Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/19/06 11:59 PM, red_skunk wrote:

PETA is a nonprofit organization.

Really? Then I wonder where those millions of dollars a year are going if it's NOT to help the animals.

All I know is if donaters where giving me a couple million to save animals, I would spend most of it on saving animals. I wouldn't put up billboards of Pamela Anderson in times square THREE times, then murder 80% of the animals I am supposed to be saving because I don't have any money left to house them.

At 4/20/06 12:03 AM, LettuceClock wrote: Really? Then I wonder where those millions of dollars a year are going if it's NOT to help the animals.

If you were truly interested in this question, you could very easily go to their site and inquire about it. It's public knowledge, as is any nonprofit. Instead, I think you're simply trying to waste my time.

At 4/19/06 11:59 PM, red_skunk wrote: The president of PETA weakly attempted to cover for the two. Nobody agreed with anything. Many members were outraged.

I have seen video footage of the president (or someone that helps lead the orginization) agreeing with the actions performed.
I am sure a lot of the members were outraged, the members joined to help out animals and treat them painlessly as possible.

Its when the higher ups agree with animal cruelty that things get bad.

http://peta.org/about/numbers.asp

Wow, took all of three seconds to find. Now stop bothering me.

.

At 4/20/06 12:08 AM, Trajan wrote: Its when the higher ups agree with animal cruelty that things get bad.

As I've said, Ingrid never agreed with what the two did. She tried to do damage control, which allowed a bunch of people to jump her ass again.

At 4/20/06 12:07 AM, red_skunk wrote:

If you were truly interested in this question, you could very easily go to their site and inquire about it. It's public knowledge, as is any nonprofit. Instead, I think you're simply trying to waste my time.

Don't be a little smart-ass. It was quite obviouse that was a hypothetical, don't acct like a little cocck. And you didn't touch on ANY of the points I made in that post; you just skip to the part you can make seem so litteral that it makes me look bad. You're "debating" skills are equal to someone who skips all the points and goes after someones spelling errors.

And I apologise for all the "cc's" and all the rest that are sure to come, my "c" key is messed up.

PETA is a hypocritical organization. They kill thousands of animals they can't place in homes every year, regardless if those animals are already domesticated or not. Helping such an organization is just feeding the bullshit these same people feed to the media.

At 4/20/06 12:11 AM, red_skunk wrote: As I've said, Ingrid never agreed with what the two did. She tried to do damage control, which allowed a bunch of people to jump her ass again.

Maybe you read it correctly, or you didnt. But I will repeat myself.
I have seen a video where she condoned the actions performed, it doesnt matter if she was doing damage control or just trying to clear things up. The video was off of CNN I believe, but the last time I saw it was a couple months ago.

She didnt say its against PETA's policy, and she backed up the two for what they did.

At 4/20/06 12:23 AM, Trajan wrote: Maybe you read it correctly, or you didnt. But I will repeat myself.
I have seen a video where she condoned the actions performed, it doesnt matter if she was doing damage control or just trying to clear things up. The video was off of CNN I believe, but the last time I saw it was a couple months ago.

She didnt say its against PETA's policy, and she backed up the two for what they did.

OK, let me put it in another way – I don't believe you. You're either remembering incorrectly or intentionally misrepresenting her response. Or perhaps you're not using the proper word. But she never condoned them. And regardless of what she said... I fail to see the point. It was still the actions of two individuals, acting outside of standard operating procedure. They were charged with animal cruelty, to my knowledge.

At 4/20/06 01:35 AM, red_skunk wrote: OK, let me put it in another way – I don't believe you.

You believe what you believe and I will believe what I believe.
I know what I heard.

I fail to see the point.

Ok, how about this.

If at my school two history teachers were biased on certain subjects and focused on christian events and purposely tried to make christians sound better then muslims or jews.
Now my school allows religion to be taught in class (although its meant for historical purposes) yet the principle comes right out saying he agrees with what the teachers did and does not see any wrong in leaning towards one side of an argument.

So Ingrid said Christians are better than Muslims and Jews too?

dude, just give it up. That parallel makes no sense. If you insist on continuing this line, then dig up her comments on the case. But actually, I don't care. I'm done with this PETA thread. See ya in the next one a month down the road.

