Vegetarian Discussion: Please Post A Message In Support Of PeTA

Please Post A Message In Support Of PeTA
Posts: 43

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)

Hannicullen
2006-09-03 16:24:24 EST
I found a website with an article attacking PeTA. Most of the
propaganda in the article comes from the Center for Consumer Choice (a
front group for the restaurant, alcohol, and tobacco industries.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/55163/what_everyone_should_know_aboutpeta.html

The bottom of the webpage has a form so you can leave your comments
about the article. If anyone has time, please leave a message in
support of PeTA.


Dutch
2006-09-04 04:27:53 EST

"hannicullen" <hannicullen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157315064.316614.258510@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>I found a website with an article attacking PeTA. Most of the
> propaganda in the article comes from the Center for Consumer Choice (a
> front group for the restaurant, alcohol, and tobacco industries.
>
> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/55163/what_everyone_should_know_aboutpeta.html
>
> The bottom of the webpage has a form so you can leave your comments
> about the article. If anyone has time, please leave a message in
> support of PeTA.

PeTA supports some very worthy causes, but the article is basically factual.
You can't have it both ways. you can't be an extemist organization and not
alienate some people.



D*@.
2006-09-04 22:31:58 EST
On 3 Sep 2006 13:24:24 -0700, "hannicullen" <hannicullen@gmail.com> wrote:

>I found a website with an article attacking PeTA.
_________________________________________________________
Intersting PeTA facts

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.

Rodney Coronado, a member of the Animal Liberation Front, pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to 57 months in prison for the destruction
of an animal diagnostics research lab at the University of California,
Davis in April, 1987 (total damage estimates: $4.5 million). PETA sent
$ 45,200 to Coronado's 'support committee,' which was a sum 15 times
greater than what PETA spent on animal shelters nationwide in all of
that year.

http://altpet.net/petition/arquote.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
PETA's sympathies for ELF actions were apparent in a recent speech by
PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich.

"I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses,
these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow," he said.

PETA payouts to radicals willing to carry out such crimes include:

-- $5,000 to Josh Harper, who was convicted of assaulting police and firing on
a fishing vessel;

-- $2,000 to Dave Wilson, convicted of firebombing a fur cooperative;

-- $7,500 to Fran Trutt, convicted of attempted murder of a medical executive

http://www.cdfe.org/peta_fox.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
[...]
WAVY-TV's coverage in Norfolk included heartbreaking details from the
manager of the supermarket whose dumpster became an impromptu pet
cemetery. "They just slung the doors [open] and started throwing dogs
... beautiful cats. I saw a [dead] beagle last week that was pregnant ... last
week it was 23 or 24 dogs ... it's happened to us nine times ... they drove
straight from there, straight here, and disposed of the dogs in 30 seconds."

Authorities told WNCT-TV in Greenville, NC that they've discovered more
than 70 dead animals in the last month that may be connected to PETA.
[...]
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm?headline=2833
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
[...]
The photos show the inside of PETA's van; the tackle-box "death kit"
(complete with syringes and lethal drugs); the trash dumpster where the
dead animals were found; and several animals buried the next morning
by local authorities.
[...]
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
>From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
no sign of changing.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
"I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the
animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through other workers
abusing the animals. I must have killed thousands of them, sometimes dozens
everyday."
-- Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, The New Yorker, April 14, 2003

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/peta.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.

A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.

[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.

''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.

People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stories/042701/new_0427010026.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Hannicullen
2006-09-07 19:52:08 EST

dh@. wrote:
> _________________________________________________________
> Intersting PeTA facts
>


So what have you proven with your post? That there were two "bad-eggs"
at a Virginia Facility? So what? Does that make the entire
organization bad? Does that mean all their goals are bad? Does that
mean all their members are bad?

All you have proven to me is that you are very susceptible to
right-wing, big-business propaganda. The petakillsanimals website you
mentioned is run by Rick Berman. He's a Republican with links to Newt
Gingrich and he was the Senior Vice President of the Steak and Ale
restaurant chain (Gee, I can't imagine why he would be opposed to
PeTA).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rick_Berman

But enough of him, let's talk about you. Why are you opposed to PeTA?
What industry do you work in? It has been my experience that the only
people who oppose PeTA are the people who make money from animals.
Factory farming, meat, dairy, restaurant, cosmetics - which one is it
for you?

If you are opposed to PeTA, then you must be in favor of these things:

Factory Farming
http://peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=103

Animals used for clothing
http://peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=56

Animal Experimentation
http://peta.org/mc/factsheet_experimentation.asp

Domestic pets killed for their fur
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=trent_fur


D*@.
2006-09-08 11:00:07 EST
On 7 Sep 2006 16:52:08 -0700, "hannicullen" <hannicullen@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>*h@. wrote:
>> _________________________________________________________
>> Intersting PeTA facts
>>
>
>
>So what have you proven with your post? That there were two "bad-eggs"
>at a Virginia Facility? So what? Does that make the entire
>organization bad? Does that mean all their goals are bad?

