PETA asks town of Fishkill, NY to change name

[Slyspy]

Panzer is an fool and now we all know it. His comments have long since ceased to provide any useful and credible contribution. I feel he does the "Conservative Club" a disfavour by being on their side.

[Beirut]

Panzer is an fool and now we all know it.

I disagree with PZ quite often, several of us here do, but I can assure you we do not think him a fool.

[Laridus Konivaich]

Panzer is an fool and now we all know it. His comments have long since ceased to provide any useful and credible contribution. I feel he does the "Conservative Club" a disfavour by being on their side.

So sorry, but I would hope that Senior Members of the .org are above throwing petty insults at other members. Apparently I will be disappointed

Edit: perhaps I should have placed my concerns in a PM, but, what is done, is done.

[Ronin]

So sorry, but I would hope that Senior Members of the .org are above throwing petty insults at other members. Apparently I will be disappointed .

i would hope that seniour members of the .org are above deserving such insults....but unfortunatelly this topic has foiled my goals yet again.

[Don Corleone]

Panzer is an fool and now we all know it. His comments have long since ceased to provide any useful and credible contribution. I feel he does the "Conservative Club" a disfavour by being on their side.

While we certainly appreciate your concern, by the right of free association, the Conservative Club is quite happy to exercise it's right to keep Panzer in its ranks. I many not agree with Panzer on everything he says (nor he I) yet I feel it's a strength that we allow dissent on our side of the aisle. I wouldn't do well in a political ideology that requires such a dogmatic approach. As for the namecalling, maybe you're unaware that while you think you sound cool, it comes off as "I have nothing better to say so blah blah blah".

[Crazed Rabbit]

I won't even go into this. I just have to say that animal life and the enviornment outways every single time the profits of buisnesses. Every single time.
PETA and groups have no right to destroy property. However, they have every right to stage protests.

How far will you go in enforcing this?

If it costs a company $1billion to clean up just a tiny bit more waste than before- is it worth it to force the company to do this, thus making the company go out of business?

We must weigh the marginal cleaness gained by requiring less pollution against how much effort its going to take to clean the last remaining bit of pollution up.

Crazed Rabbit

[PanzerJaeger]

Well this fool is ready to admit "terrorists" was a bad description of Greenpeace. They are not terrorists in the full sense of the word.

However, I do think that when they traipse around the world and disregard the law, private property, and the rights of other people to force your political opinions on everyone else, they shouldnt play the victim when they get hit back.

I believe the saying goes "If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.", or something like that..

[Ronin]

Well this fool is ready to admit "terrorists" was a bad description of Greenpeace. They are not terrorists in the full sense of the word.

However, I do think that when they traipse around the world and disregard the law, private property, and the rights of other people to force your political opinions on everyone else, they shouldnt play the victim when they get hit back.

I believe the saying goes "If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.", or something like that..

ok....i can live with that...


but i can´t say that i agree that for example....being against dumping nuclear waste on the oceans is a "political opinion".....that strikes me more as a common sense thing.......don´t ya think?

[Beirut]

Well this fool is ready to admit "terrorists" was a bad description of Greenpeace. They are not terrorists in the full sense of the word.

However, I do think that when they traipse around the world and disregard the law, private property, and the rights of other people to force your political opinions on everyone else, they shouldnt play the victim when they get hit back.

I believe the saying goes "If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.", or something like that..

"In the full sense of the word". Interesting. Let's see, they don't kill people, they don't kidnap people, they don't set off bombs, they don't fly airplanes into buildings, they don't strap C4 to themselves, so what is it they do that makes them terrorists in the "partial sense of the word"?

Hang posters and banners on smokestacks?

Just for the record, I would much rather have Greenpeace inflict it's political opinion on me by making me see a fifty foot banner saying "Stop pollution!" than have Union Carbide blow off 5000 liters of cyanide gas into the air beside my town.

Or do you prefer the poison gas because it's Republican based and smells of free enterprise?

[PanzerJaeger]

Maybe I didnt make myself clear.. I was wrong to call them terrorists.

However, I think you are letting your own opinions of Greenpeace get in the way.

-They do try to intimidate businesses they dont like by threatening, and carrying out raids.

-They disregard the law to shut businesses they dont agree with down.

