Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

personally i disagree with peta to the point of seeing the name pissing me off
but i would like to see some of your views...

I like PETA members.

Preferrably with hotsauce and a side of celery and carrot sticks.

I lost any respect I had for PETA once they admitted to adopting home pets (like cats and dogs) and drugging them then killing them.
The reason was to save them from living a household existence, when they should be living in the wild.

PETA is too obsessive. They go to the point of opposing human rights in favor of those of animals.

They're all a bunch of extremist douchebags. To them, hunting is equally as wrong as killing another human bein, but soliciting sex to children and burning down medical research centers is perfectly fine.

Fun fact:
The founder of PETA is a diabetic (meaning she needs to inject insulin). Without animal testing insulin wouldn't have been approved for human use.

When did PETA solicit underage sex?

Hunting doesn't equal murder of a human, morally speaking, but it is pretty silly.

Hunting doesn't equal murder of a human, morally speaking, but it is pretty silly.

Why not? What's the difference between killing a self-conscious animal which can process the fact that it does not want to die and killing a likewise human?

At 4/19/06 08:48 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: When did PETA solicit underage sex?

I'm guessing you arn't familar with PETA's nude ad campaign? Basically, they get hot semi-naked 18/19 year old women and hold little rallies infront of highschools/libraries/parks. They sell their ideas to kids with the use of sex (similar to alcohol/cig companies before all the lawsuits).

At 4/19/06 08:51 PM, Begoner wrote: Why not? What's the difference between killing a self-conscious animal which can process the fact that it does not want to die and killing a likewise human?

Most scientists will agree that most animals arent aware they will eventually die.

At 4/19/06 08:51 PM, Begoner wrote:

Hunting doesn't equal murder of a human, morally speaking, but it is pretty silly.

Why not? What's the difference between killing a self-conscious animal which can process the fact that it does not want to die and killing a likewise human?

If that's the case, why don't wolves develop better hunting skills so they can shoot the deer instead of chasing them around all their lives>?

If animals knew they were dying, they'd make the best of it while alive. Or maybe we've just got it fucked up. Who knows. Until an animal has the balls to tell me why it shouldn't be eaten by a superior being (me), I'm going to kill and eat it as much as I like.

If the animal happens to be a great white shark, I'm not much going to fuck with it, eh?

At 4/19/06 08:35 PM, Trajan wrote: I lost any respect I had for PETA once they admitted to adopting home pets (like cats and dogs) and drugging them then killing them.
The reason was to save them from living a household existence, when they should be living in the wild.

Strawman. That was an isolated incidence involving two random people who happened to belong to PETA. That's not the policy of PETA the organization.

At 4/19/06 08:54 PM, TCStyle wrote: I'm guessing you arn't familar with PETA's nude ad campaign? Basically, they get hot semi-naked 18/19 year old women and hold little rallies infront of highschools/libraries/parks. They sell their ideas to kids with the use of sex (similar to alcohol/cig companies before all the lawsuits).

Last time I checked, 18- and 19-year-olds are of age. They aren't soliciting for sex, they're using a way to get people's attention. And you're proving that it's effective.

.
I don't believe in animal rights, therefor I don't particularly believe in PETA's cause. But I do admire them for antagonizing jackasses, if nothing else.

At 4/19/06 08:51 PM, Begoner wrote:

Hunting doesn't equal murder of a human, morally speaking, but it is pretty silly.

Why not? What's the difference between killing a self-conscious animal which can process the fact that it does not want to die and killing a likewise human?

you serious?

At 4/19/06 09:18 PM, red_skunk wrote: Last time I checked, 18- and 19-year-olds are of age. They aren't soliciting for sex, they're using a way to get people's attention. And you're proving that it's effective.

I never said that PETA used child sex as a marketing tool; I stated that PETA uses of-age women to sell their ideas to a much younger, under-age audience. It is illegal for a child under the age of 18 to view porn in most states, but it is perfectly acceptable (and legal) to parade half-nude females in front of high schools?

Besides, that is only the start of PETA’s sick side. In the early ninety’s a spokeswomen for PETA said it was justifiable to burn and even kill to save animal lives. Sorry, but an organization that condones throwing red paint at people who wear fur is not an organization I would deem civilized.

PeTA is a perfect example of how a good idea can be horribly ruined.

At 4/19/06 08:54 PM, TCStyle wrote:

I'm guessing you arn't familar with PETA's nude ad campaign?

Nope.

Basically, they get hot semi-naked 18/19 year old women and hold little rallies infront of highschools/libraries/parks.

While hot is relative, assuming they are hot, seems interesting. Even though 18/19 is legal...in certain states.

