PETA asks town of Fishkill, NY to change name

[Big_John]

EDIT:: Just for the record, does anybody know a group that supports humane treatment of animals that's not a bunch of whackjobs? I support treating animals fairly decently until it comes time to slaughter them, and I do my best to eat free range eggs & meat.

i don't know much about either organization, but i don't hear people complain about the ASPCA or the american humane society that much. good job on the free-range meats, good for the animals (until you eat them ) and better tasting to boot!

Wolves don't pity sheep and go for tofu, but they don't torture them either.

just fyi.. while "cruelty" may connote a human intent, certainly animals can exhibit what would probably be considered torturous behavior. wild cats, as an example, often bring live prey back to their cubs. the cubs can "play" with the animals for long periods of time before they are eventually killed (or die of exhaustion). domestic cats attempt to do something similar when they bring live mice/birds/etc home to their owners. it's theorized that this behavior evolved as a way to teach cubs/kittens how to hunt. still, it seems fairly torturous to the victim.

killer whales do something similar with penguins and seals, but i don't think people have come up with a good theory for that behavior other than simply having fun (the killer whale, that is). so it might be even more akin to cruelty.

isn't nature fuzzy?

[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.

[Xiahou]

i don't know much about either organization, but i don't hear people complain about the ASPCA or the american humane society that much. good job on the free-range meats, good for the animals (until you eat them ) and better tasting to boot!

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.

note: Don't confuse the American Human society with the Humane Society of the United States, which are apparently jerks.

[BDC]

These animal-rights terrorists (the ones who attack researchers and those associated with animal research) really need to be sorted out, it's horrific that a tiny segment of society can cripple medical research.

Although as far as I'm concerned exactly the same applies to those who get in the way of stem cell research etc.

At least the animal rights activists don't generally kill those they target, which is more than can said for some anti-abortion groups. Same extremists, slightly different excuse to kill and feel powerful.

[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?

[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).

[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

[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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

Wrong, its illegal invasion of private property. It demeans Rosa Parks to compare these people to her. She was not on a crusade to ruin what she didnt agree with.

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.

You can glorify criminals all you like, that doesnt make them any less of criminals.

I cant go into your house and handcuff myself to your furniture and call it civil disobedience. Thats essentially what Greenpeace does.

The only people Greenpeace humiliates are people trying to make an honest days living, not mooch off the misplaced good intentions of guilty people.

[Beirut]

Wrong, its illegal invasion of private property.

You can glorify criminals all you like, that doesnt make them any less of criminals.

Well, if Greenpeace are such heinous criminals in your view for committing the horrible crimes of trespassing and the occasional vandalism, what are your views towards those who knowingly dump thousands of tons of poison into rivers and lakes, endangering hundreds of thousands of people, and try to keep it secret for years and years, all because their profit margin says they should?

I have yet to hear you say one bad word about the corporations who are killing people, I have only heard you things about those who protest against the corporations who are killing people.

[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...

[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...

[PanzerJaeger]

Well, if Greenpeace are such heinous criminals in your view for committing the horrible crimes of trespassing and the occasional vandalism, what are your views towards those who knowingly dump thousands of tons of poison into rivers and lakes, endangering hundreds of thousands of people, and try to keep it secret for years and years, all because their profit margin says they should?

I have yet to hear you say one bad word about the corporations who are killing people, I have only heard you things about those who protest against the corporations who are killing people.

Ohh the evil corporations.

The other side of the story is that these companies provide jobs and services that people rely on. If they are in fact, as you claim, killing people you should petition your government to stop them.

If they break the law, they should be punished by the government of the country in which the law was broken. There is absolutely no place for vigilanties to pass arbitrary judgement on a company and punish it.

If that is the case, whats to stop a company from using criminal activity to fight back?

[Ser Clegane]

If they break the law, they should be punished by the government of the country in which the law was broken. There is absolutely no place for vigilanties to pass arbitrary judgement on a company and punish it.

Of course that is what should be happening - and I believe that actually happens (and this is a risk that the Greenpeace people are willing to take).

I have not seen anybody here who claims that Greenpeace should be above the law.
However, sending out a commando to a sovereign nation in order to blow up a Greenpeace ship (not caring whether there are people on board or not) has nothing to do with applying the law.

[Beirut]

Ohh the evil corporations.

The other side of the story is that these companies provide jobs and services that people rely on. If they are in fact, as you claim, killing people you should petition your government to stop them.

The problem is that the corporations line the pockets of government so that the authorities turn a blind eye. It is through public pressure that change occurs. That public pressure is spawned by movements like Greenpeace who make the people aware of corporate transgressions and force the government to make changes.

If they break the law, they should be punished by the government of the country in which the law was broken. There is absolutely no place for vigilanties to pass arbitrary judgement on a company and punish it.

Sure there is. When a company that pollutes and endangers the public will not stop, and the government will not force it to stop, then it is up to the people to make it stop.

Aren't you for the carrying of handguns? Why don't you just petition the government of your country to control crime? Why should you act the vigilante and pass arbitrary judgement on an individual and punish him?

If you feel one person has the right to act outside the norms of civilized behaviour to protect himself, why cannot a group of people act outside the norms of civilized behaviour to protect themselves?

If that is the case, whats to stop a company from using criminal activity to fight back?

They do. They also have millions and millions and millions for lawyers to tie up the courts for years to avoid making changes. Meanwhile, people continue to get sick and die and the company goes on making it's profits over their dead bodies.

