We had a PETA speaker today...

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: cashman

Originally posted by: ggavinmoss
It's funny, I think we liberals hate PETA more than anyone because people lump us into the same catagory. PETA is reatarded. Freaking idiots.

-geoff

You know what, I came to realize liberals aren't that bad. We all have our different views and all of the liberals I know aren't really that radical. I just hate the really radical lefts that are loco. But PETA takes the cake now.

and you don't find radical right just as annoying? antiabortionists that bomb abortion centers for example?

 

[TonyG]

I wish we would get a speaker like that in my English class, we would have a great time with him. I have a friend who is a vegetarian and a liberal, but I can guarentee you that he dislikes peta as much as we do here.
I alone could have enough fun of my own with the speaker as I use to work in a petshop, and we had a very wide variety of animals, from mice to reptiles, south american jungle cat and raccoons to name a few.
Always fun to grab a big rat by its tail, smack it against a concrete wall, and feed it to the 4 foot caiman.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: shenaniganz

Originally posted by: Citrix
I love professors like that. I have had 2 and every second i get i challenge them on their views. Hey if they are going to bring it to a classroom and push it on me, they better have the facts to back them up. I hate profs like that, they think they are God and know everything.

**edit, btw, i got a low C in the class.

Yes, I figured it out early on, that if you want to get good grades in a class don't clash with your profs, tell them what they want to hear, regardless if it clashes with your personal opinion. This sucks but it is the truth.

Yip you are correct. However i really dont care what grades i got just as long as i passed in the colleges eyes. For me the important thing is if i understood the material. Grades to me are not that important.

 

[Excelsior]

*sigh*

to all of you, and even the PETA speaker.

 

[yukichigai]

I didn't read the thread. I imagine it is long and filled with the same arguments I've heard over and over again and again. So let me add mine.

PETA is crap. I mean asking for the ethical treatment of animals is an okay thing; we shouldn't kick puppies or drown kittens, cockfights are bad, so is underground pitbull fighting. But these guys take everything way out of proportion. Does anybody remember a few years ago when they were handing out "Murder King" paper crowns, with rather gruesome images of decapitated cow's heads and blood splatters all over them? Yeah, as a protest to the video in question at the time (apparantly a meat supplier Burger King used was skinning the cows and cutting off their feet before they killed them) it was an effective means of satire mixed with protest. But what made me hate them so very much was the fact that they were handing these out in front of an elementary school. When a group finds no problem with potentially scarring schoolchildren for life as part of a protest you can officially put them on the "whackjob" list. And that wasn't even the worst of the crap they've pulled. (Remember that spot where they compared livestock holding pens to Holocaust concentration camp housing?)

PETA likes to say that animals slaughtered for food are tortured and suffer incredibly just so you can eat. HAH, right. I live in an area with a large ranching community, and as such know a good deal about the whole process. Number one, never have I seen any livestock being "tortured" in any of the ranchers' fields. All I ever see is cows eating grass and hay, hanging out, and occasionally being herded in for the night. As for how they're killed... back in the olden days they used to have a guy who hung out just to the side of where the cows came into the slaughterhouse, with a sledgehammer. His job was to hit the cow in the head, really, really hard. Pretty quick, pretty humane. Today they use a pressure-driven shaft which is to a bullet what a yo-yo is to a rock. Even quicker, just as humane. Thats about as pleasantly as a cow can expect to go.

Now if you have an objection to killing animals at all, well... what can I say. But don't believe this crap about torture and suffering and blah blah blah. It's crap. PETA is crap. Support the Humane Society if you want to prevent cruelty to animals.

 

[GroundZero]

Originally posted by: GroundZero
i belong to P.E.T.A.

Please Eat The Animals!


one of these pansyassed freaks told me the other day that she could never eat anything that had a face and wanted to know how i could.
well i just told her that i always cut their faces off before i eat them. so now i was on the offensive with this damn veggie-head.
and had to bring up the fact that at least a cow had the chance to run away if it wanted to, but what about the wheat? what about the wheat man? it never had a chance to get away. it saw you coming and never had a chance to even put up a fight!
i have the teeth of an omnivore, therefore i am an equal opportunity eater of all things tasty!

 

[element]

You had a PITA speaker too.

 

[Rogue]

Originally posted by: GroundZero

Originally posted by: GroundZero
i belong to P.E.T.A.

