Slashdot Mirror
PETA Wants To Sue Anonymous HuffPo Commenters
MarkWhittington writes, quoting himself: "PETA is incensed over an article in the Huffington Post that details that organization's unsettling practice of euthanizing animals in a Virginia facility that many have assumed is a no kill shelter. According to the New York Post, PETA wants to sue some of the people who have left comments on the article. The problem is that, following the practice of many on the Internet, many of the comments are under assumed names or are anonymous. PETA is attempting to discover the true identities of their critics so that it can sue them for defamation."
Now, PETA, sue me over my opinion.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
PETA pushes the article's circulation into the stratosphere, via the Streisand effect, effectively shooting themselves in the foot. Congrats, idiots.
Only on
This AC pretends /. won't fold to a lawsuit.
throw some kitties in the crock pot, put a beagle on a bagel, and another barker on the barbie....
It's called recycling, duh....
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Instead of spending their ill-gotten money on killing animals they will be wasting it in the courts, which is arguably a better cause.
That's it, please turn yourself in. You horrid criminal you!
Yes, PETA - Recycle your pets.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
euthanizing an animal is good
euthanizing an animal and using its protein is evil
now excuse me while I use the protein of a lovely and beautiful and once-free-and-frolicking sea kitten
News for Nerds?
If we weren't supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be made out of meat.
Bullshit, season 2 episode 1
To be fair to PETA, at least one example from TFA is absolutely false:
it objects to terms like "animal Kervorkians,"
It is completely false and unfair to compare PETA to Dr. Kevorkian. Dr. Kervokian only killed people who volunteered to die. PETA, on the other hand, is killing animals who have not volunteered to die. PETA is an organization animal murderers (the meat goes to waste, therefore it is murder and not food) while Dr. Kevorkian assisted patients in committing suicide. Big difference.
Most people are way too stupid to own anything that is alive other than a houseplant. Seriously. After reading some of the posts here I have come to the conclusion that it is probably in the best interests of the animals to be put down rather than suffer at the hands of morons.
PETA is attempting to discover the true identities of the supressive persons so that it can sue them for defamation.
FTFY. Like Scientologists, these people and free speech don't get along.
But I think PETA subscribes to the "all press is good press" school of thought.
But only if you say what we want to hear. Sounds like the rantings of a typical political group ( they may have been about the animals in the past, but these days they are no different than any other special interest political group.
Wow I'm confused. Here is what I get reading the comment boards lately on huffpo, slashdot, etc
1. Bradley Maning = brave whistleblower who has free speech protection
2. James Rosen = awful Fox News reporter, part of the right wing conspiracy, who gave out classified information
3. Anonymous Comenters = brave whistleblowers who have free speech protection
is this accurate? im really confused.
For a minute, I thought PETA was poking the hacker group Anonymous with a stick. Now THAT would be an interesting battle... I'm a little disappointed.
Good Luck.
Another clear case of Management over reacting to the internet and the demons of internet expression.
People for the Eating of Tasty Animals--BEHOLD!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/358317592
and
http://www.amatteroftasteinc.com/peta.html
Claimer: I proudly own these "Mashed Potatoes" and "Vegetarian" shirts and people take pictures of us all the time--99%+ of people love them and they're the BEST ice-breakers! (No joke)
PETA, through its kill shelters, is responsible for killing more pet animals than any other entity on earth. Their political stance is about gathering money, and nothing else.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The truth shall set you free. Anonymously. Freely anonymous. PETA kills animals. PETA is run by hypocrites. PETA should be banned from existing.
You can dance if you want to.
They did an episode of Bullshit on this very topic.
Don't get rid of PETA! They're actually a good organization! They run around NAKED!
in its shelters. "In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) behaved in a regrettably consistent manner: it euthanized the overwhelming majority of dogs and cats that it accepted into its shelters. Out of 760 dogs impounded, they killed 713, arranged for 19 to be adopted, and farmed out 36 to other shelters (not necessarily "no kill" ones). As for cats, they impounded 1,211, euthanized 1,198, transferred eight, and found homes for a grand total of five. PETA also took in 58 other companion animals -- including rabbits. It killed 54 of them."
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
And first post.
Achievement unlocked.
Unfortunately, my local recycling center only takes animals labeled PETA 2, 3, and 5 (your general small furries). PETA 1 (reptilian) and PETA 6 (aquatic) need to be hauled all the way to the next county, so nobody really bothers. And god forbid you have a wolf or black bear to dispose of - NOBODY takes PETA 7.
If they really want us to recycle, they'll make this damned system easier...
I can only imagine its some out of touch half drunk twits that sign checks at cocktail parties so attractive but vapid people can pretend to like them.
Who is honestly proud of anything PETA has done? They have no impact on the society. So at best they're failures. At worst... Oh god, does it get bad.
They were sort of funny when they threw red ink on socialites wearing fur coats but then they went after people's pets and BACON!... there's no coming back from that.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
PETA has long been a bully. Many years ago, probably 15 years ago or so, they bullied a guy with the peta.org or peta.net domain name into handing it over to them. The guy had a joke site called People Eating Tasty Animals, and PETA's lawyers pounced on him. I support animals and animal rights, but I'd never support a corrupt and misguided organization like PETA.
They're rather worse than Greenpeace, IMHO. Greenpeace doesn't give money to arsonists or kill thousands of pets.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
There's such a thing as factual defense, and assholes at PETA have been reporting their head count every year to the Commonwealth of Virginia.
I think we need to hold a fundraiser so we can finally take these awesome PETA fanatics and give them what they've always wanted; a life in and around happy, free animals...lions specifically. A big field full of lions. Lions are also known for their ethical treatment of other animals.
Can only point to some blog which mentions the real article. Can't point to the original article at http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/claws_come_kills_shelter_peta_goes_rkK9NKluuT53huumRp4L5K
Personally, unless an actual court case is filed, consider it hot air. That seems to be the peta thing anymore.