It depends on what you think is good or bad. If you think that domestic
animals should not be eliminated then yes, all their goals are quite obviously
bad. If you think some of them should be allowed then you certainly should
never send any money to PeTA, but instead send it to animal welfare
organizations that are involved with what you want to support. If instead
you believe that all domestic animals should be eliminated then PeTA is
as good as anywhere to send your money. Don't be fooled when they
pretend to want to provide decent lives for livestock or anything like that,
because all that is is a way they have of tricking people interested in
promoting decent AW, into sending money to an organization whose goal
is to eliminate the very animals people are sending money trying to help.
One of their more maniacal and dishonest supporters who is very active
in these ngs has demonstrated that for us. In a careless moment of
unusual honesty he admitted that:

"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete
elimination of animal use." - Dutch

And when I clearly pointed out the huge difference between their
objectives and those of animal welfare organizations, he became
terrified and hysterical:
_________________________________________________________
dh pointed out:

> AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
> farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
> the same thing, they are completely different objectives.

"Dutch" responded in desperate terror:

Shut the fuck up you stupid fucking moron. Do the world a favour and go blow
your stupid fucking head off with the biggest fucking gun you can find.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>Does that mean all their members are bad?
>
>All you have proven to me is that you are very susceptible to
>right-wing, big-business propaganda. The petakillsanimals website you
>mentioned is run by Rick Berman. He's a Republican with links to Newt
>Gingrich and he was the Senior Vice President of the Steak and Ale
>restaurant chain (Gee, I can't imagine why he would be opposed to
>PeTA).
>
>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rick_Berman

ANYONE who is in favor of humans raising animals for ANY reason
should be opposed to PeTA. Were you unaware of that? Certainly
anyone who is in favor of providing decent lives of positive value
for any--and especially for ALL!--domestic animals should be very
much opposed to PeTA.

>But enough of him, let's talk about you. Why are you opposed to PeTA?

Because I'm in favor of providing lives of positive value for ALL
domestic animals. Livestock...performing animals...animals used in
research...pets...even animals in zoos...ALL of them. That is the
complete opposite of what "aras" want to accomplish.

>What industry do you work in?

The entertainment business. It has nothing at all to do with any
animals, and that's more than enough information about me.

>It has been my experience that the only
>people who oppose PeTA are the people who make money from animals.

It has been my experience that the only people who are not opposed
to PeTA are people who either want to totally eliminate domestic animals,
or don't understand the huge difference between animal welfare and the
gross mi$nomer "animal rights".

>Factory farming, meat, dairy, restaurant, cosmetics - which one is it
>for you?

LOL! I have had enough experience around farms to understand that
many farm animals have lives of positive value, and had enough
experience with "aras" to understand that they have no clue how that
fact could be true. I've also had enough experience with them to know
why they have a reputation of being extremely ignorant and dishonest
...it's because they are.

>If you are opposed to PeTA, then you must be in favor of these things:
>
>Factory Farming
>http://peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=103
>
>Animals used for clothing
>http://peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=56
>
>Animal Experimentation
>http://peta.org/mc/factsheet_experimentation.asp
>
>Domestic pets killed for their fur
>http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=trent_fur

As I told you, I'm in favor of providing lives of positive value for
ALL domestic animals, NOT of eliminating all of them. If you can't
understand that, then you just can't understand it and almost
certainly never will be able to.

Double O'Malley
2006-09-09 05:54:34 EST
dh@. wrote:

> Don't be fooled when they pretend to want to provide decent lives for
> livestock or anything like that, because all that is is a way they
> have of tricking people interested in promoting decent AW, into
> sending money to an organization whose goal is to eliminate the very
> animals people are sending money trying to help.

But they aren't the same thing.

Animal Welfare is for animals that actually exist.

The PeTA goal is prevention, not elimination.

Double O'Malley
2006-09-09 05:59:54 EST
dh@. wrote:

> Don't be fooled when they
> pretend to want to provide decent lives for livestock or anything like that,
> because all that is is a way they have of tricking people interested in
> promoting decent AW, into sending money to an organization whose goal
> is to eliminate the very animals people are sending money trying to help.

You're saying that we should produce animals that will need help, so
that we can then help them. That's ridiculous.

Rick
2006-09-09 10:12:45 EST

"Double O'Malley" <OO@lava.org> wrote in message
news:edu2u5$fd1$1@emma.aioe.org...
> dh@. wrote:
>
>> Don't be fooled when they pretend to want to provide decent
>> lives for
>> livestock or anything like that, because all that is is a way
>> they
>> have of tricking people interested in promoting decent AW,
>> into
>> sending money to an organization whose goal is to eliminate
>> the very
>> animals people are sending money trying to help.
>
> But they aren't the same thing.
>
> Animal Welfare is for animals that actually exist.
>
> The PeTA goal is prevention, not elimination.
------------------
Yet they DO eliminate more animals than they save once they get
their bloody hands on them...



