performed illegally. Hiding the animals that PETA killed in dumpsters was apparently not very smart, since they eventually got caught. And criminal charges have been filed:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/down...ialCharges.pdf

PETA has a history of killing healthy, adoptable animals, in one documented case because they "just don't have the money" to care for them, as PETA-Chairman Alex Pacheco told the Washington Times in 1991.
PUH-LEEZE

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETA1000.htm
http://www.thisistrue.com/peta.html

How nice of you to allow me freedom of speech. But how arrogant to imply that I am not doing it honestly. Why don't you take a careful look at the information I have provided. Most of it is from untainted sources such as notes from hearings before the US congress, FBI files, independent news sources. Oh, but you don't think I have "the complete facts about" what I am posting, eh? Care to provide any evidence to back up your statements?

Curbside Prophet

Just a little advanced warning...because I can see this thread getting out of hand, but I don't mind debate, I find it very useful, even when people debate my point of view or knowledge. However, let's keep this civil. The minute it gets personal will be the minute this thread will be closed. And I do trust everyone can keep this civil. Thank you.

DogAdvocat

It's apparently going to take multiple posts to do this. Sorry if I'm doing it wrong...........

Aww gee, and you're so fond of freedom of speech It's always interesting how Peta-bashers always start out with old out-of-context quotes as part of their arguments. These particular quotes always remind me of the things I've heard shelter workers and rescue volunteers say when speaking of a public that allows dogs to be impounded and killed by the millions in this nations shelters. They talk about how people (in general) don't deserve the unconditional love of dogs and shouldn't be allowed to have them. Would they really be in favor of a law that outlawed companion animals? Of course not. It's called rhetoric, and it's to illustrate a point. The point in Peta's case is that they believe in doing whatever is necessary to stop abuse of animals. The fact that they have not been convicted of any crimes shows that they have yet to consider it necessary to commit such crimes. When and if they ever do, then would be the time to discuss the action and whether or not it was reasonable under the circumstances.

You do know that an arrest isn't a conviction, right? And even if it were -- Wow, he set fire to a hay bale outside of a building during a protest. Certainly not a brilliant thing to do, but hardly something to condemn a whole group for. I've seen worse at labor strikes by unions. In the heat (no pun) of the moment, people do stupid things. Please show where this was planned by Peta's upper echelon.

Better check out your source. I put no credence in Activistcash which is a front group for the tobacco, alcohol, and restaurant industry. They make it their mission to put a negative spin on everything Peta does because Peta threatens "animal industry's" misuse and abuse of animals. Here's more about your source:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ActivistCash

You rely on a complaint as proof of wrong-doing???? Anyone can complain about anything. The obvious point here is that nothing has come of it. As for it not happening overnight - nonsense. There are too many people, too many animal industries, that are aching to bring Peta down. If there was anything to get them on, they would have done it long ago.

DogAdvocat

So? Zoos have a lot of accounting to do for themselves. Between inadequate enclosures that cause suffering; to the practice of breeding to bring in the public to view baby animals, and then selling surplus animals to canned hunting ranches; to taking animals from the wild that should be left alone; to abuse by trainers/handlers - I think they have good reason to be concerned about the state of zoos. Most zoos can't even honestly claim to be educating the public since the public ignores the education given. It's certainly not unusual for parents, for instance, to teach their children wrong information while completely ignoring the correct information displayed in front of them. An animal should give up it's freedom for that????

No, actually what is meant by that, as it is stated in this out-of-context quote, is that in a perfect world, dogs/cats would be "as they were before humans domesticated them" (see above). Now I hardly think that has anything to do with your cat since it's unlikely to become a saber-toothed tiger. And by the way, you do understand the concept of a "perfect world", right? In my perfect world, dogs would talk, money would grow on trees, and chocolate would have no calories. Should I expect any of this to happen? Of course not, and Ms. Newkirk's perfect world was also a pipe dream voiced to illustrate the point that companion animals would have been better off if we had never domesticated them. And I defy anyone to disagree that for a lot of them, that's true. You have to understand too that a person in her position, having been an animal control officer, and now seeing the flood of information that most likely comes accross her desk describing the horrors that companion animals, and other animals, suffer each and every day, it would be highly unusual if she didn't voice such opinions. I've heard a lot worse from shelter workers and rescue volunteers. If you've never been in the trenches, maybe you just can't understand.