You're a bunch of liars, hypocrites, and assholes. And do feel free to give it a shot, we have excellent anti-SLAPP provisions in my state.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Think of PETA as the environmentalist equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church, and suddenly it all makes sense.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
For what it's worth, I'm vegan. I have my reasons, and I don't push them on anybody else. People often try to question me about it, and I do my damnedest to change the subject the same way I do when people try to talk religion with me. I would've gone vegan a few years earlier than I did if it weren't for PETA. they had made me assume that all vegans were complete asses, and that if I went vegan everybody would assume I was too.
I can't think of anybody doing more harm to their own "cause" than PETA. Everything they do is counter-productive. If the meat industry wanted to undermine vegetarianism and veganism, they could do nothing better than to quietly take over PETA and keep running it exactly the same way that it's being run now.
I sincerely wish they would just go away.
Lets see... New York *Post* (tabloid, basically) is the source of the info. Actual article linked is on the Yahoo "Contributer Network" (content farm). But PETA, favorite slashdot whipping boy, is in the headline; with vague indication of freedom-of-speech issues. Yep, this is going to be big on Slashdot, better promote it immediately.
Queue the endless stream of weirdly rabid PETA hate... 3... 2... 1... go.
I know RTFA is not to be encouraged, but y'all might want to head over the the Post article in this case. It has a picture of half-nude PETA protesters, for no good reason, that you'll probably enjoy laughing at featured at the top of the pathetic and insubstantial little article. After that you might enjoy the current top story on there when I loaded the main page: about local bike shops being run out of business by rich corporate bike-share programs in New York. Serious stuff!
Let me preface this comment by stating that, as an animal advocate, I am not in ideological alignment with PETA and I do not generally support this organization. That said, Nathan Winograd's HuffPo article amounts to little more than malicious hearsay and it is incredibly biased, leaving out critical information in favor of whipping lazy readers into a furor. PETA does not euthanize adoptable animals. PETA has an open-door program in place to accept and euthanize sick and injured animals which cannot be accepted into other animal shelters, in order to prevent them from being abandoned otherwise. Limited resources necessarily force animal shelters to pick and choose which animals they will accept and when they will accept them -- leaving some unwanted animals with no other place to go but the roadside or the dumpster. People who don't want their pet, or can't afford to treat the pet's illness or injury, will abandon them. It's horrible, but it happens all the time. If there isn't a place, especially in a large and poorer urban area, that will accept any animal at any time regardless of condition, people abandon them. It's that simple. As someone who has lived in rural areas for more than fifteen years, I've seen the little-discussed end result of the failed "no-kill" mission and limited-admission shelters -- a constant stream of aggressive, injured, and sick pets dumped on country roads because the local shelter turned them away. As far as I can tell, PETA has not attempted to deceive the public about their program or its purpose -- in fact, PETA maintains a website about the program called "Why PETA Euthanizes." PETA appears to be quite public about this program and why they believe it is necessary. Furthermore, Winograd is believed to be responsible for posting anonymous comments on articles by or about him to make it seem as though he has reinforcements. Truth is an absolute defense to slander/libel claims, but PETA absolutely has the right to sue for defamation if the comments are untrue. Further reading: http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/ http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/rebuttal-huffington-posts-nathan-j-winograd http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-29/news/barc-sucks/6/
People Eating Tasty Animals
Tasty meat paste! Or is it real Pâté? Maybe this is REALLY where 'Peta' came from!
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
It turns out shortly after PETA started torturing and then killing baby kittens with rusty razors for sport god started feeling rather bad about the whole masturbation rule and now leaves kitten killing to the experts at PETA.
The WBC is toothless in carrying out its agenda, though. PETA essentially believes in exterminating all domestic pets; that humanity has sinned by breeding them in the first place—and it does quite a lot to seek out that goal, often in an extremely and unnecessarily inhumane manner, as you might expect of the kind of people who maintain such a hostile, perverse thesis.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
PETA is far worse than Greenpeace. Greenpeace is just nutty. PETA is outright evil with their "a dead animal is a non-suffering animal" shelter policies.
Have gnu, will travel.
1. The (lack of) reputation PETA has is nothing to get upset over.
2. It's only defamation if they're lying.
It's actually a lot worse, and I say this as someone with no love for gun rights. You'll need a strong stomach for the reason why, though. (I mean it.)
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Pets Emulsified and Toasted as Appetizer?
You'd better be prepared for a lawsuit from PETA, Samantha Wright.
I don't think the NRA kills as many animals or objectifies women as much.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
...The acronym "PETA", I club a cute little kitten to death with a baby seal.
Also the original geenpeace was founded by scientists who wanted to apply scientific principles to environmental policy, many of it's founders left when the hollow men took over and started running anti-science campaigns against (say) chlorhinated water in the early 90's. The WWF is still a very respectable bunch of tree huggers, David Attenbourough recently credited them with "saving the Galapogous islands".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If PETA have their way, then there will be no more lolcats. That means they have thrown down the gauntlet to Anonymous & 4chan.
*grabs popcorn and beer* Let the battle commence.
So were they relabelling dog as horse meat and selling it?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Local shelters kills more even the private held one.
But the difference lies in adoption rate. PETA kills 95+% of what it get given not really bothering giving animals as pet, after all "pets"! are in genral against their policy. Shelter private or public depending on the animal get 40 to 60% back to adoption.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
PETA essentially believes in exterminating all domestic pets; that humanity has sinned by breeding them in the first place—and it does quite a lot to seek out that goal, often in an extremely and unnecessarily inhumane manner,
Actually that's not at all what they say. If you would read their stance on their website, they have no intention to actively kill domestic pets.
Their euthanasizing animals is a different issue. They claim to not have the ressources for caring for all the animals they get and that they mostly euthanasize animals that would be killed anyway in a less humane manner. I can't speak to the validity of these claims, but that's what they communicate are their intentions. I don't know where you get your information from, but it's certainly a strawman.
No doubt so shall we all.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I never thought of it that way before. That's a very apt comparison. They're both groups of annoying assholes who do far more harm than good to the causes that they claim to care about.
