By your reasoning about freedom, any country that allows you to leave is free.
It's no coincidence that every communist country has been very strict about allowing its people to leave. They built a famous wall to prevent that once.
You can't turn on a light, but you can repair one that's broken. So unscrew a lightbulb, "breaking" the lighting system, before Sabbath, and "fix" the light system later when you need light.
No, this is what patents are for. You spend a lot of time and money inventing something, you start selling products based on that invention, someone else uses your invention to sell his own product, you sue. We may not agree with Apple on the validity of the patents, but that's irrelevant.
The "nice" name for a patent troll that the lawyers use is a "non-practicing entity." Apple practices, not a troll, just an overly-litigious company.
... malicious intent is required. The muder of the animals was committed humanely, and with good (if warped) intent. Malicious intent is obviously absent, so there can be no conviction. That doesn't mean they didn't do it, or that what they did is moral.
It's because I'm asking for verified evidence from a credible source. And asking, and asking, and asking.
And you'll never get it, because any source critical of PETA will automatically be categorized by you as non-credible.
The veterinarian who said "These were just kittens we were trying to find homes for. PETA said they would do that, but these cats never made it out of the county" is obviously not credible to you.
You just don't get the concept. You can perform an act, but not be found legally guilty for performing that act. That is what happened here. They performed all acts as accused, that is not in question by any rational person. It is established as fact in the court record. The defense was just good enough to cast enough doubt as to the illegality of those actions in those circumstances with those motives.
The problem here is that, despite legality, you don't find these acts immoral, and I do.
If you can't get that simple concept, I'm done here.
You are being threatened, you try to shoot, the recognition fails, rendering you defenseless, and you are killed by your assailant. Your family is going to OWN that company.
But you can be sure that immunity for these companies will be built into any law requiring these devices.
No, the court found that it wasn't illegal. Don't you understand the difference? They still did it, they are still morally wrong for doing it, they just didn't didn't get convicted of committing a crime for doing it. You admit they killed the animals, and you admit they tossed the bodies in dumpsters -- but it was found that those acts were not illegal. Same with the deception they used to take perfectly adoptable pets from the vet.
"Not guilty" does not mean "they didn't do it."
No one has produced proof that these numbers do not represent animals that were sick, injured, dying, behaviorally unsound, or other justifiable euthanasias.
Of course PETA isn't going to release that information. But here in this case it was proven that PETA purposely murdered animals that were not in any of those categories (as in healthy kittens, about the most adoptable thing out there). It's just that doing so wasn't found to be illegal.
After parting ways with PETA, that shelter continued to use the gas chamber to mass-kill animals for at least nine more years, and you haven't breathed one word about that.
They're not the ones passing themselves off as the all-moral epitome of caring for animals either, denigrating anybody who disagrees with them as not caring about animal welfare.
And in fact, what proof of any of this is there from a source that is credible, independently verified, and substantiated, not a lobbying firm with massive and obvious credibility problems?
To a blind PETA follower, anybody who criticizes PETA by definition has a credibility problem.
BTW, until you came along I'd never heard of this Winograd guy (or if I had, I forgot or didn't know it was him). I was going off of the news reports. Thanks, he has a lot more damning evidence against PETA that I knew. I've bookmarked his site. You've done a great service.
PETA accepts animals at its headquarters 24/7 for no-cost immediate euthanasia
I will resist the temptation to call them a mini Dachau for pets. That was a labor prison camp. Treblinka was an extermination camp, a better parallel. The main difference is that PETA doesn't use the forced labor of animals to help murder the other animals, because they don't believe animals should be put to work. Murdering them is fine, working them a big ethical no-no.
You continue to allege, with a remarkable lack of substance, that PETA goes out of its way to kill adoptable animals and misleads the public about it,
PETA doesn't mislead the public in general, at least the public that bothers to do the research. They do say they are for the mass execution of animals, although they try to couch this in more animal-loving text. What they did do is mislead the people in NC. The only problem is that the act wasn't deemed to be illegal. The roving PETA death squads can continue with impunity.