Better take another look at RICO, it's not just about racketeering.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl..._n9067446/pg_1


Actually, they don't pay the legal expenses of those that commit arson. They help with the legal expenses of those "accused" of commiting arson, and until proven guilty, those accused are innocent. That's the way it works in this country, you know. As to why they would assist in someone's defense, I haven't seen any policy statements, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that they do it because a lot can be accomplished through "test cases." If a judge today agrees that certain information can be allowed to be heard, then there's a better chance that it will be heard in all future cases. That can be a benefit to the animals. It's also a chance for the public to hear what really happened, including the conditions of, and abuses of, the animals that were the focus of any given protest or direct action. In this particular case, if memory serves, there were experiments being done on fur bearing animals in order to increase their fur output so that more fur coats could be sold. Why this was being done in a university setting, when it was obviously only going to benefit the fur industry (a private industry), I have no idea.

DogAdvocat

You want me to provide reliable sources when you keep quoting Activistcash? LOL. I'm really not sure what you are disputing here. I agree that charges have been filed (not convictions), but what your cited news stories aren't telling is what was going on behind the scenes. Peta had (I'm not sure if they still do or not) a website showing the conditions of the shelters in the area, and discussed the backwards methods they had of killing animals, as well as showed where animals had died of exposure. A vet that was involved was using a paralytic agent to euthanize some of the animals, which means they were suffocated -- a horrible way to go. I doubt that you would accept their word for it, but I did query the main office on this some time ago and was given a lot of information that made me see how there could be two sides to the story - as there usually are. The question is, put in a similar situation - what would you do? Just walk away? Maybe find homes for them all? Great, then can I send you the 60,000 that are killed in my cities shelter system each year?

My city's shelter has a history of killing healthy, adoptable animals too, and one of the reasons is that they just don't have the money to care for them. Shocking? It happens all across this country. This surprises you? What exactly would you have Peta do with all of them? Should they keep them in cages for life? Most people would object to that. For most orphan animals, the kindest thing to do at this time, is to euthanize them. It's a horrible reality, but I don't understand those that criticize the people that are honest enough to admit it.

Peta was not established to strictly care for companion animals. Their donors expect them to handle the problems of a wide range of animals. Those that donate to save the wolves, or the whales, or the battery caged chickens, are not going to be happy to find that Peta has put all their funds into lifetime care of caged dogs and cats. However, one of the things Peta does do is to build doghouses and provide hay for them, for the people in their city, who insist on keeping their dogs outside, and have no shelter, or shoddy shelter for them. They also have a fully rigged spay/neuter van that travels to different areas. Hours, rates, and locations for that are on this link: http://www.togetherforanimals.org/sp...tml#anchor%202

You're right, it was arrogance on my part to assume that you weren't speaking honestly. I should have considered that you just didn't know the facts, and hadn't considered alternatives, and that there are always two sides to a story. Of course if you insist on listening to "animal industry" as your main source of information, then it's no wonder you're not getting the whole story. All that I really ask is that people stop having knee-jerk reactions to stories and claims made by Peta bashers, or any other bashers of those trying to help the animals, and not only look at the other side of the story, but use a little logic in figuring out what might be going on behind the scenes, and what you (generic) would do in the same situation. Do you leave animals to rot, or do you do what you have to do to get upgrade their condition, even if that means euthanizing them so that they don't continue to suffer?

I once saw a tv classroom-type show about advertising, and the professor said that the main thing that's needed by any advertiser is to keep their name in the public eye, and that the most effective entity that he'd ever seen was Peta. Some of the things they say and do make us cringe, but they achieve their main goal which is to make people think about and talk about the animals, because such discourse is the only way that people will have their consciousness raised enough to make changes for the animals, and changes are desperately needed. I've seen a lot of changes already in my lifetime, and I value any group or individual that has taken a part in that.