Bravo.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It's no strawman—it sounds ghoulish, but it's most definitely reality, unlike their official statements. There have been several cases of PETA workers coming forward and stating that animals are killed improperly by the organization. I don't really want to spam the same link over and over (I've already posted a really disturbing photodocumentary in another comment here), but if you do a bit more research than the official statement you'll find that it's a lot of whitewashing.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Then you're not really paying attention.
While the NRA wants to be pretty much free from the dictated rules of others, PETA wants to be the one dictating.
NRA: Leave us alone, we're doing our thing.
PETA: Stop what you're doing or we'll harass you.
See the difference?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
http://www.petakillsanimals.com
PETA, despite the millions and millions of dollars that foolish people donate to it every year, runs exactly ONE animal shelter. The TRUTH is that animal shelter has a kill rate of 90%. This is a fact. If an animal winds up at the PETA shelter, it is as good as dead.
PETA is an AWFUL organization that has scammed a lot of well meaning people into parting with their money.
PETA obviously don't understand the 'Streisand Effect' at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
The (Duck) Sauce makes the difference!
It's not defamation if it's true
PETA KILLS BABY KITTENS
Oh no, now I'm going to get sued by both of them!
See subject. They want attention. Now they're getting it. They should be left to wither and die.
At least Greenpeace won't sue you, they'll just ram your ships. :P
You are nuts. The NRA wants to enforce guns on every living being. Guns is Big Money, not freedom.
imgur is blocked at work (dunno why, possibly related to it being related to reddit). Anyone want to explain what pictures are linked so I know whether to check it out later at home?
Suck my sweaty balls, PETA.
PETA should be allowed to discover the identities of the posters for the purposes of suing them, if the statements are in fact defamatory. But the first bar PETA should have to clear is to demonstrate to the court that the statements are in fact defamatory. And they should be required to identify the allegedly-defamatory posts publicly, so the posters can retain counsel and contest the allegations without having their identity revealed. Only after they've prevailed on the "the statements are defamatory" part should they be allowed discovery as to the identities of the posters. And if they fail to follow through and file suit, sanctions should be imposed for abuse of process.
Being anonymous should not mean you can't be held accountable for what you say, but the first step should be showing that someone could be held legally accountable for saying what was said. If what was said isn't actionable, then it shouldn't matter who said it.
No-kill shelters are expensive. PETA is a corporation. If it's a choice between a couple puppies or executive compensation, the puppies are gonna get offed. Just like BoA or Halliburton or AT&T or Google would do. The goody goody stuff is just the brand. 'Do no Evil' (TM).
Well, the link has this as source, right? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html
The first thing I noticed was the astonishing double standards:
"A postcard written and signed by Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's founder, admitting that PETA does not believe animals have a right to live, despite its public perception of PETA as an "animal rights" organization. The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. It is fundamental because without it, no other "rights" are possible. How can animals be guaranteed the right to food, water, shelter and protection, when those things can be taken away by killing them?"
By the same logic, none of the animals killed for human consumption could have had the right to food, water, shelter and protection and therefore... what?
Secondly, most of those images don't even have much to do with PETA at all?
Thirdly, every time I read something like that it sources back to the Center for consumer freedom, or more recently, Nathan J. Winograd, who seems to be very biased for some reason.
Now, I don't really have an interest in defending PETA, these claims may as well be true. But what I do not see is actual investigative journalism. I mean, what happened to journalism? I seem to almost only read regurgitations of the opinions of the same people and organizations with no investigating if any of it is actually true.
There countless animal welfare organisations more worthy of donations that these clowns. Organisations that spend their money improving welfare and reducing cruelty to animals without the dumb moralising or activism.
Yeah, but I kind of like it when their sexy members get naked and stuff though :) I used to have a "PETA" folder somewhere but I lost it. Could someone post a few?
If PETA suddenly started getting more share of the pet adoption market, the net survival rate of non-PETA shelters would drop accordingly. Pet adoption demand has been easily met every year, so your point is pretty much moot. PETA itself claims it does not see euthanasia as a means of population control, but as a last resort for animals suffering painful, terminal conditions (supposedly).
I would be more comfortable with the shelters spaying / neutering wild pets in a catch and release type of program, but this method is more expensive than putting them to sleep, and the net suffering (due to the typically brutal lives that wild pets usually endure fighting disease and competing for territory and food) would actually decrease slower per dollar invested, in theory. I'd love to see some data on this, but I've been unable to find any studies that try to approach this from a purely pragmatic angle.
On the topic of euthanasia as a means of population control, is there a point at which killing one animal so another animal will suffer less worth it if the net suffering relieved is great enough, or is allowing both animals to suffer always the better choice? Is a live of misery still worth living? I still have no idea
Sounds like Profitable and Efficient Termination of Animals.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
And how many sick, neglected animals have you adopted?
WBC's power is in being a nuisance, and they're good at that.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Until today, I thought PETA was a genuine animal rights organization, maybe a bit extremist, but hey, on the animal's side. But now it seems to me that PETA may be the ultimate perversity, marketing bad for good and with good success.
PETA's position is that we ought not kill any animals any where. But they kill 95% of the pets entrusted to their care.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
What is a "right"? What does it mean to have a "right to life"?
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
Doesn't matter how baseless it is, you can file suit. However, that is not to say you'll succeed or it is a good idea. A judge can throw the case out in pre-trial, and can impose sanctions if it is an extremely stupid suit.
In PETA's case, I imagine this is largely a publicity stunt and something to try and harass detractors. They wouldn't really want this to go to trial as it would not go in their favour.
Well indirectly Greenpeace has help accelerate global warming by effectively running a campaign to end all current product and future research on mankind's ability to split the atom.
This comment couldn't have been brought to you without the help of our local brown coal fired powerplant.
There's two PETAs, this article is about People Euthanizing Tiny Animals and their nemesis People Eating Tasty Animals.
No, It's People Eating Tasty Animals!