The animals that PETA acquired were death row animals
My story is based on the facts of the case, and this is wrong. The officers followed the PETA killers to a veterinary clinic where they picked up a cat and her kittens. These animals were later found in the garbage bags by the police who watched the killers dump them behind the Piggly Wiggly. The veterinarian said they were not given up for slaughter.
They'd been living at the vet hospital for weeks while the vet tried, unsuccessfully, to find them a home. He signed them over to PETA because he couldn't find homes for them and didn't want them in his office anymore. He admitted that in the trial. It's not like PETA promised to find homes for them and then surreptitiously killed them.
You believe that, but you don't believe when he says PETA told him those pets were going to a good home? If he intended for them to die, he could have just sent them to the county shelter. Or he could have simply injected them himself. Vets do that all the time for sick pets, and have means to properly dispose of the bodies.
Maybe this will be the nail in the coffin: PETA has millions of dollars and worldwide resources. If they wanted to kill pets, why only five a day?
This one death squad was killing more than five a day. PETA overall kills far more than that.
Except that the PETA employees were CLEARED of these charges by a court of law.
They were found not guilty of breaking any laws. But in that process, it was found they did commit these immoral acts. For example, the court established that they dumped the bodies, but says that wasn't illegal. It was factually established that they killed the animals, but it was decided that euthenasia is not illegal. And it wasn't just pets from the shelter, it was a cat and two kittens picked up from an animal hospital. This was documented by the police officers as they followed the trail of death.
They only got off because there was no criminal intent, these people thought they were doing good. But then the Westboro Baptist crazies think they're saving us all from the fires of Hell too.
And you keep believing what you want to believe. I remember way back when, Liberal journalist Robert Scheer did an anti-gun article using the Kelllllermmmannnnn study around the time it came out, and a couple months later had to completely retract because he found out the study was BS. That is what an honest person does. Kelllerrrrmannn himself had to dump the "43 times more likely" in favor of "2.7 times," although that's still BS.
Basically KKKlermun should stick with his area of health research, and leave the criminology research to those who are capable of doing it.
A hybrid with an atkinson cycle engine will match a diesel in long-distance travel efficiency while providing far superior city fuel economy and emissions
The latest Prius gets 4.6 and 4.9 l/100km hwy/city, while a Jetta diesel gets 3.6/5.2 hwy/city. Notice you're a whole liter behind the Jetta on the highway, while the Jetta is only.3 behind in the city. If you do a lot of highway driving, which is the subject here, the Jetta diesel gets better mileage than the Jetta hybrid.
Those animals weren't surrendered to PETA under the pretense that PETA would find them a home.
Yes, they were.
They were found not guilty of animal cruelty and not guilty of obtaining property under false pretenses. Even the "littering" charge was overturned on appeal.
The facts of the case are not in question. They did take those animals under the pretense of finding them a home, killed them, and dumped the bodies in dumpsters. It's just that in the end none of these acts was proven to be illegal.
So who do we believe?
I believe the veterinarians who thought they were giving up healthy, adoptable animals to a trustworthy organization that would give them a good home as promised. This included healthy kittens and puppies, the most adoptable animals out there. This was at a shelter that was tired of the county euthanizing perfectly adoptable animals, and thought PETA was giving them a way to save some of them.
Yes, they do. That, or the vets who gave animals to PETA to adopt out, which were immediately murdered in the parking lot, were lying about the health of the animals leaving their clinics. PETA actually sought out healthy animals to kill and even traveled to another state to do it.
leaving some unwanted animals with no other place to go but the roadside or the dumpster
Funny you mention dumpster, because that's where the PETA employees dumped the bodies of the prospective pets they murdered.
It's not PETAS fault for being delivered animals (in some cases dozens from ONE incident) inches from death because of neglect or abuse. Vet care is expensive and I'm sure they just can't pay it.