I am not a Peta supporter. My time and money goes to the dogs. But I think it does a disservice to all animals to attack those that are trying to help them. And I guess the bottom line is that they've accomplished things that I could never even hope to accomplish -- I've tried, and instead of being critical of those who accomplish far more than I can, I'd rather appreciate what they do and focus on what else needs to be done. I've noticed that the ones doing most of the criticizing are the ones that do the least for the animals.

Puppy & Dog Forums

 

skunkstripe

Now I am a "PETA-basher"? Do you think that name-calling helps your credibility? I suppose I could stoop to the same level and call you names too, like a "PETA-lover", but I prefer to rely on facts and logic.

So the quotes were out-of-context? That seems pretty lame of such clever public figures as Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk to be presenting their views / those of the organization they represent at conferences and to journalists to allow that to happen. Please tell us what context you consider appropriate to advocate arson and destruction of property. While you are at it, here are a few more quotes. Are they all out-of-context?

Ingrid Newkirk:
“Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.”
April 8, 2002 issue of US News & World Report 4/8/02
“More power to SHAC if they can get someone’s attention.”
The Boston Herald, August 25, 2002

“Would I rather the research lab that tests animals is reduced to a bunch of cinders? Yes.”
“I will be the last person to condemn ALF (the Animal Liberation Front).”
New York Daily News, 12/7/97

Bruce Friedrich (PETA campaign coordinator)
“If we really believe that these animals do have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then of course we're going to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing windows. For the record, I don't do this stuff, but I do advocate it. ... I think it would be a great thing if, you know, all of the fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate.”
Speech at the Animal Rights 2001 conference. 7/3/2001. Quoted in a guest column by Richard Berman in USA Today, 11/1/2001.
Which I interpret to mean that you are of the opinion that if PETA considers it "necessary" and "reasonable" (or, to use Mr Friedrich's term: "appropriate") to commit crimes such as breaking and entering or arson, then you are cool with it too?

Yes I am aware of the difference between an arrest and a conviction. I am also aware that cops don't like to waste a lot of their time and that of the courts' with frivolous arrests. So why has Ingrid Newkirk herself been arrested between 40-50 times? ( http://www.rickross.com/reference/animal/animal1.html ).

What about the PETA employees in VA who claimed to be rehoming adoptable animals but in reality were killing them then and there in the van-no temperament test, no vetting, no nothing?
http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

And I'm sorry that setting fire outside of a building is not an impressive enough crime for you. I had taken the trouble to show where this is encouraged by PETA higher ups, but you chose to ignore it. I'll spell it out for you further down.

I have a better idea, how about YOU check out my source. While you're at it, visit the sourcewatch link that you posted and try actually reading it. If you were to do so, you would find this "In reality, none of the information that ActivistCash "exposes" has ever been hidden. It is available in public foundation reports and IRS tax statements that nonprofit organizations make available to anyone who asks. Most of the funding data in the ActivistCash database can already be found in public libraries or downloaded via the Internet. ActivistCash.com simply makes the data more easily accessible from it's website." It also states: "the facts presented on the site are generally correct" In this case, the original source of the information is the FBI. As in Federal Bureau of Investigation. Did you not bother to view the link, or are you providing misinformation in an attempt to discourage "lurkers" from checking the link I posted for themselves? No matter, I'll posting some of the FBI findings here:

"Past FBI findings conducted to date developed evidence that members of the ALF were connected to or directed by PETA"

"PETA is also known to hire interns from Asia and other locations for the sole purpose of commiting criminal acts or protests, which result in arrests,..."

"(name removed), of PETA is providing financial support to members of ALF and other animal rights extremists in an attempt to fund their (ALF's) direct actions"

"In an attempt to develop a cooperating source, Norfolk has concentrated on identifying former disgruntled PETA employees. One such person, (name removed) was interviewed by (name removed) on 1/29/2004....(name removed) made statements suggesting that PETA was formed as a cover for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and PETA and ALF were one and the same".

"On 3/16-19/2004, Norfolk agents along with a DTOU supervisor debriefed (name /content removed) of vandalism targeting fast food restaurants, butcher and fur shops, committed by PETA employes and encouraged by President Ingrid Newkirk".

