what P.E.T.A doesnt tell you

files.filefront.com...;5143924;;/fileinfo.html
theres the link for the penn&teller:peta episode

i wont talk about it cause the video speaks for itself.
so I hope you watch it.

I also put it on google video but it wont be verified for a while so enjoy the download

video.google.com...

theres the video posted on google like a promised, video qualities fault to google

oops double post
anyways tell what u think

[edit on 15-6-2006 by DalairTheGreat]

i don't have sound on my computer, is there any place i might be able to find a transcript?

This programme purports to be informing us about the reality of PETA, but does nothing but serve as a platform for predictable and highly boring jokes revolving around vegetarian bashing and ridicule of people who care about animals.

I'm so tired of reading and watching propaganda about the animal rights movement. I don't care what two Moronic comedians think. This type of programme is poisonous. Informative? No, dangerous and misleading.

The vast majority of people involved in Animal Rights are peace loving, compassionate people who have NOTHING to do with terrorism. This programme is just so obvious in it's aims.

It's a sad, sorry world we live in

and they address that also dummy, an yes the show is to show the REALity of PETA, theres are still many animals lovers in peta that have nothing to do with the "terrorism" but theres addresses the ties to the main people behind it

an by saying
"It's a sad, sorry world we live in"
your not changing anyones opinion, your making yourself look worse because obviously you didnt watch the program all the way through

Firstly, I am not a dummy.

Secondly, the only coverage in the media about Animal Rights revolves around 'Terrorism' from groups such as the ALF or now PETA.

There is the case of the Grandmother's body being dug up by 'Extremists' or the 'Hell' that lab workers have to face everyday from protesters.

This is aiding the agenda to ban all forms of protest under the banner of Terrorism

This is gradually tarring all Animal Rights Activism with the same brush.

I lost respect for that programme after the continual jibes about the Animal Rights Activist, and his equally skinny wife etc etc etc. turning a serious subject matter into a butt for cheap jokes.

here's my 2 cents. well, ok. 25 cents.

i have a weird tendency to date vegetarians - the kind who are all about animal rights. now, it used to be that i could give a damn about animals, they tasted good and they weren't me, so the hell with 'em.

turns out, i DO have a heart.

the way some of the animals are treated in some of the farms and labs is messed up. it should not be happening. i'm not going to stop eating meat, by any means, but if someone hands me a petition for better animal treatment (NOT some vegan agenda - vegans still piss me off) legislation, i would gladly sign it.

that being said, PETA is one of the absolute worst organizations out there. NAMBLA is worse. ALF is only slightly better (than PETA) in my opinion.

to be honest, i understand the tactics they use (so-called terrorism). in their eyes, they're sticking up for the little guy, and in todays world of beauracracy, it's almost impossible to get things done with words. i don't agree with what they're doing, but i understand it - it's an act of desperation, and they think they're doing the right thing.

the people i hate are the ones who treat humans as if they're less than the animals. certainly, we have more of a propensity for harm, but then we're the dominant lifeform and top of the food chain. while we have a lot of things to work out as a species, that doesn't mean that we're any worse, fundamentally, than animals. hell, we ARE animals.

my own personal belief is that we should be focusing on the treatment humans receive at the hands of other humans. there's enough horrid stuff going on between members of our own species that while yes, animal abuse is something to punish, we should be much more focused on resolving the ills humans bring upon one another.

Okay, so here's Claire's pie-in-the-sky Utopian ideals...

Animals and humans co-exist in unity and in harmony.
Humans treat each other with respect and kindness
Humans treat animals with respect and kindness

Why is that too much to ask?

1 - animals are still a natural part of our diet.

2 - the world doesn't work like that AT ALL.

3 - animals a drama queens - you get anywhere near tem, they react way poorly. some attack us. we shoot back.

So I am supposed to just 'Go along with the way the world works'?
I'm sorry, but I live on a different planet to you. I have problems with the way the world works.

Animals are Drama Queens?? Are you serious?

um, the drama queen thing was kind of a joke. lighten up.

and insofar as teh way the world works, i wasn't talking about society. if you'd like to change nature, be my guest. if you want to control your diet, by all means, go ahead - totally doable. try to take away my right to eat meat, and you'll end up on my plate.