They sell their ideas to kids with the use of sex (similar to alcohol/cig companies before all the lawsuits).

Interesting. It's not a bad idea at all.

I wonder if they know that their radical beliefs are alienating people who might be convinced to shift their position. I saw their Meatrix video a few years back and at the end they had a link to help make a difference. I was really hoping for some information about nutrition, some suggestions on how to replace meat in one's diet with more animal friendly choices. Instead I was sent to a site about veganism.

No fucking way. I'm not going to give up all animal products in my life just because they're in given shitty treatment. If you point out a company that does animal testing in an irresponsible manner, I might think twice about buying from them, but I'm not going to give up all my wonderful technology that is here because of animal testing.

So true. I only eat Kosher meat. I do my best. But I could really care less about using sex for advertising animal rights. I draw the line where human rights are compromised by animal rights.

PETA is complete bullshit. Trying to get kids to turn vegetarian, and filling Americans with untrue propaganda. I've always wanted one of the "For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three" shirts from maddox.xmission.com.

At 4/19/06 09:18 PM, red_skunk wrote: Strawman. That was an isolated incidence involving two random people who happened to belong to PETA. That's not the policy of PETA the organization.

Its one thing when they support it, its another when they dump them behind garbage cans.

According to the CCF's fliers, PETA "killed over 80 percent of the flesh-and-blood animals it took in" in 2004 and has euthanized more than 12,400 animals since 1998.

We believe that euthanasia is a kindness for dogs and cats who are born into a world that doesn’t want them, has not cared for them, and ultimately has abandoned them to be disposed of.

While PETA has claimed that most of the animals it kills are "broken beings," the dead animals discovered by North Carolina police included a female cat and -- according to a local veterinarian -- her two "very adoptable" kittens. "These were just kittens we were trying to find homes for," he told PETA's hometown Virginian-Pilot. "PETA said they would do that, but these cats never made it out of the county."

PETA does back up Euthanasia for pets that cant find homes, its pretty clear.
But they dont back up trying to find homes for the animals they "rescued".

At 4/19/06 10:01 PM, mofomojo wrote: They don't really matter, it's not as if their not eating meat and bitching about those who do really affect me.

Exactly. Their bitching doesn't hurt anyone.

I bet they're good people when they're not bitching.

Their goal is to do good, they're probably good people.

I agree with the majority of posters in this thread. By being vegetarians, PETA members are saying that plant life is not important yet they insist upon the importance of animal life. Where do you draw the line between important and unimportant life forms? Ultimately it is impossible to consume anything without killing one or more forms of life.

Well I knew most of these facts of if some of you dont get the real side of PETA then watch an episode of PENN + TELLER Bullshit, has an episode exactly over this.

Anywho PETA are hypocritical nutcases trying to look good by saying something and end up doing the exact opposite behind our backs. Even PETA's top leaders take insulin lmfao. Also I think they tried tro capture some animals for their safety, less then half survive PETA control... Anyway PETA is obusive and intrusive, they would even go against a cure for cancer if it involved animal testing, what pansies!

At 4/19/06 09:30 PM, TCStyle wrote: I never said that PETA used child sex as a marketing tool; I stated that PETA uses of-age women to sell their ideas to a much younger, under-age audience. It is illegal for a child under the age of 18 to view porn in most states, but it is perfectly acceptable (and legal) to parade half-nude females in front of high schools?

It depends on state law. Go bitch to your congressmen about "deceny laws" or whatever nonsense, not at me.

Besides, that is only the start of PETA’s sick side. In the early ninety’s a spokeswomen for PETA said it was justifiable to burn and even kill to save animal lives. Sorry, but an organization that condones throwing red paint at people who wear fur is not an organization I would deem civilized.

I don't care about your definition of "civilized." So what? Wah.

And now here comes the parade of idiots.

At 4/19/06 10:04 PM, Trajan wrote: Its one thing when they support it, its another when they dump them behind garbage cans.

I support euthanasia. There are too many cats and dogs in this country, mostly due to assholes who don't spay or neuter.

According to the CCF's fliers, PETA "killed over 80 percent of the flesh-and-blood animals it took in" in 2004 and has euthanized more than 12,400 animals since 1998.

Yes, they have a high euthanasia rate. I've never said anything to the contrary.

We believe that euthanasia is a kindness for dogs and cats who are born into a world that doesn’t want them, has not cared for them, and ultimately has abandoned them to be disposed of.

*yawn* Again, what are you advocating? No kill shelters throughout the United States? That's a bit daft of you.

