Conquer Club

Unless they have significantly changed their positions in the past 6 years, you have it wrong (though what you put forward is the "nicer" image they sometimes publish) these are their real positions:

TheProwler wrote:PETA is against unnecessarily cruel treatment of animals. So am I.

PETA goes well beyond unnecessarily cruel treatment... and what they consider cruel is often not what either the animals themselves would choose or what people caring for animals generally consider decent treatment. In fact, some of what they advocate is actually cruel to some animals. For example, they are opposed to electrocution for small animals, though it is actually the most humane method for some animals (depends upon their nervous systems).
They consider things that we would allow for human beings ... testing of certain things to benefit the animal, for example. Everything is lumped into "animal testing" regardless of why or how the research is conducted.

TheProwler wrote:PETA thinks animals have some worth. So do I.

PETA considers animals equal to human beings in worth, with few exceptions. Sometimes animals are to have more rights, because we are responsible for them. Check out Bill Devall and Deep Ecology for a hint.

TheProwler wrote:So time for you to answer a few simple, straight-forward questions:

Do you support unnecessarily cruel treatment of animals?

Do you think animals are worthless?

Do you think that most dogs should have 4 legs?

Now you mirror PETA precisely ... in their view, either you accept their very extreme positions or you are an animal abuser.

and you didn't just say you agree with a few of their positions... you said you agree with a lot of what thier positions. Which means either you don't really get their positions or you don't really know that much about animals.

TheProwler wrote: We humans are the cruelest species on Earth and we don't take the well-being of other species into account unless it impacts our own well-being. We are disgustingly selfish and immoral.

Heh heh, i can tell how much you "care" about your pug there. Is it common for that breed to have the back end bigger than the front end? It's rather sad and immoral how overweight, obese people seem to pass their gluttony on to their pets. Is this healthy for the pets? Does it not affect their "well being"? Isn't this rather a classic case in point for "disgustingly selfish and immoral" behavior? Just wondering.


Honibaz

dude PETA has always been crazy and i don't really understand why people follow that terrorist organization

PLAYER57832 wrote:Think cotton is the answer? Think again! Cotton and sugarcane are 2 of the most destructive crops on the planet!

Bamboo and hemp.

hecter wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Think cotton is the answer? Think again! Cotton and sugarcane are 2 of the most destructive crops on the planet!

Bamboo and hemp.

To a point, yes. They are definitely part of the answer -- no question. However, nothing beats fur for extreme cold. Wool works quite well for damp wet, but gets heavy (and PETA is against wool use anyway). Silk is nice, but expensive.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Unless they have significantly changed their positions in the past 6 years, you have it wrong (though what you put forward is the "nicer" image they sometimes publish) these are their real positions:

TheProwler wrote:PETA is against unnecessarily cruel treatment of animals. So am I.

PETA goes well beyond unnecessarily cruel treatment... and what they consider cruel is often not what either the animals themselves would choose or what people caring for animals generally consider decent treatment. In fact, some of what they advocate is actually cruel to some animals. For example, they are opposed to electrocution for small animals, though it is actually the most humane method for some animals (depends upon their nervous systems).
They consider things that we would allow for human beings ... testing of certain things to benefit the animal, for example. Everything is lumped into "animal testing" regardless of why or how the research is conducted.

TheProwler wrote:PETA thinks animals have some worth. So do I.

PETA considers animals equal to human beings in worth, with few exceptions. Sometimes animals are to have more rights, because we are responsible for them. Check out Bill Devall and Deep Ecology for a hint.

TheProwler wrote:So time for you to answer a few simple, straight-forward questions:

Do you support unnecessarily cruel treatment of animals?

Do you think animals are worthless?

Do you think that most dogs should have 4 legs?

Now you mirror PETA precisely ... in their view, either you accept their very extreme positions or you are an animal abuser.

and you didn't just say you agree with a few of their positions... you said you agree with a lot of what thier positions. Which means either you don't really get their positions or you don't really know that much about animals.