Back in 2005 a veterinarian in NC arranged to have PETA take perfectly healthy and adoptable pets off his clinic's hands on the promise of finding good homes for them. The PETA employees would come down from Virginia in a van, take the animals, kill them with injections in the parking lot, and toss the bodies in a local supermarket dumpster.
During the subsequent trial, it turned out PETA had been doing this for years, lying to various vet clinics in order to collect healthy and adoptable animals to murder.
Indeed, several other taxpayer investments in alternative energy did fail, notably Solyndra. If we didn't receive enough interest to justify the risks that we took when we loaned money to Tesla then we still lost
Ventures fail, even government-backed ones. The problem with Solyndra was that the beancounters told the Obama administration it was a bad risk, and the administration pushed it through anyway to hilight their "green" agenda and to pay off a major campaign bundler.
tax money is used to benefit society; when you don't pay your taxes you are not contributing to society, yet you still benefit from those who contribute - that is immoral
So the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income tax are immoral?
if it were true then every country would have more or less the same homicide rate
Wrong. General crime rates, prevalence of gangs, drug and drug policy, poverty, and other factors all affect the homicide rates. In fact, 80% of US gun homicides are gang-related. If you remove the gang factor, we have a very low homicide rate in this country.
The local Nissan dealer was very nice, showed us a few vehicles, no pressure whatsoever. She even gave us buying advice for how to make the best deal (later confirmed online). They also give free oil changes and add onto the manufacturer's warranty.
The local Honda dealer was all that you say, high pressure tactics (including tag team hand-offs, "I have to talk to my manger", etc.), pushing unneeded services, pressuring into what they wanted to sell, etc.
The Kellerman study has been thoroughly discredited from many angles, including the fact that it used neighborhoods with high criminal populations, and counted rival gangs as someone you know. It even counted, for example, if you had a gun in the house, never used, and a rival gang-banger of your son's came in and shot somebody. Your gun had nothing to do with the violence, but it's counted towards Kellerman's total. On the other hand, if you pointed a gun at the bad guy and he fled, that was not counted as defensive gun use. There are many other problems with the study. It would take a whole article to detail them all.
Kellerman's study was also not formally peer-reviewed, and he still refuses to provide the raw data for outside analysis.
Other studies show between 100,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, far outnumbering gun deaths even counting suicide.
Japan has far more suicides, yet no guns. Explain. And, in a free society, who are we to legislate that someone can't kill himself by his desired means as long as he doesn't injure another in the process?
If you have the cash. Walk on the lot around the time the next model year is coming out, point to a previous-year (current calendar year) car sitting on the lot, and offer a below-invoice amount of money, cash (you did look that up, right?). For almost no work they get rid of it that morning to make space for the next year's cars. You will get way below the list price.
Also, do this on the last day of the month when they're desperate to add another car to their sales number. That can be worth a few more grand.
You don't get those advantages of pressure working for you when you order online.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither has capitalism on any reasonable scale. The government always interferes, and often not to the benefit of society.
But communism won't be implemented in any "true" form because we're humans, not insects genetically programmed to slave for the hive collective.
It's no coincidence that every communist country has been very strict about allowing its people to leave. They built a famous wall to prevent that once.
You can't turn on a light, but you can repair one that's broken. So unscrew a lightbulb, "breaking" the lighting system, before Sabbath, and "fix" the light system later when you need light.
No, this is what patents are for. You spend a lot of time and money inventing something, you start selling products based on that invention, someone else uses your invention to sell his own product, you sue. We may not agree with Apple on the validity of the patents, but that's irrelevant.
The "nice" name for a patent troll that the lawyers use is a "non-practicing entity." Apple practices, not a troll, just an overly-litigious company.
Apple makes almost all of its money selling product, not through patent threats. Pretty much the opposite of a patent troll.
And you'll never get it, because any source critical of PETA will automatically be categorized by you as non-credible.
The veterinarian who said "These were just kittens we were trying to find homes for. PETA said they would do that, but these cats never made it out of the county" is obviously not credible to you.
You just don't get the concept. You can perform an act, but not be found legally guilty for performing that act. That is what happened here. They performed all acts as accused, that is not in question by any rational person. It is established as fact in the court record. The defense was just good enough to cast enough doubt as to the illegality of those actions in those circumstances with those motives.
The problem here is that, despite legality, you don't find these acts immoral, and I do.
If you can't get that simple concept, I'm done here.
You are being threatened, you try to shoot, the recognition fails, rendering you defenseless, and you are killed by your assailant. Your family is going to OWN that company.
But you can be sure that immunity for these companies will be built into any law requiring these devices.
No, the court found that it wasn't illegal. Don't you understand the difference? They still did it, they are still morally wrong for doing it, they just didn't didn't get convicted of committing a crime for doing it. You admit they killed the animals, and you admit they tossed the bodies in dumpsters -- but it was found that those acts were not illegal. Same with the deception they used to take perfectly adoptable pets from the vet.
"Not guilty" does not mean "they didn't do it."
No one has produced proof that these numbers do not represent animals that were sick, injured, dying, behaviorally unsound, or other justifiable euthanasias.
Of course PETA isn't going to release that information. But here in this case it was proven that PETA purposely murdered animals that were not in any of those categories (as in healthy kittens, about the most adoptable thing out there). It's just that doing so wasn't found to be illegal.
They're not the ones passing themselves off as the all-moral epitome of caring for animals either, denigrating anybody who disagrees with them as not caring about animal welfare.
To a blind PETA follower, anybody who criticizes PETA by definition has a credibility problem.
BTW, until you came along I'd never heard of this Winograd guy (or if I had, I forgot or didn't know it was him). I was going off of the news reports. Thanks, he has a lot more damning evidence against PETA that I knew. I've bookmarked his site. You've done a great service.
I will resist the temptation to call them a mini Dachau for pets. That was a labor prison camp. Treblinka was an extermination camp, a better parallel. The main difference is that PETA doesn't use the forced labor of animals to help murder the other animals, because they don't believe animals should be put to work. Murdering them is fine, working them a big ethical no-no.
PETA doesn't mislead the public in general, at least the public that bothers to do the research. They do say they are for the mass execution of animals, although they try to couch this in more animal-loving text. What they did do is mislead the people in NC. The only problem is that the act wasn't deemed to be illegal. The roving PETA death squads can continue with impunity.
My story is based on the facts of the case, and this is wrong. The officers followed the PETA killers to a veterinary clinic where they picked up a cat and her kittens. These animals were later found in the garbage bags by the police who watched the killers dump them behind the Piggly Wiggly. The veterinarian said they were not given up for slaughter.
You believe that, but you don't believe when he says PETA told him those pets were going to a good home? If he intended for them to die, he could have just sent them to the county shelter. Or he could have simply injected them himself. Vets do that all the time for sick pets, and have means to properly dispose of the bodies.
This one death squad was killing more than five a day. PETA overall kills far more than that.
They were found not guilty of breaking any laws. But in that process, it was found they did commit these immoral acts. For example, the court established that they dumped the bodies, but says that wasn't illegal. It was factually established that they killed the animals, but it was decided that euthenasia is not illegal. And it wasn't just pets from the shelter, it was a cat and two kittens picked up from an animal hospital. This was documented by the police officers as they followed the trail of death.
They only got off because there was no criminal intent, these people thought they were doing good. But then the Westboro Baptist crazies think they're saving us all from the fires of Hell too.
VW Germany. They have the cool 1.6l diesel option for the Jetta.
And you keep believing what you want to believe. I remember way back when, Liberal journalist Robert Scheer did an anti-gun article using the Kelllllermmmannnnn study around the time it came out, and a couple months later had to completely retract because he found out the study was BS. That is what an honest person does. Kelllerrrrmannn himself had to dump the "43 times more likely" in favor of "2.7 times," although that's still BS.
Basically KKKlermun should stick with his area of health research, and leave the criminology research to those who are capable of doing it.
The latest Prius gets 4.6 and 4.9 l/100km hwy/city, while a Jetta diesel gets 3.6/5.2 hwy/city. Notice you're a whole liter behind the Jetta on the highway, while the Jetta is only .3 behind in the city. If you do a lot of highway driving, which is the subject here, the Jetta diesel gets better mileage than the Jetta hybrid.
Yes, they were.
The facts of the case are not in question. They did take those animals under the pretense of finding them a home, killed them, and dumped the bodies in dumpsters. It's just that in the end none of these acts was proven to be illegal.
I believe the veterinarians who thought they were giving up healthy, adoptable animals to a trustworthy organization that would give them a good home as promised. This included healthy kittens and puppies, the most adoptable animals out there. This was at a shelter that was tired of the county euthanizing perfectly adoptable animals, and thought PETA was giving them a way to save some of them.
Yes, they do. That, or the vets who gave animals to PETA to adopt out, which were immediately murdered in the parking lot, were lying about the health of the animals leaving their clinics. PETA actually sought out healthy animals to kill and even traveled to another state to do it.
Funny you mention dumpster, because that's where the PETA employees dumped the bodies of the prospective pets they murdered.
Back in 2005 a veterinarian in NC arranged to have PETA take perfectly healthy and adoptable pets off his clinic's hands on the promise of finding good homes for them. The PETA employees would come down from Virginia in a van, take the animals, kill them with injections in the parking lot, and toss the bodies in a local supermarket dumpster.
During the subsequent trial, it turned out PETA had been doing this for years, lying to various vet clinics in order to collect healthy and adoptable animals to murder.
Ventures fail, even government-backed ones. The problem with Solyndra was that the beancounters told the Obama administration it was a bad risk, and the administration pushed it through anyway to hilight their "green" agenda and to pay off a major campaign bundler.
Or a diesel.
So the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income tax are immoral?
Wrong. General crime rates, prevalence of gangs, drug and drug policy, poverty, and other factors all affect the homicide rates. In fact, 80% of US gun homicides are gang-related. If you remove the gang factor, we have a very low homicide rate in this country.
It really depends on the dealer.
The local Nissan dealer was very nice, showed us a few vehicles, no pressure whatsoever. She even gave us buying advice for how to make the best deal (later confirmed online). They also give free oil changes and add onto the manufacturer's warranty.
The local Honda dealer was all that you say, high pressure tactics (including tag team hand-offs, "I have to talk to my manger", etc.), pushing unneeded services, pressuring into what they wanted to sell, etc.
Some dealers are added-value, some just suck.
The Kellerman study has been thoroughly discredited from many angles, including the fact that it used neighborhoods with high criminal populations, and counted rival gangs as someone you know. It even counted, for example, if you had a gun in the house, never used, and a rival gang-banger of your son's came in and shot somebody. Your gun had nothing to do with the violence, but it's counted towards Kellerman's total. On the other hand, if you pointed a gun at the bad guy and he fled, that was not counted as defensive gun use. There are many other problems with the study. It would take a whole article to detail them all.
Kellerman's study was also not formally peer-reviewed, and he still refuses to provide the raw data for outside analysis.
Other studies show between 100,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, far outnumbering gun deaths even counting suicide.
Japan has far more suicides, yet no guns. Explain. And, in a free society, who are we to legislate that someone can't kill himself by his desired means as long as he doesn't injure another in the process?
If you have the cash. Walk on the lot around the time the next model year is coming out, point to a previous-year (current calendar year) car sitting on the lot, and offer a below-invoice amount of money, cash (you did look that up, right?). For almost no work they get rid of it that morning to make space for the next year's cars. You will get way below the list price.
Also, do this on the last day of the month when they're desperate to add another car to their sales number. That can be worth a few more grand.
You don't get those advantages of pressure working for you when you order online.