Please Eat The Animals!


one of these pansyassed freaks told me the other day that she could never eat anything that had a face and wanted to know how i could.
well i just told her that i always cut their faces off before i eat them. so now i was on the offensive with this damn veggie-head.
and had to bring up the fact that at least a cow had the chance to run away if it wanted to, but what about the wheat? what about the wheat man? it never had a chance to get away. it saw you coming and never had a chance to even put up a fight!
i have the teeth of an omnivore, therefore i am an equal opportunity eater of all things tasty!

I don't know exactly why, but I am LMFAO right now!

I'd have to say that I would have thrown all caution to the wind and gone toe to toe with the guy and if I were reprimanded by way of a decreased grade, I would have raised ever loving hell with the school for it.

 

[yukichigai]

Save a plant, eat a cow, I want meat and I want it now. I'm gonna eat it 'cause it's red; I'm gonna eat it 'cause it's dead. Maybe I should eat it raw and let the blood run down my jaw. I'd eat people if it were legal. I'd eat people if it were legal!

Not nearly as funny, but fun to say.

 

[ScottyB]

I don't like PETA either, but I rather have them than the anti-choice crowd that kill doctors, nurses and women by blowing up buildings.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I don't like PETA either, but I rather have them than the anti-choice crowd that kill doctors, nurses and women by blowing up buildings.

I wonder what percentage of violent "pro-life" activists get hit by trains, or as I call it "fall victim to Natural Selection."

I bet it's high.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I don't like PETA either, but I rather have them than the anti-choice crowd that kill doctors, nurses and women by blowing up buildings.

How many doctors, nurses, and women have been killed by anti-abortion protesters?

and how many babies have been killed by abortion doctors?

 

[virtuamike]

Me and the coworkers are going out for steak tonight. If PETA doesn't want eat that's fine, more meat for us.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I don't like PETA either, but I rather have them than the anti-choice crowd that kill doctors, nurses and women by blowing up buildings.

How many doctors, nurses, and women have been killed by anti-abortion protesters?

and how many babies have been killed by abortion doctors?

(wrong) x 2 != right

If the people who kill abortion doctors, nurses, etc. can look in a mirror and call themselves "pro-life" they shouldn't even be considered human anymore.

 

[Atrail]

herbivores
carnivores

prey
predators

 

[Danman]

Just something else to add.


Someone asked in class today about scientific testing on animals and asked if it helps us achieve cures for cancer, why can't we do it? The guy said, "Oh well there's nothing out of it....blah blah blah I'm so full of bullshit....if we test it on a monkey we can prove anything to a human so why do the test at all?" Then he went on how we should test it on humans instead of animals......YEAHHHHHHHH OKAY DUDE. LET'S TEST IT ON YOUR DAUGHTER THEN.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I don't like PETA either, but I rather have them than the anti-choice crowd that kill doctors, nurses and women by blowing up buildings.

How many doctors, nurses, and women have been killed by anti-abortion protesters?

and how many babies have been killed by abortion doctors?

(wrong) x 2 != right

If the people who kill abortion doctors, nurses, etc. can look in a mirror and call themselves "pro-life" they shouldn't even be considered human anymore.

It started as a serious question. ScottyLiBeral made it sound like it was standard practice and I was wondering how often this has actually happened. I've only heard of a few cases (Paul Hill is one).

Sorry this is off-topic, but I didn't start it.
Answer this question for me:
If a person had murdered hundreds of children (Jeffrey Dahmer types), and someone killed that person to prevent them from murdering their next victim, do you think that action would be justified?
I know it's different, but if you believe that a baby is entitled to the same protection of life before birth as after birth, then it is very easy to understand the logic used by someone like Paul Hill to justify his actions.

It is not as simple as saying 2 wrongs don't make right. That is assuming that you actually have 2 wrongs.
If someone breaks into your house and is about to shoot your wife and children, would you kill them?
Would it be wrong?
I certainly would and I would have zero guilt about it.

Paul Hill believed he was doing the right thing by killing someone who made their living off of the killing of human beings. He was trying to protect innocent children from having their brains sucked out of their skulls even after they have a beating heart, functioning nervous system, senses of pain, touch, smell, taste, etc. simply because they are an inconvenience.

EDIT: And no, I am not religious at all.

 

[Danman]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I don't like PETA either, but I rather have them than the anti-choice crowd that kill doctors, nurses and women by blowing up buildings.

