Vote for C.O. in the Peta awards…

GetimagezgiBok Bok!

Vote vote vote, like a baby stoat!

The Peta awards has nommed (not to be confused with ‘nom nom nom’) Cute Overload in their pet blog category.

So, take time out from eating tofu to vote, Peeps!

VOTE HERE

Comments

  1. second

  2. Pearl Ostroff says:

    So did I.

  3. not my vote

  4. Mary (the first) says:

    I voted. Yep.

  5. Considering how often there are `cruelty to animals’ commentroversies here, that’s an interesting development…

  6. (the original) Mel says:

    yuck. a dubious honor if there ever was one.

  7. i do not support PETA.
    they take it too far

  8. Me too! I voted for you!

  9. Although I support the work PETA does, I do not like their methods. I’m not sure if I would vote….

  10. I won’t :/ I love CO, but not PETA.

  11. I couldn’t get past the first page of the survey, I answered all the questions but it wouldn’t go forward. Maybe it’s because I don’t know if Oreos are vegan or not?

  12. Yeah Sorry, I *heart* CO but I loathe PETA.

  13. Er, would that be the same PETA whose founders have said stuff like “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” and “Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.”

    Surprised that PETA are that fond of Cute Overload, tbh…

  14. well I can’t seem to vote because they want you to vote for everything else, too, and I ain’t a vegan so I don’t know what to vote for!

    I mean – who DOES make the best fake meat? I just don’t know!

    *sigh*

  15. Actually, the vote link appears to be a dead end. I voted for oreos, boca, etc (in vain) because when you click on the arrow it won’t let you proceed.

    Might wanna check that link, Meggarino.

    or:
    THEO!

  16. Voted! :)

  17. it worked for me… and let me skip through and only vote for CO. Like the others I find this a bit of a weird honour – but oh well.

  18. I’m with Rigal: PETA’s interest in CO is very suspicious, since CO often depicts animals in some form of captivity, such as the recent twin baby panda cubs.

    Now that CO has become such a popular site, it’s bound to attract opportunistic attention-seekers. I suspect that PETA has set aside its stated principles just long enough to use CO’s popularity for its own purposes.

  19. Um, does PETA know that the site advocates the EATING OF PUPPY AND KITTEN EARS??? Keep it under wraps, guys.

  20. I live for CO, but think PETA is one of the worst organizations on the planet. Sorry, Meg, but I can’t vote. :/

  21. berthaslave says:

    Couldn’t get past first page. PETA has done some good work but I have a feeling that if they knew I ate meat they would probably boycott ME, so I’m not too crushed about not letting them have my e-mail address.

  22. fish eye no miko says:

    Screw PETA. They’re hypocrites and bullies. While they protest animal testing, one of their higher-ups uses insulin; which is both a product of the very research they oppose AND contains animal product. Oh, but it’s ok, because SHE needs it.

    BTW, PETA kills thousand of animal every year:

    http://hamptonroads.com/node/271231

    “PETA euthanized nearly 2,000 animals in 2005, the last year figures were available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. PETA says euthanasia is necessary to ease suffering in certain animals.”

  23. Yeah, I just skipped through everything and voted for CO.
    And really people, CO is just for photos of cute animals! Can’t there be anything that doesn’t have to turn into a controversy?

  24. Yeah, I can’t vote either. Not sure it would be an honor to win anything from PETA.

  25. fish eye no miko says:

    AMB said: “Maybe it’s because I don’t know if Oreos are vegan or not?”

    I think Oreos have lard i them which is an animal product.

  26. Katherine Keegan says:

    Sorry, much as I love Cute Overload, I gotta go with Charlie on the Daily Coyote.

  27. Willow, only one thing.

    Cats in bags are adorable.

  28. I’m really surprised to see such a destructrive, militant fringe group referenced here (check the link). I’d be happy to vote against PETA on a C.O. poll, though.

  29. My bad. Daily Coyote wasn’t nominated so I voted for Cute Overload. Major mistake on PETA’s part.

  30. tried to vote but it didn’t work. I love PETA. (Without them, Jcrew would still be selling fur…)
    I don’t think standing in front of the court house holding signs, while that scumbag Michael Vick parades his smug self by, is too extreme.

  31. I’m all for CO, it is my daily dietary requirement.

    But PETA, hell, no love there. Sorry.

  32. PETA = left-wing fringe nutjobs. No vote here.

    Read it and weep:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL

  33. YIPPEE!! C.O. definately has my vote!!! I agree with PETA on a most things, but on other stuff I dont. They do take it too far on some issues. I am a huge animal rights activist, but I’m not the kind of person who is radical and extreme like PETA members are. I think that people’s dislike of PETA shouldnt keep them from helping C.O. win. This is commentroversy indeed.

  34. vote vote vote
    vote vote vote
    unless you are a goat
    coz goats cant vote
    vote vote vote

  35. Goats can’t vote? We need PETA, stat! Goats have rights too, and that includes the right to vote! Except I hear goats are commie-liberal-pinkos, you know. Not like those good, God-fearing rhinos.

  36. Up against PPK! I’m sorry, I couldn’t choose…I had to vote for both.

  37. mary (the first) says:

    What is PPK?? uh oh. Don’t make me scroll back through the PETA thing to find out. I did vote but only for C.O. I also don’t know if Oreos are vegan, etc. Or whatever. I do know I love C.O. !

  38. No Field Roast Italian Sausages? They knock tofurkey for a loop.

  39. Mary (the first) says:

    even though it never remembers my info. any more and I have to keep entering it.
    On a side note, does anyone know if “chia sheep” are considered animal or vegetable? I cruelly traded one away at lunchtime company “white elephant” gift exchange event. (p.s. no elephants of any color where harmed.)

  40. Wow, what controversy over a simple request to vote. I also love CO but not PETA and prefer not to direct web traffic their way. The folks at PETA have their hearts in the right place and want to help as many animals as possible (sometimes sacrificing the good of a few for the good of many), but I disagree with their methods and a number of their viewpoints (e.g. animals in zoos, pit bulls). To defend some PETA folks, most of their lower-level volunteers are pretty normal animal lovers who just aren’t aware of some of the views held by the folks who run PETA.

  41. I just looked at the original post and am against that stoats can vote, while goats apparently cannot. Why this prejudice? I will not stand for it. Fellow goat-lovers, join with me in protest! Let our cries fill the ears of those who would turn their backs!

  42. against = aghast

  43. Yeah, sorry. Love C.O., Love the ‘mals, DO NOT LOVE PETA. Animal Rights, absolutely yes, But PETA’s tactics make my skin crawl.
    You can have my vote on other webpolls.

  44. Oh, heck no! Sorry – I love CO like almost nothing else and check it several times a day, but I won’t touch anything related to PETA. Did you know they firebomb animal research facilities? Yeah, as a research scientist we had to have extra security measures if they were protesting near by.

    They are also anti pets so I can’t imagine why they’d take an interest in CO unless they had some suspicious motivations.

  45. I’ve never heard that PETA is anti-pet. I think they are “anti” un-neutered/spayed pets (for obvious reasons).

    http://www.helpinganimals.com/

  46. I vote where my stoat master commands me. :P

  47. actually, oreos *are* vegan, so go ahead and enjoy them- guilt free! personally, i prefer the wheat-free knock-offs from newman’s own.

    fake meats can be quite good- i know carnivores who eat ‘em as diet food. morningstar farm corn dogs rule!

    this vegetarian can’t stand peta- they are anti-pitbull and in my book that makes them super-duper naughty and only eligible for a bag of coal for Christmas!

  48. Do you *really* want to be supported by a rather misogynistic organization?
    http://feministing.com/archives/007762.html

  49. Big old “no” on whether I will visit PETA even to vote for one of the best sites on the net. PETA are a bunch of hypocrites, and pet killers.

    http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

    “Not counting the pets PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90 percent of the animals it took in during 2005.”

  50. PETA is anti-unfixed pets, which is great, but they have another agenda. They think there should be no more pets – for anyone.

    “In a perfect world, all other-than-human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme, as they were before humans domesticated them and as they remain in some parts of the undeveloped world.”
    — From The PETA Statement on Companion Animals

    “In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive “free” in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing “pets,” thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive.”
    — PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?

    “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, PETA 1982, p.15.

    “Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.”
    — Ingrid Newkirk, PETA, “Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Rights” (symposium) Harper’s, August 1988, p. 50.

    And my personal favorite, besides the guy who compared his daughter equally to an ant (but he was HSUS):

    “We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child”
    — Alex Pacheco, then Chairman, People for the Ethical Treatment of animals [PETA] (New York Times, January 14, 1989)

  51. I avoid all things PETA like the plague. They’re a truly vile organization.

  52. I can’t stand PETA either — is there a IHatePETAdotcom website? Anyway, I think it would be hilarious if CO did win, because one answer to future nuffing would be “PETA loves CO!”

  53. I can’t stand PETA either — is there a IHatePETAdotcom website? Anyway, I think it would be hilarious if CO did win, because one answer to future nuffing would be “PETA loves CO!”

  54. Ms. McPantiesInABunchnuff says:

    Perhaps PETA is trying to publicly distance themselves from the Nuffers? :D

    They are making a bold statement: We are NOT affiliated with any kind of Nuffers.

    I think it’s COOL!! This is a HUGE embarrassment to the Nuff community! PETA thinks they are WACKOS!!

    This is awesome! this is the equivalent of a Nuff dunktank at CO!! :D

  55. “Um, does PETA know that the site advocates the EATING OF PUPPY AND KITTEN EARS???”

    Best comment evar!!

  56. Link wouldn’t work for me either. Well, the ‘survey’ wouldn’t let me get past the first page. But this is probably a good thing. I’m not a fan of PETA either.

  57. PETA is a vile, evil organization that has its hearts in absolutely the wrong places. Hundreds of humans have starved because of PETA’s “animals before people” malevolence.

    Why is it that this site can’t stay away from racism, bigotry, and now hateful, evil groups like this?

  58. Wow, interesting – I assumed I was the only PETA-hater on CO! Shows how much I know!

  59. You’re really okay with being on a PETA list? http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
    That site should clear your mind a bit.

  60. One good thing about that poll was the list of (unknown to me, like nutter butter?) vegan food items at the beginning – a vegan friend is throwing a party next weekend, and I have to bring a dish.

    But c’mon now – for Best Vegan Junk Food: Primal Stick? OMG. The worst vegetarian item EVAR.

    Obviously, best fake meat is the Gardenburger Riblets. :) Add some sharp cheddar (*not* vegan cheese, REAL cheese) and put on a bun, yum!

  61. Gawd people. Most of you eat McD’s and purchase leather (and complain when anyone questions it) but then you go and pass a huge stinky dump when it comes to PETA. Get a grip. PETA’s in it for the money, no dount there, but at least they’re making money in the right direction.

  62. Honestly, CO, you should be telling people not to vote for you. PETA is horrible, I don’t want CO to go to their level

  63. I hate PETA too but I voted because it’s CO. didn’t give them my email address, however.

  64. As someone who actually does work that benefits animals both in terms of behavioral research and conservation efforts (at a zoo), I am so happy to see that so many CO readers understand that what PETA does doesn’t benefit animals, but is instead a political organization that holds an extremely limited viewpoint that does not account for the whole situation. They are short-sighted and do far more damage than good.

  65. good golly, it’s a freakin’ vote for CO. i’m a vegan who neither agrees with everything that PETA reps (i do think factory farming is barbaric), nor do i find everything on CO cute (rats? eww!), but i still voted for CO as best pet website.

  66. While I do like CO, I shan’t be contributing in an increase PETA’s web traffic. They don’t need any more encouragement.

  67. I’m a little apprehensive to visit PETA’s website. When I’ve gone there in the past, I’ve been bombarded with pictures of dead and tortured animals. :(

    I love animals and want to help them — I don’t need to see such cruel things, thanks. I know why they put them up there, but it’s a turn-off for me.

  68. *blinks* How can you not like rats?

  69. I would strongly encourage people to donate time and money to local no-kill shelters rather than PETA, if they really want to make a difference. Honest people who simply love animals shouldn’t get tossed in with the likes of these people:

    http://joey-gruber.tripod.com/id2.html

  70. I voted for CO. I am not a vegetarian, much less a vegan. However, in september I stopped eating meat from animals who were not raised for food humanely. I am certain it is because I have been reading CO for a number of years.

