holy crap...


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176739,00.html

--

Did a search but couldn't find it anywhere else...
I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong..

11/29/2005 10:10:24 AM

Yeah, but in their defense:

Quote :

"But, Friedrich countered, "They can certainly find stuff that is more in your face on the Internet, more in your face on Saturday morning cartoons. We don't need to shelter our kids quite that much.""

In other words... what we did isn't the worst possible thing on the planet, so it must be okay

11/29/2005 10:15:22 AM

Quote :

"The handout, titled "Your Daddy Kills Animals," features a grinning lunatic gutting a fish, and warns kids to keep their puppies and kittens away from Dad because he's "hooked on killing." "

LMAO, that made my day

11/29/2005 10:28:53 AM

Quote :

""The scientific facts are that fish feel pain in the same way as dogs and cats. It's no more acceptable to hook a fish through the mouth and drag them into your boat and slice them in half than it would be to do the exact same thing to a dog or a cat," said Bruce Friedrich, vegan campaign coordinator for PETA."

They do have a point. But people are too much of hypocrites to admit it. The majority of Americans (not just PETA members) support laws prohibiting "cruel treatment" of dogs and cats. Whereas nobody gives a shit about fish. Why? Because you stupid redneck think you know more about pain than professional physiologists? Or is it simply because your stupid obsession with a fur ball called a cat makes you in your own mind morally superior to those who would kill to save a fish?

The truth is the only consistent moral stand is to say that all animals are lower than us, and no animals have any "rights". Once you start giving animals rights by insisting on special treatment for cats or dogs or whales or whatever, it's only a matter of time that some will take it "too far".

11/29/2005 10:43:52 AM

I'm sorry but that is the most retarded idea ive ever heard of^ ethicaly and morally the idea that you can solve the problem, assuming its a problem, by classifying all animals as having no rights whatsoever is complete hogwash.... but i dont want to change the topic of this thread, only that, i have never seen you make a statement so blatantly idiotic, i had actual faith in you until now...

11/29/2005 11:17:21 AM

Unethical treatment of animals is not a problem. That's precisely my point. And anyone who claims that it is is typically unprepared and unwilling to accept the immediate logical implications of such a claim.

11/29/2005 11:42:29 AM

well as far as dogs, people who are cruel to to dogs create some vicious motherfucking dogs so there is some good reason to have the laws for that animal

but otherwise I think your point is generally correct

[Edited on November 29, 2005 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ]

11/29/2005 11:46:15 AM

BUSH SHOULD BOMB THE FUCKING PETA TERRORISTS!!

11/29/2005 11:48:08 AM

People who are cruel to their dogs typically create dogs that are afraid of everything, including their owner.

11/29/2005 11:52:15 AM

^which sometimes can be more dangerous than a dog being aggressive. fear biters can be the worst.

but yeah, strictly speaking, you're totally right about the consistent moral stand (although you could consistently try to afford all animals--or at least all higher animals like vertebrates--equal "rights", but that's just stupid.)

Quote :

"I'm sorry but that is the most retarded idea ive ever heard of^ ethicaly and morally the idea that you can solve the problem, assuming its a problem, by classifying all animals as having no rights whatsoever is complete hogwash.... but i dont want to change the topic of this thread, only that, i have never seen you make a statement so blatantly idiotic, i had actual faith in you until now..."

i'm afraid you're wrong. no animals have rights. humans, in my opinion, have certain responsibilities to afford animals certain privileges, but no animals have rights.

and he's right--dogs, for example, are afforded more of those privileges than fish for no other reason than because, well, we like dogs more.

11/29/2005 12:40:08 PM

^i'd have to pretty much agree with that.

plus fish are just fucking stupid

11/29/2005 12:45:17 PM

I want a copy of this comic. Someone find out where I can get it.

11/29/2005 1:09:58 PM

ITS OK TO EAT FISH
CAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY FEELINGS

11/29/2005 1:11:25 PM

11/29/2005 1:37:00 PM

THEY'D EAT YOU IF THEY HAD THE CHANCE

[Edited on November 29, 2005 at 1:57 PM. Reason : oh and if god didn't want us to eat fish/animals he wouldn't have made them so tasty]

11/29/2005 1:56:36 PM

i grilled some fresh king mackerel last week and godDAMN it was good

11/29/2005 2:05:28 PM

so if they believe all animals have rights...

and eating animals is wrong...

are they going to go capture all of the bears/birds/raccoons/hippos/otters/and whatever other animals eat a steady diet of nothing but fish?

its evolution, baby

11/29/2005 2:08:36 PM

i think fish tastes terrible so im obviously the fish savior.