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
How about http://www.google.co.in/search?q=http://imgur.com/gallery/q5awp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=iGekUeuAM4nLhAfp9YG4DA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=787#facrc=_&imgrc=dUnfg-NtpZTtMM%3A%3BjNnKK-OTvIMY4M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi.imgur.com%252FmOFS3kD.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fimgur.com%252Fgallery%252Fq5awp%3B1024%3B768? Whenever I get a link to imgur, I google it.
You are shilling for them. You created a brand new account, just to post in this thread. It is transparent shilling. You might want to be a little more cautious in the future on geek type forums. The posters often know how to check up on other posters, shit like this is real easy to notice.
So fuck off PETArd. You are fooling nobody.
Good idea.
In any case I'm home now and saw the full set of images. Thinking I probably shouldn't show my wife any of these.
I heard they are the Kervorkians of the animal kingdom. Now please sue me.
Don't forget Greenpeace's acts of piracy in boarding ships underway at sea and taking samples of their cargo (protesting against GM soya trade)
IMO, if it were an ethical organization, PETA would be giving healthy animals brought to their shelters a new life, and using their dozens of millions of dollars received in donations each year to provide food and shelter and a tolerable existence.
Instead, it's a place of almost certain death.
"Why'd you guys kill the animals?"
"Because they were in cages, and a caged animal suffers. We couldn't let them suffer."
"Who put them in the cages?"
"Oh we did"
"...."
I have two cats from a no-kill shelter (i.e. not run by PETA). That good enough for you, PETArd?
Pets Euthanized and Touted as Adopted
Maybe this is defamatory, but I can't see in any way that PETA actually serves to achieve its ostensible goals. Greenpeace, another vocal media-loving special interest group, at least managed to bring its concerns into the mainstream. PETA won't be happy until we all canvas-shoe wearing vegans.
Not going to happen.
PETA used to make me hate vegans - until I realised how many vegans hate PETA.
This is not defamatory. This is opinion. I could be wrong. Is that enough of a disclaimer for you?
That's the issue, there are more pets than people can properly care for due to the economy, as well as extra animals from neglectful owners that abuse or don't "fix" their pets and let them run the streets.
There isn't enough money to care for strays, or people willing to take them. So eventually the shelters have to put the animals down. Sounds like PETA didn't like that basic fact being published... But it's still a fact that they CANNOT save all the animals they rescue, its not their fault. But they created this "bleeding heart movement" that's going to backlash on them.
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy in action.
Not to distract from your point, but if people need a strong stomach to bear seeing a few dozen dead pets, they need to toughen up. The world is a nasty place and bad things happen. People should learn to look it in the eye instead of shying away.
Like the cockroach she is. Kill them all.
If God didn't want us to eat animals, He shouldn't have made them out of meat.
Well, if you want to apply intelligent design here, you should keep in mind that God made humans out of meat as well. If "made out of meat" is supposed to be a conclusive message, then it is either God's will that we should be cannibals, or vegetarians. Anything in between is not consistent with making "made out of meat" the decisive distinction.
It would appear that you are rooting for cannibalism. Or stupidity. But certainly not logic.
Fuck, you weren't kidding. Someone should do the same to them, it's only fair.
Where is this agenda at? I assume you mean that by 'enforcing guns' you mean that they are forcing every living being to own guns. I've not seen that. Perhaps you mean that they are going to enforce that every living being lives in a world that has lots of guns in it. If that's the case, the problem is that you understand what the word freedom means.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You are nuts. The NRA wants to enforce the right to own guns on every living being.
FIFY. The choice to own is still an individual choice.
All Members of Pita are complete ass hat morons. I mean they wanted to call fish sea kittens....
Pita is full of shit, and always will be.
I used to donate to the WWF, until I watched one of their TV shows where they were fighting over the money in some kind of big metal cage instead of using it to save pandas.
Peta in greek means "throw away"
That transition is really common with such cause groups.
They set out with a cause, but when it's realized the group is still around and now with money/activists and no cause. MADD is like that, it started with a specific purpose, achieved it; and now they are trying to get porn off the internet so that it won't harm their special snowflakes.
People Eating Tasty Animals upsets me so much that I need a hamburger or two, rare, with the leash still on.
PETA is and always has been such a joke.
PETA is an organization that pretends to love animals.
What PETA really is is an organization that hates people. Their fundamental position is that basically, no animal would ever voluntarily want to even be on the same planet as the evil horrible creatures known as "humans", that simple proximity to humans is intensely stressful to them, and that all humans are good for is to exploit, torment, and kill animals.
Their ignorance of what the animals themselves actually want and need is outright appalling. When they go full-on "rescue", the poor animals might as well be in an abattoir. They turn the phrase "killing with Kindness" quite literal. In fact, abattoirs have are often more humane. At least abattoirs are set up for relatively quick and painless death as opposed to panicked animals being smeared all over the highways and general mayhem.
I strongly believe in respect for animals. But to truly show respect, you need to gain understanding, not arrogantly assume you know best.
I really hope this goes to trial so we can have some First amendment smackdown. Comments on a website are not a publication.
So even if they can prove the comments' accusations are false, they have no case for Libel.
If it was a blog, sure... but it's not. It's comments to an article.
If you're broadcasting TV from a sporting event and someone on the crowd says "Duke Sucks!!!"
Do you think that this is libel???
Rubbish.
Long Live Anonymity on the Internet. DISQUS, and Facebook is killing it slowly. You won't miss it until it's gone and you have something to say but are afraid to say it.
Pets Emulsified and Toasted as Appetizer?
People for the Expedited Termination of Animals. A 90% kill rate means they're operating a slaughterhouse, not a shelter.
PETA verbally and physically supports terrorist actions being taken against people, buildings and countries. I fail to see why we go after other terrorist groups like the Taliban and then just ignore PETA. The Taliban will blow up a bus to make a point and kill 30 people, PETA will lock the doors on an animal shelter, light it on fire and burn it to the ground with people inside to make a point. PETA is for all realizations a terrorist organization that governments are giving money to.
