A big 'ol "Fuck YOU!" to the PETA jackass at the circus

[XT]

@Richard Parker

In the post above, you come up with a new distinction: the content of the opinion. So now you’re saying it’s OK to implant opinions in other people’s kids, but just ones about their dietary habits and what toys they want to play with. Not the really important ones like whether or not to go to the circus.

Well, I think we both know this wasn’t really about whether it’s simply ok to go the the circus or not. You still having answered my counter questions. You are ok with the PITA guy giving this information to your child…are you equally ok with a racist, a bigot, a conspiracy theorist, and fundamentalist theist, etc etc giving information to your young children?

Advertising is ubiquitous. There is no doubt about it. As a parent my control of this passive medium is in that I choose where they eat and what they buy (I have the money, ehe?). While I might not relish advertisement, as you pointed out it would be impossible to block or shield them from it entirely. In fact, I’m not even certain it would be a good idea to do so.

And, to continue, I don’t even say it’s a good idea to shield them from things like what this ‘jackass’ from PETA is peddling either. However, I want to control the flow of information to my 3 or 4 year old. It’s MY place (and my wife’s) to decide what information they receive on this subject at that age. Just like it’s my right to decide what information they receive concerning religion, race relations, politics, etc. I decide what they should know and need to know at that age.

Just like you get to decide what’s best for YOUR children. If you want PETA man to have full and open access to your family, well, that’s your lookout. If you want some right wing fundie to chat up your child and hand him a pamphlet, well, that’s not my concern. If you want some racist to start a conversation with your child and give them a tract and a pat on the head, it’s really no skin off my nose, ehe? Where it becomes my concern is when it’s my family effected.

I’m think I’ve had way too much to drink tonight and I’m starting to repeat myself and ramble a bit. Apologies to anyone trying to slog through all this and I think I’ll bid everyone ado unless something else interesting pops up. It was an interesting discussion for a Pit thread and I thank you for it Richard Parker.

-XT

[Richard_Parker]

@xtisme

Of course. They have every right to make their information available…just as I have the right to decide what my children are exposed too. Since we are refining this question down, I assume you acknowledge my rights as a parent. IIRC you are a lawyer, so you should recognize I have a legal right to do so as long as my children have not assumed their majority…correct?

Passing out an otherwise decent, non-obscene pamphlet in a public space, even to a child, is constitutionally-protected activity. There have been a lot of cases on this question with people distributing materials like Bibles just outside of school grounds. Of course you can tell the child not to take the pamphlet, or direct your children away from the bearded hippie, but merely approaching you and holding out the pamphlet for the child to take is well within the zone of protected activity.

@xtisme

I can if they invade my personal space. Or do I have no rights?

Invasion of your personal space is not grounds for self-defense, no. If it were, I’d be fighting to the death on the subway every day. Short of harassment (see above in the thread) or disorderly conduct, walking up to you and your child to hand out pamphlets is not going to be illegal and is certainly not going to justify some sort of preemptive violence.

@xtisme

My problem isn’t with the message (though I’m no fan of PETA and think they are by and large a bunch of loons), it’s with the method of message delivery. See the difference?

There are differences between a pamphlet and a TV commercial, sure. But aside from the differences in physical threat to your child–which we just don’t see eye to eye on–I don’t see any other relevant differences.

And, for the record, I am not a lawyer. I am a shoe salesman.

ETA: Just saw your last post. Thanks for the discussion.

[Enola_Gay]

@Lute Skywatcher

Are you aware that’s a PETA site?

No I wasn’t…but I could tell it was biased. I actually found the site because of the link in one of the ads that popped up in this thread…the other ads were peta.com and ticket sales for the circus! Still, regardless of whose site it is, the videos imo are very disturbing and show trainers physically abusing elephants. And maybe this is just how animals are treated out there (I’m a city girl) but for me it was horrifying to see that elephant screaming.