I am still curious why you are so hot tempered about Greenpeace and their heinous acts of trespassing, but yet you remain calm, cool, and diplomatic when speaking of companies that dump thousands of tons of poisonous waste into the water supply.

Do you really believe that Greepeace climbing a smokestack and hanging a banner is a more horrible act than a company dumping dioxin sludge into rivers and lakes?

[Fragony]

If I was ever to eat a dolphin salad PETA made me do it. What a bunch of morons.

[Redleg]

Well, if Greenpeace are such heinous criminals in your view for committing the horrible crimes of trespassing and the occasional vandalism, what are your views towards those who knowingly dump thousands of tons of poison into rivers and lakes, endangering hundreds of thousands of people, and try to keep it secret for years and years, all because their profit margin says they should?

I have yet to hear you say one bad word about the corporations who are killing people, I have only heard you things about those who protest against the corporations who are killing people.

What about the knuckleheads who spike trees with long nails in their effort to keep lumberjacks from cutting down trees. Are they conducting peaceful protest - or are they committing an act of violence. If they leave a sign saying they spiked the trees - does it remove them from any fault of injury or death to the timber workers or saw mill workers that could be harmed by the spike.

http://richmond.indymedia.org/newswi...1/www.vjac.org

[scooter_the_shooter]

They oughta chain the tree huggers to a tree and leave them because of those spikes

[PanzerJaeger]

The problem is that the corporations line the pockets of government so that the authorities turn a blind eye. It is through public pressure that change occurs. That public pressure is spawned by movements like Greenpeace who make the people aware of corporate transgressions and force the government to make changes.

Public pressure does not extend to criminal activity.

If you feel one person has the right to act outside the norms of civilized behaviour to protect himself, why cannot a group of people act outside the norms of civilized behaviour to protect themselves?

It is perfectly acceptable behavior to protect yourself. Who is Greenpeace protecting by trying to destroy companies?

They do. They also have millions and millions and millions for lawyers to tie up the courts for years to avoid making changes. Meanwhile, people continue to get sick and die and the company goes on making it's profits over their dead bodies.

Every year the life expectancy goes up and up, and more cures for diseases are found by big medical corporations. Maybe things are different in Canada..

I am still curious why you are so hot tempered about Greenpeace and their heinous acts of trespassing, but yet you remain calm, cool, and diplomatic when speaking of companies that dump thousands of tons of poisonous waste into the water supply.

Im not going to respond to a fixed question.

Do you really believe that Greepeace climbing a smokestack and hanging a banner is a more horrible act than a company dumping dioxin sludge into rivers and lakes?

I believe Greenpeace harrassing people who try to buy my favorite vehicle at the dealership translates into lost profits and puts the whole marque in jeapardy. Land Rover doesnt dump anything, anywhere. People simply dont have the right to disregard the law and attempt to destroy a company or a person they disagree with.

[Big_John]

What about the knuckleheads who spike trees [...]

http://richmond.indymedia.org/newswi...1/www.vjac.org

is greenpeace involved with the ELF?

[Beirut]

What about the knuckleheads who spike trees with long nails in their effort to keep lumberjacks from cutting down trees. Are they conducting peaceful protest - or are they committing an act of violence. If they leave a sign saying they spiked the trees - does it remove them from any fault of injury or death to the timber workers or saw mill workers that could be harmed by the spike.

http://richmond.indymedia.org/newswi...1/www.vjac.org

Without a doubt I would be inclined to thrash the weenie who spiked my tree.

On the other hand, I am green enough to know what should and what should not be cut. Though it may sound like BS, there are trees I would simply refuse to cut based on my environmental views. I've refused to cut trees before and I'm sure I will again. The point is, at what point is the worker responsible for his actions? A paycheck does not wipe the slate clean if the worker has done something he knows to be wrong.

In general though, spiking trees is a bad idea because it is a hidden danger, akin to a land mine. Having your chain slip off the bar and remain there is no big deal. Happens all the time. But metal inside a tree can snap the chain and cause it to whiplash or come right off the bar. That's a bad thing with a chain turning at 12,000+ RPMs. If you're going to spike a tree you damn well better leave a few inches of spike on the outside so people know it's there.

[Redleg]

is greenpeace involved with the ELF?

There has been allegations of such a link - but since ELF is not a group but a loose band of cell the allegations can not be confirmed. Greenpeace denies any involvement with ELF.

[Big_John]

can spiking kill a tree? that would be ironic..

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Ok Greenies.

I don't like Microsoft, ok? Would that make it right if I broke into their faciilties and destroyed countless hours of research? No.

Same logic with Greenpeace.

These morons and criminals should be lined up and, one by one, have a 9 inch iron nail hammered into their backs. Not deadly, not nessissarily deadly anyway, but that will remind them who they are dealing with.

If we did that, I'm willing to bet the raids would stop at that moment.

[Ser Clegane]

These morons and criminals should be lined up and, one by one, have a 9 inch iron nail hammered into their backs. Not deadly, not nessissarily deadly anyway, but that will remind them who they are dealing with.

Could you please refrain from giving us details on your wet dreams how you would treat people who you do not like in every other thread you post in?

Thanks

Ser Clegane

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Could you please refrain from giving us details on your wet dreams how you would treat people who you do not like in every other thread you post in?

Thanks

Ser Clegane

How about every third?
Oh and a few things wrong with that post...
1. Can't you take a little satire? Too much to handle for ya?
2. No wetness to the dreams about it, I'm not a sadist, sorry
3. It's every fourth thread, dude, not every other