You forgot to answer the questions I asked you.

PETA thinks sharks shouldn't be killed just for their fins. So do I.

Do you think sharks should be killed just for their skins?

PETA thinks animals should not be tortured. Same here.

Do you think animals should be tortured?


You avoid answering the questions because you know it proves that there is no problem with what I said. You are just grasping at straws.

I already said that "PETA goes overboard in some ways".


Haha! Something tells me this is an argument that you are dying to have. You are doing your best to expand it...but it is simple. I agree with some of their ideas, but they go overboard at times. Done. Period. End of story. If you are really interested in my personal thoughts and feelings, present clear questions and I will answer them. But quite wasting my time with your babbling about your personal grudge against PETA and your "You're either FOR THEM or AGAINST THEM!!!" theories.

b.k. barunt wrote:

TheProwler wrote: We humans are the cruelest species on Earth and we don't take the well-being of other species into account unless it impacts our own well-being. We are disgustingly selfish and immoral.

Heh heh, i can tell how much you "care" about your pug there. Is it common for that breed to have the back end bigger than the front end? It's rather sad and immoral how overweight, obese people seem to pass their gluttony on to their pets. Is this healthy for the pets? Does it not affect their "well being"? Isn't this rather a classic case in point for "disgustingly selfish and immoral" behavior? Just wondering.

Chances are my pugs are way more healthy than you. They live like royalty. They would bite you and you'd know your place. Hahaha!

hecter wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Think cotton is the answer? Think again! Cotton and sugarcane are 2 of the most destructive crops on the planet!

Bamboo and hemp.

Haha!

When he goes off on a tangent like that, ignore him! That just feeds his little chaotic fire.

TheProwler wrote:

hecter wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Think cotton is the answer? Think again! Cotton and sugarcane are 2 of the most destructive crops on the planet!

Bamboo and hemp.

Haha!

When he goes off on a tangent like that, ignore him! That just feeds his little chaotic fire.

(anyone else care to explain why I am laughing?)

PLAYER57832 wrote:

(anyone else care to explain why I am laughing?)

Because it is easier than crying.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Cause you're a girly!!!!???!!!!

PLAYER57832 wrote:

hecter wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Think cotton is the answer? Think again! Cotton and sugarcane are 2 of the most destructive crops on the planet!

Bamboo and hemp.

To a point, yes. They are definitely part of the answer -- no question. However, nothing beats fur for extreme cold. Wool works quite well for damp wet, but gets heavy (and PETA is against wool use anyway). Silk is nice, but expensive.

No, synthetic materials are best for fighting off the cold.

hecter wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

hecter wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Think cotton is the answer? Think again! Cotton and sugarcane are 2 of the most destructive crops on the planet!

Bamboo and hemp.

To a point, yes. They are definitely part of the answer -- no question. However, nothing beats fur for extreme cold. Wool works quite well for damp wet, but gets heavy (and PETA is against wool use anyway). Silk is nice, but expensive.

No, synthetic materials are best for fighting off the cold.

Its somewhat deabateable, depending on the exact kind of cold, but the Inuit, Athabascans, etc and many who have worn both in extreme conditions swear by certain natural furs. Dupont, etc try to duplicate them, but cannot.

I myself would be inclined to take the Eskimos' word for what keeps you warm best.


Honibaz

This discussion is ridiculous. PLAYER went off on a tangent because he thinks that because someone agrees with some of PETA's stances, they must agree that it is evil to wear fur to fight extreme cold. Quite a hop, skip, and a jump from thinking that starving and torturing dogs to get them to fight is cruel.

Simple point, PLAYER. PETA has, let's say for the sake of this argument, 300 beliefs. A person might agree with 25 of them, but not agree with 275 of them. Everything isn't "all or none".

