> PETA is a terrorist organisation. Anyone supporting them is a supporter of terrorism and should be removed from society.

I think thats going a bit to far. Do you think that supporters or members of PETA are bad people? My friends mom used to be a member of PETA and she doesn't strike as a particularly evil, immoral, and nasty person. How can you justify your absolutist stance? If anything we should get rid of closed minded individuals such as yourself.

I think thats going a bit to far. Do you think that supporters or members of PETA are bad people? My friends mom used to be a member of PETA and she doesn't strike as a particularly evil, immoral, and nasty person.

People who want to control what others are allowed to do in order to satisfy their moral prejudices aren't evil, immoral, or nasty?

> PETA is a terrorist organisation. Anyone supporting them is a supporter of terrorism and should be removed from society.

I think thats going a bit to far. Do you think that supporters or members of PETA are bad people? My friends mom used to be a member of PETA and she doesn't strike as a particularly evil, immoral, and nasty person. How can you justify your absolutist stance? If anything we should get rid of closed minded individuals such as yourself.

PETA has documented links with several ecoterrorist groups, including highranking members being members of both and PETA supplying substantial funding and information to those groups.

So yes, they're a terrorist organisation for all purposes. This may not be known to most of their lowranking members who just fall for the public PR campaign (though how anyone'd fall for such smut as they pour out is beyond me), but certainly to the mid and top cadre.

>People who want to control what others are allowed to do in order to satisfy their moral prejudices aren't evil, immoral, or nasty?

No, its called human nature. (which I suppose could be called evil, immoral, and nasty)

>PETA has documented links with several ecoterrorist groups, including highranking members being members of both and PETA supplying substantial funding and information to those groups.

So yes, they're a terrorist organisation for all purposes. This may not be known to most of their lowranking members who just fall for the public PR campaign (though how anyone'd fall for such smut as they pour out is beyond me), but certainly to the mid and top cadre.

Ok PETA maybe is a terrorist organizations but to say that all PETA members should be removed from society is a bit to far.

Ok PETA maybe is a terrorist organizations but to say that all PETA members should be removed from society is a bit to far.

As if they are hippies most of whome know nothing about what they are fighting for and the real reason as to why these things are happening.

For Example.

Here in australia we have a massive problem with cane toads in the higher states. These Cane Toads are killing our wildlife, destroying our crops and getting into everything. Cane Toad Golf became a popular sport ( i think the name speaks for itself) even politicians have supported this. Then of course all the city greens who have never seen the destruction these things are causing and probably have never spent more then a day out of the city get up in arms and screaming about how its cruel and lets just leave the cane toads alone. Bullshit! anyone who has been to Queensland and the top of newsouth wales has seen the problems that they are creating and how its not just 1 or 2 cane toads. These things are in the millions sometimes even covering an entire back yard.

I think all these animal rights groups need to see why these things are going on and experience these things for themself before bitching about it.

As for PETA they go beyond defending animals into the loving of animals and as we all know from the bible thats just wrong.

Leviticus 20:15-16
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Also another verse that has nothing to do with this topic but is funny none the less.

20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you

i dont know who i am addressing now and i honestly dont care.

i came to within an inch of being an eco-terrorist myself so you you will have to indulge me for having a bit of sympathy for these people.

and just what the hell is up with toad golf? what pathetic s.o sorry b. came up with that? sure kill the frogs if they are a problem. i am not saying dont kill them if they are in fact a problem. i know that i kill animals all the time. i kill snails and a whole lot of insects if they invade my garden to the extend that they become a problem. but it is people like you who support playing golf with a living and breathing organism that gives humanity such a bad name.

if i could have one wish then it would be for dinosaurs to return for... lets say a day and who knows. perhaps you could be invited for a game of tag.

i have told you before and i am telling you again that it is an act of cowardice to attack something if you are secure in the knowledge that you cant be struck back.

all of those monsters who played toad golf should be transported back to 1943. who knows. perhaps hitler can accomodate them into a gass chamber or something and forever remove them from the human gene pool.

as far as quoting from the bible. do you honestly believe that a God who is supposed to be all love and gentleness sanctioned you being cruel to an animal? there is a difference between killing and torturing. God said kill. not torture. this is one reason why i am an atheist. people like you always find some way to justify yourself via the bible.

Did you actually read the verses or are you just trying to stand up for people who have sex with animals? As far as i know i wasn't justifying anything with the bible.

