Animal Rights Activists - Page 4

As I stated before NEVER trust a fanatic!  MVF, if you donate to and support these organizations then why are you surprised that you are assumed to share their convictions?  You sound like a decent person but,  "If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas." 

Animules, you said,  "Animals are not sentient beings, period."

You are just SO WRONG about that, ranching having nothing to do with it. Please look up the word in your dictionary. There was an interesting documentary call "Elephant Rage" on National Geographic channel that quite clearly proves your statement incorrect, as one example only.

I love a good steak myself, and some animals are dumber than others, but that does not make them incapable of feeling or perceiving feelings, especially within their own species.

Non-vegetarians can be humane in their slaughtering and raising animals for food, but big business does not place this as a priority. Only if we refuse to buy from them will they listen, as evidenced in some ways by the growing popularity of organic produce and  the option to choose free range chickens and their eggs.

MVF:   "...The odd thing with respect to animules story is this: if you reread his (her?) last missive, you will see that s/he SAYS she doesn't believe that animals do not feel pain or emotion (that is, they are not sentient) -- yet animules appears to have been palpably pained by the death of the animals at the hands of the unregulated coyotes.  ... a dead bird in the past still conjures up feelings for animules, ...."

MVF and beetree, I have never once said animals do not feel emotion or pain. MVF, I do find it interesting you use the word sentient which is exactly the word used by a large animal rights organization.  I also find it interesting you make it sound like I am so upset about the loss of "a dead bird".  I am okay with the loss of the periodic bird to hawks and eagles, they only take what they eat.  I am not okay with the loss of between 40 and 50 birds in one year to coyotes that often kill for the sake of killing when we used to have some method to control them or at least scare them elsewhere.  PETA and HSUS took that way by using lies and distortions during the campaign to ban trapping in the state.  

PFP:  You said it so well:  “As I stated before NEVER trust a fanatic!  MVF, if you donate to and support these organizations then why are you surprised that you are assumed to share their convictions?  You sound like a decent person but,  "If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas." 

I would take it one step further and say never trust a person that supports and approves of fanatics.  Approves of breaking and entering, approves of releasing animals that cannot survive on their own, approve and believe animals are more important then finding cures and new drugs for people.   Some interesting reading here. http://www.animalscam.com/

I read Animules posts & didn't see where she said animals don't feel pain or have emotions.  Peta will NEVER accept dog breeders.  PETA doesn't like the idea of pets, in their original missive they stated domestication of dogs was cruel.  Funny how the organization doesn't want people to know that now.  They do state over & over that breeding and owning purebred dogs is wrong.

The sad fact, is that this is identical to guns.  They are only dangerous in the wrong hands.  I wish people would focus on the people rather than the dogs.  The dogs didn't arrange a meeting and decide to fight.  The dogs didn't decide that M. Vick needed to body slam and torture the losers of the fights.

MVF

When the butcher cuts off my next Filet Mignon, should he through away the leather?  I think that is wastefull.  Vegetarians, in my opinion, look pasty, white and ill and they have bad gas.  It is recking my environment.  Bean-o anyone?

The whole dirty truth about PETA:

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm

Many of these animals were perfectly adoptable. Many of them were obtained under false pretences: the owners/caregivers thought  PETA was going to look after them and find homes for them.  Instead, they were dead within minutes of being taken into the PETA van!

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petarebuttal.cfm

Sunsilver,

Thanks for these three links. One statement quoted from the third link really hits home:  If only the celebrity "deep-pocket" donors on the west coast knew that their donations were going to kill adoptable cats and dogs here in Norfolk. Seeing police photos of the bodies of those animals executed by PETA is heartrending.

MVF,

You apparently think that, despite a few bad apples, PETA is inherently good. Let me offer a "hypothetical"  analogy:  I have a "friend" who grew up as youth in Nazi Germany during WWII. My "friend" claims that his active participation in Hitler Youth was similar to the "Boy Scouts" and gave him backbone. My "friend" has further alluded to the goodness and the generosity of the German army and government to the family members of its "fallen heroes". So, as a child, my "friend" was brainwashed by zealots into thinking that the Nazi regime had good motives because of its loyalty to its own.

IMO, PETA's well-hidden agenda is but another form of "genocide" aimed at our companion animals and all other animals living within captivity.

MVF,

You never answered my earlier pointed questions--but, instead, began spouting more of your AR propaganda. Let me reiterate:

(2) Do you or did you support Levine's California Assembly Bill 1634 or any of its proposed revisions?

(3) Speaking as one whos finds that dogs thrive on a raw (BARF) diet, I ask you: if, as you've said, you do not propose supporting legislation against the eating of meat (while, at the same time, you are opposed the killing of "sentient beings" in slaughterhouses), how do you propose that carnivorous (especially--cats which are are obligate carnivores) animals derive their nutrients from diets that are biologically inappropriate? Who are we to decide that our dogs should be fed meat substitutes?

(4) Why do you lump such "sentient beings" as slaves, blacks, and women in the same breath as cattle. While cattle may be "sentient" in terms of being able to perceive with their senses, these animals do not possess the qualities of humanity--those that set mankind above beasts.

Louise, your (4) is exactly why I said animals are not sentient.   It gives animals the same standings as mankind.  Thank you for reinforcing and expanding on that.