I have to give credit where credit is due, though. Even though I find your "I must make an argument out of everything" attitude irritating, PLAYER, you did make a good point about "types" of cold. Some materials will do better in the wind, while some will do better with no wind. Humidity can also be a factor. But really, what a useless conversation. Doesn't your brain ever register, "Who fuckin' cares?"?

TheProwler wrote:This discussion is ridiculous. PLAYER went off on a tangent because he thinks that because someone agrees with some of PETA's stances, they must agree that it is evil to wear fur to fight extreme cold.

No, I said that someone who claims to agree with a LOT of their stances either does not know their real stances or does not understand much about animals.

Try reading what I wrote and not adding to it. As for the fur bit ... that IS a major stance of PETA. They are against wool, too.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

TheProwler wrote:This discussion is ridiculous. PLAYER went off on a tangent because he thinks that because someone agrees with some of PETA's stances, they must agree that it is evil to wear fur to fight extreme cold.

No, I said that someone who claims to agree with a LOT of their stances either does not know their real stances or does not understand much about animals.

Try reading what I wrote and not adding to it. As for the fur bit ... that IS a major stance of PETA. They are against wool, too.

Dude, I agree with PETA that farming animals like minks just for fur is immoral. I don't have any problem with an Inuit killing a seal to use the fur and meat to make clothes and eat.

I agree that sheep should be allowed to graze in a field. I don't have a problem with shearing the sheep, though.

So it is starting to look like I agree with a lot of what PETA stands for....but I disagree with a lot of what PETA stands for too.

What is that you are saying? It sounds like a chant...

"Must Argue. Must Argue. Must Argue. Must Argue. Must Argue. Must Argue. Must Argue. Must Argue. Must Argue. Must Argue. Must Argue. Must Argue."

Hey, I agree with PETA that sticking chocolate eggs up a rabbit's ass should not be allowed on Easter. But, unlike PETA, I have nothing against someone owning a rabbit as a pet as long as they provide proper care.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Cause you're a girly!!!!???!!!!

A catgirl in PETA's care?

PETA have direct links to the fast food industry in Korea. I can't find the link, but they ship out thousands of dog chops in packages marked fertilizer (Frozen fertilizer ) This thing goes way deeper than just willingly putting down unwanted pets. A friend of mine who is a PETA fund manager in Detroit told me that the man behind PETA at the very top of the organisation is a North Korean called Lau Mauchean. His name is unknown within PETA apart from to a very small number who answer to him directly.
PETA is just a massive front to supply Koreans with cheap cuts. don't give any money to this charity because you are unwittingly sponsoring an axis of evil country.

Pedronicus wrote:PETA have direct links to the fast food industry in Korea. I can't find the link, but they ship out thousands of dog chops in packages marked fertilizer (Frozen fertilizer ) This thing goes way deeper than just willingly putting down unwanted pets. A friend of mine who is a PETA fund manager in Detroit told me that the man behind PETA at the very top of the organisation is a North Korean called Lau Mauchean. His name is unknown within PETA apart from to a very small number who answer to him directly.
PETA is just a massive front to supply Koreans with cheap cuts. don't give any money to this charity because you are unwittingly sponsoring an axis of evil country.

This guy seems legit.

MeDeFe wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Cause you're a girly!!!!???!!!!

A catgirl in PETA's care?

An excerp from "the sex talk" between my father and I when I was 12 1/2 or so.
My dad said "son, when you grow up you know that you're mother and I will still love you no matter what. Gay, straight, Bi, or some weird thing that I never heard of. But don't you ever let me find out that you're a f*cking furry, boy. Because I'll kill you. I'll f*cking kill you with these two hands."

I hate pet lovers.

Georgerx7di wrote:I hate pet lovers.

What about chicken lovers? 'Cause, I mean, nothing's better than chopping a chickens head off and then fucking the body and it writhes about, let me tell you! You just can cut that chicken's head off, stick your dick in the ass of that chicken, and that damn chicken'll go crazy on your ass and go "Caaaaah".