Seems to me by saying that people who played cane toad golf should be killed your treasuring an animals life over a humans. As i already said the damned things are a pest. They have no predators here meaning that they have to be kept in line. The best way to do that is to get people out there with golf clubs and cricket bats. Whats so cruel about that?

i have nothing against you killing them. i just told you that i kill pests myself if they invade my garden. what i want to know is why do you play golf with them. do you honestly want to tell me that there is no way that you can kill them quickly? i cant even see how it is effective to kill them by playing golf with them. if you set out with a determine campaign of killing of a pest then you would kill far more in a smaller amount of time than you would by enjoying a nice game of golf.

as far as standing up for people who have sex with animals. what on earth in my post gave you that idea? sure kill the man. in fact throw the pig into a crocodile pool. i dont understand why the animal has to die too but if your religion demands it then sure kill the animal too. what i am against is you using that verse as a justification for torturing animals.

one can kill without being cruel. in fact a vet once killed a dog i had and he killed the dog out of kindness. that is to say that had the dog been left alive he would have died eventually anyway(of his wounds) but while he was waiting to die he experienced more pain than i can even begin to imagine.

yes i am saying that people who play toad golf should be killed. but not because i value animal life over human life since i do not. but what i do value is the life of an animal over the life a cruel and heartless monster. in another time monsters like that were involved in all kinds of things ranging from slavery to mass murder and all else.

you see it is a question of compassion. if you cant feel sorry for a frog as it is being hit again and again and again and again then i can probably asume that if you had lived 150 years ago you would not have felt sorry for the pittifull existence of a slave either.

i have nothing against you killing them. i just told you that i kill pests myself if they invade my garden. what i want to know is why do you play golf with them. do you honestly want to tell me that there is no way that you can kill them quickly? i cant even see how it is effective to kill them by playing golf with them. if you set out with a determine campaign of killing of a pest then you would kill far more in a smaller amount of time than you would by enjoying a nice game of golf.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/08/wtoads108.xml

From what I can tell off of this article, 'Cane Toad Golf' simply involves killing the creatures by method of blunt object. The article also states that the frogs are apparently tough enough to withstand blows from sharp objects. (Not sure if this means edged or pointed.) It's not an actual 'round of golf'.

as far as standing up for people who have sex with animals. what on earth in my post gave you that idea? sure kill the man. in fact throw the pig into a crocodile pool. i dont understand why the animal has to die too but if your religion demands it then sure kill the animal too. what i am against is you using that verse as a justification for torturing animals.

He didn't. He used it as an argument against PETA, on the grounds that PETA (or at least the PETA leadership) supports bestiality. I've never looked deeply enough into PETA to know if that is true or not, but from what I have seen of them I wouldn't be surprised.

one can kill without being cruel. in fact a vet once killed a dog i had and he killed the dog out of kindness. that is to say that had the dog been left alive he would have died eventually anyway(of his wounds) but while he was waiting to die he experienced more pain than i can even begin to imagine.

But would PETA sanction such? Or would you be accused of 'murdering' the animal by ending its life sooner than it would have 'naturally' ended?

yes i am saying that people who play toad golf should be killed. but not because i value animal life over human life since i do not. but what i do value is the life of an animal over the life a cruel and heartless monster. in another time monsters like that were involved in all kinds of things ranging from slavery to mass murder and all else.

Again, read the article. It's not cruel and heartless monsters doing this, it's simply ordinary individuals taking individual action. You seem to have misinterpreted the action because of the name.

you see it is a question of compassion. if you cant feel sorry for a frog as it is being hit again and again and again and again then i can probably asume that if you had lived 150 years ago you would not have felt sorry for the pittifull existence of a slave either.

Considering that slaves were (and are) human, and frogs and toads aren't, then it's possible to feel compassion for the former without having to feel compassion for the latter. By the comparison you just drew, you're implying that the slave has no more worth than the frog.

Your right about them being tough enough to withstand sharp objects infact as far as i know there is not any more effective ways to kill them without harming the wildlife and other things in the process. It also does not involve smacking the same toad over and over. There are so many of these things at times that finding the same one would be impossible.

I rember a politician from NSW got in trouble from animal rights groups over this same subject. Basically the cane toads are slowly adapting to colder and colder weather and moving down from queensland into NSW. This particualar polly got up at a press conference and said "Kids get out there with your gold clubs and cricket bats and knock those cane toads back where they belong"

Really as i have already said i think that there are alot more constructive things that these animal rights people could be doing such as doing something about all the humans dying in africa and all over the world as a result of starvation and Blood Feuds.

BTW my religion does actually say that we have to kill people who have sex with animals that verse is actually taken from the old testement. I just thought it was quite a humorous verse.

