Peta

[boognish]

i hate this group. they are so arrogant and stupid, they arent animal activists. they are worse than most of the "offeneders" since the truth of peta came out they are NOW tyring to make themselves look good again. getting aquariums to stop selling food made of fish? that is stupid. rediculus, and saying its like frying poodles at adog show? now way. do they put the kind of fish they cook in the exibits? no so what is the big deal? i just hate these people, they killed so many animals.....

[Dante]

I dont like PETA either....they just seem too shady

[boognish]

they are, they killed more animals then they saved

[maximan]

I hate Peta. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for animal rights, but Peta was the right idea, wrong execution. They're way to radical.

[DouggyO.o]

i agree with maximan

[Abd123]

PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Let's ignore for a moment that their name implies there exists a universal set of ethics, and instead let's focus on the meat of this email: PETA is "primarily concerned with preventing the suffering of living animals." Oh really? As opposed to preventing the suffering of dead animals? Good thing they clarified because I was confused and couldn't infer that when they said "animals" they didn't mean dead animals. Glad we have that cleared up, let's move on.

So what exactly constitutes as "prevention" of animal suffering? The moral vegetarians (not the ones who do it for religious or health reasons) love to chant "we're trying to limit the suffering." What the hell does that mean? If you eat wheat or soy, you're not limiting anything. Unless you plant, grow and pick your own crops, you're not doing everything you can to "limit" the suffering. You know deep down that you could help limit a whole lot more suffering, but you've chosen not to. You've chosen not to because your lifestyle is too convenient, and you'd have to give up too much, but nevermind that--you have a conscience to feel good about, and you can't let a little thing like millions of violent deaths of field animals get in the way of your moral trip.

Limit the suffering? That's like me saying I'm going to eat meat only 364 out of 365 days of the year in an effort to "limit" the suffering, I'm doing my part to prevent suffering. "BUT JACQUES, YOU COULD LIMIT A LOT MORE SUFFERING BY NOT EATING MEAT AT ALL!!!" Exactly, and vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? You claim to have compassion for animals, but just as soon as it gets too inconvenient you decide to call it quits? Cowards. You're no better off; not in my book. A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20 if the murder is avoidable. Of course, from the perspective of a suggestible young vegetarian I'm sure being responsible for half as many murders as the next guy means you're off the hook, right?

I keep getting email from moral vegetarians saying "HEY JACQUES WE FEED MORE GRAIN TO ANIMALS AND IF YOU EAT THE ANIMALS YOU ARE KILLING TWICE AS MUCH." No shit? The only difference is that I'm not protesting at street corners about other peoples' diets--I'm not the one with a mission to prevent "the suffering of living animals." This email I received, and many like it is the whole reason I wrote the article in the first place. My opinions are kept to myself on my personal posts. I don't remember asking anyone to read a damn thing on my posts. When you open up your inbox, you don't find it full of my opinions, and if you do I didn't send them to you. I'm not standing on the street corners protesting, I'm not putting fliers on your car and I'm not putting ads on TV and in magazines. I'm not shoving my agenda down your throat, don't shove your agenda down mine. All you dumbass activists need to get bent already.

Fun with facts: vegetarians love to boast outrageous figures like "it takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and only 20 gallons to produce one pound of wheat." I've heard figures ranging from 2,000 to 5,000, and vegetarians will be damned if they include a source so we'll take the mean (that means "average") and go with 3,500. The average person consumes 1.5 million gallons of water every year (it takes water to grow and produce the food you eat in addition to the water you drink, quit emailing me you morons). Why isn't PETA protesting overpopulation of humans on the street corners? Why isn't PETA passing out free condoms or throwing javelins in your cock when you walk down the street if they really cared about water consumption? It's not like that water just suddenly disappears. The earth has had about the same amount of water for 2 billion years. So if a pound of beef takes 3,500 gallons of water, what difference does it make? How many vegetarians drive a car? To make a car (including tires), it takes about 40,000 gallons of fresh water. That's not including the gas it takes to run the car, the electricity to run the gas station, the water used to create the boat that brought your precious oil, the water used to create the pavement you drive on, the destruction of toxic chemicals that went into creating your clothes, and the electricity you use every day to send me stupid emails over the internet. Every year you are directly responsible for the consumption of billions of gallons of water. There are 26 million people suffering preventable brain damage from iodine deficiency, and another 1.5 billion people at risk. Nevermind that, you have animals to save. By driving your cars, you pump billions of tons of poison into the atmosphere and you're slowly killing us all. The computer you use requires 250 watts of electricity, let alone the billions of computers required to keep you on the internet. All consuming energy. All contributing to pollution. Let's just ignore those minor hypocrisies. Someone wants to enjoy a burger and you'll be damned if you're going to let them.

