Already cited in that other post. It doesn't contradict PETA's claim of being a shelter of last resort. The only actual PETA shelter mentioned on that page went to court and the employees were acquitted of animal cruelty charges. They were convicted of littering though.
That's just one of many.
No, it doesn't seem to be the case. The houston shelter, the florida shelter, the king county shelters, none of them were PETA shelters.
They are human so they aren't perfect, but this claim about them "being fine with killing thousands of animals" just isn't supported by what you've cited nor PETA's own website where they directly address the issue - they decidedly aren't fine with it, they are just trying to make the best out of a bad situation.
By citing someone who engages in the same hyperbolic and lopsided claims that you do you've only weakened your credibility. --
At this point you seem to have given up on your debunked python claims and are now just kind of flailing about, doing poorly researched google searches for something to justify your irrational anger. I think you've pretty much driven your entire case into the ground. In other words, I'm done.
They wanted to round them up and give them lethal injections.
Yes your citation says that, their goal was a painless death. Seems more humane to me than the other options mentioned in that article.
This was after they said freezing them to death was better.
Not mentioned in your citation.
They are fine with killing thousands of animals and calling it euthanasia, even though the animals they killed weren't particularly desperate.
I've already researched that claim in another post in this thread. In summary, PETA operates shelters of last resort, they try only take the desperate, referring adoptable animals to other shelters.
Get out in the real world a bit before spouting your ignorance.
Please don't project. I have not spouted anything, I've simply asked for verifiable claims and then researched those claims myself to find out the true story. It's really the excessive one-sidedness of posts like yours that brought me in to the debate in the first place. Experience has taught me that whenever people write the way you have been writing, the truth is a lot different from what they claim. So far, all you've done is confirm that belief once again.
A study conducted by the Wall Street Journal six months later found that despite merchants generating substantial savings from the interchange fees being cut virtually none of it made its way back to the consumers
That seems implausible, publishing results of a study just six months after the fees were capped would be really hard to do with any sort of rigor. First there is an awful lot of inertia in the system, I wouldn't be surprised if the effects were just starting to trickle down six months in. Then I have to wonder about their methodology, which merchants would volunteer this information?
I did a search on the wsj.com website for "interchange fees" and while there were a lot of articles, I couldn't pick out any that mentioned this study. Perhaps you can provide a link?
Could have something to do with PETA killing more animals than just about any so called "animal shelter" out there.
I could find confirmation that PETA does euthanize, but it sounds like they do not portray themselves as a regular animal shelter but as a shelter of last resort.
PETA's reasoning is that they want to end the ownership of animals as pets, and euthanasia is preferred over adoption.
That in particular seems like a gross mis-characterization of their philosophy. From the above link:
The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters). ... As long as animals are still purposely bred and people arenâ(TM)t spaying and neutering their companions, open-admission animal shelters and organizations like PETA must do society's dirty work. Euthanasia is not a solution to overpopulation but rather a tragic necessity given the present crisis.
No, PETA complained long before the hunt was even envisioned.
At this point it is your anonymous and uncited claims versus the report from a local news television station. If you could actually document what you say, then you'd start to regain come credibility.
These pythons weren't in pain, in a coma, or suffering. They were being killed to stop them from absolutely devastating the indigenous wildlife populations.
Apparently you don't realize that your second sentence does not in anyway support the first sentence. Anytime that sort of illogic and emotional rhetoric shows up in a debate it casts serious doubt on the person using that form of argument.
What hyperbole? I'm not sure you actually know what the word means.
Well, thanks for giving us two more paragraphs of examples of hyperbole in action.
Why is it that nobody who dislikes PETA is able to talk about them without obvious exaggeration? "Utter lack of strategy," "worst living strawmen," But on re-read it turns out you aren't even talking about PETA members.
I'm exaggerating only slightly. Mostly they're just idiots
Yeah, I was hoping for a straightforward description. You see, hyperbole was the problem with the original post, your hyperbole isn't any more informative either.
decapitation, which is the most humane way to kill them
Seems to be untrue. Apparently it is an "acceptable" but "not recommended" method.
I'm not guilty of shit. Yet you clearly want me punished.
After reading all of that, I'm pretty sure you suffer from mental illness and although it is hard sometimes to resist, I try to avoid engaging with the mentally ill because it only makes them worse. I hope you are able to get better.
They form unexpectatly. They rain down suddenly. So it is here when you look at it, and suddenly it's gone.
They insulate. They also reflect. So which effect is bigger?
While forming they are simply water vapour (a potent greenhouse gas).
While forming they extract a great deal of heat out of the ocean. How much exactly depends on many factors, e.g. do they form over night or durin day time.
this is article about the USA. the manufacturing by robots for consumer products largely won't be done here.
Robot manufacturing will bring manufacturing back to the US because it drastically reduces shipping costs. The US has tons of natural resources to support manufacturing, robots cost about the same to operate no matter where they are in the world. so shipping will be the primary area of cost reduction.
Of course nobody will have a job so they won't be able to buy anything, but that's somebody else's problem...
