Should animal rights protesters be banned from using........

[balloftits]

Anything that is based on anything that comes from animals
i mean anything.

I would include in this all medicines, as almost all of them will have come about after being tested on animals.

Clothes, as we would never have got the idea for clothes with killing buffalo and lions and goats and wearing their skin about.

Transport, all transport is based on animals. horses and midgets were used in the dark ages to pull carts around which would really be the early blueprint for a car.

Baisically any farmed food.

They should also be banned from zoo's because they shouldn't be able to enjoy looking at animals if they think its cruel, that includes drayton manor park and alton towers.

also if they think all animals are equal they should protest against tigers killing zebras and crocodiles killing sheep.

[toddg]

can u really escape animal products & if so do veggetables scream when u eat them?

[HeDevil]

PETA's Dirty Secret

Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret.

PETA kills animals. By the thousands.

From July 1998 through the end of 2005, PETA killed over 14,400 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90 percent of the animals it took in during 2005 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.

YearReceived†AdoptedKilledTransferred% Killed% Adopted20052,1451461,9466990.76.820042,6403612,278186.313 .720032,2243121,911185.914.020022,6803822,298285.7 14.320012,6857031,9441472.426.220002,6846242,02928 75.623.219991,8053861,3289173.621.4* 199894313368512572.614.1Total17,8063,04714,41933180.117.1
* figures represent the second half of 1998 only
† other than spay/neuter animals
» skeptical? click here to see the proof

On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don't eat meat or dairy foods. So far, the group hasn't confirmed the obvious -- that it's using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.

In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA's Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. "We could become a no-kill shelter immediately," she admitted.

[toddg]

maybe it's more humane 2 kill a pet than let it roam the streets 2 die on it's own?

[HeDevil]

Organizations like PETA are fukkin wacko terrorist mentals. They do more harm than good. Only organizations like the ASPCA and the Humane Society truly help animals. PETA sucks. It's not even a real organization. It's just a bunch of fanatical lunatics.

[toddg]

each organization might b correct in it's own members minds

[Kataklysm]

Moved to Debate

[Rakka]

Originally Posted by balloftits

Anything that is based on anything that comes from animals
i mean anything.

I would include in this all medicines, as almost all of them will have come about after being tested on animals.

Clothes, as we would never have got the idea for clothes with killing buffalo and lions and goats and wearing their skin about.

Transport, all transport is based on animals. horses and midgets were used in the dark ages to pull carts around which would really be the early blueprint for a car.

Baisically any farmed food.

They should also be banned from zoo's because they shouldn't be able to enjoy looking at animals if they think its cruel, that includes drayton manor park and alton towers.

also if they think all animals are equal they should protest against tigers killing zebras and crocodiles killing sheep.

1) Medicines. Yes they are developed through animal testing. The principle is to campaign for different testing methods to be given the funding necessary to further enhance the use of non-animal testing. Unfortunately there are no realistic alternatives in dire emergencies available to the "ethical consumer" although you will probably find animal rights/vegeterian/vegan people to be the least likely to be found down the doctors' surgery at the slightest sniff. Not everyone is part of the same "pill for every ill" culture that even sees people buying rennies before they get indigestion because they are going to be eating too much crap junk food. But it's OK, just take a tablet afterwards and it'll be fine.

To digress a little but not take the thing totally off topic, I'll just give brief mention to an alternative "holistic" treatment for cancer. Cancer is the big money-raising thing of the drug companies (through well meaning charities of course - I am not going to be so rude as to put down the people who put time, effort and money into a good cause. And cure or prevention of cancer IS a good cause. It's the methods, not the aim, that are under discussion.
People (not many, but enough to make it notable) were looking at Laetrile (sp?) - from apricot pits. The basic theory being that the poisonous cyanide in the apricot pits was bound together with sugar molecules. Or something. This isn't a scientific explanation and probably wildly innacurate but I haven't got time to go do the reading right now. These sugar molecules held the cyanide so that it was inert. Until they came into contact with cancer cells which broke down the structure of the bound molecules, releasing the cyanide only at the cancer cell. In minute (we're talking molecules here, not suicide pills) amounts of course.

Like I say, the science of that description is probably way out. But the point being that there was a serious crackdown on anyone making apricot pit powder, or just the pits, available. And I mean serios. Raids all over the place, including the arrest and the stripping of medical qualifications to anyone in the medical profession who openly expressed interest in the use of apriocot pits as a possible cure (It wasn't just idealists, dreamers and nutjobs interested in Laetrile).

The point of bringing this up? Alternatives. Even where alternatives exist (regardless of whether they work or not) they are denied to people who may choose that path.

So no, people with any concern for the welfare of animals should not be bound to refuse treatment for serious illness. What would martyrdom at the refusal of life saving treatment where no alternative is available other than to choose death achieve?

2) Clothing and Transport

So you're saying that because the idea of clothing harks back to using animal pelts, vegetarians should shun clothing? And catching a bus is a derivitive of a horse and carriage? And I took the effort to take this post seriously?

Let's try your logic out another way....just so you can see how silly it is

****** was a great lover of the concept of the "People's Car" - The Volks Wagen. If you drive a car you must be a nazi! Nahh... your logic is so far off track it's headed for somewhere cold and populated with polar bears.

Note, no polar bears were harmed during the making of this post. Just so we're all clear on that.

3) Farmed Food.
Realism here. It's just not possible or practical to subsistance farm in a city - which is where most people live. Whilst living in the world as it is, trying to change how things are done is a slow and gradual process. Stepping totally outside of everything is just not possible. Of course, if you'd PREFER that your granny's house was squatted when she went on holiday and overtaken by a load of hippies using her vegetable patch as the basis of an urban subsistance project...well, that's fine...

4) Zoos.
A ban on animal rights activists visiting zoos? If they would WANT to visit a zoo which encloses animals in unnatural confines for the pure purpose of providing a spectacle for visitors then they have no real concern for the welfare of animals. ESPECIALLY noisy theme parks housing animals. You'd most likely find animal rights protestors at the entrace gates handing out leaflets.

Your final point was too ridiculous to even bother with. Unless you're drawing a weak analogy of the human body being able to chew and digest cooked meats. But when was the last time you saw a tiger keeping zebras in small pens, fed on artificially produced zebra feed to save money and produce a more profitable shrink-wrapped zebra pie?

[Zero Xaerus]

Amm . . I think America is eating all the animals.

[Raymond James]

Originally Posted by balloftits

Anything that is based on anything that comes from animals
i mean anything.

I would include in this all medicines, as almost all of them will have come about after being tested on animals.

Clothes, as we would never have got the idea for clothes with killing buffalo and lions and goats and wearing their skin about.

Transport, all transport is based on animals. horses and midgets were used in the dark ages to pull carts around which would really be the early blueprint for a car.

Baisically any farmed food.

They should also be banned from zoo's because they shouldn't be able to enjoy looking at animals if they think its cruel, that includes drayton manor park and alton towers.

also if they think all animals are equal they should protest against tigers killing zebras and crocodiles killing sheep.

I use soap but that does not mean I'm going to go out and gut a goat, unless it was dissin my momma, or such such.