-They ignore and destroy private property to get what they want.

-They harass workers in industries they dont agree with.

-They hurt honest working people around the globe in their crusade against corporations. Shutting down a manufacturing plant for a week and harassing people at the dealership wont hurt John Ford III, he'll just lay off those workers and focus on another brand that Greenpeace doesnt have an issue with.

Thats not terrorism, but its certainly far beyond innocent protesting.

You work in the lumber industry no? How would you like it if a bunch of Greenpeace folks came onto your place of business, tied themselves to trees, sabotaged your equipment, and called you every name under the sun? What if you lost your pay?

[Beirut]

Maybe I didnt make myself clear.. I was wrong to call them terrorists.

However, I think you are letting your own opinions of Greenpeace get in the way.

-They do try to intimidate businesses they dont like by threatening, and carrying out raids.

-They disregard the law to shut businesses they dont agree with down.

-They ignore and destroy private property to get what they want.

-They harass workers in industries they dont agree with.

-They hurt honest working people around the globe in their crusade against corporations. Shutting down a manufacturing plant for a week and harassing people at the dealership wont hurt John Ford III, he'll just lay off those workers and focus on another brand that Greenpeace doesnt have an issue with.

Thats not terrorism, but its certainly far beyond innocent protesting.

You work in the lumber industry no? How would you like it if a bunch of Greenpeace folks came onto your place of business, tied themselves to trees, sabotaged your equipment, and called you every name under the sun? What if you lost your pay?

Greenpeace mounts raids against corporations who deserve it. It's a form of civil disobedience. Just like Rosa Parks saying no, that she will not sit at the back of the bus so a white man can have her seat. That was against the law as well, and people called her all kinds of horrible names, but she did it anyway because it was the right thing to do.

Likewise, Greenpeace commits acts of civil disobedience to draw attention to mega-corporations who would just as soon kill the half of us to make a fat profit off the other half. I'm no screaming-weenie tree hugger, but even I know that dumping thousands of tons of dioxin laced sludge into a water supply is not a terribly good thing to do. Someone needs to speak up against these outrages. Greenpeace does. I don't agree with everything they do, but I love it when they humiliate some fat corporation that is killing the environment.

I'm not in the lumber industry really, I'm a one-on-one tree killer. Most of what we do is dangerous and technical takedowns. Trees over houses, over hydro lines, that sort of thing. One thing I can tell you is everyone who works with us has a very healthy and strong view towards the environment. Just as it is hunters who best understand conservation, it is tree cutters who best understand the forest. We know what can be cut and what should never be cut. And we do refuse to cut some trees if the reason is not satisfactory. We know that what is going on with the clear cutting in north Quebec is nothing less than environmental suicide.

I don't think Greepeace would have too much of a problem with us. We're good boys.

[Papewaio]

Maybe I didnt make myself clear.. I was wrong to call them terrorists.

However, I think you are letting your own opinions of Greenpeace get in the way.

...

You work in the lumber industry no? How would you like it if a bunch of Greenpeace folks came onto your place of business, tied themselves to trees, sabotaged your equipment, and called you every name under the sun? What if you lost your pay?

It is kind of funny that the two guys defending Greenpeace are the Lumberjack and the ex-Mine Worker...

[Steppe Merc]

anyway, the problem i have with a group like peta is that they are run by radical, ideological vegans. if they were simply another organization that promoted the ethical treatment of animals, that'd be fine. but too often it seems like they equate the value of a cow to that of a human. to me, that's nonsense. and this fishkill case? i mean come on. i actually had to check snopes to makes sure this wasn't a hoax; it's that outlandish.

I agree. It is silly. However, it is far worse to paint them all as evil terrorist, because while they are far too zealous, they want what any decent person would want: treat animals kindly.

Both the ASPCA and American Humane Society are both opposed to hunting- but other than that, they seem at least semi-reasonable. AHS in particular seems to be interested in humane livestock treatment.

Which is why the ASPCA and the AHS is better and does things. A stable by me got busted for abuse, and my Mom is working with two of the horses that were in best condition. They were worked 12 hours a day, and not fed because they couldn't work hard enough (because they didn't have enough food... ).
About hunting, I've changed my mind since visting this forum, though like all things, hunting needs to be far more moderate (ie, no more automatics, or snipers, just shotguns).

