PETA eats their young. Or your young, whichever's handy...

The BBQ Pit
1

This article is why I am pissed off.

I do not anger easily. Stupidity, arrogance, and assheadedness used to disgust me; nowadays, I just get amused.

…but upon reading the article linked above, I find myself wanting to put these folks in the same category with child molesters. Molesters just want our children’s bodies. PETA, on the other hand, wants to fuck their MINDS.

Y’see, I don’t much like PETA to begin with. The individuals in this organization that I have met, personally, did not impress me as especially well-balanced or clear-thinking people, and I have yet to meet one that’s really thought his chain of logic down to its logical conclusion.

“Animals have rights? Ah. This implies that we humans, as a society, have a responsibility to them. You are recommending that a species that can’t even be responsible for its own children half the time, statistically speaking, should now be responsible for the furry creatures of the forest?”

What’s worse, the PETA members that I have met, personally, pursue their agenda with a kind of maniacal singlemindedness that closely resembles what I think of as “wild-eyed religiosity.” Ever argue religion with somebody who has firmly held beliefs? Doesn’t matter if you win the argument. Doesn’t matter if their religion doesn’t make any sense. NOTHING really matters, cuz you don’t believe, and therefore your thoughts may be safely ignored. God Says It, I Believe It, And That Settles It.

In many ways, I have come to think of PETA as a kind of secular religion for people who are so rich, pampered, and sheltered that they have never had to miss a meal or deal with nature, on its own terms, to obtain food. Certainly, the ones I’ve met have never had any concept of what it is to be anything other than Middle-Class-Or-Better American. You don’t find a lot of PETA people in poorer neighborhoods, unless they’re doing some work for Habitat For Humanity, or something.

Well meaning folks, certainly, but remarkably stubborn, not too bright, and extremely anxious to grab that moral high ground.

If you are a member of PETA who does not match these criteria, then I apologize for offending you… but I certainly never met you.

And if you are a member of PETA who attempts to jam your cockeyed ideology and gory literature down my child’s throat when my back is turned, you may rest assured that the killing of animals will soon be among the least of your concerns, Jocko.

The world is a scary enough place for small children without high-minded, high-handed assheads, certain of their righteousness, making it scarier. When my child grows older, should he/she choose to examine your literature, well, it is inevitable that kids will learn to think for themselves, and make their own choices.

…but to assault them with this crap when they are children is unconscionable… and marks those doing it, in my mind, as somewhere between rapists and terrorists, frankly. Not to mention “they who target children.”

I do not give a shit for your high motives. Your motives are irrelevant, in the face of actions like these. Your motives and morals, to me, are no more relevant than the morals and motives of a convicted child molester. Sure, maybe he’s a swell guy and goes to church every Sunday, but he raped a four year old, for potato’s sake!

Are these the actions of moral persons who wish to convince others of the rightness of their cause? Or of terrorists, who wish to force your actions and mine into what they regard as acceptable by terrorizing our children?

(actually, I have one kid. A daughter. She’s in college now, and frankly, is more pragmatic and clear-thinking than I was at her age, so I’m not really worried about PETA gremlins giving her nightmares or converting her into Tanya, or anything. But this sort of thing REALLY burns my ass…)

2

Necessary disclaimer: I am not a member of PETA. I find their tactics range from the harmlessly amusing to the pathetic to the downright obnoxious; they very rarely rise to the level of useful, near as I can tell.

I’m also not an animal rights believer. I eat dairy, eggs, and fish, and I occasionally wear leather.

That said, I do know that there are very intelligent and coherent arguments in favor of animal rights, and that many folks who advocate its philosophy are reasonable people. I know that many people misunderstand the core animal rights position.

One such misunderstanding appears in your post, Wang-Ka. Namely, AR folks such as Tom Reagan (probably the movement’s best philosopher) defines rights as negative, not positive, duties.

In his view, I never have a right to your assistance; rather, I have a right to not be fucked with by you. My right imposes a negative duty on you: you’ve got a duty not to kill me, for example.

When he suggests that animals have rights, that simply means they impose negative duties on those who have a moral system. You don’t have a responsibility toward the furry creatures of the forest beyond your responsibility not to fuck with them.