  71. Will not support PETA in any way, including voting on their silly website, even for CO.

    From the perspective of animals, we can make fire seemingly out of thin air, we have opposable thumbs, we produce food and drink almost like magic.

    To animals, we ARE gods. And gods need sacrifices. Tasty sacrifices.

  72. “I’m a little apprehensive to visit PETA’s website. When I’ve gone there in the past, I’ve been bombarded with pictures of dead and tortured animals. :(

    I love animals and want to help them — I don’t need to see such cruel things, thanks. I know why they put them up there, but it’s a turn-off for me.”

    Well, there are times when it is appropriate to use “shock”. PETA is certainly not the only organization to do it. I don’t think that’s problematic.

    Terrorism on the other hand….

  73. Awww, my last post was grammatically incorrect… That should be “to an increase,” not “in.”

  74. Since so many here disagree with PETA, but promote animal welfare, can you name an organization that does it properly, in your opinion. I’m asking in earnest, here.

  75. Not only does PETA take it too far…but we can’t even take care of ourselves as humans, let alone spend money frivolously trying to save animals (as cute and adorable as they all are!). There’s people in the world suffering and starving, people dying and sick, and yet here in North America we spend money and time on saving some chickens and bullying celebrities to not wear fur.

    If we want to save the animals from cruelty, we first need to save humanity.

  76. i’m a vegan, and i don’t agree with … many of peta’s methods. first of all, don’t confuse peta2 with peta, and don’t confuse either with the animal liberation front (most widely known for their… questionable tactic of “let’s release non-native laboratory/semi-domesticated animals into the wild so they can die on their own!”). either way, militant veganism sure ain’t the way to go for me, but peta has… accomplished things. for one, they’ve pushed fast food chains to phase out gestation crates.

    at any rate, i love the overload, i love animals and the environment, and i like to see strides to make all animals a little better off. let’s not bicker about peta’s politics.

    and yeah, oreos are vegan. they’re barely food, of course, but they’re vegan. they weren’t always (they used to contain lard), but, y’know. stupid oreos being so delicious. and so… indigestible. wee!

  77. I only support PETA if it stands for ‘People for the Eating of Tasty Animals’

    Can’t bring myself to even click on the link, otherwise.

  78. okay, also, being vegan is real inexpensive and benefits animals and the environment. we have a lot of things to save on this planet, but it’s going to be hard to save humanity without kiiiiinda preserving the environment. eating vegan is roughly the same as switching to a hybrid. and it really isn’t that hard.

    let’s just do what we can to make the world a little better, right, people?

  79. “Since so many here disagree with PETA, but promote animal welfare, can you name an organization that does it properly, in your opinion. I’m asking in earnest, here.”

    I’ve never heard of the Humane Society blowing up a research laboratory, or attacking people on the street. It has been around much longer- 50 years. I don’t believe we would have animal shelters today if it weren’t for the HS.

  80. No no and no again. I love animals and so I cannot support PETA. I mean.. you do realize those people put down over 90% of the animals they “rescue”?

    http://www.exoticcatz.com/dontbanpetatruth.html

  81. I don’t think C.O. wants to be associated with a hypocritical organization like P.E.T.A.

  82. I don’t think C.O. wants to be associated with a hypocritical organization like P.E.T.A.

  83. I love you CO, but I can’t vote for you when it comes to something PETA.
    They’re a bunch of hypocrits and well I just can’t support a group that’s willing to attack people, a group that themselves kill animals, a group that supports terrorists…….. etc etc etc…

    Down with PETA…. Up with CO though!

  84. Stoat stoat stoat Cast a leetle vote!

  85. ahhh thankfully plenty of anti-PETA people posting. I avoided this one because I don’t like many of the things PETA stands for, not the least of which is radical extremism bordering on terrorism. I won’t be clicking on links to any PETA-related websites any time in the near future. I do find it more than a bit ironic that PETA folks are even giving a nod or nomination to CO, considering their stand on domestic animals.

  86. PETA is an organization I do not support. My earliest memories of them was burning fur coats. Now I do not support wearing fur but as I walked past the cold homeless everyday on my way to work, I couldn’t understand how anyone could do that. If the animal is already dead and in a coat I just couldn’t see destroying it. I do support two animal agencies which I am very fond of. One is the ASPCA. The other is the Humane Farming Association.

    Personally I wouldn’t want CO to be assoicated with PETA in any way. I think the average CO visitor represents a non extreme animal rights person that can see the whole picture.

    *This has been a suprising Nuff-like comment from Metsakins. We are sorry for any inconvenience it has caused. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming of Metsakins “dying” from looking at animals and threatening to steal the really cute ones for supposed snorgling research!*

  87. for those having trouble voting … try “open link in new window” I had trouble and this worked for me!

  88. WOW! I posted the 3rd or 4th comment yesterday, and I was afraid that I was going to get attacked for not supporting PETA. I’m glad there are other people out there who feel the same way I do.

    If CO was on a poll for the Humane Society or the ASPCA, you’d have my vote in a heartbeat and probably multiple votes too!

  89. Wow — SO glad to see that most CO commenters know PETA for what they are. (And why not — intelligent, animal-loving people read CO, after all!)

    What surprises me MORE is that PETA would support this wonderful blog — after all, there are frequent posts of pets that all lack a disclaimer reminding us of how CRUEL it is to associate with animals, and even a few posts of *gasp!* healthy and happy exotic pets! EEEEE…

  90. Well, Oreos just changed the recipe from lard to something else,and not only are the vegan, they are Kosher! Countless generations of little Jewish kids had to forego the pleasure, but now, can’t you see all of those Kosher Grandmas and Grandpas with a big, cold glass of milk and the feeling of
    aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh that Oreos bring?! What a great step for civilization.

  91. Oh, yes, and I voted for you- I can handle a few crazies in my inbox-I’ll tell them off should they send me something- just my little bit for democracy.KSA

  92. circuscake says:

    cdd- this vegetarian thanks you for caring where your food comes from.

    nozaroc- the best friends animal society is my favorite critter charity by far- they do awesome work. and you can sponsor an animal as a gift for that special someone this holiday season!

    starpixie- taking care of animals goes hand in hand with caring for people. as gandi said “The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

    a few other favorite quotes:

    “I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.” Abraham Lincoln

    “The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man.” Charles Darwin

    “How smart does a chimpanzee have to be before killing him constitutes murder?” Carl Sagan

  93. @circuscake…I love that Sagan quote.

  94. That’s just weird. An organization that likes to kill pets and believes that nobody should own pets has a ‘best pet blog’ category.

  95. I didn’t see CO check block :( I tried to go back, but got zoomeranged. I tried :(

  96. You do just fine without the headcases at PETA.

    Unless you’re talkin’ about the OTHER PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals.

  97. Definitely have my vote.

    I guarantee 90% of the people who claim to be against PETA have no idea what it is they do or what they stand for. Please, don’t hate from ridiculous assumptions and bad rumors you probably got on comedy television. Learn and research before making yourself out to look ridiculous.

  98. D’oh! Sorry about the double post.

    I think that some of the best “animal friendly” organizations are the ones in YOUR OWN COMMUNITY; the little no-kill shelters, or the things like adopt-a-greyhound (or other discarded breed of your choice). A lot of the bigger organization, while flush with monetary contributions, are just as wasteful with YOUR money because they can be, and massive bureaucracies require massive expenditures just to keep themselves going (to hell with the mission statement!). Little groups live hand-to-mouth, and many of the folks involved are volunteers: they aren’t paid, they don’t need to be there, but they ARE there because they believe in the cause and know it’s the right thing to do.

    (and bats :[ cheerfully falls off the soapbox now)

  99. BabyOpossum says:

    metsakins – for what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure PETA does give away donated fur coats to the homeless and has done so for several years. It doesn’t surprise me to hear they’ve burned the coats in the past, though.

  100. fish eye no miko says:

    Definitely have my vote.

    Steven: “I guarantee 90% of the people who claim to be against PETA have no idea what it is they do or what they stand for. Please, don’t hate from ridiculous assumptions and bad rumors you probably got on comedy television. Learn and research before making yourself out to look ridiculous.”

    Ok, how about I hate them based on words from their own members, and things they themselves admit to doing?

  101. Steven: I guarantee 90% of the people who claim to be against PETA have no idea what it is they do or what they stand for. Please, don’t hate from ridiculous assumptions and bad rumors you probably got on comedy television. Learn and research before making yourself out to look ridiculous.

    —-

    Perhaps you should do your own research? So you’re telling me all the news stories of PETAs antics and wasted money suddenly DISAPPEAR when you do research? I’ve never heard of that. I hope you do realize the more research people do on PETA, the more of the absurd things they do come to light right? You’re going the wrong way man. If you want people to support PETA you should be telling them NOT to do any research. Research is precisely how I found out how much I despise them.

    Besides, say I have $1,000 to donate. Tell me what PETA would do with my money. Then tell me what the ASPCA would do with my money. Now tell me which is better if you truly love animals. I’ll give you a hint though. The money donated to the ASPCA goes towards stopping animal cruelty, rescuing animals, and caring for them. The money for PETA MIGHT go towards animals, and it might go towards stupid ad campaigns that do nothing but annoy people.

    I support CO. I support the ASPCA. I do NOT support PETA, ALF, and the like. So sorry CO but my hate for PETA leads me to not vote for you guys.

  102. who gives a damn what PETA does or doesn’t do? This is about CO winning. Also vote for Uncle Eddie’s Vegan Cookies. They’re amazing and even better than every non-vegan cookie out there. If you haven’t had them you should find a way to get them.

  103. I voted for you! :) Looong post about PETA- where to begin…? Pets- what they were saying was people never should have domesticated animals at all; we should have left them alone. A little late now, but at the VERY least we can stop contributing to the overpopulation problem by not supporting breeders by buying animals from them. Adopt those who need a home from shelters, and spay/neuter *all* pets. Taking it too far: Is it not taking it too far when male calves are ripped from their mothers almost immediately after birth, put into a crate during which it is effectively starved and can’t even lay down, much less turn around, where it has no comfortable straw to stand on (so its “meat” doesn’t turn red but instead stays white) and after 16 weeks, is slaughtered? Is it not taking it too far to slice off a chicken’s beak with NO anesthetic so she can’t peck her jailmates and damage the “meat”; to confine her to a cage smaller than a piece of computer paper where she can’t even flap a wing, and her feet sometimes grow *through* the bars; to never let her outside to see the light of day and live a NORMAL chicken’s life; when her egg-laying days are almost over, to starve her, thereby forcing her to lay one more time; to hang her upside down by her feet and pass her head through scalding water meant to immobilze & stun her; to slit her throat while she’s still alive? Is it not taking it too far to confine animals raised for their fur to tiny cages, and when the time comes, to vaginally or anally electrocute them, so as not to ruin the fur? Those are just a few examples of what some humans think is OK to do to animals, for our use. Those things won’t stop by us asking “Please.” Extreme actions such as those mentioned above call for extreme measures in return. To the one who said PETA would boycott you- that’s not it at all. It’s just that at the very least, people should have all the facts before they make a decision about whether or not to eat animal flesh. Ignorance is bliss, but not for the animal who has endured a lifetime of suffering before being murdered. Animal research facilities- ask Thalidomide babies how they feel about that. Thalidomide was tested on animals and had no (discernible) ill effects; yet millions of babies were born with flippers instead of arms and legs. Animal & human physiology is just too different for animal testing to be any good- not to mention WHAT RIGHT DO HUMANS HAVE TO TORTURE OTHER LIVING BEINGS??? Zoos: for the most part are jail for animals, and should not exist. The only good zoos are the ones for rescues, for animals who can’t be released into the wild, and those with breeding programs for endangered species. “Animals before people”: no, it’s animals AND people. Animals don’t have a voice, therefore people have to speak up for them. But just because I (and others) love animals and support organizations that help them doesn’t mean that at the same time I can’t love people and support organizations that help them. My heart is big enough for both!
    For the animals,
    Alicia
    allywag67@aol.com
    http://www.thewagband.com

  104. fish eye no miko says:

    A Lady asked: “who gives a damn what PETA does or doesn’t do?”