I do agree that the PETA crowd is bunch of lunatics (Free the goldfish!!!) …but unless they faked that video then circus elephants are or were being mistreated.

BTW I do think the PETA kook from the OP crossed the line big time.

And I really enjoyed the cheeseburger I had for lunch…

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Bricker

Which is why you favor abortion protestors with their signs showing dismembered fetuses, right?

I wouldn’t use the term favor, because I don’t see how I could be expected to favor a specific protest whose basic premise I don’t agree with, but they have as much of a right to protest about what they care about as I do. Speaking as a member of the choice activism community, I feel that we have an obligation to get out there and have our voices heard alongside theirs, rather than sit on the sidelines and whine about how unfair it is. In my experience in this community, that’s a pretty widespread view; when these protesters come up in meetings, the general consensus seems to be, “We can be heard by going to that same space and being nicer to the people who walk through it. It’s really no big deal.”

In the end, just about everything you hear anywhere is biased, and it’s each individual’s job to do the research, hear as many different points of view as feasible, and come up with his/her own view. So I don’t favor that particular kind of abortion protest in the same sense that I don’t favor NASCAR or cheap beer, but those three things have as much of a right to exist as my protests, my sports and my drinks. We have nothing to fear from the truth.

So, in a word: yes.

@Shirley Ujest

Has any REALLY HOT GUY ever posed nekkid for PETA?

Not naked, but I’m pretty sure Joaquin Phoenix’s picture can be seen around the website, or once could have been seen around the website. He’s a vegan, you know.

@Jettboy

Using your dipshit logic, barley and hops are ‘Earthlings’ as well, but that doesn’t mean my beer has a soul.

1. You’re clearly drinking the wrong beer.
2. Your conclusion does not follow at all. Billy Baroo named animals, and the things you named are plants. You, not he, made the jump from animal suffering to supposed plant suffering.

@curlcoat

Most likely the jerk at the circus was a volunteer.

Probably. How do you think PETA found or trained him? Also, are we even sure this has anything to do with PETA in the first place? Did Jettboy hit the extra-large PETA bullseye on his Hated Animal Rights Groups chart?

@curlcoat

It’s kind of difficult to provide a cite that disproves your belief that simply because an animal is in a circus it must be mistreated, since it sounds like your definition of the word is much different than mine or the officials who are actually charged with looking into those things.

I’d appreciate the effort regardless.

@curlcoat

Snort. Have you bothered to look into PETA at all? Try googling for Ingrid Newkirk quotes for a start. Or PETA-shelter pets-dumpsters. Or the connection between PETA and ALF. Or see if you can find even one shelter that PETA funds or any health research. Then note how they twist their agenda to rid us of contact with animals into “humans are all cruel to animals no matter what they do”, which winds up all those folks that think they have fur children for pets. Note how PETA has managed to get animals “rights” to be the same thing as animal welfare in the minds of the public. Need anything more?

It’s a little hard to separate out the paranoid ravings from the…well, anything at all, but believe it or not, “welfare” is not a dirty word to everyone. It simply means “well-being”, and “animal welfare” is a pretty apt technical description of the animal rights movement. It’s probably better in many ways; it states the main goal, which is to improve the welfare/well-being of animals, without invoking “rights”, which would then have to be defined.

@curlcoat

You aren’t saying much for your own non-loony status by continuing to defend PETA without looking into any of the things said about them. I’m sorry if you really feel that they have the best interests of animals at heart, but it has been proven over and over that they don’t.

Actually, I just said “I stand corrected” in another post about the dumpster thing. I hadn’t heard about it. PETA is a bit extreme, sure, and has some major ethical problems. But all in all, they provide a service that is necessary. Could they do it better? Sure. But really, I don’t even think about PETA nearly as much as you seem to. I eat beef and chicken pretty much every day. I just haven’t been tuned in to whatever PETA hatefest you have such a hardon for.

