Minichan

Not mine. I could give a fuck what PETA does. They are bottom feeders.

I support PETA as an animal rights organization. I really don't care how they choose to get attention. I'll probably visit peta.xxx once and then forget about it forever.

Fuck animals. They would eat your children if they could.

Lol.

@194,518 (D)

> Fuck animals. They would eat your children if they could.

It's probably a zoophilia porn site. So I'm staying the fuck away from it.

> alf.xxx
> alqaeda.xxx
> kkk.xxx

> actually using .xxx

> lol

@194,501 (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
You shouldn't. It's an evil corporation.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Also, activist cash is a site that shows where certain organizations get their funding.

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/21-people-for-the-ethical-treatment-of-animals

@194,501 (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
PETA sucks. They are no better than any fringe group that wants to force us all to comply with their bullshit.

They are challenging the basic right to kill animals for food. Can you really support that?

wat

@194,501 (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
Dude, PETA is against the use of seeing eye dogs. What the fuck more do you need?

@previous (L)
I have never once seen a PETA-affiliated citation on that. Not some biased, shady site set up exclusively to bash PETA (why I haven't replied to anything on this thread yet), but a domain actually run by PETA. Link me one remotely reputable source that says that.

@previous (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
So you only believe what PETA tells you. I guess there's dumb fucking cunts everywhere tonight.

How about this. The number 2 bitch in PETA actually consented, in writing, to be treated for cancer with drugs that were tested on animals--despite the fact that PETA opposed ALL animal testing for ANY reason.

I don't have time for hypocritical cunts, no matter how good the porn gets.

@previous (L)
> So you only believe what PETA tells you

No, anonymous person of taste and class. I want you to show me where PETA has ever said that they are against seeing eye dogs. Themselves.

> The number 2 bitch in PETA actually consented, in writing, to be treated for cancer with drugs that were tested on animals

In the USA, where PETA is based, it is legally required by the FDA for all drugs to be tested on animals. How the hell else would she have gotten treatment?

@previous (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)

> In the USA, where PETA is based, it is legally required by the FDA for all drugs to be tested on animals. How the hell else would she have gotten treatment?

It's still hypocritical. I've learned it's best never to trust hypocrites. But do as you see fit guy. You'll learn soon enough.

@194,786 (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)

> How the hell else would she have gotten treatment?

Well, if she was so against it, she would have stuck with her morals and not sought treatment. The fact that she says "Do as I say, not as I do" makes her a hypocrite.

@194,787 (L)
@previous (The Pony !.PonyTzEbE)
Right. She should die from one of the worst diseases imaginable - and lose the ability to continue fighting against inane rules like that - just to prove that she isn't a hypocrite. You are clearly beings with staggering empathetic resonance. Also, Anonymous L, you haven't presented a link where they stated being against seeing eye dogs yet.

(Edited 38 seconds later.)

@previous (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)

> She should die from one of the worst diseases imaginable - and lose the ability to continue fighting against inane rules like that - just to prove that she isn't a hypocrite

Well... yes. What's the point in holding such an opinion if you're going to drop it when it's not convenient for yourself, and why should anything she says after that be taken with any seriousness? She doesn't even believe herself, I'm certainly not going to believe her.

@previous (The Pony !.PonyTzEbE)
Not necessarily. Have you ever heard of "the ends justifies the means"? She's one of the most important people at PETA; she does work every day to fight for animal rights work. If the cancer treatment is legally required to go against her beliefs, and lets her live even a year longer, that's a year's worth of good she's doing for the cause, regardless of how she managed to live a year longer. It is clearly going to be a net karmic profit. Also: it was to save her fucking life. It's not like you discovered video footage of her digging into some steak. Have some empathy for another living, sapient being. Jesus.

@previous (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
She's a dumb CUNT. End of story.

@previous (B)
Aw, look. He learned a new curse word. That's adorable.

ITT: PETA proves it is still able to get those who would otherwise dismiss their beliefs to drum up attention for them.

@previous (M)
Basically. Everyone who supports PETA has to have heard of them somehow; publicity stunts that cost... - how much does an XXX domain cost? It's not like they don't have the server space and video infrastructure already - do nothing to dissuade people who already support them, whose reactions to things like this very quickly fall into the territory of apathy, and will manage to get new members in the midst of it.

@194,792 (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)

> Have you ever heard of "the ends justifies the means"?