    Well, seeing as this poll is run by them, what they do or don’t do seems like a pretty relevant question.

  105. vladimir_dt says:

    Love this site, hope you win many awards, but this one isn’t something I can possibly support.

    PETA. Hypocrisy. Sorry.

  106. No way, no how, ain’t votin’. PETA clearly has some sort of ulterior motives and hidden agenda here folks and I for one ain’t buying it (witness soapbox comment above from Alicia). I agree with others who have posted here. If you love animals donate your time or money or both to your local no-kill shelters and animal fostering organizations. We adopted a purr-ecious girl-cat from Feline Rescue here in the Twin Towns and we love and appreciate her and the good work of this organization every single day.

  107. fish eye no miko says:

    “Thalidomide was tested on animals and had no (discernible) ill effects; yet millions of babies”

    Thousands. Not millions. Just for the record.

    “were born with flippers instead of arms and legs.”

    Well, I guess we should stop all animal testing, then.
    Wait, if we did that, Marybeth Westlake, a former PETA big wig, wouldn’t be alive, since she relies on that testing (and animal products in insulin) to survive.
    BTW, if you care so much about animals, how about all the ones PETA puts to sleep?

  108. arachnophile says:

    I just want to echo everything circuscake said.

    I honestly wish that PETA would work harder putting down the uprising of FUR in fashion again but I’m NOT going to work with them.

    I HAVE done my research and I’ve worked for animal rights my WHOLE LIFE but will never allign myself with that organization. You’re country’s SPCA did more against Vick and his ilk than PETA ever will.

  109. 7 Things You Didn’t Know About PETA:

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/consumer-freedom012807.htm

    My first experience with these “volunteerrorists” was at a horse show where several horses were “liberated” onto a highway near the fairgrounds.

  110. I echo the sentiments of the majority here. I love CO, but will not go to the PETA site. Activists of any kind sicken me.

    Atlanta has a wonderful place: http://www.atlantapets.org/ — No kill shelter, and they do spaying/neutering inexpensively, as well as neutering/spaying ferals. This is a place I support, as well as the Humane Societies.

  111. If it wasn’t something run/based in PETA I’d vote… CuteOverload always has my vote but PETA never has my support; they take it way too far and in doing so prove to be hypocritical. Anyone here recall the incident (http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/articles/2005/06/16/news/anews1.txt)
    involving 2 PETA employees dumping 31 dead animals?

  112. Oh, and in addition – let me just say it is HUGELY encouraging to see CO readers who clearly know their stuff! (: I did a project on PETAs dirty laundry in high school where I came up with twice the nasty information (from many, many sources) than I’d expected (despite having knowledge and dislike about PETAs practices beforehand). To those who support PETA – I’m sure your hearts are in the right place, but take a look around and see what information you stumble upon – I guarantee you that your time, money, and support is MUCH better placed in human societies and the ASPCA.

  113. Chiming in with “I <3 Teh Qte, but hate PETA".

    I have voted like a stoat in every single competish since CO began, but I’m passing on this one.

    Support your local humane society, People.

  114. I love animals, but Peta people have mental issues.

    By “owning” Pets, we go against they so called principles anyway.

  115. PETA? The same PETA that kill animals cruelly, without license and with drugs that are illegal? The same that feed carnivores with “vegan” food? The same seem to enjoy posing naked, preferrably in chains (talk about kink)?

    Quite a dubious honour. Pretty much like being called a “good person” by Nazis.

    Please, CO, refuse to have anything to do with them. Please!

  116. Sorry, just a follow-up: I’m German and I just realised that the Nazi comment might not suit the US-American frame of reference. Make that KKK, then.

  117. Nara, don’t worry – we Americans know plenty about Nazis, especially those of us of Jewish descent. But that brings to mind PETA’s horrible campaign comparing the death of chickens to the Holocaust. Talk about offensive…

  118. Heidstar said:
    No way, no how, ain’t votin’. PETA clearly has some sort of ulterior motives and hidden agenda here folks and I for one ain’t buying it (witness soapbox comment above from Alicia).
    ~~Yes, soapbox; but I’m unsure of what you meant by your comment…? I have no ulterior motive or hidden agenda; I’m just for animal rights *alongside* human rights.

    Fish eye no miko said:
    “Thalidomide was tested on animals and had no (discernible) ill effects; yet millions of babies”

    Thousands. Not millions. Just for the record.

    ~~As soon as I hit send, I said, “d’oh!” I do believe you’re right- but the point still stands.

    Fish also said:
    “were born with flippers instead of arms and legs.”

    Well, I guess we should stop all animal testing, then.

    ~~ABSOLUTELY!!!

    Fish went on to say:
    Wait, if we did that, Marybeth Westlake, a former PETA big wig, wouldn’t be alive, since she relies on that testing (and animal products in insulin) to survive.

    ~~You’re right. And God forbid I ever get any dread disease, I don’t want any medicine that’s been tested on animals or contains animal products.

    Fish said further:
    BTW, if you care so much about animals, how about all the ones PETA puts to sleep?
    ~~I definitely prefer no-kill shelters; however, I understand PETA’s stance (which isn’t to say I necessarily agree with it) that a zillion animals in an overcrowded, understaffed shelter is no true life for an animal. As for the story of the people who said they worked for PETA and then killed dogs… it was the people that did that, not sanctioned by PETA. When PETA found out, they severed all ties with those people. I wouldn’t be surprised if those people had been undercover operatives working at PETA, just like PETA has undercover operatives at places that abuse animals.

    Michelle provided a link to 7 things she thinks I didn’t know about PETA:
    1) PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group’s overall goal as “total animal liberation.” This means no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing, and no pets (not even seeing-eye dogs). PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of animals.

    ~~Yes, that’s the point. Animals should be left alone to live their lives as they see fit, not be kept, used, abused, tortured, and killed by humans.

    2) Despite its constant moralizing about the “unethical” treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, PETA has killed over 14,400 dogs and cats at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. During 2005, PETA put to death over 90 percent of the animals it collected from members of the public.

    ~~I would love to see the proof of that. As I said above, I know that PETA sometimes euthanizes animals (as do many other organizations that are for animal welfare) and while I don’t necessarily agree with it, I understand why they do it. Not to mention, many times the animals that PETA (and other organizations) rescue are in such bad shape, the kindest thing to do *is* to euthanize them.

    3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats.
    ~~One time I was standing in the middle of a boardwalk with TONS of room on both sides of me for people to walk without coming anywhere near me. With a smile on my face and polite words on my lips, I was holding out anti-circus pamphlets for anyone who wanted one to take. If they didn’t want one, I said “Thank you”- NOT in a sarcastic way- and they walked by. One “man” decided he didn’t want me there, and kept trying to make me move from the 2 square feet of boardwalk I was occupying. When I said no, I was there first, he called me a terrorist. This was just after 9/11, too. I said, “You’ve gotta be kidding me! I’m politely handing out literature to those who want to take it, not standing in anybody’s way, and I’m the terrorist? OK…” While I know the organization mentioned above is probably not as polite as I was, the government has the ability- the right, actually, thanks GW- to name just about anyone it wants to as a domestic terrorist. In fact, turns out the “man” was correct- the government could label me a terrorist for handing out literature. God Bless America.

    During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing recommendation, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime.
    ~~Of course he did- he was probably a PETA member and wanted to pass some of the “blame.” While I’m not saying I condone such actions, I do feel that much more needs to be done than saying “Please don’t hurt the animals.”

    And PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich told an animal rights convention in 2001 that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”
    ~~It may not be the nicest way, but it sure gets attention… attention the animals deserve to have given to their plight. Again, I’m not saying that I agree with that method, but he does have a point.

    4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, often waiting outside their schools to intercept them as they walk to and from class-without notifying parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” PETA brags that its messages reach over 2 million children every year, including thousands reached by e-mail without the permission of their parents. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”
    ~~I have a hard time believing that a PETA vp said that; however, even if they did: the meat & dairy industries frequently gear their campaigns towards children (see any “Got Milk?” ad). Why shouldn’t PETA? Children are huge consumers of lots of stuff; what a great way to get the message across. Having said that, no, I don’t hand things to children, or do anything against a parent’s wishes. Supporting PETA doesn’t mean I agree with *everything* they do; just as being Catholic doesn’t mean that I agree with *everything* the Catholic Church says. (Obey my husband? Ha!)

    5) PETA has used a related organization, the PETA Foundation, to fund the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a deceptive animal rights group that promotes itself as an unbiased source of medical and nutritional information. PCRM’s president also serves as president of the PETA Foundation.

    ~~Neil Barnard, MD, is not president of PETA. Ingrid Newkirk is. Of course PCRM isn’t unbiased- it’s for animal rights! But it *is* for responsible medicine (hence the name), and responsible medicine does not use animals. From the PCRM website:
    1. What concerns are raised by the use of animals for medical and scientific experiments?
    Serious ethical concerns are raised by the use of animals in experimental studies, particularly when the animals are subjected to painful procedures or toxic exposures. These concerns are heightened by a recent review of the scientific literature showing marked stress responses in animals undergoing routine laboratory procedures, such as caging, isolation, handling, and blood collection.

    In addition to the ethical issues, the profound differences in anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry between humans and animals make animals poor models for humans. Results from research on animals cannot always be accurately extrapolated to humans and, in many cases, animals have been poor predictors for how humans will respond to drugs, treatments, or diseases.

    6) PETA runs campaigns seemingly calculated to offend religious believers.
    ~~I’m Catholic, and not offended in the least. It’s not that PETA wants to offend- they just want to grab your attention.

    One entire PETA website is devoted to the claim-despite ample evidence to the contrary-that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian.
    ~~I believe that He was, not because PETA told me to, but because I know that Jesus was kind and loved all living creatures. The only evidence to the contrary that I would believe would be if the Lord Himself showed up at my house and told me that He wasn’t veggie. What is the ample evidence? A few mentions of fish? Doesn’t sound ample to me… and not having been written by Jesus Himself gives me cause to doubt it.

    PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment.
    ~~That’s one I hadn’t heard before. Do you have a link?

    Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs “died for their sins.”
    ~~Again, one I hadn’t seen- link?

    PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn’t be allowed.
    ~~Well of course it shouldn’t! No killing of an animal should be allowed! The commandment is “Thou shalt not kill,” not “Thou shalt not kill, but I only mean people,” or “Thou shalt not kill unless you’re hungry.”

    And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign crassly compares the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide with farm animals.
    ~~I don’t think it’s crass at all. The Holocaust (Jews & non-Jews alike were murdered) was horrible and should never be taken lightly. But why is it OK to commit *exactly the same* atrocities on animals raised for food? They are starved, beaten, kept in cages, abused (rape rack, anyone? Veal crate? Battery hen?), and then at the end, murdered. There is a great quote by Jeremy Bentham: “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?” The victims of the Holocaust suffered; so do the animals. Why is one OK and the other not?

    7) PETA has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, because they support animal-based research that might uncover cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.”
    ~~As would I!! Not only does animal research HURT, not help, people… but it is just plain wrong!! Who are we to put bleach in a rabbit’s eye? To remove a monkey’s eye and insert a coil- sans anesthetic, mind you- to induce strokes? What an evil thing to do! No matter what the outcome, the ends DO NOT justify the means, and it makes me sick to be part of a race- the human race- that thinks that those things are OK!!

    Omi-san said:
    I love animals, but Peta people have mental issues.
    ~~Wait- non-PETA people think it’s OK to torture & murder animals for food, for their skin, their fur; to tear them away from their families & natural habitats and force them to perform unnatural acts, beating them when they don’t perform (circuses, commercials); to perform grotesque experiments that they KNOW are torturous to an animal *just in case* it *might* help humans one day… but PETA people are the ones with mental issues? Get the plank out of your own eye before you tell me about the mote in mine…

    By “owning” Pets, we go against they so called principles anyway.
    ~~Yes… that’s why I don’t believe, regardless of the law, that people can own pets. Be their guardians, yes. I don’t believe one living being can own another. White people legally “owned” black people in the days of slavery; but legal doesn’t always mean right, and morally, whites were wrong. Same thing with animals (and no, I’m not comparing black people to animals, I’m comparing the “owned” then to the “owned” now)- the law may say you own an animal, but I doubt the animal believes you own it. And therefore, neither do I.
    -Alicia
    allywag67@aol.com
    http://www.thewagband.com

  119. fish eye no miko says:

    Dear God, Alicia… No one’s going to bother to read all that.