11/29/2005 2:10:00 PM

Quote :

"are they going to go capture all of the bears/birds/raccoons/hippos/otters/and whatever other animals eat a steady diet of nothing but fish?"

That is something I've wondered about. What is the distinction they make between omnivorous and carnivorous animals eating other animals and humans eating other animals? Obviously humans have eaten animals for a long time; our digestive systems and teeth are naturally designed to consume animal flesh (among other things).

11/29/2005 2:15:53 PM

Most people wouldn’t expect PETA activists to visit the local fishing hole or hang out in front of tackle shops at fishing tournaments, but starting on September 24, Fish Amnesty Day, activists will take to the water with their sights on dads who are teaching their kids to abuse animals.

PETA’s pro-fish leaflet reminds fishers and their families that fish feel pain and fear when they are impaled in the mouth and ripped from their underwater homes and that they deserve to be treated with kindness, just like all animals.

Before they are desensitized to the suffering of animals, PETA aims to help kids see the violent bloody truth behind their fathers’ outdoor pastime.

Children will read: “Imagine that a man dangles a piece of candy in front of you. ... As you grab the candy, a huge metal hook stabs through your hand and you’re ripped off the ground. You fight to get away, but it doesn’t do any good... That would be an awful trick to play on someone, wouldn’t it?”


You gotta love the little frowny face beside the issue number

[Edited on November 29, 2005 at 2:25 PM. Reason : -]

[Edited on November 29, 2005 at 2:27 PM. Reason : ;]

11/29/2005 2:23:55 PM

I think, though It's a silly argument in my opinion, that most vegetarians who don't eat meat for moral reasons see it this way:

yes, we evolved eating meat. We've gotten past the point where meat is necessary, however, to survive. You can be a vegetarian - hell, a vegan - and it's not too terribly difficult. If everyone was a vegan, it'd be REALLY easy to be a vegan. We don't NEED meat. It's just easier to survive by eating meat, especially in our society.

11/29/2005 2:27:25 PM

Quote :

"Imagine that a man dangles a piece of candy in front of you. ... As you grab the candy, a huge metal hook stabs through your hand and you’re ripped off the ground. You fight to get away, but it doesn’t do any good... That would be an awful trick to play on someone, wouldn’t it?"

That is pretty stupid, especially when you consider they support spaying and nutering "companion animals".

Imagine that a man takes you in his home to give you food and shelter. ... As you live there, you are taken to a doctor that guts your privates out. You fight to get away, but it doesn't do any good... Food and shelter for gutted out privates would be an awful trade, wouldn't it?

I don't support killing animals for sport (unless you eat what you kill). I know that their ultimate goal is to get rid of the notion of pets all together but that is a pretty lame scare tactic.

[Edited on November 29, 2005 at 2:42 PM. Reason : -]

11/29/2005 2:39:17 PM

I would slice that fish open right there and eat it while it was still wriggling.

just to see the look on their faces.


then, you know, die from mercury poisoning and all that good stuff.

11/29/2005 3:10:27 PM

Quote :

"yes, we evolved eating meat. We've gotten past the point where meat is necessary, however, to survive. You can be a vegetarian - hell, a vegan - and it's not too terribly difficult. If everyone was a vegan, it'd be REALLY easy to be a vegan. We don't NEED meat. It's just easier to survive by eating meat, especially in our society."

you're forgetting the one main reason people want to eat meat, it is delicious. There is no way any flavord tofu or meat substitute could ever taste as good as the real thing. That alone would keep me from being vega/vegetarian.

11/29/2005 3:25:08 PM

PETA is stupid as shit

but the Center for Consumer Freedom was founded on a grant from tobacco companies
so they're assholes too

11/29/2005 6:39:35 PM

Quote :

"then, you know, die from mercury poisoning and all that good stuff."

ummmm.... since when does heat destroy mercury

11/29/2005 7:47:43 PM

Quote :

"Because you stupid redneck think you know more about pain than professional physiologists?"

fish dont feel pain in the way smarter animals do
until there is evidence to show otherwise im going to side with the rednecks (and the experts that have been saying this for years)

11/29/2005 8:12:10 PM

just signed my roommate up for a bunch of peta propaganda...