@ enderx

my browser does not want to open that page but if what you say is true then i take back most of what i have said.

but i have to say that lasher said that it is called toad golf for obvious reasons. i immediately conjured a picture of a bunch of bullies heading for the golf course with a few crates of beer and laughing as they drive the long shot and cheering after very good putting. so i appologise to lasher for what i have said. but he should express himself more clearly. the first rule of writting is to make sure that the person reading understands exactly what you want him to understand.

the only thing which i do not take back is the one about the slavery thing. of course this no longer applies to lasher but i am now merely answering you.

in the eyes of slave trader a slave was worth as little as a frog.

for example. the brittish later outlawed slavery. so when a slave ship captain had noticed a british frigate or other patrol ship he would often dump the slaves overboard. they were weighted too so that the evidence can sink faster. that is part of what i meant about compassion.

the other thing(for me personally the main thing) is hopelessness. i have seen many horses pulling carts. and when you look into the horse's eyes you can often see the fear and the misery. i sometimes think that these poor animals are already dead and that they are only waiting to be relieved of breathing. i always feel so sorry for them. i imagine that a slave could not have felt any better.

as for PETA members having sex with animals i did not know that. i guess shall no longer support them. unfortuanately i have already signed the petition. and by the way. no real animal lover would say that having sex with animals is right.

@ lasher

i am not an animal rights activist as such except for the fact that i am an environmentalist. mother nature has a way of killing off entire species so that the process of life itself can be perpetuated.( for example the end of the dinosaurs but even bigger than that the great Oxygen catastrophe. look it up.). so if mother nature see it worthwhile then that is it.

but you are right about us and the need to do something about people dying of starvation. and believe me i wish that i could. especially since i actually am a child of africa.

in fact it's the environmentalists that are the greatest block towards ending famine in Africa (and elsewhere) with the irrate insistence that nothing is done to improve agriculture and living conditions on the continent.
They're the one's that oppose the building of powerplants, hospitals, roads, the eradication of pests and diseases like malaria, the introduction of crop strains that can yield good results in harsh conditions with limited or no pesticides and fertiliser, etc. etc.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2007/3414paul_driessen.html read and shiver...

During the World Trade Organization conference in Cancun a few years ago, the head of a major Mexican environmental group told a friend of mine: "We don't care at all about the poor. We don't want them to become rich or middle class, because then they will become consumers and that means you have to take more resources out of the ground to meet their demands, and that's bad for the Earth. It's better to keep them poor."

Jacques Cousteau said we have to find a way to "eliminate" 350,000 people a day to stabilize global populations. And Prince Philip said he wanted to come back as a particularly deadly virus, and take out large segments of the Earth's population.

On the claim that they want to preserve peoples' "indigenous lifestyle":

As my friend June Arunga from Kenya says, "indigenous lifestyles" just mean indigenous poverty, indigenous malnutrition, indigenous disease, and childhood death. And that's really what it comes down to: When you don't have these modern technologies, your lifespan is cut almost in half.

@ jwentig

i cannot speak for other environmentalists. i can only speak for myself.

i am not against building hospitals, roads or anything which counts as development. but i do have a problem with the needless destruction and of earth and its ecosystems or its lifeforms especially if it goes hand in hand with an obstinate refusal to except responsibility for it.

it may surprise you to know that one reason that i want the earth to live is that the human race is going to die with the planet if the planet dies. in addition to that i am actually more for nuclear power than for coal powered stations. and you dont have to tell me that we dont, at this moment, have the technology to turn everything to solar energy or wind energy or wave energy or something like that. but if we would have had it then i would have had a problem with nuclear power.

also i am all for developing africa but here you
have to consider choice.

both the san of south africa and the massai are being driven from their grounds under the ostensibility of "modern development". i have seen with my own eyes a massai warrior who have walked from his home in central africa to the parliament of south africa almost 5000 km away in an effort to make the rest of the world see the plight of his people.

just as we cannot say to the malian mother who wants a steady supply of grains for her babies that africa is to remain free of GM food crops so too we cannot tell the massai or the san that they have no choice but to accept it.

in fact if it was up to me and even remotely possible i would upgrade the entire world to the economic status of USA, europe or australia or one of those countries. in fact if i had to make a black or white kind of choice of preserving massai and san life styles while all of the third world stays as it is or upgrade all of the third world and destroy the massai and san life styles i would choose to upgrade.

do not think that all environmentalists are fools. many of us had been educated in economics and understand the problems. we just insist that more of an effort should be made to solve them. and even the fools themselves are just being mistaken for fools because they are just a bit to passionate.

@ jwentig

i cannot speak for other environmentalists. i can only speak for myself.

i am not against building hospitals, roads or anything which counts as development. but i do have a problem with the needless destruction and of earth and its ecosystems or its lifeforms especially if it goes hand in hand with an obstinate refusal to except responsibility for it.

Would you consider yourself a conservationist or a preservationist? I ask because you step up to defend the preservationists, but by your own statements you sound more like a conservationist.

it may surprise you to know that one reason that i want the earth to live is that the human race is going to die with the planet if the planet dies. in addition to that i am actually more for nuclear power than for coal powered stations. and you dont have to tell me that we dont, at this moment, have the technology to turn everything to solar energy or wind energy or wave energy or something like that. but if we would have had it then i would have had a problem with nuclear power.