    I will reply to this, though:

    “God forbid I ever get any dread disease, I don’t want any medicine that’s been tested on animals or contains animal products.”

    Ok, thats your choice. But do you want to condemn everyone else with that disease (and other medical conditions) to death?

    BTW, I mentioned Marybeth–and it’s Sweetland not Westlake, sorry–to show what hypocrites PETA members are. “Animal testing is bad–unless it helps ME!” You really wanna support people who think that way?

  120. Alicia- I liked your posts. Well said rebuttals.

    I also agree with those who suggest supporting local shelters (I have volunteered at the one near me for 5 years now) and supporting the HSUS.

    I see the good that each organization does.

  121. It is not logical to say that just because animal testing wasn’t predictive in one case — of the toxic effects of thalidimide in humans — that no testing should ever be done. In fact, even if only half the drug testing was predictive, what are the other options? There will always be things that don’t match between rodent and human physiology, but there are many things that do. A majority of people in the world still want drugs developed to treat the myriad of diseases we have, so either we test them on animals or we test them on people. If you want drugs, but not animal testing, then you need to volunteer yourself or your family members to get injected with experimental medicines. If you don’t think that drugs should be developed, then, as F.E.N.M. says, “Ok, that’s your choice. But do you want to condemn everyone else with that disease (and other medical conditions) to death?” Hopefully the answer is no.

  122. Kestrien: Thanks for your patience with me :-)

    PETA didn’t dare run that particular campaign over here. We have rather strong laws concerning belitteling the victims of genocide. For the record: that is any genocide committed by any group of humans against any group of humans.

    That campaing was not only offensive, it showed a cruel disregard for human suffering and human dignity. Not to mention the factual errors: the Nazis were all about breeding, about removing unwanted streaks from the human gene pool. That is hardly of any concern when we’re talking about cattle or chicken.

    I do notice, however, that US-Americans frequently use the term “Nazi” very lightly, even jokingly. In contexts that have nothing to do with it, evem. Hence the frame of reference is definitely less strict and presumably less negative than it is here. From what I know of US-Americans, the term “KKK” would convey more of the connotations I wanted to bring across and hence be more appropriate.

    Before that campaing I considered PETA just another cult who sweettalked money out of the pockets of enthusiastic if naive believers into the pockets of the bigwigs. After that campaign I decided that I would disassociate myself immediately from anybody who knows the facts about PETA and still doesn’t condemn them. These types are dangerous, just as Nazis or the KKK are, especially as they give money into known terrorists organisations.

    There is NO good that PETA does beyond keeping up the show for the believers. And how thin that smokesceen is you can see in Alicia’s comments which are full of red herrings, strawmen and pleading of ignorance in spite of facts that bite PETA in the ass. I won’t strain the patience of those who do not believe in PETA by debunking it, best we leave that as an exercise to the philosophy students who might amble in ;-)

    I can think of four ulterior motives that would make PETA try to slime itself into the good graces of CO:
    1. CO readers might be convinced to fork over money (especially if they get email addresses),
    2. CO’s popularity might rub off on them,
    3. endorsing CO might be placate their own pet owning members,
    4. all of the above.

  123. Lots of misconceptions in this thread about PETA. PETA certainly isn’t perfect, god knows they can be ridiculous, but I agree with the poster above who pointed out that 90% of the accusations leveled here are inaccurate or blown out of proportion. Guys, make sure you know your sources and the vested interests behind them–in this case often of a commercial nature.

  124. fish eye no miko says:

    jjr said; “Lots of misconceptions in this thread about PETA. PETA certainly isn’t perfect, god knows they can be ridiculous, but I agree with the poster above who pointed out that 90% of the accusations leveled here are inaccurate or blown out of proportion”.

    That’s not what s/he said, actually. S/He said

    Seven: “I guarantee 90% of the people who claim to be against PETA have no idea what it is they do or what they stand for”.

    Not the same thing at all. And is an interesting assumption given that Seven barely knows any of us.

    And for the record, I DID check my sources for every claim I made. And I’ve come to the conclusion that PETA is full of hypocrites and bullies.

  125. Alicia –

    Well done.

    After reading through the pages and pages of omg PETA sucks (of which 90% is based on mis-information and/or the ‘reasoning’ of a 7th grader (which is -> my parents/friends/media told me it sucks, therefore it does)), it was nice to start seeing some posts of well thought out statements. (Pro or anti-peta).

    PS – I am not ‘die hard pro-peta nor anti-peta’. I don’t always agree with everything they do, but I do most always see the logic behind it.

  126. fish eye no miko says:

    lola said: “of which 90% is based on mis-information and/or the ‘reasoning’ of a 7th grader”

    Yeah. Insulting people is a good way to get them on your side.

  127. “While I’m not saying I condone such actions, I do feel that much more needs to be done than saying “Please don’t hurt the animals.””

    Such as? Since you’ve stepped up and spoken, why don’t you tell us what you think should be done.

    “And PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich told an animal rights convention in 2001 that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”
    ~~It may not be the nicest way, but it sure gets attention… attention the animals deserve to have given to their plight. Again, I’m not saying that I agree with that method, but he does have a point.”

    Wow. And how is it that “blowing stuff up” should not be considered terrorism by reasonable people?

    “Wait- non-PETA people think it’s OK to torture & murder animals for food, for their skin, their fur; etc. etc.”

    That’s certainly quite a stretch. If we’re not PETA members, we are inhumane murderers. So is that the kind of stuff they fill your heads with?

    “Supporting PETA doesn’t mean I agree with *everything* they do;”

    So let me get this straight… if someone supports PETA, they’re free to pick and choose the types of actions PETA funds, condones, encourages? But if someone is opposed to PETA, they obviously support animal torture and murder?

    “that’s why I don’t believe, regardless of the law, that people can own pets. Be their guardians, yes.”

    Define “guardian”

    I’m guessing it’s going to sound something like “to coexist with animals and look out for their welfare”. Does that include spaying and neutering? (mutilation). Veterinary care? (procedures without consent). Sustenance? (pet food). Shelter? (confinement). Seriously. I’m curious how you define “guardian”.

  128. Peta gives us normal people that favor animal rights a bad name. Extremism in any form is detrimental. It’s sad enough when stupid celebrities support peta, cause they don’t look into the organization past the acronym in their name.

  129. I love CO, hate PETA, as Penn Jillette has it right on them, they are full of B*S*. Do any tiny bit of digging for yourself, and open your mind to the possiblilities that they aren’t all they are cracked up to be and you will see the truth.

    Never blindly follow like a zealot as some here seem to do, wether you agree or disagree with any point of view, do yourself a favor and look into both sides of the arguement. You will find yourself to be a more well-rounded individual.

  130. fish eye no miko says:

    Michelle said: “I’m guessing it’s going to sound something like ‘to coexist with animals and look out for their welfare’. Does that include spaying and neutering? (mutilation). Veterinary care? (procedures without consent). Sustenance? (pet food). Shelter? (confinement). Seriously. I’m curious how you define ‘guardian’.”

    And if we’re going to grant animals right, what about their responsibilities? If an animal kills a person, do we put if on trial for murder? What if it destroys property? If the dog that lives next door poops on my lawn, can I sue him for damages to my landscape?

  131. fish eye,
    “Yeah. Insulting people is a good way to get them on your side.”

    Touche.

    However, based on the above comments, if I support PETA, I am a member of or am a: destructive, militant fringe group, left-wing fringe nutjobs, anti-pet, vile, evil organization, hateful, evil, hypocritical,
    attack people, a group that themselves kill animals, a group that supports terrorists, radical extremism bordering on terrorism, volunteerrorist…

    Thus since it didn’t really strike me as any kind of situation where there would be an actual conversation or persuasion of either side, my intention was: To give props to Alicia. Possibly vent in an because I’m quite frankly so very tired of “jokes” about other beings’ suffering.* And that’s about it.

    Nonetheless, I probably should have bit back or rephrased my statement.

    *”To animals, we ARE gods. And gods need sacrifices. Tasty sacrifices.”
    “People for the Eating of Tasty Animals”

  132. “Thalidomide was tested on animals and had no (discernible) ill effects; yet millions of babies…”

    Er, you do know that the issue with thalidomide was insufficient testing – the pharmaceutical company started distributing before testing was completing, and didn’t even test it on pregnant animals. It’s harsh, but more testing would have shown that the drug was unsuitable for preganant mothers – the company was arrogant and impatient.

  133. Sorry – can’t vote for this.

    PETA can’t decide on what they like and what they don’t like.
    They spread lies around what they don’t like at the moment – I’ve done hours and hours of research on this subject.

    PETA claims to not believe in keeping animal companions as pets, however MANY of their celebrity “supporters” keep hunderds of animals as pets.

    Not only that, but this website certainly doesn’t seem to have a problem with keeping pets. In fact, most of the posts seem to be photos of peoples’ pets — encouraging it.

    Wow, PETA sure can’t make up their minds.

    Their violent methods sure do get attention, but I don’t think that violence should be the answer. There need to be better ways to make their points.

  134. Sorry, but I just can’t vote there, as much as I love CO. PETA wants to eliminate pet ownership, even though animals are some of our most beloved companions. I, too, am suspicious of their interest in CO.

    And, for the record, guys: Animal Rights is NOT left-wing. Animal Welfare is. There IS a difference.

    http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/09/politics_of_animal_protection.php#more

  135. circuscake says:

    here’s the thing about animal testing from a logical standpoint- it’s simply not cost effective. 90% of the info scientists get from it has to be thrown out because it doesn’t co-relate to humans. there are computer programs now that do a better, cheaper, more efficient job.
    and there are humans out there who are literally dying willing to take the chance and be the test subjects instead of the animals.

    also, in the words of George Bernard Shaw: “if you cannot attain knowledge without torturing a dog, you must do without knowledge.”

    and Alice Walker: “the animals of the world exist for their own reasons. they were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white people, or women were created for men.”

    peace to all of you this holiday season.

  136. sigh.

  137. “3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats.
    ~~One time I was standing in the middle of a boardwalk with TONS of room on both sides of me for people to walk without coming anywhere near me. With a smile on my face and polite words on my lips, I was holding out anti-circus pamphlets for anyone who wanted one to take. If they didn’t want one, I said “Thank you”- NOT in a sarcastic way- and they walked by. One “man” decided he didn’t want me there, and kept trying to make me move from the 2 square feet of boardwalk I was occupying. When I said no, I was there first, he called me a terrorist. This was just after 9/11, too. I said, “You’ve gotta be kidding me! I’m politely handing out literature to those who want to take it, not standing in anybody’s way, and I’m the terrorist? OK…” While I know the organization mentioned above is probably not as polite as I was, the government has the ability- the right, actually, thanks GW- to name just about anyone it wants to as a domestic terrorist. In fact, turns out the “man” was correct- the government could label me a terrorist for handing out literature. God Bless America.”

    This is not a rebuttal of anything. Just because *you* aren’t a convicted arsonist or violent criminal doesn’t mean PETA doesn’t hire them. The person who labeled you a terrorist for passing out literature was wrong. When the people here talk of PETA’s terrorism they’re referring to the blowing up of clinics, throwing paint on innocent people and going into labs and destroying research.

    “During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing recommendation, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime.
    ~~Of course he did- he was probably a PETA member and wanted to pass some of the “blame.” While I’m not saying I condone such actions, I do feel that much more needs to be done than saying “Please don’t hurt the animals.”

    See, this is where you lose people. You are implicitly condoning this man by basically saying he had the right idea.

    “6) PETA runs campaigns seemingly calculated to offend religious believers.
    ~~I’m Catholic, and not offended in the least. It’s not that PETA wants to offend- they just want to grab your attention.”

    And then you say:
    “PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn’t be allowed.
    ~~Well of course it shouldn’t! No killing of an animal should be allowed! The commandment is “Thou shalt not kill,” not “Thou shalt not kill, but I only mean people,” or “Thou shalt not kill unless you’re hungry.”

