PETA, Greenpeace and all that

[acidboy]

Originally Posted by tmz.com

Dressed as pop dog carriers Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, PETA protesters took to the streets of Hollywood today to cast light on the problems caused by buying pets through a breeder.

I really don't know how to categorize groups like these. On one hand, I believe in their cause- animal rights and all that. But on the other hand these publicity stunts of theirs are just beyond me. Some people here already call groups like these terrorists, and others just don't want anything to do with them and their antics. I have no love for Paris or Britney and I definitely think they're dumber than the runts they put around their arms. But what the f is wrong with getting a pet outside of a pound?! At least these dogs will be fed better than some people.

This also goes out to Greenpeace and their stunts. A while back they were protesting in the high seas around this country about some environment issue then the boat they were using ran aground and spilled oil and fuel on the open sea. And they kept quiet about this. I'm sorry, I respect their issues, BUT I just don't get them.

 

[DNW]

These groups, and some anti-abortion groups, make me sick. I once drove through an intersection with people on both sides -- for about a block -- holding up large pictures of aborted fetuses. My gf was just about to hurl in the car. She had to keep her eyes closed in order to not get sick.

Do I care about these issues? Yes.

Do I like their militant tactics? No.

Will I ever support or contribute to their causes? Not until it snows in hell.

So, yeah, that's my position.

 

[fortune]

Maybe it's just me, but the demonstrations they hold in some places shouldn't be legal. I understand freedom of speech, but there has to be a limit. I guess what I'm really trying to get at is here in Portland, they(PETA) drove Schumacher Furs or what ever the name was, out of the city with their constant protests in front of the buildings. **** like that bothers the hell out of me. They shouldn't be allowed to drive out a company because they disagree with their practices.

 

[imageWIS]

I'm a member of my universities Amnesty International club, but we don't protest. We use other ways to raise awareness.

Jon.

 

[Mike]

You have to look a little deeper to get the true beliefs of both of these organizations. PETA, while on the surface act like they are all about the puppies and kitties and stuff, want "total animal liberation." They believe that all animals have all the same rights as humans, and are our equals. So, they would outlaw all dogs used as seeing eye dogs, all police and militarty K-9 units, and pet "ownership". They say that pets and animals are our slaves. They equivilate their "cause" to the civil rights movements of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. And it goes without saying that they want all animal testing for medicine banned as well. They've paid money to extreme Animal Liberation Front members, who advocate violence and terrorist tactics, such as fire bombing labs, like the bombing of Michigan State University's research lab a few years ago.

I love animals and I don't like to see them mistreated, but the thought that they are our slaves and are deserving of human rights is asinine. I'd much rather support the ASPCA or the Humane Society, which is more about protecting and rescuing mistreated and abandoned animals, rather than an organization that supports fire bombers and extremists.

Greenpeace, like PETA, started with a good cause but their message and goals have changed due to extremists rising to power in their ranks. It got so bad one of the original creators and presidents of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, left the organization because he said that their goal became more about fighting capitalism and globalization, and less about trying to protect the earth.

 

[mister_h0t_d0g]

Greenpeace - Money launderers who hire ecoterrorists (former ELF leader) to be their vice president.

Like the cause, hate the group.

PETA - I dig meat. But hell, more vegans, more steaks left for me, sure.

Anti-Abortionists - Stop paying hobos to wave your stupid signs around. They're gross and everybody wants to punch you in the face.

 

[yachtie]

Snagged from another thread:

PETA- People Eating Tasty Animals.

IMO They're idiots. ( also making alot of money euthanizing dogs etc.- talk about inconsistent)

 

[mister_h0t_d0g]

Originally Posted by fortune

here in Portland, they(PETA) drove Schumacher Furs or what ever the name was, out of the city with their constant protests in front of the buildings.

I remember that.

Absurd...

"Evacuation Sale" was funny though.

 

[Musselma]

For every animal you don't eat, i'm going to eat three

 

[Edward Appleby]

Originally Posted by fortune

Maybe it's just me, but the demonstrations they hold in some places shouldn't be legal. I understand freedom of speech, but there has to be a limit. I guess what I'm really trying to get at is here in Portland, they(PETA) drove Schumacher Furs or what ever the name was, out of the city with their constant protests in front of the buildings. **** like that bothers the hell out of me. They shouldn't be allowed to drive out a company because they disagree with their practices.

No one made them leave Portland, did they? Unless the protests were causing some sort of material interference with the fur company's business (blocking access to the building, interfering with deliveries, etc.) or being libelous in their protests, then the fur company could have just grown a pair and stayed.

ED: I should add that on a personal level, I feel that PETA can go ***************. Humans have been eating meat forever, and many of their positions seem to be founded in scientific fantasy island. However, none of this means that they don't have a right to protests their dipshit position.

 

[NoVaguy]

Originally Posted by fortune

I understand freedom of speech, but there has to be a limit.

Everybody has different tolerances and preferences with respect to the different issues, so it's tough to do limitations on speech with respect to the actual content. Which is why restrictions are almost always based on time, place and manner. And only as to what is reasonably necessary.

Just look away if you don't like the message in the public sphere.

 

[j]

Originally Posted by Edward Appleby

No one made them leave Portland, did they? Unless the protests were causing some sort of material interference with the fur company's business (blocking access to the building, interfering with deliveries, etc.) or being libelous in their protests, then the fur company could have just grown a pair and stayed.

It's more about not having customers come in anymore because they get harassed on the way in. Businesses can't pay bills by "growing a pair".

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by NoVaguy

Everybody has different tolerances and preferences with respect to the different issues, so it's tough to do limitations on speech with respect to the actual content. Which is why restrictions are almost always based on time, place and manner. And only as to what is reasonably necessary.

Just look away if you don't like the message in the public sphere.

Exactly. And the fact is, there are limits. Lots of them. I don't know what happened with those Portland furriers. But presumably they left because they lost the PR war and decided it wasn't economically sensible for them to remain. If they were making money hand over fist, I assume they would have stayed and toughed it out.

 

[LabelKing]

If only architectural preservation groups were as aggressive. It would be amusing.

 

[fortune]

Well the company I was speaking of is, well now it's was, a block away from my work. And I'd walk by every morning when I went to work or when I went to lunch. And there was always at least one protester outside with some sandwich board on him talking about how furs are made or what ever. They pulled some rather absurd tactics iirc.