What makes you think that animals suffer in slaughter houses anyway? I think it would rule to be raised for slaughter. Get all the free steroids you want, free meals and plenty of good company--hell, you have it made. Then when you're at the prime of your life, you get your head generously chopped off so you don't have to live through the suffering of old age. Not only that, but you can die with the satisfaction of knowing that somebody is going to enjoy eating a burger made out of you. What's more humane? Being slaughtered for meat or having to spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours per week in a cubicle for the rest of your life with assholes who listen to shitty music without headphones, then retiring and withering away with old age as your obnoxious kids grow up and treat you like shit? Slaughter please

[kolte]

here here

[WakeUp]

wow i found that exact thing rite here
http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi
so strange allk this that is happening rite Abd123?

PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Let's ignore for a moment that their name implies there exists a universal set of ethics, and instead let's focus on the meat of this email: PETA is "primarily concerned with preventing the suffering of living animals." Oh really? As opposed to preventing the suffering of dead animals? Good thing they clarified because I was confused and couldn't infer that when they said "animals" they didn't mean dead animals. Glad we have that cleared up, let's move on. .....

[nwshc]

You bum, i knew that you didnt think of all that yourself.

[WakeUp]

so pathetic, dont you think its a bit obvious you just randomly make posts pages of a4 long ?

[Dante]

lol

[nwshc]

I talked to the kid on msn about it, and then he blocked me. o well.

[kolte]

I just think the are a little too radical, you dont need to wrap people in plastic and lable them to prove we slaughter and eat animals. What else do you think we should eat. You know as good a soy burgers sound, I think Ill settle for a nice hunck of dead cow meat. lol

[boognish]

you guys dont get why peta is a terrible charity :shock:

did you know that whereas normal state maintained animal care facilities execute on average 20-30% of all cats, dogs, ect. but facilities opperated by peta execute an average of 60-80% 60-80%! 2 men working for peta were aressted for throwing dog corpses into a dumpster. they were caught throwing 2 dogs and a bag of 5 newly born pups into the dumpster, with 8 or 9 already in the dumpster and about 30 in the flatbed of their truck. peta, by law has to give this information to the govnt, its just never been relased. this is the figures for LAST year. peta has yet to turn in this years killing results. upon hearing this news a state took control over a facility from peta because they didnt feel the animals had a good chance. it all truth, if your a dog, you dont want to be under peta's care, you've got a better chance against a tank

[Millermagic]

^^ What he said (i'm way too tired to type right now)

Secondly, they are hyppocr4ytes that want the world to think that they are doing good.

They would rather have a person die than an animal. There was a case where they let a person die and saved an animal.

[<-Dying_to_Live->]

i hate ALL activists. enough said lol

[Nexdeus]

:evil: didint peta get caught dumping dead youthanized puppys into a garbage can behind a piggly-wiggly :evil:



:twisted: PETA :twisted: = people eat tasty animals :twisted: :twisted:

[kolte]

:evil: didint peta get caught dumping dead youthanized puppys into a garbage can behind a piggly-wiggly :evil:



:twisted: PETA :twisted: = people eat tasty animals :twisted: :twisted:

not only are you bringing up extreamly old treads, your spamming. locking