    So I guess Judaism doesn’t count as a religion? Don’t you think a Kosher Jew would be offended by what you just said?

    “And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign crassly compares the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide with farm animals.
    ~~I don’t think it’s crass at all. The Holocaust (Jews & non-Jews alike were murdered) was horrible and should never be taken lightly. But why is it OK to commit *exactly the same* atrocities on animals raised for food? They are starved, beaten, kept in cages, abused (rape rack, anyone? Veal crate? Battery hen?), and then at the end, murdered. There is a great quote by Jeremy Bentham: “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?” The victims of the Holocaust suffered; so do the animals. Why is one OK and the other not?”

    This is where you completely lost me. I normally don’t get emotional like this, but how dare you. Do you have ANY clue how offensive that is? You should have stopped right here. You clearly have never met a Holocaust survivor, you probably haven’t even met too many Jews. To compare them to “chickens” is gross beyond words.

    “By “owning” Pets, we go against they so called principles anyway.
    ~~Yes… that’s why I don’t believe, regardless of the law, that people can own pets. Be their guardians, yes. I don’t believe one living being can own another. White people legally “owned” black people in the days of slavery; but legal doesn’t always mean right, and morally, whites were wrong. Same thing with animals (and no, I’m not comparing black people to animals, I’m comparing the “owned” then to the “owned” now)- the law may say you own an animal, but I doubt the animal believes you own it. And therefore, neither do I.”
    Yeah, just stop. People are not equal to animals.

    “~~As would I!! Not only does animal research HURT, not help, people… but it is just plain wrong!! Who are we to put bleach in a rabbit’s eye? To remove a monkey’s eye and insert a coil- sans anesthetic, mind you- to induce strokes? What an evil thing to do! No matter what the outcome, the ends DO NOT justify the means, and it makes me sick to be part of a race- the human race- that thinks that those things are OK!!”

    Alicia- it is clear from your comments that you value animal life above human life. That, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most people, is very very wrong. You think the Holocaust is morally equivalent to factory farming. You think slavery is morally equivalent to keeping pets, despite the fact that pets are often treated well and very happy in their homes, UNLIKE THE SLAVES. You think curing AIDS is less important than animal testing, regardless of the MILLIONS OF PEOPLE SUFFERING AND DYING IN AFRICA AND ALL OVER THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. You don’t care about them, you care about animal testing. Do you understand now why people would call you an extremist?

    Let me pose a scenario for you and all the other pro-PETA people:

    If you are standing along a rushing river, and a human child and a dachshund are both caught in the current headed for the falls, would you not hesitate to reach for the human child?

    If you would reach for the dachshund instead of the human child I think you need to do some serious soul-searching. And if you would pull the child out first, you obviously value human life at least slightly more than animal life.

    Another question for you…do you oppose all farming or just factory farming? In developing nations, where malnutrition and undernourishment are rampant, the fortunate people are those who own livestock- since livestock can be sold for a good price. It also gives a regular supply of food. Would you deny these people their livelihoods just for animal rights?

  138. circuscake says:

    okay. maybe the quotes in my last missive were more incendiary than earlier ones. I recently stumbled across ‘em and found them thought-provoking. I honestly struggle quite a bit morally with the animal testing.

    my bigger point was economics- a lot of animal testing done is wasteful money-wise when there really are so many people suffering. As with anything that’s a money-maker, the moral lines become quite blurry for some folks and rampant waste occurs. this is why PETA pisses me off. they go to the extreme instead of just stating some sane, practical facts to make their case. they are so extreme and crazy that sometimes I think they can’t be real- they’re just like that to make any animal rights activity look completely insane.

    in a way, i do understand some folks loving the animals more than people. people can really bring you down in a myriad of ways, and coming home to my critters at the end of the day is a real treat, the love they share with me is so helpful to me emotionally. but then, so is a phone call from my best friend. i need them both.

  139. Huh. Funny actually seeing people claiming to support PETA. Those of you that do, who are saying that the rest of us just don’t know what we’re talking about, shouldn’t it give you some kind of clue? 130+ comments, and only a couple of them in support? Please please please do your research on PETA and it’s tactics before supporting the organization. And visit sites like this that tell the ugly side:

    PetaKillsAnimals.com
    http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ (search for PETA)
    http://www.myspace.com/thetruthaboutpeta

  140. “in a way, i do understand some folks loving the animals more than people. people can really bring you down in a myriad of ways, and coming home to my critters at the end of the day is a real treat, the love they share with me is so helpful to me emotionally. but then, so is a phone call from my best friend. i need them both.”

    1.) According to Alicia or PETA you are the equivalent of a slave-holder, because you own critters.

    2.) It is one thing to say you prefer animal companionship to human. It is another to value the lives of animals more than the lives of people. If your best friend was drowning and one of your pets was drowning, who would you save?

    If animal testing would cure AIDS and therefore relieve the suffering of millions of people world-wide, then I am all for it. The percentage of people with AIDS is as high as 20% in some African countries. Whole families are dying. Thousands of children are being left orphaned. To say you would rather this continue is almost sociopathic.

  141. just a note says:

    just for the “neutering=mutilation” comment, i’d like to point out, for one thing, that if a female cat isn’t spayed and isn’t having babies every cycle, her eggs get encysted. :(

    also that the san francisco spca did a lovely job of spaying my little friend.

    also that humans and cats have been evolving together for centuries…as have humans and other animals…condemning the “use” of animals by humans is silly, and btw vegetables are alive too…it’s a circle of life, and humans should be more mindful of their place in it, but, for example, i’d say that the manufacturing vegan boots causes far more harm to human, animal, and environment, than using a cow’s skin to make shoes with.

  142. No ulterior motives??? Right. Like nominating CO in an entirely bogus and hypocritical “contest”–best Pet Blog from an organization that advocates abolishing pet ownership–in order to bombard the comments for purposes of propagandizing ad nauseum for PETA isn’t an ulterior motive? Uh-huh.

    Time to go hug my lovingly ADOPTED, INDOOR LIVING, PET-FOOD EATING, NEUTERED cats and eat a big ol’ hunk of cheese.

  143. “there are computer programs now that do a better, cheaper, more efficient job.”

    Please provide more info on this. Like, a link to a company that has such a program that has been validated in the industry. I am in the business, and believe me, I only hear this comment from non-scientists I have NEVER heard this from a biologist doing research. If there WERE a computer program, and it was good, every single company would enbrace it immediately. Animal testing is costly and time consuming, and as has been pointed out, and we readily admit, not 100% accurate. The reason it is done is because there is no such “program” that can take its place. If you know of one, and I am serious, please share this information.

  144. Quoting from above: “Funny actually seeing people claiming to support PETA. Those of you that do, who are saying that the rest of us just don’t know what we’re talking about, shouldn’t it give you some kind of clue? 130+ comments, and only a couple of them in support?”

    All this tells us is that most of CO’s audience (or its most vocal audience at any rate) is suspicious of animal rights organizations (and often seem to hold fairly traditional / conservative beliefs in general). That’s their / your right. But that doesn’t increase the power of your argument, even at 130+ comments.

    And invoking the Center for Consumer Freedom (www.consumerfreedom.com), you can’t be serious? that’s like citing the National Enquirer. THey are the organization who claim there is no obesity-problem in the US, McDonald’s is good for you, etc., etc. I think it’s one of the most heinous site on the web. But it tells you a lot about why certain people / media outlets rant against PETA: because PETA threatens commercial interests, and that bothers some of the most powerful interest groups out there.

  145. fish eye no miko says:

    jjr said: “All this tells us is that most of CO’s audience (or its most vocal audience at any rate) is suspicious of animal rights organizations (and often seem to hold fairly traditional / conservative beliefs in general)”

    Bullshit. Not liking ONE rather extreme organization tells you no such thing, anymore than you supporting PETA tells us anything about your overall views.

  146. Mmmmm… Commentroversies are delicious…

  147. “just for the “neutering=mutilation” comment, i’d like to point out, for one thing, that if a female cat isn’t spayed and isn’t having babies every cycle, her eggs get encysted. :(“

    Thank you for helping me make my point. When a pet is spayed or neutered, parts essential to the animal’s sexuality and reproduction are removed, which is the very definition of mutilation.

    What you may have missed was that my comment was meant to sound ridiculous. Reasonable people care for, alter, and even humanely destroy their beloved pets because it is often what’s best for the animal. These procedures, the very acts PETA so vehemently opposes (proprietorship, surgical alteration, destroying), are acts which the organization and members commit themselves in the name of their cause. The irony here is that when PETA members commit these acts, they claim some imagined higher ground, which simply does not exist. It’s hypocrisy, plain and simple.

  148. Ariel -
    “Please provide more info on this. Like, a link to a company that has such a program that has been validated in the industry. I am in the business, and believe me, I only hear this comment from non-scientists I have NEVER heard this from a biologist doing research. If there WERE a computer program, and it was good, every single company would enbrace it immediately…The reason it is done is because there is no such “program” that can take its place. If you know of one, and I am serious, please share this information.”

    http://www.welch.jhu.edu/internet/animal.html
    has a long list of links to alternate resources.
    http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/epaa/index_en.htm
    http://caat.jhsph.edu/
    http://www.drhadwentrust.org.uk/

  149. Lola, those resources seem to suggest that they’re working on alternatives, not that the alternatives are actually complete and ready to be used. Then again, I don’t have time to click a thousand links just to find something useful.

  150. Hey would love to vote for your site, your awesome cute site, but if PETA is directly involved, then well I don’t want to support something that they are behind. Give them traffic and all that, you know?

  151. Glad to see so many educated Peeps on this site! CO, adorable. Peta, not so much :P How about linking this in the cute or sad category? ;) I hope they don’t use this ‘contest’ to then target the most popular sites :(

  152. circuscake says:

    well, to be honest diana, i can think of a few people i’d let drown in order to save an alley cat instead.

    but if it was my dog and my best friend? i would probably die trying to save both, i would not be able to choose one over the other. i don’t have children. my animals are my kids. that probably sounds silly and pathetic to you. so be it. for me, it works.

  153. JinxtheCat says:

    PETA is scary. I love CO, but cannot involve myself with anything PETA. Sorry Meg.

    cuteoverload rocks!!

  154. “Activists of any kind sicken me.”

    Priceless. I mean, really? Activists of ANY kind?

    (And no, I’m not defending PETA. Just wondering what MLK Jr. would think of this statement…)

  155. aaa –

    http://altweb.jhsph.edu/searchaltdata.htm
    Has a database in which to search for alternatives.

    Ariel said the alternates don’t exist and asked for some links to alternatives. So I did 3 minute search and got those. There are many alternatives in existence – linked to by those sites and by others I did not list. And yes, there are some that are alternatives in progress.*

    However, for those that have no current alternative, I stand with George Bernard Shaw – “If you cannot attain knowledge without torturing a dog, you must do without knowledge.”

    I also stand with the concept that for better or worse, humans have been amazingly creative, inventive, and resilient creatures. If we can clone a sheep, fly people to the moon, make a car run on hydrogen cells, etc etc, we can figure out alternatives to any torturous method we currently use. And, were the current methods no longer allowed, I’d bet we’d figure out alternates amazingly quick. (Or, for many of these tests, realize: Holy crap! We don’t need to stick monkeys in the pit of despair to know what is blatantly obvious – when stuck in such a contraption, any creature will become horrible depressed and psychotic).

    *Assuming the discussion is of pharmacological substances. If we are talking about cosmetics, then there clearly are many alternatives – to the point that the EU has implemented the ban of all cosmetic testing on animals by 2009 as well as outlawing the sale of tested cosmetics.

  156. Hi! I’m veg as well, and a big fan of CO, and I’m with some of you: While I don’t support PETA 100% (I was upset about the pit bull thing too), they do do some good stuff. Not everyone who works/volunteers for them are crack pots. Don’t believe everything that is on the internet.
    Looking for a better organization? SOmeone else mentioned The Humane Society, they are great. So is the ASPCA, but they are a HUGE supporter of IAMS pet food (which is owned by Procter and Gamble, a horrible, horrible company).
    But again, its just a simple survey, lets not make it political!