Why bring that up? Well they want some "offensive" remarks removed, you have to be joking. PETA claims to support the Ethical treatment of animals, yet I fail to see how burning down testing labs, humane shelters and animal hospitals is ethical treatment of animals. What PETA really wants is to let animals roam free without being owned or loved by humans.
You can pull out extreme videos of animals being abused to a sick level, but that doesn't mean all or even most animals are kept this way. I can pull of videos of humans being treated in the same fashion but that doesn't mean all humans live that way. PETA even went as far as to play a video of the holocaust and compare that what humans do with animals. Now what sensible non profit organization is going to do that! PETA wants to make an extreme example out of what really isn't an issue and that to me certainly sounds like what a terrorist group would do.
Also for my final point, PETA has CONVICTED criminal on the pay role who have commited terrorist acts again humane shelters, animal hospitals and animal testing labs, so you be the judge of it, but PETA is not innocent organization, they are terrorists that governments around the world support.
No one would be complaining about PETA shelters if they just euthanized some animals that arrived to the shleters "sick" and "neglected". The problem seems to be that almost all of the animals (95%), many of whom were delivered in good health, seem to end up "sick" , "neglected" and dead shortly after arriving.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
So if I say "everyone is going to die anyway" I can just start killing people? Great to know!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
FWIW, I'm vegan and I can't stand them because people end up thinking that we're all like them. Ugh!
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
PETA, through its kill shelters, is responsible for killing more pet animals than any other entity on earth. Their political stance is about gathering money, and nothing else.
RENAME TIME!
PPTA - People for the Profitable Treatment of Animals
HIV and AIDS are believed to have been transmitted to humans from monkeys. Unless that transmission came from monkey f**king, it came from eating monkeys, which is known to be practiced in Africa. Human cannibalism carries the risk of HIV/AIDS, just as sex does.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
This is a YRO story. Can the courts compel HuffPo to turn over the identities of the users? Under what circumstances? If the courts have the legal power to do this, SHOULD they have this power?
I tend to err strongly on the side of free speech. I don't like the idea of courts having this power, because the circumstances under which they could compel disclosure of identities are always subject to change. Today it might be defamation, tomorrow it might be legitimate criticism of the government.
Leaving aside the question of existing law, I would argue that rantings of an AC on an internet forum can't meet a standard of causing "harm" to a person or organization. Regardless of how libelous or scandalous the comment, an AC has zero credibility unless they are able to provide facts which can then be independently verified. If the facts harm the reputation of a person or group, then truth should be an absolute defense (although in many countries that's not the case). Otherwise, any anonymous and unsubstantiated accusations should be dismissed out of hand and deemed 'harmless'.
In my opinion (gotta be safe here) the purpose of most organizations eventually shifts from their original goals to simply ensuring their own existence. Using the legal system to silence their detractors is an excellent touchstone of when this has happened.
You jest, but this is the sort of thing that might actually draw their interest.
I'm not, but if I were affiliated with Anonymous, my first goal would be to go after people going after anonymous commenters. I mean, it only makes sense.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is almost as good as watching two fractions of Islamic radicals blowing each other up on Youtube.
they needed to euthanize animals, they were going to use that money to sue anonymous people on the Internet.
-but this really reframes the whole "fur is murder" stance. How about, "murder is murder"? I'm sure PETA has some nice folks who mean well, but their public face too often is comprised of uninspiring screeds from quasi-celebs, and it's a bit of a turnoff.
I feel the need to investigate this issue further for the sake of the public interest. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/150743-mexican-terrorists-wage-war-on-nanotech-but-its-peta-we-should-be-worried-about Holy Cow!
Since no one in this thread seems to have a grip on reality...
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/proof/
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/overpopulation_estimates.html
The humane society euthanizes *millions* of cats and dogs every year. PETA looks stable at 1,800-2,300. No matter how much you hate PETA, you cannot possibly be insane enough to say that they kill more pet animals than any other entity on earth. 2,300 is not more than 2,700,000.
...Like I needed another reason to hate PETA.
There is a war going on for your mind.
unless the drunken idiot next door chooses to own
I preface this by saying that I recently converted to veganism, so it pains me that I'm lumped in with these idiots. I did not stop eating animal products for the benefit of any animal except myself. I believe that the natural order of the animal kingdom involves death and suffering, and animals will eat animals. I don't think that means that I need to eat animals, but that's neither here nor there.
These idiots are trapped by their own inconsistent ideology because they have members who want to help animals and therefore want the shelters to run, and then they have other members who think even owning a pet is cruel to animals (so why have them around to adopt?), and I think that the presence of the shelters, but the almost blase way in which they kill animals reflects that split in their member base. There's no way to reconcile it, so they do both badly to keep both sides equally unhappy.
The real losers here are the animals that could go to good homes.
NRA wants everybody to bear arms
PETA wants to arm bears so they can shoot back
Nice try lying liar - it was smooth to stop posting as Loba Art, but we still see you petaphiles sneaking around looking at little kids.
Which is ironic, because PETA is one of the groups behind anonymous farm video recording.
The difference is that other shelters at least try to find homes.
Not PETA. They take in animals, and then they kill them. There's no intermediate step.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
If PETA wants to sue me, they will need to fill out a bunch of forms (per my policy), and they will have to agree to my terms and conditions (per my forms)
It's PETA's self fabricated holier-than-thou attitude that is at odds with reality.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I've spent the last three years conducting research into PETA's euthanasia practices and the various disinformation campaigns that exploit the public's general lack of understanding regarding those practices. I publish my research on the www.whypetaeuthanizes.com website. While the public at large is vulnerable to rumor and conjecture, the communities that are actually served by PETA seem to have a pretty good understanding of the services PETA's Community Animal Project and Emergency Response Team provide, and how PETA works with local shelters and law enforcement to improve the lives of animals in the Hampton Roads area. PETA is a multi-national animal rights organization focusing on the four main areas of animal exploitation where animals endure prolonged, abject suffering: the food industry, the clothing industry, biomedical research, and entertainment. They also recognize that animals are suffering in their own back yard, and they fund a small, dedicated staff of workers who get out and do something about it, every day of the week. PETA's Community Animal Project workers get out and deliver food, shelter, warm bedding, and light-weight tie outs to animals in need. They provide transportation to and from veterinarian appointments for sick or injured owned animals, and PETA pays the fees. PETA owns and operates three mobile spay and neuter clinics that offer free and low-cost spay and neuter services to animals in their region. PETA has spayed and neutered almost 88,000 animals so far. PETA’s CAP program helps animals who have good homes, stay in those homes. They do more than anyone else in their community to keep animals from entering shelters in the first place. And yes. PETA provides no-cost, veterinarian-supervised humane medical euthanasia to any animal in their community who requires it for a current crisis of illness, injury, or emotional devastation. This service is available to animals 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, nights, weekends, and holidays. Every animal should have access to euthanasia when they are suffering, regardless of their owner's ability to pay. Because of PETA, animals in the greater Norfolk community do. PETA isn't a traditional "shelter," so they limit their intake to animals who require medical euthanasia because they are suffering, and to adoptable animals who have nowhere else to go. PETA either finds homes for the adoptable animals they receive, or transfers them to a high-traffic, high-adoption facility in their community (I confirmed this, actually. They transfer adoptable animals to the Virginia Beach SPCA. I was able to verify this with the Virginia Beach SPCA). I contacted the Virginia State Veterinarian to ask about PETA's practices. He stated during our interview that to the best of his recollection, his office has never received a complaint from anyone who has actually used PETA's services that PETA misrepresents themselves in any way. He also stated that the state does not have a problem with PETA limiting the scope of their services to mainly animals who require euthanasia. Now, it's pretty easy to view these matters from the comfort of our computers and make judgments about things we know nothing about, but there is absolutely zero indication that the people who contact PETA to euthanize their animals are not acting in those animals' best interests. http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/index.html
This was the name back when the domain was first registered. The guy registered the domain and let it sit for over a year before the petards noticed.
So will they stop euthanizing the animals once they have reached a total of 1,000,000,000,000,000
(or one less than that.)
Journalism was euthanized when the entertainment industry realized that Celebrity Reporting was more profitable. About the only investigative journalism that occurs in America any more is when the paparazzi work on figuring out which club the Kardashian sluts are going to next.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I watched with amusement when the World Wrestling Foundation sued the World Wildlife Fund over the WWF acronym and web address, even though the Wildlife group had used that name and address for a decade before Rasslin' was even incorporated. Since they didn't have the political//financial pull of Toys Are Us or Nissan they lost, very badly.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
It's well known that PETA kills animals, so how can that be defamation?
When they had to disclose their expenditures one year it included buying some kind of huge animal corpse storage freezer, which pretty much implied the obvious.
I had no idea the NRA wanted to put a gun in every americans hand. if they actually did want to do that I would be more supportive!
What does "enforce guns on every living being" even mean? the NRA actually wants sharks with lazers?? Im sorry but you are the one who are nuts.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The first thing I noticed was the astonishing double standards: ...
The position of those outside of PETA is not in question. PETA presents itself as an animal rights organisation and campaigns against those they believe violate animal rights, but does not actually espouse those rights itself. They mislead their followers. The postcard establishes that PETA is hypocritical to the public image they put forward; that is all. (And, for the record, we're not making a distinction between livestock and household pets—PETA's goal of "total animal liberation" includes freeing, for example, honeybees.)
Secondly, most of those images don't even have much to do with PETA at all? Thirdly, every time I read something like that it sources back to the Center for consumer freedom, or more recently, Nathan J. Winograd, who seems to be very biased for some reason.
PETA defended the actions and policies of those shelters. Mr. Winograd is a lawyer who has been hired in a few of those cases as a consultant to suggest reforms to the shelter policies (in particular Houston and King County), and found that PETA actively tried to intercede with and defeat his recommendations. Winograd is a vegan himself, and presumably finds PETA's hypocrisy intolerable.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
This?
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
if he is forced to then he is in captivity, relative slavery
This is a very strange new kind of slavery you describe. You advocate people to move away from countries where they oppose the tax; slaves have historically been forbidden from doing such things. You also advocate people just simply not pay taxes; this is also not a choice that a slave could make on their own.
However, even more so, you openly advocate for actual slavery. True slavery includes people owning other people and people being forced to do work for no pay. You have on many occasions voiced open support for both of those to be restored to American society. Slavery also includes the repression of individual freedoms based on socioeconomic class, you have supported that innumerable times.
In other words, your fantasy world will make people into slaves, by bringing more wealth and power to the powerful and wealthy while bringing more fascism for the people.
No, the NRA wants everyone to HAVE THE RIGHT to bear arms. Totally different.
. Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
Sure, they say that killing is bad, but they also -- openly -- say that domestication and keeping animals as pets is also wrong (and go so far as to say that animals are better off dead than kept as pets.) So I don't think there is any inconsistency of actions with statements, though obviously the actions here aren't ones they want publicized, given that they do depend on financial support from people who don't pay attention to much more than the surface image of PETA of being vaguely "for animal rights" without paying attention to any of the details of what they state about their values.
I think most of us can (and should be able to) handle seeing dead animals without swooning, but there's a difference between "dead pets" and the level of cruelty and negligence perpetrated by these people in contrast to the stated principles of their organization. For me, the anger comes when I see direct evidence of the cruelty of my fellow humans.
- T
Yeah. I was expecting disemboweled animals or the like but it was only dead puppies and kittens. Have any of these people ever even watched someone kill and skin a rabbit?
Like Peta, I love animals. They're delicious! Isn't that what P.e.T.A. stands for?, People for the eating of Tasty Animals?
They might as well have. Maybe they'll cry defacement when somebody puts a sign on their booth too.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
The fact that people can't or won't take "proper care" of their pets has little to do with PETA. PETA was around well before this bad economy and will be around long after its full recovery. In the same vein, PETA's existence does not justify their message, nor is their message the truth behind their actions. As has been pointed out in other posts in this thread, PETA's main goal is not that every animal be happy, it's money and always will be. What does suing people in civil court for defamation have to do with animal rights? Jack squat, that's what. Their only motivation in this is cash (and maybe a dash of petty vindictiveness).