Yes, it was written by a man called Machiavelli in the 16th century in a paper called The Prince, which some people now believe was a satire intended to parody the ruthlessness and cruelty of absolute monarchies and promote the ideals of a free republic, but was taken quite seriously at the time, causing amongst other things the term "Old Nick" meaning the Devil, the perjorative term "machiavellian" (meaning "Cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous, esp. in politics or in advancing one's career.") and the negative connotations associated with politicians today. I quote:

"A PRINCE must defend his state with either his own subjects or mercenaries, or auxiliaries. Mercenaries are utterly untrustworthy; if their captain be not an able man the prince will probably be ruined, whereas if he be an able man he will be seeking a goal of his own. This has been perpetually exemplified among the cities and states of Italy which have sought to maintain themselves by taking foreigners into their pay.

But he who would deprive himself of every chance of success should have recourse to auxiliaries; that is, to the troops of a foreign potentate. For these are far more dangerous than mercenary arms, bringing ruin with them ready made. The better such troops are the more dangerous they are. From Hiero of Syracuse to Cesare Borgia, princes have become powerful in proportion as they could dispense with such aid and place their dependence upon national troops.

A prince, then, who would be powerful should have no care or thought but for war, lest he lose his dominions. If he be ignorant of military affairs he can neither be respected by the soldiers nor trust them. Therefore, he must both practise and study this art. For the practice, the chase in many respects provides an excellent training both in knowledge of the country and in vigour of the body. As to study, a prince should read histories, note the actions of great men and examine the causes of their victories and defeats, imitating those who have been renowned.

Anyone who would act up to a perfect standard of goodness in everything must be ruined among so many who are not good. It is essential therefore for a prince to have learnt how to be other than good and to use, or not to use, his goodness as necessity requires.

It may be a good thing to be reputed liberal, but liberality without the reputation of it is hurtful. Display necessitates the imposition of taxes, whereby the prince becomes hateful; whereas through parsimony his revenue will be sufficient. Hence we have seen no princes accomplish great results save those who have been accounted miserly by the world.

Every prince should desire to be accounted merciful, not cruel; but a new prince cannot escape a name for cruelty, for he who quells disorder by a few signal examples will, in the end, be the more merciful.

Men are less careful how they offend him who makes himself loved than him who makes himself feared; yet should a prince inspire fear in such a fashion that, if he do not win love, he may escape hate; remembering that men will sooner forget the slaying of their father than the loss of their patrimony.

Princes who set little store by their word but have known how to over-reach men by their cunning have accomplished great things, and in the end got the better of those who trusted to honest dealing. The prince must be a lion, but he must also know how to play the fox. He who wishes to deceive will never fail to find willing dupes. The prince, in short, ought not to quit good courses if he can help it, but should know how to follow evil courses if he must.

A PRINCE must avoid being despised as well as being hated; therefore courage, wisdom and strength must be apparent in all his actions. Against such a one conspiracy is difficult. That prince is wise who devolves on others those matters that entail responsibility, and may therefore make him odious either to the nobles or to the commons, but reserves to himself the matters that relate to grace and favour.

What I have said is not contradicted by the history of the Roman emperors; for they had to choose between satisfying the soldiers and satisfying the people. It was imperative that at any cost they should maintain control of the soldiery, which scarce any of them could do without injustice to the people. If we examine their histories we shall find that they fully bear out the principles I have laid down.

But in our time the standing armies of princes have not the same power as the armies of the Roman Empire, and except under the Turk and the Soldan it is more needful to satisfy the people than to satisfy the soldiery.

[OF ARTIFICES]

A NEW prince will never disarm his subjects, but will rather arm them, at least in part. For thus they become his partisans, whereas without them he must depend on mercenaries.

But a prince who adds a new state to his old possessions should disarm its inhabitants, relying on the soldiers of his own ancient dominions. Some have fostered feuds among their new subjects in order to keep them weak, but such a policy rarely proves useful in the end. The prince who acquires a new state will gain more strength by winning over and trusting those who were at first opposed to him than by relying on those who were at first his friends.

The prince who is more afraid of his subjects than of strangers ought to build fortresses, while he who is more afraid of strangers than of his subjects should leave them alone. The best fortress you can have is in not being hated by your subjects.

Nothing makes a prince so well thought of as to undertake great enterprises and give striking proofs of his capacity. Ferdinand of Aragon, in our own time, has become the foremost king in Christendom. If you consider his achievements, you will find them all great and some extraordinary. First he made war on Granada, and this was the foundation of his power. Under the cloak of religion, with what may be called pious cruelty, he cleared his kingdom of the Moors, made war on Africa, invaded Italy and finally attacked France; while his subjects, occupied with these great actions, had neither time nor opportunity to oppose them.