How many doctors, nurses, and women have been killed by anti-abortion protesters?

and how many babies have been killed by abortion doctors?

(wrong) x 2 != right

If the people who kill abortion doctors, nurses, etc. can look in a mirror and call themselves "pro-life" they shouldn't even be considered human anymore.

It started as a serious question. ScottyLiBeral made it sound like it was standard practice and I was wondering how often this has actually happened. I've only heard of a few cases (Paul Hill is one).

Sorry this is off-topic, but I didn't start it.
Answer this question for me:
If a person had murdered hundreds of children (Jeffrey Dahmer types), and someone killed that person to prevent them from murdering their next victim, do you think that action would be justified?
I know it's different, but if you believe that a baby is entitled to the same protection of life before birth as after birth, then it is very easy to understand the logic used by someone like Paul Hill to justify his actions.

It is not as simple as saying 2 wrongs don't make right. That is assuming that you actually have 2 wrongs.
If someone breaks into your house and is about to shoot your wife and children, would you kill them?
Would it be wrong?
I certainly would and I would have zero guilt about it.

Paul Hill believed he was doing the right thing by killing someone who made their living off of the killing of human beings. He was trying to protect innocent children from having their brains sucked out of their skulls even after they have a beating heart, functioning nervous system, senses of pain, touch, smell, taste, etc. simply because they are an inconvenience.

EDIT: And no, I am not religious at all.

Heh, this is a really touchy subject. I think those two situations are different, if someone broke into my house and they were coming to harm my wife or child; I would light the bitch up. He did that for a purpose, he's a sick fvck. But an abortion doctor, it's a line of work and the mother consents to it. If your wife wanted to be killed, yea that's rediculous but it's her choice. I think women have that choice, even if it's right or wrong. It's not up to any of the pro or anti protestors.

It all comes down to the mother's decision.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: shuan24
good thing you didnt show him this!

:beer:

images

Naw....show him THIS instead. ;-)

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: cashman

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I don't like PETA either, but I rather have them than the anti-choice crowd that kill doctors, nurses and women by blowing up buildings.

How many doctors, nurses, and women have been killed by anti-abortion protesters?

and how many babies have been killed by abortion doctors?

(wrong) x 2 != right

If the people who kill abortion doctors, nurses, etc. can look in a mirror and call themselves "pro-life" they shouldn't even be considered human anymore.

It started as a serious question. ScottyLiBeral made it sound like it was standard practice and I was wondering how often this has actually happened. I've only heard of a few cases (Paul Hill is one).

Sorry this is off-topic, but I didn't start it.
Answer this question for me:
If a person had murdered hundreds of children (Jeffrey Dahmer types), and someone killed that person to prevent them from murdering their next victim, do you think that action would be justified?
I know it's different, but if you believe that a baby is entitled to the same protection of life before birth as after birth, then it is very easy to understand the logic used by someone like Paul Hill to justify his actions.

It is not as simple as saying 2 wrongs don't make right. That is assuming that you actually have 2 wrongs.
If someone breaks into your house and is about to shoot your wife and children, would you kill them?
Would it be wrong?
I certainly would and I would have zero guilt about it.

Paul Hill believed he was doing the right thing by killing someone who made their living off of the killing of human beings. He was trying to protect innocent children from having their brains sucked out of their skulls even after they have a beating heart, functioning nervous system, senses of pain, touch, smell, taste, etc. simply because they are an inconvenience.

EDIT: And no, I am not religious at all.

Heh, this is a really touchy subject. I think those two situations are different, if someone broke into my house and they were coming to harm my wife or child; I would light the bitch up. He did that for a purpose, he's a sick fvck. But an abortion doctor, it's a line of work and the mother consents to it. If your wife wanted to be killed, yea that's rediculous but it's her choice. I think women have that choice, even if it's right or wrong. It's not up to any of the pro or anti protestors.

It all comes down to the mother's decision.

Yeah, but your twisting the analogy.
We aren't talking about someone choosing to kill themselves. We are talking about someone choosing to kill another human being.

Change your analogy to:
What if you and your wife hired the guy to break in and kill your 5 year old son, would that simply be "your choice"?
Would I be justified in killing that guy to prevent the murder of your son even if you and your wife both "chose" to have the son killed?
It's all a question of where you draw the line.

I just think it's ridiculous to say that the day before a child is born, it's legal to kill that child, but the day after the child is born, you can get the death penalty for that crime. It's the same person the day before birth as it is the day after birth. It's just in a different environment.