For some strange reason, the ACA did not fix this problem. We need to decouple health care and employers by eliminating the tax break that employers get.
Lol, Robert Grooms, favorite of the aryan hate websites and pretty much completely uncredentialed as a historian.
The problem is that the existence of non-white slave owners doesn't say anything meaningful about racism in the US. If there had been any significant number of white slaves, then that would be something to talk about.
And yes, I'm sure someone will dig up reference to a handful of irish slaves that were sentenced to bondage back in England being brought to the US colonies long before the black slave trade was common place. That being the equivalent of comparing a drop of water to a lake won't be particularly meaningful either.
Does a fish know what water is? As a white male you benefit in so many ways that you don't even realize.
The fuck I don't.
Yeah you do, and the fact that your rant completely misses the point I'm making is an excellent demonstration of the principle. You are all arguing about how it isn't by your direct hand that anyone else suffers, which is not the point at all. It might be true, I doubt it, the amount of rage you project suggests otherwise, but even if it is true it doesn't have a thing to do with the benefits you automatically and silently receive for simply being a white male in the USA.
You just said that because I am a white male that I *must* be benefiting from past slavery.
No, I did not say slavery. I said institutional racism. And it looks like I was 100% correct in predicting that you don't believe it exists.
Does a fish know what water is? As a white male you benefit in so many ways that you don't even realize. Losing unearned privilege tends to really burn which is probably what explains your raging.
Best way to smoke pot and not go to jail? Be white.
Best way to get a good primary education? Be white.
Slashdot Mirror
So, does this mean I can put a magnet on a dog's collar and it will give him constipation?
Republicans have a history of offering solutions to health care during elections that seem to dissolve if they are elected. Not too surprising.
Really? Like what? Romney's solution in this past race was "emergency rooms" - basically no change to the status quo.
That's just one of many.
Already cited in that other post. It doesn't contradict PETA's claim of being a shelter of last resort. The only actual PETA shelter mentioned on that page went to court and the employees were acquitted of animal cruelty charges. They were convicted of littering though.
That's just one of many.
No, it doesn't seem to be the case. The houston shelter, the florida shelter, the king county shelters, none of them were PETA shelters.
They are human so they aren't perfect, but this claim about them "being fine with killing thousands of animals" just isn't supported by what you've cited nor PETA's own website where they directly address the issue - they decidedly aren't fine with it, they are just trying to make the best out of a bad situation.
By citing someone who engages in the same hyperbolic and lopsided claims that you do you've only weakened your credibility.
--
At this point you seem to have given up on your debunked python claims and are now just kind of flailing about, doing poorly researched google searches for something to justify your irrational anger. I think you've pretty much driven your entire case into the ground. In other words, I'm done.
They wanted to round them up and give them lethal injections.
Yes your citation says that, their goal was a painless death. Seems more humane to me than the other options mentioned in that article.
This was after they said freezing them to death was better.
Not mentioned in your citation.
They are fine with killing thousands of animals and calling it euthanasia, even though the animals they killed weren't particularly desperate.
I've already researched that claim in another post in this thread. In summary, PETA operates shelters of last resort, they try only take the desperate, referring adoptable animals to other shelters.
Get out in the real world a bit before spouting your ignorance.
Please don't project. I have not spouted anything, I've simply asked for verifiable claims and then researched those claims myself to find out the true story. It's really the excessive one-sidedness of posts like yours that brought me in to the debate in the first place. Experience has taught me that whenever people write the way you have been writing, the truth is a lot different from what they claim. So far, all you've done is confirm that belief once again.
A study conducted by the Wall Street Journal six months later found that despite merchants generating substantial savings from the interchange fees being cut virtually none of it made its way back to the consumers
That seems implausible, publishing results of a study just six months after the fees were capped would be really hard to do with any sort of rigor. First there is an awful lot of inertia in the system, I wouldn't be surprised if the effects were just starting to trickle down six months in. Then I have to wonder about their methodology, which merchants would volunteer this information?
I did a search on the wsj.com website for "interchange fees" and while there were a lot of articles, I couldn't pick out any that mentioned this study. Perhaps you can provide a link?
Yes, roughly 30,000 fee-free ATMS.
http://co-opatm.org/
Could have something to do with PETA killing more animals than just about any so called "animal shelter" out there.
I could find confirmation that PETA does euthanize, but it sounds like they do not portray themselves as a regular animal shelter but as a shelter of last resort.
This is what PETA had to say about the situation. Seems reasonable to me.
http://www.peta.org/blog/euthanize/
PETA's reasoning is that they want to end the ownership of animals as pets, and euthanasia is preferred over adoption.
That in particular seems like a gross mis-characterization of their philosophy.
From the above link:
The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters).
...
As long as animals are still purposely bred and people arenâ(TM)t spaying and neutering their companions, open-admission animal shelters and organizations like PETA must do society's dirty work. Euthanasia is not a solution to overpopulation but rather a tragic necessity given the present crisis.
Take that shark fin example I mentioned.