  157. Thanks for the links. There are certainly alternatives, in some cases, to animal testing. Researchers welcome and do take those alternative approaches, if they are appropriate. What I asked for, however, was a link to a *computer program* that does a “better, cheaper, more efficient job”. As I stated before, this would certainly be welcome, but as such, does not exist at this point. The only reason I persist on this point is that people without actual knowledge in the field continue to toss off this remark as if it is true and well-known by everyone. It is frustrating and annoying, because it suggests that every scientist is somehow ignoring this huge obvious thing that exists, which would make our work immeasureably easier and less controversial, but we stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it! There is no computer program that can take the place of research. This is not controversial, because it is simply true.

  158. I know this thread is ending because it’s almost off the front page, but I find this line of discussion interesting, so one more comment. I agree, lola, that “were the current methods no longer allowed, I’d bet we’d figure out alternates amazingly quick.” The current challenge is that the FDA wants companies to be pretty darn sure that if they inject an experimental medicine into a human, it won’t kill them immediately, and the general public concurs. If people were willing to accept a higher level of risk, including death, in clinical trials, then we could use fewer animals as predictors. In effect, the experienta woud actually be on the human. Not surprisingly, few people I have suggested this to would be willing to do this.

  159. You know, whatever your opinion on the subject, it gets really boring when nobody bothers to read the previous comments and repeats the same thing over and over again until we have THIS many comments! Okay, some people like PETA, some people don’t, we’ve definitely established that now, but unless you have something completely new to say, you might want to consider keeping it to yourself.

    Just a point. If anyone reads this!

  160. Puddin’?

  161. Maybe the person who said the comment about activists of any kind scare him meant radicals. Hopefully – as the two are very different and radicals do SCARE me. I also will not vote and am a bit surprised as well for PETA to be having CO in a voting contest. Makes me wonder what they’re up to…….

  162. I’m a basic science researcher and I wanted to thank everyone on here who spoke out against PETA :D

  163. Sorry for me piping up again, but I can’t let this pass.

    BB said “But again, its just a simple survey, lets not make it political!”

    This is one thing that really annoys me about Americans. Haven’t you guys realised that there IS no a-political thing? It’s in the word itself: polis means community.

    PETA is actually a good example. Some people here say that not all PETA members are arsonists (to avoid the more politically laden word terrorist), so PETA itself isn’t something to fight against. Some others here call for ignoring PETA’s crimes (used in a moral, not a legal sense), because not doing so would somehow make the discussion “political” (whatever that is supposed to mean). None of those people see the end of their feelgood-statements: that there ARE dangerous organisations and that ignoring the frontend protects the violent backend.

    And as to Jen: you keep making our lives better, with as little loss of animal life as you can, and we try our best to keep PETA off your back. Fair deal :-)

  164. Good posts Ariel and Nara.. I agree. :)

  165. Hello all-
    I was away for a few days due to Christmas, but I knew there would be tons of posts. My replies, for anyone who’s interested:

    Fish eye no miko said:
    Dear God, Alicia… No one’s going to bother to read all that.

    ~~Well, I can’t force anyone to read what I write, but if I don’t write it, I *know* they won’t read it.

    Fish also said:
    I will reply to this, though:

    “God forbid I ever get any dread disease, I don’t want any medicine that’s been tested on animals or contains animal products.”

    Ok, thats your choice. But do you want to condemn everyone else with that disease (and other medical conditions) to death?
    ~~I don’t want to condemn anyone to suffering or death; that includes innocent animals.

    BTW, I mentioned Marybeth–and it’s Sweetland not Westlake, sorry–to show what hypocrites PETA members are. “Animal testing is bad–unless it helps ME!” You really wanna support people who think that way?
    ~~I would love to see proof of your claims; and even if they’re true, not all PETA members are hypocrites. I’m certainly not. Speaking of hypocrites, I have a hard time believing anyone who says they love animals and then proceeds to eat one.

    Izzy said:
    Alicia- I liked your posts. Well said rebuttals.
    ~~Thank you!

    I also agree with those who suggest supporting local shelters (I have volunteered at the one near me for 5 years now) and supporting the HSUS.
    ~~Agreed- besides myself monetarily supporting a few animal charities, my band plays a benefit gig for the local SPCA every year.

    I see the good that each organization does.
    ~~As do I- each does their own thing, and every little bit helps.

    Ariel said:
    It is not logical to say that just because animal testing wasn’t predictive in one case — of the toxic effects of thalidimide in humans — that no testing should ever be done. In fact, even if only half the drug testing was predictive, what are the other options?
    ~~I think it’s quite logical; thalidomide was the best example I could think of. Other options include human volunteers, computer programs, and dare I say, death row inmates?

    There will always be things that don’t match between rodent and human physiology, but there are many things that do. A majority of people in the world still want drugs developed to treat the myriad of diseases we have, so either we test them on animals or we test them on people.
    ~~Exactly! I’m not saying I don’t want drugs that help people- but not at the expense of an innocent animal.

    If you want drugs, but not animal testing, then you need to volunteer yourself or your family members to get injected with experimental medicines.
    ~~And there are people that do. However, I don’t feel that the case is that unless humans volunteer, animals need to suffer. There are other options.

    If you don’t think that drugs should be developed, then, as F.E.N.M. says, “Ok, that’s your choice. But do you want to condemn everyone else with that disease (and other medical conditions) to death?” Hopefully the answer is no.
    ~~My answer is above. :)

    Nara said:
    That campaing was not only offensive, it showed a cruel disregard for human suffering and human dignity.
    ~~I disagree; it was comparing what the humans went through to what animals go through every day. Show me what the difference is, besides one being a human animal and the other a non-human animal. And what kind of dignity do humans have when they commit those atrocities on *any* being, human or not?

    Not to mention the factual errors: the Nazis were all about breeding, about removing unwanted streaks from the human gene pool. That is hardly of any concern when we’re talking about cattle or chicken.
    ~~Not true- it’s how the Nazis went about it that is being compared to the way we treat our animals. Nazis experimented on humans; humans experiment on animals. Nazis killed humans in a terrible variety of ways; humans do the same to other animals.

    Before that campaing I considered PETA just another cult who sweettalked money out of the pockets of enthusiastic if naive believers into the pockets of the bigwigs.
    ~~As I consider the USDA to be doing the same to the American public.

    After that campaign I decided that I would disassociate myself immediately from anybody who knows the facts about PETA and still doesn’t condemn them.
    ~~Learn the facts about how animals are treated on factory farms, fur farms, pharmaceutical labs… then decide whom you should condemn.

    These types are dangerous, just as Nazis or the KKK are, especially as they give money into known terrorists organisations.
    ~~I’m about the least dangerous person there is… I will stand up against injustice, though, whether against human or non-human animals.

    There is NO good that PETA does beyond keeping up the show for the believers.
    ~~Not true. For instance, many fashion designers that used to use fur have sworn it off. A few fast-food chains have made some improvements in how the animals they slaughter are treated during their lives.

    And how thin that smokesceen is you can see in Alicia’s comments which are full of red herrings, strawmen and pleading of ignorance in spite of facts that bite PETA in the ass.
    ~~What? Sorry, didn’t get that at all.

    I can think of four ulterior motives that would make PETA try to slime itself into the good graces of CO:
    1. CO readers might be convinced to fork over money (especially if they get email addresses),
    2. CO’s popularity might rub off on them,
    3. endorsing CO might be placate their own pet owning members,
    4. all of the above.
    ~~As much as I love CO, I don’t think it has *that* much influence on people’s minds. Here PETA was trying to do a good, fun thing… And BTW, PETA didn’t put its poll on this site. The owner of the site did that so CO would win its question in the poll.

    Lola said:
    Alicia –

    Well done.
    ~~Thank you!

    ~~, in order to save at least *some* bandwidth…

    PS – I am not ‘die hard pro-peta nor anti-peta’. I don’t always agree with everything they do, but I do most always see the logic behind it.
    ~~I am more pro than against, but just like you, I don’t agree with everything. But *basically*, I agree with them and do see their logic.

    Michelle said:
    “While I’m not saying I condone such actions, I do feel that much more needs to be done than saying “Please don’t hurt the animals.””

    Such as? Since you’ve stepped up and spoken, why don’t you tell us what you think should be done.
    ~~Seriously? I have to think for you now? How about going vegan for one; supporting the animal rights group of your choice; not buying products from companies that test on animals (the dollar speaks volumes); writing letters to the CEOs of those companies telling them you won’t be buying their products, and why; writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper; starting an animal rights group at your school or in your hometown; holding a peaceful protest when the circus comes to town; pressuring your local school to use alternatives to animal dissection in their classrooms; the list goes on and on.

    “And PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich told an animal rights convention in 2001 that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”
    ~~It may not be the nicest way, but it sure gets attention… attention the animals deserve to have given to their plight. Again, I’m not saying that I agree with that method, but he does have a point.”

    Wow. And how is it that “blowing stuff up” should not be considered terrorism by reasonable people?
    ~~Did I say it shouldn’t be considered terrorism? No. I just said the guy had a point. To me, the way that animals are treated in this country (animals used for food, etc; I’m not talking about pets) is akin to terrorism. Why should it not be dealt with accordingly?

    “Wait- non-PETA people think it’s OK to torture & murder animals for food, for their skin, their fur; etc. etc.”

    That’s certainly quite a stretch. If we’re not PETA members, we are inhumane murderers. So is that the kind of stuff they fill your heads with?
    ~~PETA doesn’t fill my head with anything; I can think for myself (as evidenced in the list of actions one can take that I gave you above). I should have spoken more clearly, but at the same time, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t mean that if you weren’t a member of PETA that you were a murderer, etc. But I do mean that people who think it’s OK to torture & murder animals for food, for their skin, their fur; etc. etc., are murderers, and those types tend not to be members of PETA.

    “Supporting PETA doesn’t mean I agree with *everything* they do;”

    So let me get this straight… if someone supports PETA, they’re free to pick and choose the types of actions PETA funds, condones, encourages? But if someone is opposed to PETA, they obviously support animal torture and murder?
    ~~Nope- again, I should have spoken more clearly.

    “that’s why I don’t believe, regardless of the law, that people can own pets. Be their guardians, yes.”

    Define “guardian”
    ~~Really??
    1. a person who guards, protects, or preserves.
    2. Law. a person who is entrusted by law with the care of the person or property, or both, of another, as a minor or someone legally incapable of managing his or her own affairs.
    —Synonyms 1. protector, defender.

    I’m guessing it’s going to sound something like “to coexist with animals and look out for their welfare”.
    ~~Pretty close, in that respect.

    Does that include spaying and neutering? (mutilation).
    ~~I disagree. For one thing, I think it’s the lesser of 2 evils. I would rather spay/neuter my dog than let it make the overpopulation problem worse. Also, at least for females, if you don’t spay *and* they never have offspring, they have a *much* higher chance of getting the female cancers. I know- I lost my canine sister to breast cancer years ago because I was ignorant of that fact.

    Veterinary care? (procedures without consent).
    ~~You would do the same for your child who needed care, would you not?

    Sustenance? (pet food).
    ~~Of course I would feed the animal to whom I was guardian… however, because I’m vegan, and don’t believe in killing one animal for another, I don’t have animals.

    Shelter? (confinement).
    ~~Uh, OK. Then I guess you leave your kids outside all the time so as not to confine them, right?

    Seriously. I’m curious how you define “guardian”.
    ~~Well, I gave you the definition from the dictionary; the closest word that comes to my mind is “parent.” As in, “parent or guardian.” We are here to take care of our animals, not mistreat them.

    Andrew said:
    Peta gives us normal people that favor animal rights a bad name. Extremism in any form is detrimental.
    ~~But do you not see that the way that animals on factory farms, fur farms, etc. are treated is in an extreme way? Again, are we just supposed to say nicely, “Please stop that”?

    Fish eye said:
    And if we’re going to grant animals right, what about their responsibilities? If an animal kills a person, do we put if on trial for murder?
    ~~Well, what do we do now? We just destroy the animal no matter what occurred (look at the incident with the tiger in San Francisco.) We kill first and ask questions later…

    What if it destroys property?
    ~~Is property more important than life?