@curlcoat

I merely listed the first three that came up in the search.

I think it’s interesting that you feel such a compulsion to defend yourself against me, rather than engaging in a conversation with me. Are you afraid of me thinking badly of you? I assure you that it won’t affect your life much at all if I do.

@curlcoat

Did you look at the links at all, or just decide you needed to tear the messengers apart? For someone that says he agrees with my opinion of PETA, you are spending an awful lot of energy here trying to dispute what I say about them.

I never made any effort to tear any messenger apart. I believe someone else already did that quite well without my intervention. As for me, I’m an ex-smoker and I don’t trust Phillip Morris to save me from anyone. I believe they’ve well proven where their priorities lie.

I also never said I agree with your opinion of PETA. I named a specific thing I happened to agree with. Otherwise, I’ve just been responding to what I see and what people say to me. It hasn’t taken much energy at all.

@xtisme

Some here might think that’s paranoid, but I’ve seen my kids sick from colds and flu enough that I’m not eager to see it again because some random asshole feels the self righteous urge to pass out his propaganda to children. I would have probably pushed the guy away (fairly roughly) and asked questions later.

Is Vin Diesel going to play you in the movie?

[XT]

Unfortunately (for him) his dick isn’t big enough. I think Val Kilmer woulld be a better choice to play me…

-XT

[curlcoat]

@Enola_Gay

I do agree that the PETA crowd is bunch of lunatics (Free the goldfish!!!) …but unless they faked that video then circus elephants are or were being mistreated.

Coming from PETA, they could have faked it, gotten it from some third world country or it could have been decades old.

[curlcoat]

@Hostile_Dialect

Probably. How do you think PETA found or trained him? Also, are we even sure this has anything to do with PETA in the first place? Did Jettboy hit the extra-large PETA bullseye on his Hated Animal Rights Groups chart?

I believe that Jettboy said that the pamphlet was from PETA. The tactics sound like them. I don’t know how PETA found or trained their volunteer - why?

I’d appreciate the effort regardless.

You’d have to start with your definition of “mistreated” at the very least.

but believe it or not, “welfare” is not a dirty word to everyone. It simply means “well-being”, and “animal welfare” is a pretty apt technical description of the animal rights movement. It’s probably better in many ways; it states the main goal, which is to improve the welfare/well-being of animals, without invoking “rights”, which would then have to be defined.

The term animal welfare isn’t a dirty word to anyone - where did you get that idea? As for the animal rights movement being concerned with animal welfare, generally that isn’t true, which is proven by their actions.

But all in all, they provide a service that is necessary.

What service, in your opinion, does PETA provide that is necessary? Particularly any service that isn’t already covered by scores of agencies that don’t have hidden, anti-animal agendas?

I just haven’t been tuned in to whatever PETA hatefest you have such a hardon for.

Anyone who does anything with animals other than having a pet in the yard and eating cheeseburgers runs into laws and restrictions put forth by PETA. I imagine if PETA’s hidden agenda was that all children should be taken from their parents at birth and raised by “approved” boarding schools, you would be more in tune with what they are doing.

I think it’s interesting that you feel such a compulsion to defend yourself against me, rather than engaging in a conversation with me. Are you afraid of me thinking badly of you? I assure you that it won’t affect your life much at all if I do.

What in the world are you talking about?

[Sarahfeena]

@Richard_Parker

It is a fact of life that our children are exposed to propaganda from a very young age. From fast food commercials specifically targeted at them, to the proselytizing parents of their friends, to teachers in schools. I would much prefer to take these things as teachable moments rather than try to shut down discourse in the world when a kid might get involved. There are two reasons for this. First, it is totally impossible to screen out every commercial, every stranger, every disagreeable thought. And second, this discourse-ending view bleeds into everything else. What do you want the PETA guy to do? Not approach anyone at the circus with a child? Not be at the circus at all?