At 4/20/06 02:16 AM, red_skunk wrote: So Ingrid said Christians are better than Muslims and Jews too?

Hypothetical, which you probably know that.

I was merely relating that the two individuals in the PETA (history teachers) that did something that is really frowned upon (biased judgement) and the principle (Ingrid) says its ok.

At 4/20/06 02:16 AM, red_skunk wrote: So Ingrid said Christians are better than Muslims and Jews too?

Honestly, Red_skunk, fucck you. All you're "debates" are simply you straight up taking hypothetical and figurative speach and making it seem 100 percent seriouse in attempts to disccredit whoever said it. And when anyone does prove you wrong, you simply say "I don't care" or "prove it". You have the skills of a four year old.

i dont like PETA. their leader is a little wacky

At 4/20/06 02:16 AM, red_skunk wrote: done with this PETA thread. See ya in the next one a month down the road.

Ahh, poor liitle red_skunk got pawned and yet still couldn't admit defete. A true hero.

Anyway. Just to make sure nobody else here starts defending PeTA:

http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05093.cfm

PeTA is still using the same argument about STILL not having enough money.
"In 1991, according to San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders, PETA killed 18 rabbits and 14 roosters it had “rescued” from a research facility because it “didn’t have the money” to care for them and the PETA animal shelter was out of room."

PeTA has the demented view that they are saving animals from "humiliation" by killing them. Srew that.
" in 2003 PETA and other animal liberation groups filed suit to prevent zoos in San Diego and Tampa from importing African elephants endangered by overcrowding. National Review writer Wesley Smith observed that the court denied PETA’s request for an injunction, saying that unless they were brought to the U.S. the elephants would be culled by South African authorities, since their numbers were a danger to the ecosystem of the famous Kruger National Park. The court said putting the elephants in zoos would save their lives. But the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the elephants “will be better off if … killed rather than imported and placed in zoos.”

At 4/20/06 08:00 PM, Grammer wrote:

Way to categorize a man you barely met, and over the internet, no less.

What are you talking about? I "categorized" his debating skills based on EVERY SINGLE DEBATE OF HIS I HAVE EVER SEEN. That's called spotting patterns.

Be quiet. Trajan didn't prove it - do you honestly expect someone to debate something he can barely recall from memory?

He did prove quite a couple things right, yes. Obviously nothing major, but it's still childish to argue some fact, then when someone proves you wrong go "fuck you, I don't care.". Imagine if instead of replying to your post, I just said "I don't care" to both your points. It would acomplish nothing.

At 4/20/06 10:36 PM, Grammer wrote: Btw, if you ask me you're just sore that he proved you wrong when you thought peta wasn't a non-profit organization. skunk never makes a point my ass.

Not really. I never said they where not a non-profit, I said they where doing it to save money and... I WAS RIGHT! They had over 5 million left at the end of the year, they could have saved thousands of animal lifes just by dipping into that money.

At 4/20/06 12:03 AM, LettuceClock wrote:

87% of all statistics are made up on the spot - I would know.

REALLY? My, If that statistic is made up, I wonder why they claimed it on their tax's. And the number might have been 70, I admit. Still, thats WAY higher then any other shelters.

At 4/20/06 10:33 PM, Grammer wrote:

Maybe he doesn't care to debate something that comes from a man's memory and memory alone. He doesn't have to believe it - no one does.

What in the fuck are you talking about? Stop accting like it's an Isolated incident he did one time.

Actually redskunk made a very good point. He made a point that it doesn't matter since you can't debate on someone's memory, skunk said he didn't believe him, and it ended at that.

No, actually, he said "I don't care" after Trojan proved a number of things he said wrong.

Well, skunk is more subtle than that

Not really, since that's exactly what he did.

and he makes very good points most of the time.

Untill someone proves the point wrong, then he acts like an ass.

PETA is a wonderful organization that is completely dedicated to the well-being and happiness of all forms of animal life. The fact that almost all of the posts on this forum randomly spew horrific falsehoods about a very well-respected and upstanding organization is a sad reflection of today's society. The whole lot of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for treating people that care about animals in this manner!

Heh, heh...
You thought!
;D

PETA sux.

PETA is a joke. It infilitrates schools and corrupts children with its bullshit. You will see a teenager, usually female, say how its wrong to eat animals. And yet, when asked why, they do not seem to have an answer... Hmm...

PETA says eat the animals, nature plant freaks say eat animals. Its a stupid dumbass circle that we have to follow over and over because humans out in the world will not grow up and realize a concept exists called the FOOD CHAIN. I have watched nature channels before, and after the lion ripped the zebras throat open, it did not stand around arguing that its wrong with the other lions. Neither should we.

At 4/20/06 07:55 PM, Grammer wrote: What a pity, I liked that campaign.

LOLOL WTF were they thinking?

That is beyond comedic genius.

At 4/19/06 09:35 PM, bakem0n0 wrote: PeTA is a perfect example of how a good idea can be horribly ruined.

Just like. communism

I think they have some good points, but they take it too far. Like how they are against any pets other than cats and dogs, I have tons of pets, and they are not mis-treated in any way at all.

At 4/19/06 10:55 PM, hungapoe wrote: 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.

PETA Penn and Teller Episode.

Guess what! I walk on two legs. I have opposable thumbs. I can write a song, paint a painting, and critique a bad movie. Also, my brain is very powerful, and I can calculate mathematic problems in my head, and even build a technological society that advances each and every year! What am I?

Human. I'm human. I can do all those things listed above. And because of that, I am higher on the food chain. I am above animals. I eat meat, except from other humans, because that is called cannibalism. I am also able to tell what is wrong and what is right. Deliberate torturing animals is wrong, but using them for food and clothing and medical testing is acceptable. They are also there to be our pets, so they can comfort us. But, also, we try to save them if they are endangered. Except for a select few humans, who poach, but I try not to associate with them.

If there is a higher being who is more improved than humans, they have the right to use us for food and testing.

So PETA, why don't you start trying to go after things such as saving elephants and sea turtles? Not trying to get Hamburg and Frankfurt to change their names because they resemble hamburger and hotdogs.

SpecialK said everything that needed to be said. So I think this thread should end right about....................now. Hell, don't listen to me then.

At 4/21/06 09:47 PM, TheTrueMrJack wrote:

At 4/19/06 10:55 PM, hungapoe wrote: 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.

PETA Penn and Teller Episode.

Thanks for that link! Well i think PETA pepole don't want animals to be safe, i think they are just attention whores that can't do anything but being retarded.

And i think PETA is like the Nazi's because of their outrageous idiocity, killing of animals to be safe etc.

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?

The main difference between animals and humans is that animals don't know about death while us humans do. Animals just know that something is there and then not there. Us humans know that something has died. Which is a differant thing entirely from not being there

At 4/22/06 03:09 PM, SpecialK13 wrote:
If there is a higher being who is more improved than humans, they have the right to use us for :food and testing.

Look, I highly disagree, I do not want to be food, or used for testing.
I am definitally agaisnt animal testing, and I am OK with eating meat, because humans are omnivours and it is natural for us to do so. I do, however, think that animals raised for food should be treated very, very good. Unlike the reality of how such animals are treated.
If an extremely advanced race of super-smart aliens landed on Earth and wanted to eat us, or test on us, would you be OK with it? I certainly would NOT!

Animal testing is just plain wrong, any human who knows the reality of it would agree, for a non-peta look on the realitys of animal testing go here: http://www.animaland..alissues/testing.asp

as you will notice, this website is not against eating meat, and is actually Pro-pets.
Animal testing is done on everything form mice to bunnies to dogs to monkeys. If this same sort of torture was done to a human, or a domestic pet, it would be illegal.

Sorry for double post, but untill newgrounds gets an "edit button"....
I jsut wanted to clarify that I am not against stuff like making a mouse fun through a maze to find a bit of food, as long as the mouse is not put in extremely small cages or anytihng like that. I am only against it when the expiriment would:

A: cause emotional, phisical, or psicological pain on the animal, and/or
B: If it causes the animal's quility of life to decress, or cause the animal's lifespan to shorten.