TO retain a good minister the prince will bind him to himself by benefits. Above all, he will avoid being deceived by flatterers, and while he consults his counsellors should reflect and judge for himself. A prince who is not wise himself cannot be well advised by others.

The Italian princes who in our own times have lost their dominions have either been deficient in respect of arms, or have had the people against them, or have not known how to secure themselves against the nobles. As to the influence of fortune it may be the case that she is the mistress of one half of our actions, but leaves the control of the other half to ourselves. That prince will prosper most whose mode of acting best adapts itself to the character of the times; so that at one time a cautious temperament, and at another an impetuous temperament, will be the more successful.

Now, at this time the whole land of Italy is without a head, without order, beaten, spoiled, torn in pieces, overrun, and abandoned to destruction in every shape. She prays God to send someone to rescue her from these barbarous cruelties; she is eager to follow anyone who could undertake the part of a deliverer; nor does this seem too hard a task for you, the Magnificent Lorenzo of the illustrious house of Medici. The cause is just; we have before us unexampled proofs of Divine favour. Everything has concurred to promote your greatness. What remains to be done must be done by you, for God will not do everything Himself."

> It is clearly going to be a net karmic profit.

That's not how things work. She preached that to use animal-tested medication was evil. People who used them were evil.

> Also: it was to save her fucking life.

If she truly believed, truly believed, that to use medicines tested on animals was wrong - which she did to a massive degree, for she is second in command of PETA - then she should have refused the medication. People have died for their beliefs before, and people will do it again. She did not. She is a hypocrite and a coward. She has no dignity and no credibility in my eyes.

> Have some empathy for another living, sapient being.

Where did I say I didn't have empathy for her? I'm not dancing that she got cancer. I am saying that she is a horrible person for throwing away her most cherished ideal when it suddenly turned against her, though. Someone who deserves an ounce of anybody's respect would have done just that. She betrayed herself, and nobody who can do that deserves to be listened to.

Also jesus GOODNIGHT already

(Edited 5 minutes later.)

@194,796 (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
Pretty much. Their stunts get attention, and edging an issue toward legitimacy by demanding the most radical change is what they seem to be good at. People may dismiss the change they are demanding, but it will make more moderate changes seem reasonable by comparison. Their job is to get attention, and they do it pretty well.

@194,797 (The Pony !.PonyTzEbE)
... Thank you, for that overly-long quote you could have easily linked to.

> She preached that to use animal-tested medication was evil. People who used them were evil.

Incorrect. PETA has never attacked people who use animal-tested medication, because there is no non-animal-tested medication. Requiring it (edit: for clarification, the FDA requiring animal testing when other equitably-accurate and less expensive methods of testing are available) is a major mistake that needs to be rectified. They don't even really go after the pharmaceutical companies, since, again, it's not their fault. They attack the animal researchers in other fields, where it isn't a legal requirement; IAMS dog food was a big, somewhat recent case. I do not believe that they have ever attacked the consumers.

> If she truly believed, truly believed, that to use medicines tested on animals was wrong - which she did to a massive degree, for she is second in command of PETA - then she should have refused the medication.

If she truly believes that eating meat is wrong, then she should refuse to eat meat. She does. If she truly believes that leather is wrong, she should avoid buying anything using it. She does. Both of those, and every other similar sentence I could use with a similar template, contains an active choice, tied to lifestyle decision, on her part. When it gets to the point of "do this or you'll die"? That stops being a moral choice. If someone had held her at gunpoint and forced her to eat meat, with the consequence for refusing to do so being painting the walls behind her with blood, no one with an iota of empathy would condemn her for enacting self-preservation.

> She is a hypocrite and a coward.
> I am saying that she is a horrible person for throwing away her most cherished ideal when it suddenly turned against her, though. Someone who deserves an ounce of anybody's respect would have done just that. She betrayed herself, and nobody who can do that deserves to be listened to.

I'm glad you're so brave that you aren't afraid of death via slow, excruciating, degenerative diseases. Most of us are. I sure as hell am.

(Edited 3 minutes later.)

The Peta organization is so hypocritical. One example, spokeswomen skater goes on ice with an anti fur sign while wearing leather skates.

http://deceiver.com/2009/11/23/skater-tai-babilonia-bares-her-figure-for-peta/

Beastiality?

@previous (r04r)
lol that's what I thought.

Too soon?