I don't have an answer as to where that line should be drawn, but it sure as hell should be much earlier than birth. The child is a fully functioning, fully conscious human being by the time they are 18 weeks gestation.

 

[Gooberlx2]

If I were a comp professor I would do the same thing, except I would bring in speakers from both extreme sides of the same issue. In fact, I'd bring in speakers about abortion, just to make it even more controversial.

My comp prof did this and I'm glad he did. The whole thing was an exercise on the effectiveness of one's argument(s). And believe me, being openly gay and very pro-active, my prof was quite liberal. But he was always very good at playing the devil's advocate for the conservative side when we had class discussions...so I don't think his political standpoint had anything to do with it.

Another prof of mine, for an evolution class, did the same thing (creationsm [specifically christianty since it's so convienient/easy to get a speaker] vs. darwinism/evolution). I think the difference between your situation and mine was that my profs made it very clear that the whole thing was an exercise for the class.

Usually, they'd say something to the affect of: "We're having a radical speaker about a controversial subject. Regardless of what your opinions, motivations and beliefs are, you are to treat him/her with certain sense of cordiality and professionalism. By all means, debate and argue after the speech, but do not act like an ass or your grade will suffer. There will be an assignment due for the next class."

Profs are fairly impervious from any kind of disciplinary action from a dean or some-such person (especially if they're tenured) on things like this because they can blow it off as an educational exercise....which I'm willing to bet it was really meant to be.

I mean, hell, I consider myself to be liberal (more so than most I'd bet), but still well balanced. The severly radical of every side usually sound like nuts to most people.

my $0.02

 

[yukichigai]

The argument about killing abortion doctors to prevent more deaths is flawed with the comparisons I've seen. I'm not going to say it's because fetuses aren't people, no no no, we've heard enough of that over and over again. What I want to point out is that in all the comparisons I've seen the allegory to the abortion doctor is always something... well evil, but knowingly evil, like a burglar or a mass-murderer. It's not like abortion doctors go to work and say "oh yeah, gonna kill me some fetuses today because I'm evil, whooooo! Yeah! Go satan!" These people honestly believe in what they are doing. But instead of attempting to reason with them these whackjob extremists kill them. That's not activism, it's barbarism.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
The argument about killing abortion doctors to prevent more deaths is flawed with the comparisons I've seen. I'm not going to say it's because fetuses aren't people, no no no, we've heard enough of that over and over again. What I want to point out is that in all the comparisons I've seen the allegory to the abortion doctor is always something... well evil, but knowingly evil, like a burglar or a mass-murderer. It's not like abortion doctors go to work and say "oh yeah, gonna kill me some fetuses today because I'm evil, whooooo! Yeah! Go satan!" These people honestly believe in what they are doing. But instead of attempting to reason with them these whackjob extremists kill them. That's not activism, it's barbarism.

I understand what you are saying.

But intent really doesn't define whether an act is right or wrong, good or evil.

Abortion doctors may believe that they are doing the right thing.
Paul Hill also honestly believed he was doing the right thing. Does that make what he did ok?

Believing that you are doing something moral does not make it so.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: yukichigai
The argument about killing abortion doctors to prevent more deaths is flawed with the comparisons I've seen. I'm not going to say it's because fetuses aren't people, no no no, we've heard enough of that over and over again. What I want to point out is that in all the comparisons I've seen the allegory to the abortion doctor is always something... well evil, but knowingly evil, like a burglar or a mass-murderer. It's not like abortion doctors go to work and say "oh yeah, gonna kill me some fetuses today because I'm evil, whooooo! Yeah! Go satan!" These people honestly believe in what they are doing. But instead of attempting to reason with them these whackjob extremists kill them. That's not activism, it's barbarism.

I understand what you are saying.

But intent really doesn't define whether an act is right or wrong, good or evil.

Abortion doctors may believe that they are doing the right thing.
Paul Hill also honestly believed he was doing the right thing. Does that make what he did ok?

Believing that you are doing something moral does not make it so.

No, it doesn't. But jumping straight to murder without trying all other means possible is inhuman.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I don't like PETA either, but I rather have them than the anti-choice crowd that kill doctors, nurses and women by blowing up buildings.

How many doctors, nurses, and women have been killed by anti-abortion protesters?

and how many babies have been killed by abortion doctors?

not babies.

also, abortion is legal, bombing clinics is NOT.