11/29/2005 8:17:15 PM

http://www.furisdead.com/pdfs/mommykills.pdf "Your Mommy Kills Animals"
http://www.fishinghurts.com/pdfs/DaddyKillsAnimals.pdf "Your Daddy Kills Animals"

[Edited on November 29, 2005 at 10:26 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2005 10:24:42 PM

Why is that fish bleeding?

11/29/2005 10:45:00 PM

"Fish suffer and feel pain just as we do..."
Funny, I've never seen a fish do the talk-show circuit...

11/30/2005 12:27:51 AM

god I hate peta

I just hate peta so much

11/30/2005 1:06:53 AM

yeah, they are among the stupidest douchebags on the planet

right behind the ELF


bunch of counterproductive shiteaters

11/30/2005 1:10:35 AM

Quote :

"PETA’s pro-fish leaflet reminds fishers and their families that fish feel pain and fear when they are impaled in the mouth and ripped from their underwater homes and that they deserve to be treated with kindness, just like all animals. Before they are desensitized to the suffering of animals, PETA aims to help kids see the violent bloody truth behind their fathers’ outdoor pastime. "

you my friend are a retard, and you are currently inhibiting a process that we now know as evolution.

and i laugh when you refer to fishing as the "violent bloody truth behind their fathers’ outdoor pastime".

Quote :

"Fish Amnesty Day, activists will take to the water with their sights on dads who are teaching their kids to abuse animals. "

i REALLY hope that this a joke, because this will not prove anything and/or influence anyone. so, good luck

11/30/2005 9:31:03 AM

Quote :

"This is traumatizing kids by the thousands. There's going to be long-term psychological damage from these kids being exposed to the material that PETA puts in front of them on a regular basis"

LOL

11/30/2005 9:34:24 AM

Quote :

""are they going to go capture all of the bears/birds/raccoons/hippos/otters/and whatever other animals eat a steady diet of nothing but fish?""

not to defend PeTA, cause i hate those guys

you do realize that rhinos don't have giant chicken farms where they are subjected to pens the size of a microwave, are painfully debeaked, and so on and so forth

its a biggggg difference between an animal that hunts and eats what it needs
and the modern meat trade in america

that said

fuck PeTA
i love me some dead animals

11/30/2005 9:41:48 AM

Quote :

"The truth is the only consistent moral stand is to say that all animals are lower than us, and no animals have any "rights". Once you start giving animals rights by insisting on special treatment for cats or dogs or whales or whatever, it's only a matter of time that some will take it "too far". ... Unethical treatment of animals is not a problem. That's precisely my point. And anyone who claims that it is is typically unprepared and unwilling to accept the immediate logical implications of such a claim. "

Damn, MathFreak is on fire today. Of course fish feel pain, and are practically our genetic twins(for that matter, so are slugs), but that doesn't change the fact that you can't selectively protect certain species. Hell, we can't even protect human life properly.

11/30/2005 10:03:08 AM

Thought however,

Not that I support Peta, I love me some meat.
But, couldn't you take an ethical standpoint of all of them the right not to be killed *without* reason, or abused? And then *not* be contradicting anything?

Basically the standpoint of take what you need, respect what you kill, and kill it in a way that's not designed to cause more pain than necissary.

Hence, not precluding the desire/need/whatever to eat meat and use leather and all that stuff, but you can still be against kicking a puppy. (Wtf does kicking puppies get you?). Also wouldn't preclude folks in like, China, from eating dogs cats whatever. See where I'm going?

*and sits back to wait to be flamed for it*

11/30/2005 10:13:54 AM

As Penn Jillette said, "[I] would kill every ape on the planet with [my] bare hands, to save the life of one street junky with AIDS."

11/30/2005 11:02:02 AM

cancer yes

aids no

11/30/2005 11:09:39 AM

OMG if you hunt or fish youre a redneck!!1!!11!!

11/30/2005 11:35:14 AM

Quote :

"you my friend are a retard, and you are currently inhibiting a process that we now know as evolution. and i laugh when you refer to fishing as the "violent bloody truth behind their fathers’ outdoor pastime". "

I don't know who you're referring to with the 'retard' comment -- everything that I posted (except for the "gotta love the frowny face" comment) came directly from the PETA website. I should have put it in quotes, but I assumed it would be obvious that the comments were from a PETA spokesperson or taken directly off of the site. Sorry for any confusion.