While PETA has claimed that most of the animals it kills are "broken beings," the dead animals discovered by North Carolina police included a female cat and -- according to a local veterinarian -- her two "very adoptable" kittens. "These were just kittens we were trying to find homes for," he told PETA's hometown Virginian-Pilot. "PETA said they would do that, but these cats never made it out of the county."

And that is the isolated incident of two PETA members acting by themselves. I already brought this up. Sorry, but your entire fucking post was worthless.

At 4/19/06 10:21 PM, jlwelch wrote: I agree with the majority of posters in this thread. By being vegetarians, PETA members are saying that plant life is not important yet they insist upon the importance of animal life. Where do you draw the line between important and unimportant life forms?

I'm pretty sure you've drawn that line, unless you regularly dine on dogs, horses, or grandmother. Furthermore, drawing the line between sentient and nonsentient makes a lot more sense than the line that the typical American draws (ie. completely at random).

At 4/19/06 09:18 PM, red_skunk wrote:

Strawman. That was an isolated incidence involving two random people who happened to belong to PETA. That's not the policy of PETA the organization.

Isolated? Peta drugs and murderes 70% of the animals they take in, according to their tax report. Over 12,000 animals in hardley an isolated incident.

At 4/19/06 11:33 PM, LettuceClock wrote: Isolated? Peta drugs and murderes 70% of the animals they take in, according to their tax report. Over 12,000 animals in hardley an isolated incident.

You might want to read the thread before responding. Because I hate having to repeat myself to asshats. I wasn't talking about euthanasia, I was talking about the two PETA members who were euthanizing healthy, adoptable animals the same day they were picked up. They were arrested and charged with animal mistreatment.

At 4/19/06 11:39 PM, red_skunk wrote:

You might want to read the thread before responding. Because I hate having to repeat myself to asshats. I wasn't talking about euthanasia, I was talking about the two PETA members who were euthanizing healthy, adoptable animals the same day they were picked up. They were arrested and charged with animal mistreatment.

Oh, excuse me, I mistook that for what peta did: Hundreds of Peta members who were euthanizing healthy, adoptable animals a few days they were picked up.

That couple of day's really makes a difference.

At 4/19/06 11:45 PM, LettuceClock wrote: Oh, excuse me, I mistook that for what peta did: Hundreds of Peta members who were euthanizing healthy, adoptable animals a few days they were picked up.
That couple of day's really makes a difference.

All rhetoric aside...

Are all of you people against euthanizing animals? I never see such a surge of the 'no kill' crowd until 'PETA' is dropped, then everyone is a critic. Puh-leaze.

At 4/19/06 11:48 PM, red_skunk wrote:

Are all of you people against euthanizing animals? I never see such a surge of the 'no kill' crowd until 'PETA' is dropped, then everyone is a critic. Puh-leaze.

I believe in Euthanasia ONLY when it is neccasary. I do not believe in it when PETA is too fucking lazy and selfish to pay some money and some time to get the pet's adopted. They do have the resources to make their shelter no kill, they ONLY kill 12,000 animals because they want to keep the millions of dollers they make.

At 4/19/06 11:28 PM, red_skunk wrote: *yawn* Again, what are you advocating? No kill shelters throughout the United States? That's a bit daft of you.

When did I say that?
I was wondering why PETA doesnt try to find homes for the animals instead of killing them.

And that is the isolated incident of two PETA members acting by themselves. I already brought this up.

Your right, its not like PETA backed it up and agreed with the actions performed.
Oh wait. . .

Sorry, but your entire fucking post was worthless.

And everything you and I and everyone else does it worthless.
Or at the same time you could say nothing done is worthless.

The only thing I agree was worthless was your badass attempt using profanity to try and prove me wrong.

At 4/19/06 11:51 PM, LettuceClock wrote: I believe in Euthanasia ONLY when it is neccasary. I do not believe in it when PETA is too fucking lazy and selfish to pay some money and some time to get the pet's adopted. They do have the resources to make their shelter no kill, they ONLY kill 12,000 animals because they want to keep the millions of dollers they make.

PETA is a nonprofit organization.

At 4/19/06 11:53 PM, Trajan wrote: When did I say that?
I was wondering why PETA doesnt try to find homes for the animals instead of killing them.

They do. They have a high euthanasia rate. That doesn't mean they don't give cats and dogs out for adoption. One justification that I've heard for PETA's euthanasia rate is that many of the animals they take in are unadoptable, from rescues from abusive homes / farms / etc.

Your right, its not like PETA backed it up and agreed with the actions performed.
Oh wait. . .

The president of PETA weakly attempted to cover for the two. Nobody agreed with anything. Many members were outraged.

All of these PETA topics turn out the same exact way. Why don't you people just go search and read the old threads?