Now you may not like the crew who is making this information available on the net. But you don't honestly expect PETA to post evidence of wrongdoing on their own site, do you? Just because you don't like your mail carrier doesn't mean that you can ignore the bills and summons that have your name and address on them! I am not a fan of activistcash, NAIA, NRA and a host of other organizations that are going after PETA. Unfortunately now that PETA has such a large budget, the only organizations that can take them on are going to be of a comparable scale. However, I have yet to see evidence that they are commiting criminal acts. That is where I draw the line-not whether or not I like your politics.

Let me make an analogy. If you donate money to an organization with a name like "Sons of Mohammed" with the stated mission of promoting Arab cultural activities and find out that they are funneling money to Al Qeada, does it matter if say, Rush Limbaugh, is the one trumpeting it on his radio show, as long as the original source of the information is objective and reliable?

No I am not. And it would be nice if you would read what I actually wrote instead of trying to put words in my mouth. What I wrote in reference to the complaint was "..if you want to see the activities that led to the complaint" because it is a concise description of the PETA/Coronado/AFL connection, which I find the the most disturbing. If you choose not to read it or prefer to pretend that the charges made were completely bogus, that is of course up to you.

I trust you will not be offended if I leave the zoo aspect, at least for now. This forum has to do with dogs, and we have more than enough "meat" (or tofu if you prefer) for a debate.

skunkstripe

Perfect world according to whom? You have your definition, I have mine, Ingrid Newkirk has hers, Adolf Hitler had his.....you see where I am going with this, yes? Having a vision of a "perfect world" is fine. However, forcing others to conform to your definition by the use of violence is called terrorism. Once you open the door to anyone and everyone to adopt criminal tactics to enforce their will, you end up with things like abortion clinics getting bombed and people getting killed because the perpetrators are convinced that they answer to a higher authority. This is why we have laws. We may not like all of them, but it provides a framework by which we can interact with each other.

At any rate, PETA is being-shall we say-hypocritical about whether animals should live free in the wild or not. Have you seen their policy on feral cats?

"Because of the huge number of feral cats and the severe shortage of good homes, the difficulty of socialization, and the dangers lurking where most feral cats live, it may be necessary and the most compassionate choice to euthanize feral cats. You can ask your veterinarian to do this or, if your local shelter uses an injection of sodium pentobarbital, take the cats there. Please do not allow the prospect of euthanasia to deter you from trapping cats. If you leave them where they are, they will almost certainly die a painful death. A painless injection is far kinder than any fate that feral cats will meet if left to survive on their own."

Wait a minute, are the cats supposed to survive on their own, or is someone from PETA supposed to help kill them? And if the areas where the feral colonies are being managed by established TNR groups, do you think it is ok for PETA to muscle in and kill these cats to enforce THEIR vision of a perfect world?

What is your fascination with RICO? One more time, I did not bring it up, you did. I am refering to plain old ordinary crimes, no need to invoke RICO. Along comes DogAdvocat and says that I should provide examples of arrests/convictions of PETA officials under the RICO act. Why only officials and why are you harping on RICO? Is there some sinister reason that you have not yet revealed why RICO is so important to you, or is this just some rhetorical trick to attempt to put words in my mouth and then shoot down something I didn't say?


Ummm, Coronado WAS convicted of arson. In 1995.

Well then you are speculating, which is fine. Based on the FBI findings, I happen to find another explanation more likely, namely that PETA is a front for ALF and with a bigger budget felt an obligation to provide financial assistance with legal expenses.

Heck at this point I would be delighted if you would rebut anything I have said with a link. And of the 15 or so links I posted, one was from activistcash, yet you claim that I "keep quoting" activistcash. So far all I have seen from you aside from rhetoric, opinion and speculation has been a link attempting to throw mud at activistcash (but which actually states that the factual information from them is generally correct), a lecture me on RICO (?) and a link on the PETA Snip Van. If you have PROOF of what was going on behind the scene, there is no time like the present to get it out in the open. And I guess you harp on the link from activistcash but choose to ignore the links from the US Congressional hearing, news agencies, FBI documents. Why is that?