A four-year-old is not at the right age for a discussion of critical thinking. But a four-year-old can understand that strangers sometimes disagree with Mommy and Daddy–as this kid clearly did!

The problem I would have with PETA giving my child pamphlets isn’t the sentiment behind the what they are doing (though I might disagree with it), but rather with the somewhat graphic nature of the literature I have seen from them. I don’t have a problem with my 4-year-old learning that it’s wrong to hurt animals, but I DO have a problem with her getting details (especially photographic details) of the depths of cruelty that is sometimes perpetrated by humans. She’s not ready for it, and I’m not sure how well she would handle it. I know that I would be put in the position of having to try to explain it to her, and having to sit up with her at night when she’s having nightmares. So, yes, I’d be pretty interested in seeing what it is that the PETA volunteer was giving the kid before letting her see it.

[Hostile_Dialect]

@curlcoat

I don’t know how PETA found or trained their volunteer - why?

Because it probably involved the expenditure of money at some point. Come on, man. That was an easy one.

@curlcoat

You’d have to start with your definition of “mistreated” at the very least.

Really, I’ll take whatever ya got.

@curlcoat

What service, in your opinion, does PETA provide that is necessary? Particularly any service that isn’t already covered by scores of agencies that don’t have hidden, anti-animal agendas?

Advocacy groups on the fringes of contemporary political thought often force society to face ideas they would have otherwise ignored. When ELF blew up a major construction project here in San Diego about 10 years ago, the general consensus was that they were nutters, and that’s still true–but extreme actions like those were part of the fabric of an environmental movement which is now a part of mainstream political thinking. As heinous as that act may have been, it was a part of the very long, very gradual process of Americans everywhere waking up to the reality of climate change and environmental destruction.

When PETA commits heinous acts, it can shock the nation and leave those of us who agree with the main thrust of their argument shaking our heads. But the fact is that they’re really good at drawing attention toward the problem of animal rights, which begins debates such as this one–where most people can agree that the heinous act* is pretty heinous, and then some people start thinking, “Hey, you know what? Maybe we agree on more than that.” This can lead to a process of reconciliation and compromise which may ultimately change things for the better. Just my two cents.

• I’m not saying that handing a pamphlet to a child is heinous. It’s a little weird, but asi es la vida.

@curlcoat

Anyone who does anything with animals other than having a pet in the yard and eating cheeseburgers runs into laws and restrictions put forth by PETA. I imagine if PETA’s hidden agenda was that all children should be taken from their parents at birth and raised by “approved” boarding schools, you would be more in tune with what they are doing.

I tend not to listen to raving loonies on message boards about the hidden agendae of this or that advocacy group. I find them to be a less-than-reliable source. YMMV.

Hostile Dialect
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist

[Richard_Parker]

@Sarahfeena

The problem I would have with PETA giving my child pamphlets isn’t the sentiment behind the what they are doing (though I might disagree with it), but rather with the somewhat graphic nature of the literature I have seen from them. I don’t have a problem with my 4-year-old learning that it’s wrong to hurt animals, but I DO have a problem with her getting details (especially photographic details) of the depths of cruelty that is sometimes perpetrated by humans. She’s not ready for it, and I’m not sure how well she would handle it. I know that I would be put in the position of having to try to explain it to her, and having to sit up with her at night when she’s having nightmares. So, yes, I’d be pretty interested in seeing what it is that the PETA volunteer was giving the kid before letting her see it.

Agreed. I think graphic images of cruelty are inappropriate.

[kidchameleon]

@Richard_Parker

But it isn’t about legal vs. illegal.

Yes it was.

[Richard_Parker]

@kidchameleon

Yes it was.

How about you try responding to the point I made, instead of clipping the conclusion?

[kidchameleon]

@Richard_Parker

How about you try responding to the point I made, instead of clipping the conclusion?