It’s a debatable position, sure – but that’s better than the position that we’re required to HELP animals, to protect the bunny rabbit from the bobcat. I’ve never met anyone who holds the latter position, but I’ve seen many people misrepresent AR folks as holding that position.

Daniel

3

Should counter with a flyer showing Mr. Potato Head being stabbed with a giant knife. Vegetarianism kills, people.

4

I’d do some nut crackin’ of my own if someone pulled that kind of crap with my kid.

5

I’d be quite afraid of what I’d do if someone approached one of my kids with something like that.

6

Crap. I should’ve been explicit that this latest campaign falls in the “downright obnoxious” category, and is indeed the worst thing I’ve seen PETA do yet, worse even than the slaughterhouse=Holocaust travesty.

Daniel

7

Lefty, your explanation of PETA’s ideology is frankly simpler and more elegant – and more convincing – than anything I’ve ever been offered, personally.

Then again, I tried to stress that the persons I have met personally were not (I hope) among PETA’s best and brightest.

Then again, if this is the kind of tactic endorsed by the organization, it would seem their leadership ain’t much different from those I have met…

8

You know, I don’t even have kids…

…but if someone did that to MY kid, it’d be like Wyclef said, “We’re gonna make CNN.”

9

Why is it that PETA always bugs women wearing fur and leather, but they never go after other wearers of leather, such as big biker gang guys?

10

Considering their history, I’m not stunned. I’d protect my kids from those whackos.

11

Any private organization or individual that tries to usurp the right of a parent to raise their kids in the manner they see fit, to upset a child or to negatively influence the bond between the parent and child should expect an extremely negative reaction.

Why in the hell they’d think this is going to benefit their organization or swing rationally thinking adults to adopt similar views is just beyond me.

I seriously hope that if this turns ugly anywhere that some legal restraint is quickly put upon these activities. This, ironically, burns my hide.

12

Well, it appears that PETA actually saw this thread coming; also from the article:

" Franzetta acknowledged the anti-fur campaign might spark a backlash. ``It’s definitely provocative, I will give you that,’’ she said."

13

Maybe parents should just look on this as a great opportunity to teach children about the perils of zealotry.

Daniel

14

My kids’ll kill the animals themselves. That’ll be an interaction to witness.
It’ll start like this:

PETA: Your Mommy and Daddy kill animals.
Simon’s: I kill animals too

15

I don’t have kids, wear fur, or go to the ballet, and this still makes me want to hit someone.

16

I thought The Nutcracker was the Chinese gymnasts. No?

17

SimonX got it in one!

Although i don’t have kids, you can bet they’ll be shooting and skinning rabbits, feral cats and other noxious critters as well as the odd kangaroo for the BBQ by the time they’re ten! I did.

That would be a classic…PETA hands brat leaflet “mummy and daddy kill animals”. Brat looks at leaflet, calmly turns to PETA nut and quietly says “no, I kill animals” in a matter of fact kind of way.

18

I personally am in favor of animal rights, but PETA is not helping the matter. Don’t they realize that attacking people’s children only makes them look like fanatical morons? Folks like them make it harder for sane people who actually have meaningful beliefs on the matter to be heard. It’s embarrassing, really.

Not everyone who believes in animal rights is this much of a wanker. I respect people’s right to parent their children far more than I need to proselytize. Way to alienate even neutral people with a boneheaded propaganda campaign. I felt the same way about the Holocaust comparison. :rolleyes: Never mind the truth or falsehood of the underlying sentiment; saying it that particular way made many, many people disregard whatever valid point PETA might have wished to make.

I wish they’d knock it off.

19

I’ve had to deal with these morons several times on the college campus. I’ve a fondness for leather and fur and design a lot of my coats, hats etc. One coat I’ve got is a patchwork of many different hides. When asked by peta If I knew how many “Lives” were brutally murdered to make my coat; I replied: 'At last count ten, wanna go for eleven?" I accompanied this with my evilest grin and a large sloppy bite of whopper I had just purchased in the union. I’m Happy to say I managed to make the little bitch toss her cookies right there. :slight_smile:

I really, really, HATE those people.

20

What RubyStreak said. I can certainly sympathise with humane treatment of animals, but tactics like this simply piss off the populace and relegate them to the “kook” bin of the collective consciousness.