I will ingore your condescending tone ("Shocking? This surprises you?" Boy, where would we all be without DogAdvocat to enlighten us about pet overpopulation. Just ignorant, I guess) suggesting that I am naive about the justication for killing healthy, adoptable animals. I am not. And I am sorry that the region where you live has no choice but to put so many animals to death every year. The region where I happen to live imports adoptable animals from the region where PETA is active. We have no-kill shelters and they WORK, because we also have effective low-cost, readily available spaying/neutering programs and a general awareness that spaying/neutering is a GOOD thing. So why does PETA oppose no-kill shelters across the board? Is PETA's vision of a perfect world more worthy than that of, say nokillnow?

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAagainstnokill.htm

Maybe because despite (or because) of their efforts in the region of the US where PETA has a stronger sphere of influence, because the success at helping animals has been abysmally poor. Maybe the DeMarVa region should take a lesson from the North.

skunkstripe

Again, you are attempting to put words in my mouth. I was not the one who said that PETA was in the business of caring for homeless cats and dogs. In fact, it was PETA who misrepresented itself as being willing to take on the task of finding homes for these animals. Since you don't like the links I post, here is a quote from
http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAanimalpeople.htm

"Macon animal rescuer Ruth Brown told Weldon that “In December 2003, while she was working with Rainbow Rescue, a no-kill organization in Roanoke Rapids, she conducted e-mail correspondence with an individual who described herself as being active in animal rescue and who used the Community Animal Project, run by PETA, to provide foster care for the rescued animals. “I thought it was the answer from heaven,” Brown recounted.
Wrote Weldon, “Brown said that she was told that local animals transferred to PETA would be prepared for potential adoption. As animals were given to PETA, Brown said she had contact with a representative of CAP in Norfolk, where PETA is headquartered, as well as contact with Adria Hinkle.”

Said Brown, “We asked them about the animals and they said they only had to put one to sleep because of congenital heart failure,” Brown said. “We questioned them on several occasions. They reassured us that the animals were adopted.”

Continued Weldon, “Brown said that Warren County animal rescuers held fundraising events to pay for spaying and neutering and other needs related to the care of the animals transferred to PETA.”

Brown became suspicious in late spring 2004 “after her original contact arrived in a large truck which contained over 80 animals,” Weldon added."

..."

If there is anyone who does not know the facts, it looks more like you than me. Your defending PETA appears to result from denial as opposed to being willing to take the bad with the good.

This is the second time I have seen someone defend PETA on a pet forum (aside from very young kids). The last time was a gal who was from the VA area and who still lives there. Her avatar had Che Guevera and the tagline "Most of my heroes were in prison". Her opinion was that going to prison for a criminal act in the name of "animal welfare" is glorious, and puts you in the company of people like Martin Luther King. I pointed out that being in prison also puts you in the company of rapists, murderers, and a lot of other types that are not honorable by anyone's definition. I also expressed my opinion that having a Mod glorifying criminal acts was IMO inappropriate on an internet forum where young kids can read and post. She was in the process of getting hired by PETA.

If you are trying to turn this into a "kill vs no-kill" debate may I suggest that you start another thread, because that is really another topic that goes far beyond PETA. I started this one to have a place to discuss PETA and keep it put of other threads.

Even good things go bad. I already stated my opinion on this.

I am not attacking anyone who is trying to help dogs (or cats), I am presenting some unpleasant information about PETA. I sincerely hope that your statement was not intended to suggest that I am doing so. And don't try stereotyping me into the NAIA/NRA/activistcash pigeonhole because it would be grossly inaccurate.

Now are you referring to anyone in particular with your last sentence, or are you trying to start a "I do more for shelters/homeless/rescue/transport/fostering than you", "No, I do", "No, I do" argument?

drfong

I find this very interesting, and like curbside said, this has the potential to get way out of hand. I'd like to know if any of or members have any direct experience with PETA, good or bad? Dogadvocate, I have a hard time believing your not a suporter of PETA, even if you don't give them money your post here are definately ones of suport. You seem to embrace the good they do while dismissing the bad. PETA certianly will not be the first or last group to suport and promote others to do the 'dirty work' they would love to do while maintaining enough distance to be able to effectively raise money and keep a 'good' name.