Do you think it's Nature to breed animals and then cage them in torturous surroundings and give them a short life of fear, pain and suffering, purely to make Big Macs?

And as far as taking away your right to eat meat - I don't care what you, or anyone else eats.

I just want the animals to have to endure less suffering and be treated with more respect.

er, if you read what i wrote the first post, that's what i said. you're not making any sense.

All your first post says to me is you have problems with Animal Rights activists who favour Animals over humans, and vegans piss you off. Broad generalisations.

Why am I not making any sense?

er, well, i do state that animal cruelty needs to stop, but i guess because i don't agree with you completely that it doesn't matter.

and you're not making any sense because you're arguing with me and i'm agreeing with you, only not to the extent with which you take it.

I'm going to bump this thread, because I just recently saw it, and felt it warranted a reply.

I'm also going to add the disclaimer that I'm drunk while replying, so the typography may not be the best, but the views are still mine, drunk or sober.

First and foremost, I want to explain to Delta Alter the differences between animal welfarists and animal activists (as you seem to have missed this distinction).

I, myself, am an animal welfarist. I eat meat, own three pets. and hate PETA. I believe in better and humane treatment for animals, be it how they are treated in a home, medical testing, or as human food. Animal activists, on the other hand, are more concerned with animal rights than human rights, and are often agreeable (if not involved) in such acts as firebombing, personal threats (sometimes resulting in violence) or other atrocities. I'll address each of my concerns in these issues individually.

As far as an average human having pets. If the animal kept as a pet is fed properly, given adequate medical care, and generally treated well (insofar as maintaining a happy, healthy pet), I see no problem with that. In fact, I'll go even further as to say that domesticated animals which, in the USA, are seen as typical pets

(dogs, cats, and more recently in the mainstream rabbits, chickens, rats, mice, and guinea pigs) are domesticated animals that RELY on us for their well-being (most specifically cats and dogs, as the others are VERY recent additions to the domestics pets category). I can say very confidently that my own dog would not be alive if it were not for human intervention. My dog is a rescue. She was originally found on the streets at roughly 9 months old, pregnant and emaciated. She would have certainly died, if not found at the time she was, and immediately brought to a vet. She was, at the time she was found, pregnant with 6, unknown mix (nobody ever knew who the father of her puppies was) puppies, who were straining her body more than she could eat (and thus provide nutrients for both her and the puppies to survive). When she was found, she was immidiately taken to a vet, fed, watered, and the litter was aborted (she would have died otherwise - the choice given by a seasoned, professional veterinarian was you have two choices - the dog or the litter. The litter has a 10% chance of surviving, and the dog has a 60% chance of surviving). What's the logical choice?

As it is now, I have a five year old, very healthy, very happy puppy (and as precious to me as my own child), who is only here through human intervention. If I went by PETA doctrines, she'd be dead.

As it is, I just had to take a brief restroom break from typing this post, and when I was done my business, who was there? My puppy. She just wanted to say hi to Daddy, and I obliged her with some time. I asked her (she's a border collie, and intelligent enough to understand human speech, even if she can't verbally respond), if she remembered being on the streets (and I live in a major city... the streets look the same), and she responded by laying down - showing submission and sadness. I asked if she remembered being pregnant (she's witnessed one of my cats being pregnant, with all the pain and happiness, andknows the word from witnessing that), and once again, she responded affirmatively. I asked her if she remembered the vet that healed her - her response was a million kisses. I asker her if she remembered the woman that she stayed with while getting healthy (my ex, who nursed her back to health), and it was an even more enthusiastic million kisses. Then I simply asked, "Who's Daddy?" Her response was playfully tackling me, and licking my face incessantly, until I asked her to back off (and "back off" is a command I've trained her with, meaning, "you're too in someone's face... back off and give them some room"). After that, you tell me that this animal is not happier in the care of a human. My own dog is proof of the validity of my statement when I say, "F you, Ingrid Newkirk." The only time that pet ownership is an issue with me, is when I see someone blatantly abusing a pet, and I've been known to rescue such animals. My girlfriend is as well, which is how she came by two of her thre pets (rescuing them from abusive families, both times by force).