11/30/2005 2:16:49 PM

Quote :

"you're forgetting the one main reason people want to eat meat, it is delicious. There is no way any flavord tofu or meat substitute could ever taste as good as the real thing. That alone would keep me from being vega/vegetarian."

I'd disagree, and I think it's a matter of preference. there are tons of veggie dishes that I would rank far above any meat dish I've ever had. I've had some GREAT meat dishes. I've cooked osme great meat dishes. I just don't think any meat dish can compare to some of the better veggie dishes I've made and eaten, like the veggie moussaka I made a few weeks ago. mmmmm

11/30/2005 3:03:44 PM

Woodfoot: "not to defend PeTA, cause i hate those guys...

While I agree that there is a difference it's not like a fish doesn't experience pain while being eaten by the bear/bird/racoon/otter/whatever. I think the counterpoint as to why PETA isn't that concerned about animal enmity is because we, unlike animals, should know better. That line of reasoning still places us above animals. When talking about hunter-prey I wonder what the animal-animal to human-animal kill ratio is? I guess the argument in that case is more over quantity versus the argument over level of cruelty.

MathFreak, I'm not sure what kind of "rights" and special treatment you are talking here but some animals do deserve a level of protection where others do not. I'm thinking of endangered species. Pandas have more of a right to certain levels of protection (and get it) than an alley cat. I'm pretty sure you were not trying to go that direction with your comment though.

BTW:

Quote :

"Or is it simply because your stupid obsession with a fur ball called a cat makes you in your own mind morally superior to those who would kill to save a fish?"

I'll take a crazy person with an obsession for cats over a murderer for moral superiority any day of the week.

[Edited on December 1, 2005 at 8:29 AM. Reason : -]

12/1/2005 8:27:50 AM

Quote :

"But, couldn't you take an ethical standpoint of all of them the right not to be killed *without* reason, or abused? And then *not* be contradicting anything? Basically the standpoint of take what you need, respect what you kill, and kill it in a way that's not designed to cause more pain than necissary. Hence, not precluding the desire/need/whatever to eat meat and use leather and all that stuff, but you can still be against kicking a puppy. (Wtf does kicking puppies get you?). Also wouldn't preclude folks in like, China, from eating dogs cats whatever. See where I'm going? *and sits back to wait to be flamed for it* "

best comment made this entire thread. seriously.

12/1/2005 9:29:44 AM

Quote :

"MathFreak, I'm not sure what kind of "rights" and special treatment you are talking here but some animals do deserve a level of protection where others do not. I'm thinking of endangered species. Pandas have more of a right to certain levels of protection (and get it) than an alley cat. I'm pretty sure you were not trying to go that direction with your comment though."

You realize that several species of insects die out completely every single day, don't you? Who does what to stop that?

12/1/2005 11:36:53 PM

you know the only reason we have evolved a huge brain and mental capcity is because we started eating meat which is very high calorie compared to plants. The brain is the 2nd largest energy hog in the body (second to intestines) and without the meat in our diet, it would have never had the sustinence to grow larger.


let them continue eating vegies and in a couple million years, they will be pre homo-erectus

12/2/2005 2:08:17 AM

^^You're right. We should just go ahead and kill the last of the pandas and other endangered species off. After all, if we can't save every endangered animal out there we might as well not even try with the others.

12/2/2005 7:49:48 AM

^ We should help endangered species but not because they "deserve it"
Such talk is foolish, animals have no rights and deserve nothing. However, we humans derive use out of their mere existance (they look funny/make us feel good for saving them) therefore to maximize utility only a fool would allow some species to die out. Insects, obviously, gross us out and therefore deserve less protection.

This philosophical backing is more defensible, expecially when compared to the "they deserve it" argument.

12/2/2005 9:37:26 AM

Dude, you are splitting hairs when it comes to the word "deserve". I didn't say the animals did anything to merit protection, I said they deserve protection. Maybe a clearer way of putting it is if a given species is in short supply and we want to "maximize [it's] utility" then the matter deserves attention.

[Edited on December 2, 2005 at 10:14 AM. Reason : -]

12/2/2005 9:54:44 AM