So a group that gets by on making inflammatory comments and using other people's intellectual property in a ways they'd not like is now butt hurt someone's doing similar things towards them? I hope everyone involved laughs at them and tells them to go away.
Huh, I always thought it was the other way around. Can you cite?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Not really, The NRA is a little bit more focused.
The NRA focus is to make sure that americans maintain their rights to own firearms. And any law that can restrict their rights will be up for argument.
PETA is more on the Fuzzy area. Sure they say they are about helping animals, but they just expand and get crazier every time, they think further.
Fur Coats, should we kill animals for their fur when we have good substitutes.
Vegetarian, should we need to kill animals for food.
Veganism, should we use the animal in any way for food.
Pet Freedom, you are enslaving your loving dog, you must release him to the elements and let him fend for himself.
Farm animals even ones who are doomed to become meat, Tend to have a better and longer life on the farm then out in the wild.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
No, PETA wants to outlaw the owning of animals everywhere, including pets, farms and zoos.
Just google for "world wildlife fund vs world wrestling federation" and you'll get a ton of hits. That's why the rasslers are now called 'WWE' or World Wrestling Entertainment. The lost the suit so badly they changed their name.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
SUE ME!
Yes, PETA would very much rather slaughter animals en masse than let them be "owned" and cared for. That's precisely why they they're sick fucks.
but TFA seems highly sensationalistic and inflammatory. So much so that it undermines any facts it presents. It is, sadly, what passes for journalism these days.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Pretty, Egotistical Tits & Ass.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I'm pretty sure the fractions of Islamic radicals comes AFTER the blowing each other up bit ...
I think this is terribly ironic. The PETArd posting anonymously. Isn't that what this whole thread is about? Forcefully removing anonymity?
PETA's position is that we ought not kill any animals any where. But they kill 95% of the pets entrusted to their care.
No, their position is that we ought not to own animals anywhere. They think that all pets should be killed, even if in loving, caring homes. So when you understand their true beliefs then killing 95% makes much more sense. I am surprised that they let 5% live. Those must be the ones that escape somehow.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Greenpeace management actually seems to believe in their activities and, while not above sensationalism to garner attention and support, to the best of my knowledge they have never fabricated evidence to vilify their targets. They've done some stupid things over the years, but they've also accomplished a lot of good. This stands in marked contrast to PETA's activities.
PETA has a history of lying going back to its early days. In one of the chapters of The Brain That Changes Itself, Norman Doidge reports how one of the founders of PETA got a job at the lab of one of the pioneers of neuroplasticity to care for Chimpanzees used in a study and, when the researcher was away, staged pictures to make the lab's treatment of animals appear cruel and unethical, even criminal. The researcher was blacklisted as a result and neuroplasticity took 20 years to recover. In those intervening years, countless human victims of stoke and other brain injuries suffered needlessly as a result.
PETA are an agglomeration of self-serving unethical narcissists and useful idiots. Their attempted emulation of CoS tactics to smother criticism is just the latest example of their perfidy. Unlike Greenpeace, I can't think of a single achievement of PETA's that I would consider to be positive. A better parallel would be James O'Keefe III.
The cite he was looking for was for the assertion you made that the Wrestling Foundation initated the lawsuit. Every cite that I see shows that the opposite occurred.
...by performing euthanasia on all PETA members. Hey, after all, as long as they die of an intended overdose of barbiturates, it's ethical... right?
It sure beats letting these scumbags clog up the already backed-up U.S. court system even more. And allowing them to continue murdering thousands more innocent, healthy animals.
Posted AC on purpose. Just try to find me, BITCHES.
No. The NRA wants every law abiding citizen to have the *choice* of whether or not to own firearms.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The question we must ask ourselves is: Is the killed animals meat wasted into garbage or distributed among those in need? Or does PETA holds a giant exotic BBQ to honour the liberation of those animals from endless suffering?
PETA: Hiding behind cuddly furry pets and naked celebrities is a militant, self-serving bunch of maniacs that breaks laws and support radical groups on a daily basis. Arson, gross vandalism and homicide are both accepted, supported and used to further their radical agenda.
Their "go veg" campaign is full of serious errors and the website repeats these despite it having killed several babies/children already, sending the parents to jail for a very long time. No, children under approx. 6 years of age CANNOT go fully vegetarian (try it and you'll die from malnutrition) and you have to be at least a teenager to go vegan if you want to develop normally and grow to your designated height for instance. But you'll find nothing of this on their website.
Now sue me for telling the truth.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Why not, when liberals in Oregon and Washington euthanize their old people, would PETA *not* be for preventing suffering in animals?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yo PETA... have you ever heard of 'Freedom of Speech"?
PETA constantly creates their own version of the truth. SO of course they think they can sue someone from speaking a truth they don't like.
By the organization, or by individuals?
If it's true?
By "improperly" I meant "on the spot," which is PETA's policy. They don't bother with attempting adoption.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Our Local Shelter is a "no Kill" shelter.. That may be a misnomer because they occasionally do receive an animal that is not safe and has to be "put down" but that is a last resort. PETA has long been known for its radicalism and it take little searching, as has already been pointed out to find out the truth about them. Still, try to point out the truth to one of their supporters.
You are nuts. The NRA wants to enforce guns on every living being. Guns is Big Money, not freedom.
Seriously? Somebody considers the above post to be Informative?
In fact, parent mentioned the lawsuit as "World Wildlife Fund v. World Wrestling Federation", when the plaintiff is usually in the former slot of a lawsuit, seemingly indicating that the World Wildlife Fund initiated.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
If they do kill animals there they can't sue people for expresing disagreement its a free country still ,I think ,well may be not.
I found the article and promptly dissed PETA. Of course, they aren't going to be able to sue me for speaking my mind. F**k PETA.
Peta in Spanish slang means joint (the one meant for smoking)
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Yes, that is what peta,org used to be: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney.
