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."
PETA is and always has been such a joke just like Greenpeace. And first post.
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!
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.
When shooting searats (otters) is more than just fun ....
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)
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. "
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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
Just wait... any time now PETA gonna merge with Scientology and you gotta take ***ALL*** pets or they will sue you and your great great granduncle for your very last penny
...The acronym "PETA", I club a cute little kitten to death with a baby seal.
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
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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"
"...."
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?
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.
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.
People Eating Tasty Animals upsets me so much that I need a hamburger or two, rare, with the leash still on.
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.
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.
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.'"
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!
...Like I needed another reason to hate PETA.
There is a war going on for your mind.
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.
Which is ironic, because PETA is one of the groups behind anonymous farm video recording.
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)
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
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.)
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.
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.
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."
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.
SUE ME!
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.
...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.
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) --
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.
If it's true?
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.
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.
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