D*@.
2006-09-09 12:12:47 EST
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 02:54:34 -0700, Double O'Malley <OO@lava.org> wrote:

>*h@. wrote:
>
>> Don't be fooled when they pretend to want to provide decent lives for
>> livestock or anything like that, because all that is is a way they
>> have of tricking people interested in promoting decent AW, into
>> sending money to an organization whose goal is to eliminate the very
>> animals people are sending money trying to help.
>
>But they aren't the same thing.

No, in fact they're completely different ideas and goals:
_________________________________________________________
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of
animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease
prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
necessary, humane euthanasia.

Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights
are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates
when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human
purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the
benefit of both humans and animals.

http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.
. . .
The philosophy of animal rights is an inclusive philosophy.
Rights for nonhumans only make sense if we accept the total
inclusion of our human sisters and brothers as full and equal
members of the extended human family, without regard to race,
sex, economic status, religious persuasion, disability, or sexual
preference.

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
As two recent issues of Alternatives in Philanthropy discussed
("Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights: The Case of PETA," July 1997,
and "The Humane Society of the U.S.: It’s Not about Animal
Shelters," October 1997), animal rights organizations seek to end
traditional uses of animals. By contrast, animal welfare organizations
seek to improve the treatment of animals. Animal lovers who wish
to support animal-interest organizations should keep this distinction in
mind.

http://www.responsiblewildlifemanagement.org/from_animal_welfare_to_animal_rights.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

>Animal Welfare is for animals that actually exist.

That's the only kind of animals there are, but AW is intended for
animals who will exist in the future as well. As I keep pointing out,
anyone in favor of decent AW should be VERY opposed to the
gross mi$nomer "animal rights".

>The PeTA goal is prevention, not elimination.
_________________________________________________________
[...]
WAVY-TV's coverage in Norfolk included heartbreaking details from the
manager of the supermarket whose dumpster became an impromptu pet
cemetery. "They just slung the doors [open] and started throwing dogs
... beautiful cats. I saw a [dead] beagle last week that was pregnant ... last
week it was 23 or 24 dogs ... it's happened to us nine times ... they drove
straight from there, straight here, and disposed of the dogs in 30 seconds."

Authorities told WNCT-TV in Greenville, NC that they've discovered more
than 70 dead animals in the last month that may be connected to PETA.
[...]
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm?headline=2833
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
[...]
The photos show the inside of PETA's van; the tackle-box "death kit"
(complete with syringes and lethal drugs); the trash dumpster where the
dead animals were found; and several animals buried the next morning
by local authorities.
[...]
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
>From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
no sign of changing.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.

A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.

[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.

''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.

People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stories/042701/new_0427010026.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯


D*@.
2006-09-09 13:23:20 EST
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 14:12:45 GMT, "rick" <stop@stop.net> wrote:

>
>"Double O'Malley" <OO@lava.org> wrote in message
>news:edu2u5$fd1$1@emma.aioe.org...
>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> Don't be fooled when they pretend to want to provide decent
>>> lives for
>>> livestock or anything like that, because all that is is a way
>>> they
>>> have of tricking people interested in promoting decent AW,
>>> into
>>> sending money to an organization whose goal is to eliminate
>>> the very
>>> animals people are sending money trying to help.
>>
>> But they aren't the same thing.
>>
>> Animal Welfare is for animals that actually exist.
>>
>> The PeTA goal is prevention, not elimination.
>------------------
>Yet they DO eliminate more animals than they save once they get
>their bloody hands on them...

I don't see how they can believe their own bullshit, much less
try to get everyone else to believe it too. The notion that "ar"
would provide long happy lives for unwanted livestock is obviously
insane when we can clearly see that they don't even attempt that
for unwanted pets...when instead they *kill* them. The fact that they
*never!* buy animals headed for slaughter and provide them with
long happy lives proves the point even more.
The notion that "ar" would produce happy wild populations of
animals from livestock is even more insane just by thinking it through,
and the fact that they don't do it for unwanted pets--in fact they catch
them when they do get free and *kill* them!--should show even the
most mentally challenged of idiots that "ar" would *not!* do it. The
fact that "aras" *never!* buy any animals headed for slaughter and
release them to begin these supposed happy wild populations should
be even more proof to everyone.

Then we have the insanity of "pearl" absurdly denying there are a
lot of frogs in rice fields, yet going on to explain how she thinks these
frogs she denies exist survive when the fields are dried. She ridicules
the idea that frogs, eggs and tadpoles could be washed into fice fields
when they are flooded with water from rivers or creeks, but believes
that frogs in rice fields that she claims don't exist, live and reproduce
in the dry field margines knowing to return to them when the fields
themselves are dried...

How in the hell can people even convince themselves of such
idiocy, much less enough other people that "ar" organizations obtain
millions of dollars each year??? It certainly *seems* that all humans
should have developed beyond that, unless they have some sort of
severe brain damage to the extent that they couldn't even learn to
communitcate in this way.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron