[Ferret Overlord]

I was gonna open up on Serena, but she's not here...

Rawr.

[asyluman]

Just gonna say this was very wrong, but I hate PETA with a violent passion.

This is why.

May have inappropriate ads on the side, and the video is very sweary.

[Noalei]

But PETA is the greatest organization ever. They save so many animals and they'll turn this world around one day ^_^

[Ferret Overlord]

This is asyluman at FO's place--

PETA adopts animals every year. It kills over two thirds. Watch le video.

[Noalei]

I saw the video.

Is it right to keep a living being alive for years when it could be put out of its misery? Is that the right thing to do?

Or, is it more humane to put it out of its misery so that it can be in peace?

Similarly, how reliable is the information presented in that video? It's not exactly what I, nor others who put some thought into it, reliable information. Two guys who host some kind of show called "Bull****?" over the internet is not very reliable. Not to mention, it seems like a personal battle against PETA, rather than facts.

Also, it's the same as if a person is in the hospital in an unrecoverable state, why keep them alive for years when they will never recover?

Finally, animals are NOT considered like us in most ways. Animals are considered enough alike to us that they can be tested on---yet, WHY do they put them through tests that would be considered the worst forms of torture? BECAUSE THEY DON'T CONSIDER THEM LIKE US.

This post has been edited by Noalei: 12 February 2006 - 08:36 PM

[asyluman]

Because when a rat tells me to stop developing lifesaving cures on it, we will. Bull**** is not "Two guys who host some kind of show over the internet". It's televised on showtime by two famous people--Penn and Teller.

PETA does not take suffering animals and kill them. It takes animals in shelters and kills them.


We don't see dogs buying us expensive food, bathing us, letting us sleep with them, cleaning up their waste.

Firebombing animal testing centers is not a way to free the animals. It's a way to be a complete idiot.


We do not need "Total animal liberation". The thing is, we are smarter then animals. We are better, steps higher in the evolutionary process. The firecracker thing is still very wrong, though.

[Noalei]

So how would you feel if a species that is on "steps higher in the evolutionary process" experimented on us? Maybe they didn't speak our language either? It's torture.

It's stupid to not identify it as what it is. And about the show, STILL, how reliable do you think they are? If famous people is what you are counting, then head on over to PETA, Pamela Anderson, Clint Eastwood, Avril Lavigne and many others endorce PETA. They are on SHOWTIME, they want to entertain people. What's more entertaining? PETA helps lots of animals or PETA kills animals??

Now, how does ANYONE know what PETA does and doesn't kill? If it puts animals to sleep, do you think they tell the public about it?

It is SOOOOOO stupid to endorce the torture of animals. I really can't stress it enough. It's like the old urban legend about McDonald's putting worms in their food, it isn't economical.

The people who set the standards for products want product designers and companies to meet their standards, and the product designs and companies try to fulfull that my experimenting on animals.

You're just an ignorant person. I'm not a Christian, but I pray that you are just doing this for attention, because if you truly believe this, we have one big stain on this planet because you can't understand the cruelty behind hurting animals. Rats are known to be smart animals, as are dogs.

And, yes, we DO need Total Animal Liberation. Did you know that WE are animals?

[Ferret Overlord]

So how would you feel if a species that is on "steps higher in the evolutionary process" experimented on us? Maybe they didn't speak our language either? It's torture.

It's stupid to not identify it as what it is. And about the show, STILL, how reliable do you think they are? If famous people is what you are counting, then head on over to PETA, Pamela Anderson, Clint Eastwood, Avril Lavigne and many others endorce PETA. They are on SHOWTIME, they want to entertain people. What's more entertaining? PETA helps lots of animals or PETA kills animals??

Now, how does ANYONE know what PETA does and doesn't kill? If it puts animals to sleep, do you think they tell the public about it?

It is SOOOOOO stupid to endorce the torture of animals. I really can't stress it enough. It's like the old urban legend about McDonald's putting worms in their food, it isn't economical.

The people who set the standards for products want product designers and companies to meet their standards, and the product designs and companies try to fulfull that my experimenting on animals.

You're just an ignorant person. I'm not a Christian, but I pray that you are just doing this for attention, because if you truly believe this, we have one big stain on this planet because you can't understand the cruelty behind hurting animals. Rats are known to be smart animals, as are dogs.

And, yes, we DO need Total Animal Liberation. Did you know that WE are animals?

Look, first of all, I know Asy, and he's in no way ignorant (if not slightly crazy). Why do you say that just because you're not Christian, you don't pray? Muslims pray. Jews pray. YOU pray. I'm not gonna start my whole schtick on political correctness, but NEVER say something like that again. It strikes a nerve with me.

Second, people don't endorce the torture of animals. They don't endorce the killing of animals. So I don't see why you're stating the obvious. Would you rather us test things on humans? No one would go unless it was testing for a deadly disease or something. Think someone would go in to test medication that may kill them? No. That's why we use rodents that have large populations anyway (e.g. Rabbits, rats, mice, etc.).

Third, I think that you're really trying to hard to defend this. Rats are NOT as smart as dogs. Rats cannot obey commands. They can only obey instinct. People think that it's "intelligence" showing when a rat goes towards the food in a maze. It's the instinct to gather as much food as possible, and I don't understand why that's so amazing.

That's real great. We should agree with PETA because all the actors and singers who endorce it clearly are geniuses. Let me tell you something. I HATE scientologists. I HATE actors. They make too much, they're unintelligent (Most of the time), and they don't deserve what they have. PERIOD. The only actors I truly respect are ones who write their own scripts, or direct movies. All the others are simply people practicing a script. Don't ever try and use big names as an argument, cause I'll thrash you.

That comment about some other species higher on the evelutionary scale you made? Another void point. WE'RE the highest on the evelutionary scale, as far as it's known right now. I'll worry about those "Higher powers" when humanity doesn't have access the guns, missiles, bombs, knives, and other weapons. Okay?

It's even funnier that you ask what's more amusing, the fact that they help animals or kill animals. I find the fact that they kill them the most amusing. That may sound sick, but I find it entertaining due to the fact that they say they're an organization devoted to helping animals, yet kill them. If I'm not mistaken, that sounds something like the Holocaust.

Nice try, Hitler

^Don't take that seriously.

[asyluman]

We do not know if animals can or cannot think.

Now, how does ANYONE know what PETA does and doesn't kill? If it puts animals to sleep, do you think they tell the public about it?

They release records to the public. They say killing animals is better then having them as pets.

Now tell me one thing: have you ever taken medicine before?

[Noalei]

I don't care who you know, and YES, I KNEW you knew asyluman when he said he was on your username... I said Christian because, to me, if I express that I am a Christian, I fully believe that it conveys a different reaction to others than if I openly say that I am not a Chrsitian. As for your "schtick on political correctness," I think you mean religious correctness? As for that, who are you to order me around? As far as that goes, it strikes a nerve with me when people can't use words for that they really mean.I don't really care what strikes a nerve with you.

No, there is no need to test on humans---we have computer simulations that are far more advanced. PETA's argument has always been that our computer simulations are much more accurate than actual testing. Mainly because we are different from animals. Are you aware that the antidepressant Zelmid caused terrible neurological damage in humans? Interestingly enough, it was tested first on rats and dogs. The animals did not react to it? Is this not evidence that they are different from us?

Yes, I am trying my best to defend this. Animal abuse and animal testing is wrong, they both can be summed up as animal cruelty. As far as rats being as smart as dogs, scientific studies (sadly, they were performed on rats) have concluded this to be true. Rats have been trained to understand commands. A rat was taught to understand simple algebra. I forget the exact objects, but they basically taught it that Object1=Object2 and Object2=Object3. It learned on its own that Object1=Object3. (I know this also happened to a seal, but I'm referring to the rat in this.) As far as someone going in to test medication that may kill them, DEFINITELY NOT, but when you take medication that has only been tested on animals and human reactions to it have yet to be identified, you take that risk as those who took the Zelmid antidepressant took that risk. Sure, rodents have large populations, but do not people also have large populations? Why is it right to conduct tests on creatures that can see, look, think, feel, and express emotion just the same as we can?

And, yes, I think it does mean something that all the actors and singers endorce it. They have an image and reputation to protect. PETA is a worthy cause, therefore, they support it. Personally, I dislike scientologists. Actors/actresses, I don't necessarily mind. I sincerely despise it when people say they think others get paid too much. Do YOU plan to undergo the necessary schooling to become a doctor, lawyer, actor, or any of the other high-paying professions? If not, then don't complain...you had your opportunity. As for intelligence, that's a very hard concept to judge. I'm sure some actors/actresses are more knowledged than others in certain areas. Avril Lavigne is much more proficient in music, as Clint Eastwood is much more proficient in acting, just the very same as Leonardo da Vinci was extremely experienced in technical design and painting. Actors who write their own scripts and people who direct their own movies as opposed to those who reiterate others' scripts and others' movies, who really cares? On that topic, we are more concerned with the finished product being entertaining, more so rather than the actual process behind the creation. Yes, big names are always an argument. As for thrasing me, try.

I'm just gonna pretend you didn't say that about the "higher powers," because that's a whole 'nother topic...

When did I "Ask what's more amusing, the fact that they help or kill animals"? As for killing animals, you have no proof, nor does anyone else that I know of (please feel free to supply a link, OTHER THAN your "video") As for the Holocaust, Hitler wanted to better the human race but exterminating what he thought to be inferiors, he didn't do ANY of it accidently.

To asyluman Yes, I have taken medicine before, but I certainly have never taken medication only tested on animals---it's NOT reliable testing.

Please show me where you have proof they released these records to the public. Also, please show me proof that they have said this.

[Ferret Overlord]

I must say that I DID get carried away by the passion of the argument. I'm sorry for that.

I don't care who you know, and YES, I KNEW you knew asyluman when he said he was on your username... I said Christian because, to me, if I express that I am a Christian, I fully believe that it conveys a different reaction to others than if I openly say that I am not a Chrsitian. As for your "schtick on political correctness," I think you mean religious correctness? As for that, who are you to order me around? As far as that goes, it strikes a nerve with me when people can't use words for that they really mean. I don't really care what strikes a nerve with you.

No, I mean political.
Definition:
"Political correctness (also politically correct, P.C. or PC) is a term used in various countries to describe real or perceived attempts to impose limits on the acceptable language, terms, and viewpoints in public discussion. While it usually refers to a linguistic phenomenon, it is sometimes extended to cover political ideology or public behavior."

It includes: Gender-related comments/names (Chairman = Chairperson), Disability-related comments/names (Cripples = invalids), Race and ethnic-related comments/names (Blacks = Negroes. Bull, since I can still be called "White"), Religion-related comments/names (Merry Christmas = Happy Holidays. Feh. I'm Jewish, does it look like I care?), and others (Hobos = Homeless, terrorists = extremists/insurgents).

So, uh, looks like you just ticked yourself off.

As far as that goes, it strikes a nerve with me when people can't use words for that they really mean.

No, there is no need to test on humans---we have computer simulations that are far more advanced. PETA's argument has always been that our computer simulations are much more accurate than actual testing. Mainly because we are different from animals. Are you aware that the antidepressant Zelmid caused terrible neurological damage in humans? Interestingly enough, it was tested first on rats and dogs. The animals did not react to it? Is this not evidence that they are different from us?

Simulations cannot be tested. There are far too many errors that are made possible by computers. Testing it on rats is the first step. Then dogs (maybe rabbits, I'm not sure), then humans. Humans ARE tested on, but not until it's deemed safe enough to test with. Your referance to Zelmid is one example of the flaws in that system of testing that are bound to appear.

Yes, I am trying my best to defend this. Animal abuse and animal testing is wrong, they both can be summed up as animal cruelty. As far as rats being as smart as dogs, scientific studies (sadly, they were performed on rats) have concluded this to be true. Rats have been trained to understand commands. A rat was taught to understand simple algebra. I forget the exact objects, but they basically taught it that Object1=Object2 and Object2=Object3. It learned on its own that Object1=Object3. (I know this also happened to a seal, but I'm referring to the rat in this.) As far as someone going in to test medication that may kill them, DEFINITELY NOT, but when you take medication that has only been tested on animals and human reactions to it have yet to be identified, you take that risk as those who took the Zelmid antidepressant took that risk. Sure, rodents have large populations, but do not people also have large populations?

I do believe some things should be tested on humans. The problem is, as I previously stated, humans are unwilling to do things that may put them in danger. Animals are easier to use because they aren't covered in any type of rights (Simply because that would make absolutely no sense.). Humans cannot just be taken from their homes and tested on.
That and rats have a much larger population than humans. Unless I'm once again mistaken.

Why is it right to conduct tests on creatures that can see, look, think, feel, and express emotion just the same as we can?

You don't know they do. I don't exactly know of rats havng any emotions, thoughts, or feelings, mainly due to the fact that they were created as a food source for other animals. By created I mean evolved out of need (I believe in a mix between ID and evolution)

And, yes, I think it does mean something that all the actors and singers endorce it. They have an image and reputation to protect. PETA is a worthy cause, therefore, they support it. Personally, I dislike scientologists. Actors/actresses, I don't necessarily mind. I sincerely despise it when people say they think others get paid too much.

They do get paid too much. I'll repeat it as much as you want. They are overpaid, and it gives them the idea that they must have knowlege that they really don't. I'm not saying that it's just them. Humans get cocky when they succeed. I'm saying that many actors are idiots.

D

o YOU plan to undergo the necessary schooling to become a doctor, lawyer, actor, or any of the other high-paying professions? If not, then don't complain...you had your opportunity.

I think you're missing the point here. I'm saying that many actors are uneducated. I do plan on getting a proficient education. The fact that I have to do that to get a job that pays less than an actor's (Which, I might add, does not require any formal education. Or anything for that matter.) is a very depressing fact.

As for intelligence, that's a very hard concept to judge. I'm sure some actors/actresses are more knowledged than others in certain areas. Avril Lavigne is much more proficient in music, as Clint Eastwood is much more proficient in acting, just the very same as Leonardo da Vinci was extremely experienced in technical design and painting. Actors who write their own scripts and people who direct their own movies as opposed to those who reiterate others' scripts and others' movies, who really cares? On that topic, we are more concerned with the finished product being entertaining, more so rather than the actual process behind the creation. Yes, big names are always an argument.

For an Animal Organization?! So they're specialized in what they do, whoopty doo. They sure aren't educated in this kind of thing. Big names are there just to draw in people who are sucked into the whole Hollywood deal. Every time I see a big name actor supporting some product, I think, "I wonder how many idiots are going to get sucked into this one...". I'm losing faith in the world because of the fact that actors are actually gaining political power! Schwartzenagger, okay. He was educated, so that's fine. But if Pamela Anderson runs for mayor ANYWHERE I'm going to shoot myself.

As for thrasing me, try.

I believe I just did

I'm just gonna pretend you didn't say that about the "higher powers," because that's a whole 'nother topic...

Is this about humans using weapons? If it is, I'll just drop it. I'm not in the mood to talk about that right now.

When did I "Ask what's more amusing, the fact that they help or kill animals"? As for killing animals, you have no proof, nor does anyone else that I know of (please feel free to supply a link, OTHER THAN your "video")

As for the Holocaust, Hitler wanted to better the human race but exterminating what he thought to be inferiors, he didn't do ANY of it accidently.

Wrong. He did believe that they were inferior, but he didn't want to better the human race. He wanted to better his rule. He tryed to take over the world, in case you forgot. Not only did he kill Jews, he killed just about everyone.

To asyluman Yes, I have taken medicine before, but I certainly have never taken medication only tested on animals---it's NOT reliable testing.

So you don't use TUMs or use Clearasil? I'm sure you have.

Please show me where you have proof they released these records to the public. Also, please show me proof that they have said this.

The cleaning woman (Oh, I'm sorry, I meant cleaning person. *Hatred for PC*) moved my bed onto my LAN cable. Connection is limited, and I really don't have the patience to look it up. If I get it done soon, I'll get you those links.

[Noalei]

- Reserving this post for my reply -

(Gonna reply tomorrow, late here and just finished downloading free trial of SWG)

[Ferret Overlord]

Try not to get angry at me. I'm a bit of a lion when it comes to debates.

[©allum]

It is unfortunate that animals die when we test on them, but it's for the good of our species. We need to put our species first, which saddens some people. I'd rather not have to test on animals, but we do it because we have built in survival insticts.

[asyluman]

It is unfortunate that animals die when we test on them, but it's for the good of our species. We need to put our species first, which saddens some people. I'd rather not have to test on animals, but we do it because we have built in survival insticts.

Exactly.

It's not like I like to kill animals, but we need it.

And:

To asyluman Yes, I have taken medicine before, but I certainly have never taken medication only tested on animals---it's NOT reliable testing.

That "only"...no medicine is only tested on animals. Animals first, then humans. We test it on humans if the animals live...