[Steppe Merc]

How far will you go in enforcing this?

If it costs a company $1billion to clean up just a tiny bit more waste than before- is it worth it to force the company to do this, thus making the company go out of business?

We must weigh the marginal cleaness gained by requiring less pollution against how much effort its going to take to clean the last remaining bit of pollution up.

This is one argument. However, the idea of "just a tiny bit more" is far too slippery. Is it an ounce, or hundreds of liters (well, it's a little bit compared to thousands!)? I believe it's called a slipery slope.

Big John, I am aware of certaint animal's actions when playing with their prey. However, it is totally different than torturing animals without eating them, or that were bred for that purpose. And of course the predators almost always eat their prey, unlike us humans.

[Big_John]

Big John, I am aware of certaint animal's actions when playing with their prey. However, it is totally different than torturing animals without eating them, or that were bred for that purpose. And of course the predators almost always eat their prey, unlike us humans.

well, the difference is somewhat subjective (and it's not like animals don't kill each other for non-predation reasons), but i'm not trying to make any argument about the acceptability of human cruelty towards animals. i was just noting that other animals can exhibit torturous behavior; behavior which if exhibited by a human would be considered "cruel"... simply because i thought it interesting.

anyway, the problem i have with a group like peta is that they are run by radical, ideological vegans. if they were simply another organization that promoted the ethical treatment of animals, that'd be fine. but too often it seems like they equate the value of a cow to that of a human. to me, that's nonsense. and this fishkill case? i mean come on. i actually had to check snopes to makes sure this wasn't a hoax; it's that outlandish.

i'm all for doing away with the awful conditions found at feed lots, slaughter houses, and the like. i buy all (iirc) of my meat.. indeed, pretty much 95% of my total food from local farmers' markets; all my meat is free-range. but people like those that run peta have a problem with the very idea of food-animals. if someone tries to take my meat away from me, i will break them.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

*finishes grilling a whitefish*
*roars with laughter*

[scooter_the_shooter]

steppe NO ONE uses full auto for hunting The things cost to much

If you meant semi auto most states only let you use 5 to 7 rounds in your gun any way.

Sniper rifles what do you call a sniper rifle could I put a cheap scope on my single shot 22.. and all the sudden its a evil sniper rifle to powerful for hunting I think you should be able to use what ever you want for hunting. wether it be a rusty old shot gun a fancy tricked out 30/06 or one of those "evil assault weapons"



Let me tell you a story

In county(yes county not country for you europeans out there ) near mine that had very harsh hunting restrictions (no rifles only one deer a year slugs only etc ) The hunters couldn't kill enough deer so after deer season they pay a company 450 thousand dollars to come shoot deer. If the just let us use our @#@% rifles and back shot and let us kill 2 or 3 deer they would have saved alot of money



Ps i am gonna start a thread about weather you people think hunting is good or bad

[Steppe Merc]

steppe NO ONE uses full auto for hunting The things cost to much

If you meant semi auto most states only let you use 5 to 7 rounds in your gun any way.

Sniper rifles what do you call a sniper rifle could I put a cheap scope on my single shot 22.. and all the sudden its a evil sniper rifle to powerful for hunting I think you should be able to use what ever you want for hunting. wether it be a rusty old shot gun a fancy tricked out 30/06 or one of those "evil assault weapons"



Let me tell you a story

In county(yes county not country for you europeans out there ) near mine that had very harsh hunting restrictions (no rifles only one deer a year slugs only etc ) The hunters couldn't kill enough deer so after deer season they pay a company 450 thousand dollars to come shoot deer. If the just let us use our @#@% rifles and back shot and let us kill 2 or 3 deer they would have saved alot of money

We have problems in my town with deer too. However, there ought to be some fighting chance for the deer to escape. And the hunters had better have been eating that deer (and damn it takes good! The first time I got the munchies I had deer jerky, great stuff. Though it made me even more thirsty than from cotton mouth... anyway...)
Oh, and I can't really tell an auto from a semi any way, so I'll beleive you.

And Beriut, thank you for making all your arguments very well, so I don't have to try and explain them very poorly, since they essentially the same...