DogAdvocat

I'll start with this post first because it's short, thank you.

Yes, it could get out of hand, but only if someone decides to take it personally, and I sure don't. The ruse of claiming "name calling" is a tactic that's often used by those that don't really have a good argument. I haven't, and won't, call names, but I do label behavior. You'll never see me saying anyone is an "idiot" for instance, but I see nothing wrong with pointing out that the person posting is not being honest, doesn't have their facts straight, isn't using logic, or is using the opportunity to unfairly bash whoever it is they are talking about. What I think is a problem sometimes on message boards is that when a post is quoted, the poster assumes that the response is aimed at them, when really it's just a comment on the viewpoint given.

This general discussion has come up on message boards before, and when I give my opinion, adding the disclaimer that I'm not a supporter, I've had other people feel the way you do. But I'd like to ask you this --- let's say there was someone in your neighborhood that was disliked by most of the other neighbors. Let's say that you weren't too thrilled by him either. But let's say that your reasons for not liking him were entirely different than all the rumors that were being spread by the other neighbors, and that you could plainly see that those rumors were nonsense because you either knew for a fact that they weren't true, or sheer logic told you they weren't true. Would you keep your mouth shut? Would you be quiet while all kinds of lies were being told about him? I think you would be totally reasonable to not want to make friends with this person, but is it ethical to allow the bashing to continue without pointing out the obvious flaws in what's being said?

If you do point out the lies, are you now a supporter of this person? I don't think so. I don't really consider it even defending the person. I just think it would be an attempt to set the record straight. It might be perfectly reasonable for you to even deny the rumors, but let everyone know your own reasons why you don't like this person. Or, you may just feel that is none of their business and you'd rather the focus be on improving the local school system instead of bashing one irritating neighbor.

You see, for me, it's that lost focus that's so sad. While everyone is Peta bashing and spreading illogical and nonsensical rumors, the animals are forgotten.

DogAdvocat

[quote=skunkstripe;19136]Now I am a "PETA-basher"? Do you think that name-calling helps your credibility? I suppose I could stoop to the same level and call you names too, like a "PETA-lover", but I prefer to rely on facts and logic.

Ahh, the sensitivity card. Okay, how about..... in Peta bashing, it's far too common for the out-of-context quotes to be dragged out first. Better?

Do you not understand what "out-of-context" means??? When you see a quote attributed to a specific news source, like a magazine or a television show, it's obvious that there was more said than just that one quote. There may have been two or three pages, or a 15-minute interview, but that one sound bite was extracted. Out-of-context means that there was more information that was left out of the quote - information that may have even changed the meaning, or explained it further. And when you say it's lame for public figures to allow it to happen - how do you expect them to stop it from happening? They give an interview, and somehow they are supposed to stop some yahoo from quoting one sentence out of that interview months later? You're kidding, right?

Deleting out-of-context quotes, since there is no point in debating what was meant since the entire statements aren't there.

I wrote:
"The fact that they have not been convicted of any crimes shows that they have yet to consider it necessary to commit such crimes. When and if they ever do, then would be the time to discuss the action and whether or not it was reasonable under the circumstances."

You interpret it wrong. The point was that you are apparently ready to convict them for what you value - freedom of speech. That's all it really is - just rhetoric. And it's silly to debate about crimes they haven't committed. When and if they do, then is the time to debate that action. Might I be "cool" with breaking and entering? I'd sure applaud anyone that broke into a burning building and rescued a victim from it. It's just silly to debate the merits of something that hasn't happened when the variables of that nonexistent situation are so -- well, variable.

Why not? Civil disobedience often ends in arrest. Guess how many times Martin Luther King was arrested. I'd say it's a sign that she believes strongly enough in her cause to risk going to jail. But as long as you're pointing out her arrests as stated on that website, why didn't you include the part where she said she wouldn't "cause physical pain and suffering unnecessarily to any living being -- man or mouse."? Was that inconvenient to your argument?

I already covered this in my last post. I'm going to assume that you are responding as you read, and you just haven't gotten there yet.