    If the dog that lives next door poops on my lawn, can I sue him for damages to my landscape?
    ~~You should probably thank him for the free fertilization. But if you don’t want his poop on your lawn, perhaps you should invest in a fence, or even have a leash law enacted in your town. If the dog still poops on your lawn, sue his guardian.

    Lola said:
    Thus since it didn’t really strike me as any kind of situation where there would be an actual conversation or persuasion of either side, my intention was: To give props to Alicia.
    ~~Much appreciated.

    Possibly vent in an because I’m quite frankly so very tired of “jokes” about other beings’ suffering.* And that’s about it.

    Nonetheless, I probably should have bit back or rephrased my statement.

    *”To animals, we ARE gods. And gods need sacrifices. Tasty sacrifices.”
    “People for the Eating of Tasty Animals”
    ~~I heartily agree with you! Perhaps animal rights people, for lack of a better phrase, wouldn’t feel the need to defend our feelings (not the animals, they always need our help) so forcefully if people would refrain from those childish jokes. I can’t tell you how many times, over the course of my being veggie (20 years) that I’ve been teased, had dead animal flesh waved in my face, when I’ve done *nothing* but be vegan when others are not. I never had to say anything, mind you; just the fact that I am vegan (and I’m assuming it’s the same for some others) is enough for people to think that it’s OK to tease and make jokes. For the record, I never- and I mean *never*- say anything unless someone says something to me first. If everyone here on CO had either just a) not voted or b) not voted and said, “I’d like to but I don’t agree with PETA/their methods, etc,” I wouldn’t have said anything except “I voted and I do agree with PETA.” It’s when people start saying nasty things that PETA members and other animal rights people feel the need to defend themselves. Why the H3LL should I keep my mouth shut if no one else does?

    Rigal said:
    Er, you do know that the issue with thalidomide was insufficient testing – the pharmaceutical company started distributing before testing was completing, and didn’t even test it on pregnant animals. It’s harsh, but more testing would have shown that the drug was unsuitable for preganant mothers – the company was arrogant and impatient.
    ~~That’s the first I’ve heard of that. A link, please? In any case, the point is that it didn’t affect the animals the same way it affected humans; they extrapolated that it wouldn’t hurt humans. They were wrong.

    Kwistee said:
    PETA claims to not believe in keeping animal companions as pets, however MANY of their celebrity “supporters” keep hunderds of animals as pets.
    ~~But again, just because you support something doesn’t mean you believe 100% in everything the organization stands for. I would have a cat, if I could; better it be in my house than a shelter. I do believe that PETA’s stance is that it would have been better had animals not been domesticated at all; since some have been, spay/neuter them so no new ones are born, and when they’re gone, that’s it.

    Not only that, but this website certainly doesn’t seem to have a problem with keeping pets. In fact, most of the posts seem to be photos of peoples’ pets — encouraging it.
    ~~I agree.

    Wow, PETA sure can’t make up their minds.
    ~~I don’t think that’s true; read my comment above about PETA’s stance on pets. Animals shouldn’t have been domesticated at all, but since they have been, let’s take care of them while they’re here, and hey, if at the same time we think they’re cute, where’s the harm?

    Their violent methods sure do get attention, but I don’t think that violence should be the answer.
    ~~I agree, to a point. I wish no violence existed in the world. But if I saw a guy getting ready to kick a dog in the street, I’d certainly try to kick him before he kicked the dog! Was my violent act- trying to save an innocent animal- wrong the same way the man’s would have been? I don’t think so. The same reasoning applies to many of PETA’s methods, just to a much larger degree. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

    There need to be better ways to make their points.
    ~~Until people stop purposely making animals suffer for their own pleasure, I don’t see how that’s going to happen.

    Circuscake- well said! :)

    Diana said:
    (About my circus protesting experience):
    This is not a rebuttal of anything.
    ~~I wasn’t trying to rebut anything; I was showing that pretty much anyone fighting for something they believe in in this country can be labeled a terrorist by the government.

    Just because *you* aren’t a convicted arsonist or violent criminal doesn’t mean PETA doesn’t hire them.
    ~~I don’t believe PETA does hire them; at the same time, I’m sure PETA (and the animals that are saved) appreciates the results.

    When the people here talk of PETA’s terrorism they’re referring to the blowing up of clinics,
    ~~What’s taking place inside those clinics? Animal experimentation (torture!)? I personally would not blow up a clinic, nor do I condone that action; but at the same time, I feel that This Is War, and I can understand why some people DO commit those acts. Sometimes I get angry enough to, I can tell you that; but I would never do it.

    throwing paint on innocent people
    ~~If someone is wearing a fur coat, they’re NOT innocent. They’re murderers. Once again, just FYI, I don’t throw paint on people; but I do take part in anti-fur protests. Part of the reason that I don’t throw paint on people is because I don’t think it does any good; they’re only going to get angry. I’d rather hand them a piece of literature and ask them nicely to read it before deciding how they really feel.

    and going into labs and destroying research.
    ~~Just as you might say that the ends (blowing up the lab) don’t justify the means (stopping animal torture), I don’t believe that the ends (torturing animals) justify the means (the possiblity that somewhere down the line maybe some of that research might actually help a human one day.)

    “During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activist

    While I’m not saying I condone such actions, I do feel that much more needs to be done than saying “Please don’t hurt the animals.”

    See, this is where you lose people. You are implicitly condoning this man by basically saying he had the right idea.
    ~~No, I’m not. I’m saying that while I don’t agree with his actions, more has to be done than just saying Please.

    So I guess Judaism doesn’t count as a religion?
    ~~Says who?

    Don’t you think a Kosher Jew would be offended by what you just said?
    ~~No, why would they? Because I don’t believe an animal should be killed in any way? Pardon me for following what the Commandment actually says…

    “And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign crassly compares the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide with farm animals.
    ~~I don’t think it’s crass at all. The Holocaust (Jews & non-Jews alike were murdered) was horrible and should never be taken lightly. But why is it OK to commit *exactly the same* atrocities on animals raised for food? They are starved, beaten, kept in cages, abused (rape rack, anyone? Veal crate? Battery hen?), and then at the end, murdered. There is a great quote by Jeremy Bentham: “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?” The victims of the Holocaust suffered; so do the animals. Why is one OK and the other not?”

    This is where you completely lost me. I normally don’t get emotional like this, but how dare you.
    ~~I dare because the animals need me to. By the same token, how dare you think it’s fine to eat an animal who’s been confined to a crate his whole miserable 16 week life, starving, only to be murdered? How dare you think it’s OK to eat a chicken who’s been kept in a cage smaller than a piece of paper for her whole life, never able to flap a wing, who’s had her beak cut off, who’s been force molted to lay one more clutch of eggs, then been hung upside down to have her head dragged through electrified water to “stun” her so that although she’ll feel the pain of her throat being slit, she can’t move away from the cutting blade, and then in case she doesn’t die fast enough, has the added horror of being put ALIVE AND CONCIOUS into boiling water so that it’s easier to remove her feathers? How dare I, indeed…

    Do you have ANY clue how offensive that is?
    ~~Do you have ANY clue how offensive it is that you think it’s OK to torture animals, and I’m supposed to keep my mouth shut because it’s your RIGHT??

    You should have stopped right here.
    ~~Never. There is no difference to me, just because one animal is human and the other is not.

    You clearly have never met a Holocaust survivor, you probably haven’t even met too many Jews.
    ~~Don’t presume to know anything about me besides what I’ve told you. For your information, you’re about as wrong as you could possibly be on both counts.

    To compare them to “chickens” is gross beyond words.
    ~~Sigh… I’m not comparing Jews to chickens… I’m comparing one set of living creatures who have been tortured with another set. There is no difference to me.

    ~~ that’s why I don’t believe, regardless of the law, that people can own pets. Be their guardians, yes. Same thing with animals (and no, I’m not comparing black people to animals, I’m comparing the “owned” then to the “owned” now)- the law may say you own an animal, but I doubt the animal believes you own it. And therefore, neither do I.”

    Yeah, just stop. People are not equal to animals.
    ~~No, I will not stop, and don’t think you have the right to tell me to. In your mind people are not equal to animals; in my mind, animals are frequently much better than humans. And as a favorite author of mine once said, “Alike and equal are not the same thing.” Animals don’t have to be like humans to be equal.

    ~~ Who are we to put bleach in a rabbit’s eye? No matter what the outcome, the ends DO NOT justify the means, and it makes me sick to be part of a race- the human race- that thinks that those things are OK!!”

    Alicia- it is clear from your comments that you value animal life above human life.
    ~~Do not put words in my mouth. I value all life equally; I wouldn’t put bleach in a human’s eye to help a rabbit, and I wouldn’t do the reverse. I reiterate: to be part of a race that thinks that it’s OK to torture animals makes me ashamed to be human.

    You think the Holocaust is morally equivalent to factory farming.
    ~~It is. Why is one animal’s suffering worse than another? If humans are so much better than animals, we ought to all know that it’s wrong to treat them the way we do. Jesus Himself said to treat others as you’d like to be treated; yet humans do exactly the opposite to animals and think that it’s OK.

    You think slavery is morally equivalent to keeping pets, despite the fact that pets are often treated well and very happy in their homes, UNLIKE THE SLAVES.
    ~~No, I did not say that at all. What I was saying was that regardless of what the law says, I don’t feel one being can own another, no matter what the species.

    You think curing AIDS is less important than animal testing, regardless of the MILLIONS OF PEOPLE SUFFERING AND DYING IN AFRICA AND ALL OVER THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.
    ~~Wrong again! I think it’s just as important, but I do NOT feel that it’s OK to torture an animal on the offchance- or even the 100% chance!- that it could help a human.

    You don’t care about them, you care about animal testing.
    ~~Don’t tell me what I do and don’t care about. I care about both of them, and would gladly contribute some of my hard earned money to organizations that fight AIDS, as long as they didn’t torture animals in the process.

    Do you understand now why people would call you an extremist?
    ~~When you think it’s OK to torture & murder animals, I think you’re extremist. Pot, meet the kettle.

    Let me pose a scenario for you and all the other pro-PETA people:
    ~~Oh goody, here comes the scenario!

    If you are standing along a rushing river, and a human child and a dachshund are both caught in the current headed for the falls, would you not hesitate to reach for the human child?
    ~~I would reach for both. Having said that, if the child were mine, I’m sure I’d reach for her first, JUST as I’m sure a wolf mother would try to save her own offspring before that of another mother.

    If you would reach for the dachshund instead of the human child I think you need to do some serious soul-searching.
    ~~If you think it’s acceptable to induce a stroke in a monkey, I think the same could be said for you.

    And if you would pull the child out first, you obviously value human life at least slightly more than animal life.
    ~~Well, now you know- I’d go for both at once and hope for the best. Don’t try to catch me in a trap- it won’t work. Believe me, I’ve heard them all.

    Another question for you…do you oppose all farming or just factory farming?
    ~~All farming when it involves animals being tortured and murdered. If the animal is working for its own food, I think that’s OK.

    In developing nations, where malnutrition and undernourishment are rampant, the fortunate people are those who own livestock- since livestock can be sold for a good price. It also gives a regular supply of food. Would you deny these people their livelihoods just for animal rights?
    ~~Do you know how many more people can be fed on the grain that it takes to get one pound of flesh from a cow than from the flesh itself? Argh, I wish I had the figures in front of me… I’ll try to find them. But suffice it to say, if the whole world were vegetarian, no one would go hungry. So I pick neither of your choices. I would help them plant even more grain and other crops so that everyone could eat.

    Diana said:
    “…and coming home to my critters at the end of the day is a real treat, the love they share with me is so helpful to me emotionally.”

    1.) According to Alicia or PETA you are the equivalent of a slave-holder, because you own critters.
    ~~Not at all- please read what I’ve said above, which is that I don’t believe people can OWN animals, regardless of what the law says. They are their guardians, nothing more.

    2.) It is one thing to say you prefer animal companionship to human. It is another to value the lives of animals more than the lives of people.
    ~~Who are you to tell someone else which they should value more?

    If
    ~~Oh, another scenario! Goody!

    your best friend was drowning and one of your pets was drowning, who would you save?
    ~~My answer is the same as before- try for both and hope for the best. Although I should probably tell you that I can’t swim either, and would probably sacrifice myself in the process.

