And everyone else as well.
Yeah, whatever, Badtz. :rolleyes: If you can’t find evidence of “terrorism” then attack them for NOT being terrorists. what an ingenius tactic.
You know, here is what I think Peta is really about. They want to get attention for some very real abuses against animals, but no one is going to invite them on Larry King to talk about slaughterhouse conditions.
If, on the other hand, they make a lot of public noise about a seemingly silly issue, they DO get invited on tv to defend their views, at which point they shift gears and talk about slaughterhouse conditions. The goofy rhetoric is simply a way to gain media attention for more serious views.
And Paul, could you please give an actual CITE for PETA funding violent activities?
Sorry, can’t find one. I am pleased to come clean.
I would be willing to state that PETA’s hands are slean. They DO seem to use their money and power to support, defend bail out and encourage people who do nasty stuff, but that is not the same. I would suppose they have a nifty legal department that keeps them on the right side of the law.
(Anyone ever score dope at NORML headquarters?)
While your point about silly issues to get on TV is a good and original one, I would propose that PETA is not really about animal abuses. No decent person is for the abuse of animals. Rather they seem to be an animal rights group.
The difference is real. (Again, I have only been poking my nose around this for the last day or two. I am no expert.) Animal welfare people accept that folks will slaughter animals for products (for example) and try to make the nasty act as “kind” as possible.
Animal Rights folks are unwilling to accept this that or the other and want to ban (slaughtering animals for food, in this example).
Again PETA seems to be largely on the up and up. I maintina they simply are fronting for a bunch of other nasty people who don;t want you to …
Well you know all the usual AR stuff.
(Gee, this thread has been mostly civilized, I appreciate that.)
Oh, as for a citee of FUNDING nasty people:
When ALF member Roger Troen was convicted of burglary and arson at the University of Oregon, in which $36,000 in damage was inflicted, PeTA paid Troen’s $27.000 legal fees and his $34,900 fine. Gary Thorud testified under oath that “we were illegally funding this individual with money solicited for other causes, and Ingrid was using that money, bragging to
the staff that she had spent $25,000 on the case.”
Deposition of Gary Thorud, Berosini v. PeTA, at 49-50.
from: http://www.hounds.org.uk/links-anti-ar.htm
(about halfway down the page.)
Well, the people who throw paint on people are indulging in terrorism - they intend to make people avoid purchasing fur products by attacking people who wear them. Destroying a $10,000 coat is no different than blowing up an unoccupied building - they are both violent acts against personal property, a form of financial terrorism. Yeah, you might inadvertently harm someone blowing up a building, but you can also harm a person by running up to them and throwing paint on them - I’m sure they don’t hand their intended victim goggles first and make sure they don’t have any allergic reactions to the ingredients in their paint before splashing them. The ones who throw blood are even worse.
I’m not attacking them for not being terrorists - I’m glad that most animal rights activists don’t care enough about their cause to act violently on their beliefs. I am simply pointing out the reasoning behind my conclusion that the vast majority of them do not truly believe that animal life is equal to human life.
Hey, hey, hey…
Didn’t you read the post that said crimes against property “don’t count?” Play by the rules.
I would still submit, Paul, that even the “nasty stuff” committed by the most radical animal rights activists is still not on a par with actual TERRORISM. i.e. the deliberate, violent targeting of civilians to push a political agenda. I am not aware of ANY animal rights activists who have committed any car bombings, murdered civilians, taken hostages, hijacked planes or crashed them into buildings.
The link you provided is an anti-animal rights site (and defines itself as such) It does not provide support for the Troen story, but even if PeTA did pay his legal fees, they were paying only for a crime of property damage. Vandalism is not right or acceptable, but it is not an act of VIOLENCE.
Paul says: “I would suppose they have a nifty legal department that keeps them on the right side of the law.”
You imply that obeying the law is some kind of trick. People who obey the law should not be sued (the topic of this thread) nor accused of being terrorists.
Crimes against property are not violent crimes. There are legal definitions for these things, so we don’t have to rely on our own interpretations.
Would you consider the ramming and sinking of an occupied ship a violent act, or just another case of vandalism? Look into Sea Shepherd, a conservation society that has sank many whaling vessels and has fired upon those working on them. No deaths have resulted yet, but if I run you off the road and you live I still think it is a violent act.
That example is totally different. Those people could be prosecuted for attempted murder. Has PeTA ever done anything remotely like that?
The factual question is how often PETA gets sued. There was one suit referenced on the first page of this thread, and there has been plenty of time to come up with more citations. I’ll close this thread now because I doubt we can get a better factual answer than we have now.
Debates about the desirability of PETA actions, who they’re “fronting for”, etc., really belong in Great Debates. I invite the interested to continue the discussion over there.
bibliophage
moderator GQ