The major problem with nuclear power is that many people seem to automatically assume that a nuclear plant is by definition a Chernobyl, a China Syndrome waiting to happen. But even in Chernobyl, the count isn't that great. Deaths directly attributed to the disaster are 47 workers who were present at the scene, and nine children who had thyroid cancer. Thing is, radiation isn't the only thing that can cause thyroid cancer; lack of iodine seems to be a factor as well, and some of what I've seen indicates that the Chernobyl region was dealing with that also. (The accident is cited for "estimated that there may be 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed." Again, though, the radiation isn't the only possible cause for such cancers.) We know nuclear power works, placing it ahead of such things as Solar, Wind, Tidal, etc..., and as noted it's nowhere near as bad hydrocarbon wise as coal, oil, and natural gas supposedly are.

Another problem some people seem to have is the 'the waste products from the reactor are going to be radioactive for millions of years! Yer all gunna die from cancer!' logic. While its true that many of the waste products have multi-century or better halflives, that's actually a good thing. Think about it: Which one's putting out more radiation per minute? A 1lb sample of something with a halflife measured in centuries or millenia, or a 1lb sample of something with a halflife measured in weeks or months? My understanding of what I've read is that the really nasty stuff never leaves the reactor.

also i am all for developing africa but here you have to consider choice.

Are we allowed to include the choices of the individuals who have already embraced what we fondly call 'civilisation', or only those who haven't?

do not think that all environmentalists are fools. many of us had been educated in economics and understand the problems. we just insist that more of an effort should be made to solve them. and even the fools themselves are just being mistaken for fools because they are just a bit to passionate.

It's not the fools I'm worried about, it's the fanatics like David Foreman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Foreman

One of the things I've seen attributed to him elsewhere that's not mentioned on the wikipedia site is an open acceptance of and pride in those individuals who 'spike' trees to prevent lumber workers from cutting them down. The process involves forcing a metal rod deep inside the tree; it's not going to be visible from outside (otherwise those trees would be ignored, which isn't the goal). Cutting the trees down is only useful if the wood can be processed later, what do you think's going to happen to someone running a saw on a spiked tree when the blade meets the metal rod?

Also, a question for Lasher, since he's in Oz. This is drawn from something I saw a few months ago. Lash, how many types of 'hopping mice' or 'jumping mice' (can't recall exactly which) are there in Australia, how many of them are on the endangered species list, and what're the differences between them?

@ enderx

- conservationist and preservationist

i have no idea what the difference is. i did not even know that we could be divided up like that.

let me see if i deduce correctly. preservationists wants to maintain the old way of doing things because they believe that progress harms the earth. conservationists just wants people to stop harming the earth if there is no need to.

if that is so then it closely relate to the terms light green and dark green. i think that in that regard i would be light green.

i do not see humans as evil or above or seperate from nature or anything like that. remember that in another thread i actually defended the humans from those who said that they are evil and nothing else. i said that mostly humans would be good except if they are driven to evil by the absence of choice. of course you get the exceptions.

in my opinion the humans are just a bit primitive but things have been improving for several decades now. all they need is time. but i suppose that that is another topic.

as to why i defend them. i honestly see little difference between light green and dark green. but i do have a problem with the fool who says: "no GM crops in africa" or "no nuclear power in africa". they have absolutely no idea what the scale of the problems are.

so i suppose what i am or am not depends on where you draw the line. i can tell you that i most certainly dont know where the line should be drawn. i just know that i know myself and that i know what is right and what is wrong both for humans and for nature.

- nuclear power.

i know that nuclear power is the cleanest fuel that we have at this moment. there are only two alternatives to nuclear power at present. coal powered stations or a shortage of energy since we do not have enough and cheaply enough renewable energy. coal powered stations causes green house gasses which is at the moment a bigger problem than nuclear waste. it is also a more immediate problem.

nuclear waste is going to take a considerable amount of time to become a problem. by then we might very well have solar panels in space with power being beamed down to earth. in another thread we actually discussed (or argued about) it. the americans have already started to look at that possibility.

- development of africa and the choice of individuals

i am talking about the fact that if the massai wants to retain their traditional lifestyles then we of civilization have no right to force them to relinquish it. of course it could be argued that you of the first world should have some say in that because you do most of the charity work in africa. but i see that as humanity. in fact that is one of many reason why i refuse to believe that the human race is all evil.

- rods in trees.

where does he put these rods? in a plantation which humans planted for the sole aim of foresty or in trees in the amazon.

if he puts it in trees in the amazon then i am not going to say anything against him. like i said before. i understand that point.

but if he puts it a tree which the humans have cultivated for the sake of foresty then he is fool. those plantations actually help protect nature since now humans dont have to chop down a rain forest in order to print a library of books.