Why? You seem oblivious to the fact that I was responding to an analogy that lecturing another child who was doing an illegal act (kicking a dog, stealing candy) was some how analogous to lecturing a child doing something that is certainly legal (attending a circus).

Your scenario is even stupider. You think that lecturing a child on what their father did wrong in an airplane is appropriate? It’s a far better way to get into an incident with the father than just responding to him, possibly resulting in the plane being diverted so that the both of you two can be arrested and everyone else delayed. Are you not aware of the situation of modern air travel in this country?

Even if it were not taking place in an airplane, why the hell would you address the man’s child about his actions? I would address the person responsible for the actions, not fall into some passive-aggressive mindset.

[curlcoat]

@Hostile_Dialect

Because it probably involved the expenditure of money at some point. Come on, man. That was an easy one.

If you say what you want to discuss, I can follow it. Otherwise, this little bit here little bit there I’ll just have to ignore.

Advocacy groups on the fringes of contemporary political thought often force society to face ideas they would have otherwise ignored. When ELF blew up a major construction project here in San Diego about 10 years ago, the general consensus was that they were nutters, and that’s still true–but extreme actions like those were part of the fabric of an environmental movement which is now a part of mainstream political thinking. As heinous as that act may have been, it was a part of the very long, very gradual process of Americans everywhere waking up to the reality of climate change and environmental destruction.

So it’s ok to blow shit up and kill people if your motives are pure? Which doesn’t apply to PETA, but your apparent point here is, uh, weird.

When PETA commits heinous acts, it can shock the nation and leave those of us who agree with the main thrust of their argument shaking our heads. But the fact is that they’re really good at drawing attention toward the problem of animal rights, which begins debates such as this one–where most people can agree that the heinous act* is pretty heinous, and then some people start thinking, “Hey, you know what? Maybe we agree on more than that.” This can lead to a process of reconciliation and compromise which may ultimately change things for the better. Just my two cents.

Which is more than it is worth. We don’t need PETA to go about harrassing, cheating and killing to be concerned with animal welfare. And we really don’t need anyone trying to force animal “rights” on us. Compromise? That is how I lose my rights, rights which are already seriously limited. It is people like you that PETA has learned to shape their message around - you see nothing wrong with animal “rights” and nutters blowing things up if somehow, somewhere a chicken sleeps in more comfort tonite. Doesn’t matter than PETA is working towards outlawing the responsible breeding of pets, of organized dog and horse sports, abolishing zoos eh? Gosh, all of that is worth that chicken’s good nights sleep, isn’t it?

I tend not to listen to raving loonies on message boards about the hidden agendae of this or that advocacy group. I find them to be a less-than-reliable source.

People you don’t agree with a raving loonies - OK, gotcha. I won’t waste any more time on your ignorance with regards to PETA and the HSUS.

[Richard_Parker]

kidchameleon, you seem very angry. I’m not sure why. I was just trying to get you to address my point directly, and now you have.

So you don’t think it’s ever OK to address someone’s else child regarding legal behavior? Do I have that correct?

[Hostile_Dialect]

@curlcoat

So it’s ok to blow shit up and kill people if your motives are pure? Which doesn’t apply to PETA, but your apparent point here is, uh, weird.

Well, first off, nobody died in that explosion; there was just a lot of property/fiscal damage done to the developer. (ETA: Which in and of itself I’m not in tears over, since developers have screwed me over in various ways enough times.)

Secondly, no, it’s not OK to blow shit up and/or kill people. It’s not an action I would condone. But the unfortunate fact is that sometimes it takes a heinous act or some kind of tragedy to bring the importance of an issue to our attention. It took 9/11 to get us to start thinking seriously about terrorism (too seriously, IMO, but that’s a whole 'nother thread); it took the White Night Riots to get people to start talking about LGBT rights; it took the total destruction of Dresden and Hiroshima to end the most horrible war in our collective memory. None of these things are good things, but they’re the thorns that come with the roses.

@curlcoat

It is people like you that PETA has learned to shape their message around - you see nothing wrong with animal “rights”…if somehow, somewhere a chicken sleeps in more comfort tonite.

Uh, yeah, that’s the entire point of animal rights.

@curlcoat

That is how I lose my rights, rights which are already seriously limited.

Cry me a fucking river. You don’t know from limited rights.

@curlcoat

Doesn’t matter than PETA is working towards outlawing the responsible breeding of pets, of organized dog and horse sports, abolishing zoos eh?

I don’t see anything responsible about humans breeding animals. It’s a sick game for sick people. My opinions on organized dog and horse sports range from total apathy to a slight tinge of disgust. I think the concept of zoos is weird at best and, at worst, represents an unnatural infringement of human dominance on the rest of the animal kingdom.

I guess I’m not seeing why I’m supposed to suddenly see the light when you bring up the holy oxen of rape cages, horse races and animal captivity.

@curlcoat

People you don’t agree with a raving loonies - OK, gotcha.

No, people with bizarre paranoid delusions, especially those in denial, are loonies.

[curlcoat]

@Hostile_Dialect

Secondly, no, it’s not OK to blow shit up and/or kill people. It’s not an action I would condone. But the unfortunate fact is that sometimes it takes a heinous act or some kind of tragedy to bring the importance of an issue to our attention. It took 9/11 to get us to start thinking seriously about terrorism (too seriously, IMO, but that’s a whole 'nother thread); it took the White Night Riots to get people to start talking about LGBT rights; it took the total destruction of Dresden and Hiroshima to end the most horrible war in our collective memory. None of these things are good things, but they’re the thorns that come with the roses.

Talk about loony. You are trying to equate the comfort of chickens with 9/11??

Uh, yeah, that’s the entire point of animal rights.

It was the entire point of the law PETA pushed thru California this past election. It’s a prime example of exactly what they care about, and it isn’t humane care for animals.

Cry me a fucking river. You don’t know from limited rights.

You know this how?

I don’t see anything responsible about humans breeding animals. It’s a sick game for sick people.

Ah. So you have no pets, eat no meat? Blind people shouldn’t have guide dogs, no one should wear wool? Endangered species should just go extinct?

My opinions on organized dog and horse sports range from total apathy to a slight tinge of disgust.

Because of this I have no right to participate in these sports?

I think the concept of zoos is weird at best and, at worst, represents an unnatural infringement of human dominance on the rest of the animal kingdom.

Ah, you are a loony. No idea that zoos are for education, and for trying to hold on to endangered species, eh?

I guess I’m not seeing why I’m supposed to suddenly see the light when you bring up the holy oxen of rape cages, horse races and animal captivity.

What the hell is a rape cage?
You dear have no idea what you are talking about. Not only do you have no idea what PETA and the HSUS are really all about, you have no idea what animals are about. You really should educate yourself some before you go about blathering on like an idiot.

If nothing else, all you seem to be able to do is call people who don’t agree with your extremely narrow views “loony”, and ignore things you can’t answer with misplaced emotion. I’m going to bed now. If you cannot come up with anything other than furbaby babble, I’m done.

[GusNSpot]

For me, the distinction is if the pamphlet man is ‘standing’ or ‘coming towards.’

If the pamphlet man is coming towards a small child and the parent has said, “No, stay back.” and he keeps coming, then he has lost all his rights and the parent has very little restriction in their response.

I don’t think it matters what the subject is. Advancing on a child without the parents permission or especially if they have said to stop, takes it out of the free speech or any other realm and dropped it right smack in the middle of eminent physical harm and I don’t think many juries would side the the pamphlet man.

YMMV

[panache45]

@gonzomax

Elephants are intelligent animals who are beaten into obedience by circuses. Their treatment is appalling. That should be outlawed.

Yeah, let’s leave them in the wild, where they can get butchered for their tusks.

[Hostile_Dialect]

@curlcoat

Talk about loony. You are trying to equate the comfort of chickens with 9/11??

No, I’m giving examples of reprehensible acts which play a part in raising our national awareness of certain issues.

@curlcoat

It was the entire point of the law PETA pushed thru California this past election. It’s a prime example of exactly what they care about, and it isn’t humane care for animals.

Your accusation was:

@curlcoat

you see nothing wrong with animal “rights” [snip] if somehow, somewhere a chicken sleeps in more comfort tonite.

Of course the answer is “yes”. That’s the very idea. You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

@curlcoat

You know this how?

I can guess from the implication that your biggest civil rights problem is that you have to recalculate the dimensions of your chicken coop.

@curlcoat

Ah. So you have no pets

I don’t have pets, no.

@curlcoat

eat no meat?

I do eat meat. I consider it a moral failure on my part, but I pick my battles. Nobody is perfect. As to the relevance of this question–what, animals didn’t have meat until we bred it into them?

@curlcoat

Blind people shouldn’t have guide dogs

It’s a nice thing for the blind people, although the “service dog” system is too easily exploited by rich white women from Orange County who want to take Fluffy everywhere with them…but that’s a story for another thread. Anyway, as Kurt Vonnegut said, we make dogs think they were born into a world where it’s illegal to be a dog. I would imagine that this goes double for service dogs.

But I don’t see how that’s relevant, since the breed(s?) involved already exist and we can just train the puppies to do those jobs if we must.

@curlcoat

no one should wear wool

Wool is nice, but we could survive without it. Again, did sheep not grow wool before we bred it into them?

@curlcoat

Endangered species should just go extinct?

Nature is cruel.

@curlcoat

Because of this I have no right to participate in these sports?

That’s a rather bizarre leap. Since you seem to have totally ignored what I said, I’ll repeat it in an easier form to read:

**My opinions on organized dog and horse sports range from total apathy to a slight tinge of disgust. **

Do you understand what “apathy” and “tinge” mean? I’m not an anti-horseracing activist, I just don’t like the sport for my own reasons.

@curlcoat

Ah, you are a loony. No idea that zoos are for education, and for trying to hold on to endangered species, eh?

I’m well aware of those benefits of zoos. Again, it’s nice that the kids can learn about animals they probably won’t otherwise meet in their lifetimes. I just said the concept is weird and can sometimes represent something that I find a little unpleasant. As for endangered species, why are they endangered? If it’s because of our practices, those practices are the real problem, and we need to stop them. If it’s because they couldn’t adapt to life in their natural environment, well, biology is a bitch sometimes. I find it fascinating that you suddenly want to save every creature on Earth, though.

@curlcoat

What the hell is a rape cage?

Sorry, I meant “rape stand”. I’ve fallen behind on my breeding lingo since Michael Vick stopped calling. (Seriously, though, I called it the wrong thing and I apologize for that.)

@curlcoat

Not only do you have no idea what PETA and the HSUS are really all about,

but I also carry on oblivious to the hidden agenda of the power company, which wants to control my mind with electricity, and the hidden agenda of IKEA, which wants to claim my living room for Sweden, and the hidden agenda of Planned Parenthood, which dastardly organization secretly wants to “abort” my entire family. Yes, my ignorance of wacko conspiracy theories is astounding.

@curlcoat

You really should educate yourself some before you go about blathering on like an idiot.

My bad. I’ll send in for my pamphlet from Phillip Morris right away. Might as well ask RJ Reynolds while I’m at it, no?

@curlcoat

If nothing else, all you seem to be able to do is call people who don’t agree with your extremely narrow views “loony”

Actually, plenty of people in this thread–and many others–disagree quite forcefully with my views. For example, What Exit? disagrees with me on this and probably at least a handful of other topics, yet we get along just fine. You’re the only one I call a loony. Hint: It’s because you babble on and on about your paranoid delusions.