As far as animal testing goes, I assure you, the animals in an average reserach lab, playing by the rules set forth by at least 5 US organizations, and 4 international organizations, they're treated better than the average pet. The average lab animal is provided with proper nutrients, toys for play, socialization (to whatever extent is allowed by the test - often just playing with another animal through the cages - physical contact is often involved), etc. These are the mandates set forth by the Animal Welfare Act. The regulations go much deeper than the basics I've outlined here. Educate yourselves. Safe to say, my girlfriend works for a major animal research facility in the field of medicine (she has personally asked that it remain anonymous, because she doesn't wish to lose her job over me disclosing it), and she has educated me on many of the animal welfare regulations put in place. Read the link. Learn something.

As far as animals used for human food, most of the horror stories from the slaughter houses are true. The scene inside the average slaughter house is very real. What PETA fails to mention is that the preferred method of death for most slaughter house animals is the bolt gun, which fires a steel bolt directly into the brain of an animal, killing it instantly. The one (and I've only seen one sequence in the PETA propaganda films) problem with the bolt gun is that's it's only 99.9% effective. Occasionally, there is the cow/pig/sheep that isn't killed by the bolt gun (and even they die shortly thereafter), but it's only one case out of 1000. If you're going to protest any slaughtering methods, protest the (constitutionally protected) kosher slaughtering method (and I mean no ill will to kosher Jews). This method of slaughtering requires the animal to be cut on the throat, and drained of blood until dead. This means often affords the slaughtered animal several hours of anguish before death. The only reason I tolerate it, is because it is protected by the Constituion, as guaranteed religious rights (the practice has been around for thousands of years, long before the Constitution of the USA was drafted).

I don't like the idea, however, of food animals being kept in cages barely (if even) big enough for their bodies. I find this to be cruel and inhmane. Unfortunately, I am a bit of a hypocrite on this aspect, as my love of meat and rather poor finances have kept me from boycotting this practice. Hopefully with my new job (which will finally place me above the poverty level), I'll be able the afford the more expensive, free-range meats, and thereby allow me to boycott the manufacturers of such small-caged meats.

Finally, I urge everyone, regardless of PETA/anit-PETA support to view the video posted here, in its entirety, before making a judgement.

The video is not anti-vegan, as some have claimed. It simply points out the hypocracies carried out by PETA. They are not as "pure" in the cause as they paint themselves to be.

The vice-president of PETA uses insulin for her diabetics, for instance. Insulin was tested on dogs - a serious violation of PETA morals. She doesn't consider it to be3 wrong, however. Watch the video for her reasoning.

Finally, and briefly (as I'm running out of space for this thread), those that think ALF and ELF are not terrorist organizations, just do a search on ATS for each of those groups (more specifically ALF), and know that both are terrorist organizations.

ALF if even on the list of domestic terrorist groups, as published by the FBI.

Take that to heart.

Obsidian.

[edit on 7/15/2006 by obsidian468]

A few other points to add on, in continuation of my last post...

Do you want a cure for AIDS?

Ingrid Newkirk, the president of PETA doesn't, if:

"If animal testing were able to proveide a cure for AIDS, I wouldn't want it."

What about the VP of PETA being dependent on insulin to continue life? (She's a diabetic.)

She said, "I am not a hypocrite. I need my life to defend animals against the injustices inflicted by humans."

She's using a drug tested on dogs, and defending it's use, based on advocating the abolition (and possible firebombing) of scientists that developed it.

Watch the original video posted. PETA support and PAYS those members of the militant terrorist organizations (ALF/ELF, etc) to carry out violent acts against civillian labs and scientists.

I actually once wrote an article based on just this topic. I'll post again as soon as I find it. There's a lot of incriminating evidence against PETA in it.

For those that are interested, here's my thread regarding PETA and their injustices: politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Enjoy. Lots of good info from both sides there.

[edit on 7/15/2006 by obsidian468]

Great post Obsidian! You basically said all I wanted to say and more. I think the main reason people join PETA is because thats the biggest animal rights group there is. They often dont really know just how demented its extremist leaders are, they just want to help the cause for animal rights in a peaceful way.