    The percentage of people with AIDS is as high as 20% in some African countries. Whole families are dying. Thousands of children are being left orphaned. To say you would rather this continue is almost sociopathic.
    ~~No one is saying they want AIDS and all of the horrors you mentioned above that go along with it to continue. What we- or at least I- are saying is that torturing animals is not the way to go about finding a cure.

    Just a note said:
    and btw vegetables are alive too…
    ~~Oh, for goodness’ sakes… first of all, they’re not sentient beings. Second of all, I really wish people would stop using that “rationale” to justify eating animal flesh.

    it’s a circle of life, and humans should be more mindful of their place in it, but, for example, i’d say that the manufacturing vegan boots causes far more harm to human, animal, and environment, than using a cow’s skin to make shoes with.
    ~~Not true- look at the tanning process. It is extremely harmful to the environment.

    Heidstar said:
    No ulterior motives??? Right. Like nominating CO in an entirely bogus
    ~~Bogus in what way?

    and hypocritical “contest”–best Pet Blog from an organization that advocates abolishing pet ownership
    ~~Yes, abolish pet ownership; not pet guardianship. Again, go to my previous comments; PETA knows that people aren’t going to stop keeping companion animals anytime soon, but at the very least, they should stop breeding more!

    in order to bombard the comments for purposes of propagandizing ad nauseum for PETA isn’t an ulterior motive? Uh-huh.
    ~~If the first person hadn’t said something relatively nasty about PETA, there wouldn’t have to be any comments defending PETA.

    Michelle said:
    These procedures, the very acts PETA so vehemently opposes (proprietorship, surgical alteration, destroying), are acts which the organization and members commit themselves in the name of their cause.
    ~~PETA does not oppose spaying and neutering! They are wholeheartedly for it, because it helps stop overpopulation. It also does not oppose humanely euthanizing an animal when it’s only going to suffer and have no quality of life. That was my argument in a previous post; of course PETA kills some of the animals it rescues, because they’re often in such bad shape they’re only suffering anyway.

    That’s all for now. See you all tomorrow!
    -Alicia
    allywag67@aol.com
    http://www.thewagband.com

  166. Long Post Alicia! To respond to a few points at the front of your post: If ignorance is not an excuse (ie. people should themselves try to find out more information about lab animal treatment (Today, not 20 years ago fyi) so that they can make an informed decision, then the same falls on you. Rather than saying ‘I would like proof that the leader of PETA uses treatments tested on animals that contain animal products and until you show me I will not believe’ please educate yourself about PETA rather than turning the same blind eye you accuse others of turning.

    Comparing the maliscious (sp?) treatment on human beings in concentration camps to humans ihumanely raising animals for food is *very* insulting.. I am sorry that you cannot see that, but please understand that just because you do not see it that way does not make it so.

    Re: Medical testing: Suggesting that you do not want to condemn anyone to death including animals is very sweet, but oversimplistic. However, I do think your true thoughts on the matter shined through when you suggested testing on death row inmates.

    Copied from a blog:
    Don’t take my word for it, read it for yourself! Right on Peta’s own website, they have an article called “Euthanasia: The Compassionate Option” They even SAY:

    “Because of the high number of unwanted companion animals and the lack of good homes, sometimes the most humane thing that a shelter worker can do is give an animal a peaceful release from a world in which dogs and cats are often considered “surplus” and unwanted.”

    By your theory, if these unwanted companion animals that PETA suggests killing are going to be killed by PETA anyway, we should be testing on them!
    New report:
    http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/articles/2005/06/18/news/news1.txt

    Actual Report from PETA, showing that it was not just a few people acting without their knowledge that did this:
    http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf

    Now over 14,000 animals killed by PETA..

    The Director of Research and Rescue of PETA at that time, Marybeth Sweetland [108], is an insulin-dependent diabetic[109], and has defended her use of the animal products (insulin) by saying she needs her life to defend the lives of animals. [110]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA

    If you are not happy with these resources I am sure there are more out there… I will make you a deal.. I will try to learn more about animal testing in the new year and show a more critical eye, if you yourself will learn more about PETA’s skeletons with a critical and open mind (this means looking the info up yourself) ;)

  167. Alicia,

    I was about to write a lengthy reply to you, but then I realised that it wouldn’t do.

    You managed to hit almost every logical fallacy in the book in your last missive, and I have to conclude from your reaction that you aren’t even aware of that. It would make a discussion at the current state quite tedious, however.

    Please have a look at this site, it’s a Logical Fallacies 101: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

    I’ll monitor this thread for a few days, so if you’ve read the text and feel like continuing the discussion, write here and I’ll email you.

    Unless, that is, Meg demands that the discussion stays public, in which case I’ll certainly do whatever she wants. She is, after all, the one who keeps the overload coming :-)

  168. Hi again-
    bcteagirl said:

    Long Post Alicia!
    ~~I know, but there’s a lot to say…

    To respond to a few points at the front of your post: If ignorance is not an excuse so that they can make an informed decision, then the same falls on you. Rather than saying ‘I would like proof that the leader of PETA uses treatments tested on animals that contain animal products and until you show me I will not believe’ please educate yourself about PETA rather than turning the same blind eye you accuse others of turning.
    ~~I have educated myself about PETA; I’ve said that I agree with most of what they do, but not necessarily all. However, even assuming that that one (or more!) person in PETA is acting hypocritically, that doesn’t mean that the entire organization should be thought of as hypocrits or would act in the same way. I know I don’t act hypocritically. The wrong actions of one person in the organization don’t change the fact that the way animals are being treated is horrendous and WRONG, and shouldn’t be changed. Hate the organization as much as you want to, but see what they’re fighting for.

    Comparing the maliscious (sp?) treatment on human beings in concentration camps to humans ihumanely raising animals for food is *very* insulting..
    ~~That’s too bad. The way the animals that are used for food, etc., are treated is way worse than insulting.

    I am sorry that you cannot see that,
    ~~I’m sorry you can’t see that it doesn’t matter if you’re insulted; just as those humans did nothing wrong, neither have the animals. Yet you think it’s OK to torture the animals.

    but please understand that just because you do not see it that way does not make it so.
    ~~And just because you DO see it that way doesn’t make it so, either. Just because you think that it’s OK to torture animals does not make it so.

    Re: Medical testing: Suggesting that you do not want to condemn anyone to death including animals is very sweet, but oversimplistic.
    ~~In what way?

    However, I do think your true thoughts on the matter shined through when you suggested testing on death row inmates.
    ~~So it’s OK to torture an innocent animal, but a human who’s on death row, who’s not innocent, who has committed murder- his/her life is worth more than an innocent animal just by dint of the fact that s/he’s human? Where is the logic??

    Copied from a blog:
    Don’t take my word for it, read it for yourself! Right on Peta’s own website, they have an article called “Euthanasia: The Compassionate Option” They even SAY:

    “Because of the high number of unwanted companion animals and the lack of good homes, sometimes the most humane thing that a shelter worker can do is give an animal a peaceful release from a world in which dogs and cats are often considered “surplus” and unwanted.”
    ~~Because the only other life for some of those animals is to be kept in a cage, with minimal interaction with anyone, including humans… that’s no life for anyone. I don’t like it, and I wish those animals could be placed into homes, but I do see their point. Speaking of hypocritical, if you’re going to start singing the praises of no-kill shelters while eating the steak on your plate, you’ve lost me.

    By your theory, if these unwanted companion animals that PETA suggests killing are going to be killed by PETA anyway, we should be testing on them!
    ~~When did I ever say that? Are you comparing those animals to the death row inmates? If that’s what you meant, you’re wrong about my “theory.” Those death row inmates are guilty of murder; the animals are guilty of nothing but existing, and if they are going to be euthanized, they certainly don’t deserve to be tortured first.

    New report:
    http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/articles/2005/06/18/news/news1.txt
    ~~PETA has suspended Hinkle in lieu of their own investigation. Cook remains actively employed with the Norfolk, Va. based organization.
    ~~I wonder a few things… was Hinkle working undercover at PETA, for a different organization, like PETA has people working undercover at slaughterhouses? Was Cook assigned by PETA to keep an eye on Hinkle, once they discovered Hinkle’s true motives? Were Hinkle & maybe Cook both bad guys just out to discredit PETA? If that last one is the case, it would make me question why PETA would keep Cook. I’m inclined to think it wasn’t that last option, but one of the others, or something I didn’t think of. I’d be happy to write to PETA and ask them, and then let you know what they say.

    Actual Report from PETA, showing that it was not just a few people acting without their knowledge that did this:
    http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf

    Now over 14,000 animals killed by PETA..
    ~~I don’t think that has to do with the previous report… I looked at the report you listed above, and it was a little hard to read, but it seems to me that it was a report spanning a number of years, and it showed where the animals were picked up from and what happened to them. Some were euthanized, yes- but some were treated and given back to their “owners,” some were released into the wild, some were transferred to other facilities, some were adopted, and some died of natural causes.

    The Director of Research and Rescue of PETA at that time, Marybeth Sweetland [108], is an insulin-dependent diabetic[109], and has defended her use of the animal products (insulin) by saying she needs her life to defend the lives of animals. [110]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA
    ~~I looked at that link, too, but didn’t see what you mentioned above… I’ll look again later on. In any case, I see her logic, but I do believe it is flawed.

    If you are not happy with these resources I am sure there are more out there… I will make you a deal.. I will try to learn more about animal testing in the new year and show a more critical eye, if you yourself will learn more about PETA’s skeletons with a critical and open mind (this means looking the info up yourself) ;)
    ~~I’m happy you’re willing to learn more about the plight of animals. Here’s my thing: I support PETA because I believe in what they’re fighting for. I’m sure they’re not perfect, but I think they do a heck of a lot of good for the animals. Despite the fact that the people that make up PETA are human, and can therefore make bad decisions (not that I’m saying they have or haven’t, but they are capable of it), the cause is a worthy one. If there were a better organization maybe I’d support them instead. But the way I see it, no matter what mistakes PETA may or may not have made, they’re the ones fighting hardest for the animals, and therefore they will continue to get my support.

    Nara said:
    Alicia,

    I was about to write a lengthy reply to you, but then I realised that it wouldn’t do.

    You managed to hit almost every logical fallacy in the book in your last missive,
    ~~Point them out to me, please.

    and I have to conclude from your reaction that you aren’t even aware of that.
    ~~How can I have had a reaction if it was my last missive?

    It would make a discussion at the current state quite tedious, however.
    ~~LOL I think this discussion is tedious already.

    Please have a look at this site, it’s a Logical Fallacies 101: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
    ~~I did look at it.

    I’ll monitor this thread for a few days, so if you’ve read the text and feel like continuing the discussion, write here and I’ll email you.

    Unless, that is, Meg demands that the discussion stays public, in which case I’ll certainly do whatever she wants. She is, after all, the one who keeps the overload coming :-)
    ~~Nope, I’d rather continue the discussion on CO, if you feel like continuing it.

    -Alicia

  169. Alicia,

    I’m not going to continue the discussion without Meg’s approval, it would be very bad manners to hijack her comment section.

    If you don’t want to discuss lacking a pulpit, I will accept your decision.

  170. NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR –
    Hey all! Someone (or possibly more than one person) has been posting comments in this thread that have been *mistakenly* caught by TypePad’s spam filter. The problem is that, for some reason, NO IDENTIFYING INFO (not even faked info) has been attached to the comments. I don’t even know how this is possible, considering that having *some* info, even if it’s a pseudonym, is supposed to be *required* before the system will even accept a submitted comment.

    So, if you’re that person & have been wondering where your thoughtful, carefully-worded replies have gone, please bear with me. I’m not capriciously targeting you. (Peep’s Honor!) I’m stuck, though, because I can’t just publish these null-and-void comments.

    I will continue to look for these orphan comments & see if I can figure out where the disconnect is. In the meantime, if I catch another one, I’ll try manually post it under the name “SpamFiltersHateMe” or something to that effect. Then maybe someone can claim credit for it. It ain’t perfect, but at least it’s something…

    – [Ed.]

  171. PS & also — Alicia, Nara, and anyone else — you can always get your own blog. They’re everywhere. Personally, I like Vox.

    http://www.vox.com/

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,968 other followers