Why? You've already indicated that had nothing to do with PETA, instead attributing it to generic "animal rights people."
No, PETA complained long before the hunt was even envisioned.
At this point it is your anonymous and uncited claims versus the report from a local news television station. If you could actually document what you say, then you'd start to regain come credibility.
These pythons weren't in pain, in a coma, or suffering. They were being killed to stop them from absolutely devastating the indigenous wildlife populations.
Apparently you don't realize that your second sentence does not in anyway support the first sentence. Anytime that sort of illogic and emotional rhetoric shows up in a debate it casts serious doubt on the person using that form of argument.
Yeah, most likely the "official" site was modified with those idiotic instructions at the behest of PETA.
No, according to this news report dated Jan 7, 2013 - that was the wording before PETA complained.
These idiots than run around telling people crap because it "sounds right" are the cause of more animal pain than they would admit.
So far, your posts have made a pretty convincing argument the "idiot" here is yourself.
Why is it that all the anti-PETA people must exaggerate and make up stories? Its like you've projected your own problems onto PETA.
What hyperbole? I'm not sure you actually know what the word means.
Well, thanks for giving us two more paragraphs of examples of hyperbole in action.
Why is it that nobody who dislikes PETA is able to talk about them without obvious exaggeration? "Utter lack of strategy," "worst living strawmen," But on re-read it turns out you aren't even talking about PETA members.
I'm exaggerating only slightly. Mostly they're just idiots
Yeah, I was hoping for a straightforward description. You see, hyperbole was the problem with the original post, your hyperbole isn't any more informative either.
decapitation, which is the most humane way to kill them
Seems to be untrue. Apparently it is an "acceptable" but "not recommended" method.
http://pythonchallenge.org/toolkit/euthanasia.aspx
My experience with PETA is that the only thing they care about is themselves.
Could you elaborate on your experience with PETA?
> So those too stupid for the Army are sent over to the TSA, right?
Are you saying TSA stands for The Stupid Army?
I'm not guilty of shit. Yet you clearly want me punished.
After reading all of that, I'm pretty sure you suffer from mental illness and although it is hard sometimes to resist, I try to avoid engaging with the mentally ill because it only makes them worse. I hope you are able to get better.
You pollute yourself with that negativity as well.
Yep, I'm the one "polluted with negativity" here.
They form unexpectatly. They rain down suddenly.
So it is here when you look at it, and suddenly it's gone.
They insulate. They also reflect.
So which effect is bigger?
While forming they are simply water vapour (a potent greenhouse gas).
While forming they extract a great deal of heat out of the ocean. How much exactly depends on many factors, e.g. do they form over night or durin day time.
Thank you Sheldon Cooper!
Fucking Clouds, How Do They Work?
this is article about the USA. the manufacturing by robots for consumer products largely won't be done here.
Robot manufacturing will bring manufacturing back to the US because it drastically reduces shipping costs. The US has tons of natural resources to support manufacturing, robots cost about the same to operate no matter where they are in the world. so shipping will be the primary area of cost reduction.
Of course nobody will have a job so they won't be able to buy anything, but that's somebody else's problem...
like the tiny new laptop chargers from finsix
I googled it for everyone:
How it looks
How it works
For some strange reason, the ACA did not fix this problem. We need to decouple health care and employers by eliminating the tax break that employers get.
McCain wanted to do that in 2008
Didn't happen because politics.
At least one chinese automaker is already shipping cars with remote control driving as an option.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkx2ZN4j2vk
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
Lol, Robert Grooms, favorite of the aryan hate websites and pretty much completely uncredentialed as a historian.
The problem is that the existence of non-white slave owners doesn't say anything meaningful about racism in the US. If there had been any significant number of white slaves, then that would be something to talk about.
And yes, I'm sure someone will dig up reference to a handful of irish slaves that were sentenced to bondage back in England being brought to the US colonies long before the black slave trade was common place. That being the equivalent of comparing a drop of water to a lake won't be particularly meaningful either.
Does a fish know what water is? As a white male you benefit in so many ways that you don't even realize.
The fuck I don't.
Yeah you do, and the fact that your rant completely misses the point I'm making is an excellent demonstration of the principle. You are all arguing about how it isn't by your direct hand that anyone else suffers, which is not the point at all. It might be true, I doubt it, the amount of rage you project suggests otherwise, but even if it is true it doesn't have a thing to do with the benefits you automatically and silently receive for simply being a white male in the USA.
You just said that because I am a white male that I *must* be benefiting from past slavery.
No, I did not say slavery. I said institutional racism. And it looks like I was 100% correct in predicting that you don't believe it exists.
Does a fish know what water is? As a white male you benefit in so many ways that you don't even realize. Losing unearned privilege tends to really burn which is probably what explains your raging.
Best way to smoke pot and not go to jail? Be white.
Best way to get a good primary education? Be white.
Best way to get a job interview? Be white.
Best way to not be poor? Be white.
Best way to buy or rent a house? Be white.
This water you swim in is as big as an ocean, the problem is that you just don't know what its like to be a fish out of water.