Numbers don't matter, only rates do.
The number of groups who want to prosecute people for incorrect thoughts and speech grows by the day.
To watch the liberals, who have taken us down this path, arguing the legal definition of this or that is quite depressing. At least a few people are intelligent and aware enough to realize where we are headed, will they be able to grab the wheel long enough to change course? I am beginning to doubt it.
Murphy was an optimist
If this article about PITA is true..... I sure do not have much of a love for this bully organization, How can you go after people who leave their opinion on the article..... OK maybe they could go after the Huffington Post. Left me check, today must be "April Fool Day"
meats, all pets in va and elsewhere should be on alert
I said 95+% . Which is an acceptable short hand for "more than 95%". I dislike PETA for various reason, their killings of Pets, their hypocrisy for a long time on their leader using animal produced insuline, and various other factors. But PETA kills only a few en thousand pets, whereas animal shelter kills millions. So de fact PETA kill in absolute number less, but in proportion animal shelters give far far more to adoption, then the few hundred which somehow PETA did not kill (maybe they escaped ;)).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Man, if you met my cat, I would challenge you to prove he is abused, neglected, unloved, and unhappy (unless I mop with PineSol). He tends to be a cheerful, happy-go-lucky ball of yellow-furred love for everybody, be they human or animal. He's my little buddy (little to the tune of 7.6 pounds at 4.5 years of age (age estimated - see below)) and people often remark on seeing the two of us together how much we seem to love each other. And I know, as bad as things might get in my life, there is one being out there wanting good things for me.
Of course, he was a multi-breed rescue cat, so if PETA had had their way, I wouldn't have my closest friend.
Plus, you know, I am an animal too, technically, so am I not ethically entitled to this particular, rumbling source of joy?
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
That's where things get really weird. The absolutism of PETA's true ideology doesn't seem to acknowledge animal intelligence or socialization; without a doubt the majority of non-stray dogs are better off emotionally and developmentally because of their owners. (For cats it's a little less certain, since they usually resist socialization with humans and are allowed to live outdoors, although my cat, like yours, has an extremely social personality.) Without question, we've improved these animals' lives.
I think the reasoning behind this little paradox, though, is aptly captured in how I phrased it originally: we have sinned by domesticating them. They've been bred into shapes and sizes desirable to us, instead of being allowed to pursue their evolution and development naturally. This is, without a doubt, the most childish misuse of conservationism, as animals influence the evolution of others around them all the time—should we blame ants for domesticating aphids? Are we on the hook for playing host to human-specific parasites?
More recently, a slightly different perspective on environmentalism has become in vogue: rather than completely insisting "we must leave the planet alone," it's now also popular to say "if we abuse the planet too much we'll die, even if we don't kill everything," which is a somewhat more pragmatic (and permissive) mindset. So not only is PETA crazy, they're out of date.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
That's where things get really weird. The absolutism of PETA's true ideology doesn't seem to acknowledge animal intelligence or socialization; without a doubt the majority of non-stray dogs are better off emotionally and developmentally because of their owners. (For cats it's a little less certain, since they usually resist socialization with humans and are allowed to live outdoors, although my cat, like yours, has an extremely social personality.) Without question, we've improved these animals' lives.
I think the reasoning behind this little paradox, though, is aptly captured in how I phrased it originally: we have sinned by domesticating them. They've been bred into shapes and sizes desirable to us, instead of being allowed to pursue their evolution and development naturally. This is, without a doubt, the most childish misuse of conservationism, as animals influence the evolution of others around them all the time—should we blame ants for domesticating aphids? Are we on the hook for playing host to human-specific parasites?
More recently, a slightly different perspective on environmentalism has become in vogue: rather than completely insisting "we must leave the planet alone," it's now also popular to say "if we abuse the planet too much we'll die, even if we don't kill everything," which is a somewhat more pragmatic (and permissive) mindset. So not only is PETA crazy, they're out of date.
The odd thing about the domestication/breeding issue in my case is that my little buddy is a mongrel with a strong Maine Coon component (despite his relatively tiny size) which seems especially funny in this sense, as Maine Coons as far as anyone can tell came from bobcats interbreeding with domesticated cats.
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
Even more edge-case-y is the recent domestication of foxes: it took only a couple of generations of captive breeding for them to develop dog-like personalities, and in some cases foxes manifest dog-like personalities without any breeding at all. Little or no subjugation is occurring; the fox gets a free ride through life and the human gets a companion. Preventing this would be no different from refusing to let indigenous peoples assimilate into mainstream culture.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Even more edge-case-y is the recent domestication of foxes: it took only a couple of generations of captive breeding for them to develop dog-like personalities, and in some cases foxes manifest dog-like personalities without any breeding at all. Little or no subjugation is occurring; the fox gets a free ride through life and the human gets a companion. Preventing this would be no different from refusing to let indigenous peoples assimilate into mainstream culture.
So, let me get this right. You could possibly be saying an animal might NOT want to be free and struggle for life against nature, red in tooth and claw?
I find the idea that any of nature's perfect creature might want an easy ride reprehensible and imcomprehensible. They all long for conflict and bloodshed for that is NATURE'S WAY!
(And we will neglect the fact that my cat, despite his stray background patently refuses to go outside...)
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
Pretty much!
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Well, for an enslaved, abused, maltreated animal, I was sure fooled when he came dashing out of my bedroom where he was sleeping on my bed (he NEVER misses sleeping with me), promptly hopped up on my chest and started purring and massaging my stomach.
I am SO ASHAMED that I figured the only way to confront my cruelty to my little buddy was to purge my evil in a public forum so everyone can see what a horrid savage slave master I am.
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
Panda Eaters and Tasters Association
I wish they were just tilting against the porn windmill. MADD has morphed into a neo-prohibition movement, and their stances align more closely with moralising than saving lives. Note how silent they are about idiotic movies like 5fast5furious or car commercials for vehicles designed specifically to go much faster than any speed limit. They're also not supporters of any sort of safe-ride program for people drinking - they just want you to not drink at all.