Peta sends letter to the deceased Jackson estate asking for the rights to the song "Ben" only five days after his death. These was after they had publicly blasted him for keeping exotic pets.

http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2009/06/30/King-of-Pops-First-Hit-Could-Help-Rats.aspx

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Peta blasts Barack Obama for killing a fly when they murder thousands of cats and dogs a year!

http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2009/06/17/obama-and-the-fly.aspx

Peta was in talks to hire notorious dog fighter and murderer Michael Vick to be their new spokesman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/sports/football/28rhoden.html

@194,799 (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)

> ...no one with an iota of empathy would condemn her for enacting self-preservation.

Except that eating meat is also an act of self-preservation. Which only goes to show the impracticality and oppressiveness of her own ideological beliefs. If needing the medication to escape all but certain death caused her to have a change of heart and see that her previous beliefs are in fact wrong, I would respect her. However, as she continues to expose elitist, callously impractical beliefs she herself is unwilling to live by, she remains a fucking low life in my book.

> > She is a hypocrite and a coward.
Hypocrites do things they tell others not to and cowards are afraid to admit when they are wrong. Bitch fits the definition perfectly. The fact that so many of us are in fact hypocrites and cowards doesn't negate that this bitch is a textbook example.


> I'm glad you're so brave that you aren't afraid of death via slow, excruciating, degenerative diseases. Most of us are. I sure as hell am.

She need only be brave enough to admit she was wrong. No dying required. She's already acted in a way that suggests she knows this to be the case, so refusing to admit it publicly is purely a matter of ego.

Peta workers pick up cats and dogs from shelters, promise staff and that they will find them good homes, and then finally killed them threw them away like garbage.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8255324/ns/health-pet_health/t/peta-employees-charged-animal-cruelty/

@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Peta is responsible for a lot of animal deaths.

@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
I know and it sickens me.

@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
It seems such a waste when animals die and no one eats them.

They throw them in the regular garbage so they can shock dumbasses into giving them money.

Hey Latestdude,
Ingrid Newkirk (Peta Founder)has said that she would be against animal testing even if it resulted in a cure for Aids.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk

http://activistcash.com/biography_quotes.cfm/b/456-ingrid-newkirk

@195,070 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
Who should we feed on dead pets?

@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Why shouldn't we?

@195,076 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Because they're delicious?

@195,078 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
I said who will we feed them to?

@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
No, you definitely said 'how.' It just says who now.

@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
Okay crazy lady.

@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Regardless, I think they should be fed to hungry people.

@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
Would you eat cat and dog? I might.

@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
No, I don't think I could. I don't really have a problem with it, though.

Peta protests Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show wearing Klan robes. Says that the AKC wants to create a "master race"

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2009-02-09-peta-westminster-kkk-protest_N.htm

@195,149 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
If you don't have a problem with it, why couldn't you do it?

@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Sorta like abortion, couldn't do it, fine with it if others do. Can't really explain besides saying I think I'd feel bad and probably end up getting sick just due to the thought.

@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
I'll bet that most people would feel the same way.

Peta wanted to put Michael Vick's pitbulls to sleep, luckily some real (ASPCA, BAD RAP) animal rights organizations stepped up to the plate.

http://www.newser.com/story/6317/vicks-pit-bulls-could-face-euthanasia.html

http://si.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=What+happened+to+Michael+Vick%27s+dogs...+-+SI.com+-+Magazine&expire=-1&urlID=33256444&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsportsillustrated.cnn.com%2F2008%2Fmagazine%2F12%2F22%2Fvick.dogs%2Findex.html&partnerID=2356

Peta is against using seeing eye dogs as service animals for blind people. What the fuck?

http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/01/10/guide-dogs-for-the-blind-peta-staffer-says-forget-it/

@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
That post lists this as PETA policy on "companion animals". They don't seem to be against it, but caution that problems (specific breeding, animal "retirement", poor training, etc.) exist with some programs.

@previous (M)
That might be the official policy, but this was a statement made by a high level staff member!

@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> but this was a statement made by a high level staff member on her personal blog with a disclaimer that her opinions might not match up with those of PETA.
ftfy

The article also quotes the PETA page out of context, conveniently dropping the "Optimally" from the beginning of the quote "humans should be relied upon for support of the disabled rather than working dogs and other animals..." to make it sound like PETA is actively suggesting replacing seeing eye dogs with people. I'm not under the delusion that PETA is full of magical people who can solve the world's problems, but that article is just shit.

(Edited 19 seconds later.)

@previous (M)
I'll find something better.