Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

PETA, are you f*cking serious?

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    recylingbin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,001 ✭✭✭recylingbin


    Whales are people too, man.


  • Options
    #33
    Cantona's Collars
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭Cantona's Collars


    recylingbin wrote: »
    Whales are people too, man.

    Leave the fat chicks alone:pac:


  • Options
    #34
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    I hope they don't win. It could lead to legal changes here and I wouldn't be allowed to continue forcing my team of monkeys to write my posts for me.


  • Options
    #35
    blatantrereg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭blatantrereg


    I think these sorts of attention-grabbing protests undermine the professed cause of the people involved.

    They euthanise 85% of animals brought into their shelters apparently. I worked in a [non-PETA] animal shelter and yes, an awful lot of the animals do need to be euthanised. Disease is a real problem in cramped conditions with lots of strays, no matter how well the place is mantained. But there's something amiss when it's 85%. Apparently they kill pit bulls out of hand, and prefer killing to keeping an animal couped up for extended periods.

    Very hypocritical really. The place I worked in housed a bulldog that had eaten a rival pet greyhound (literally). The only animals which were killed were already dying.
    Some animals do become very distressed from confinement. There was an alsatian which was losing its fur because of this as I understood. However an alternative to killing them is to take them for a walk or a run.


  • Options
    #36
    lividduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,250 ✭✭✭lividduck


    Animals are for eating, chasing/hunting and turning into clothing and footwear!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Fear Uladh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 810 ✭✭✭Fear Uladh


    We've all harpooned a whale once in our lives.


    ...wait wrong thread.:o:pac:


  • Options
    #38
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    Prejudiuce stereotyping in this report. I recon they aren't going to have a fair trail. :(

    Where will the trail lead?


    I disagree with this . If you start treating the Welsh like real people sheep will be getting done for zoophillia.


  • Options
    #39
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    God put monkeys on earth for our amusment...that's all we know Rick...THAT'S ALL WE KNOW!!!!


  • Options
    #40
    WoollyRedHat
    Registered Users Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    What about people riding dolphins


  • Options
    #41
    FTGFOP
    Registered Users Posts: 2,389 ✭✭✭FTGFOP


    The King of Moo wrote: »
    The conceptual difference between slavery and animal captivity is surely that slavery can only be committed against a person.

    Corporations are people, my friend! Maybe whales too.
    ...
    Perhaps this case will raise and interesting debate about what level of intelligence constitutes personhood. Foreshadowing future debates about whether sufficiently intricate AIs may require human/personhood rights.

    Do people think that a hypothetical animal, let's say as intelligent as Homo erectus, but not humanoid would deserve 'human rights'? At what level of intelligence would one draw the line?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    The King of Moo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭The King of Moo


    FTGFOP wrote: »
    Corporations are people, my friend! Maybe whales too.
    ...
    Perhaps this case will raise and interesting debate about what level of intelligence constitutes personhood. Foreshadowing future debates about whether sufficiently intricate AIs may require human/personhood rights.

    Do people think that a hypothetical animal, let's say as intelligent as Homo erectus, but not humanoid would deserve 'human rights'? At what level of intelligence would one draw the line?

    There is some interesting research being done into whether some smarter animals have the capacity to reflect on their own thoughts, once considered to be one of the main differences between human and intelligence.

    I'm sure most animals are smarter than are often given credit for, but I think in this case the whales wouldn't consider themselves to be slaves, which is the key thing. Sure they're probably not as happy as they would be in the wild, and if they're being mistreated that should be sorted out. But if they don't have a concept of slavery, then I don't think their owners can be accused of slavery.

    If any animal did ever evolve into a second sentient species on this planet though, I definite think they ought to be considered people and granted human rights.


  • Options
    #43
    Crea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭Crea


    PETA are also against guide/assistance dogs for the same slavery reason. Tossers.


  • Options
    #44
    jockeyboard
    Registered Users Posts: 783 ✭✭✭jockeyboard


    Crea wrote: »
    PETA are also against guide/assistance dogs for the same slavery reason. Tossers.

    peta (and 'people' like them-vegetarians) are eating the food of my food.


  • Options
    #45
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    WoollyRedHat wrote: »
    What about people riding dolphins
    I think that's already illegal, though there are places in the far east...

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #46
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    jockeyboard wrote: »
    peta (and 'people' like them-vegetarians) are eating the food of my food.

    I prefer the line "My food shíts on your food."

    :D


  • Options
    #47
    Sergeant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,362 ✭✭✭Sergeant


    People like Jamie Oliver and the River Cottage toff have done more for championing the cause of animal welfare than these morons ever well. And both of them are meat eaters.


  • Options
    #48
    ItsAWindUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,325 ✭✭✭ItsAWindUp


    I quite like PETA


  • Options
    #49
    Julie London
    Closed Accounts Posts: 79 ✭✭Julie London


    Peta own shares in Pfizer. Pfizer test on animals. Peta have no credibility.


  • Options
    #50
    Ro: maaan!
    Registered Users Posts: 6,592 ✭✭✭Ro: maaan!


    Besides disliking PETA in general, does anyone have any actual problem with this court case? Wasting the American courts time/money? Is that a real concern for you? Is it that you think they are asking for too many animal rights? Do you think PETA are being hypocrital somehow specific to this case?

    Basically, how is this doing more harm than good? And for the people who said they do care about animals, how can you hold it against anyone who is trying to make things better for animals when it's hurting no one?

    I don't think they will win this case. I doubt they think they will win it. And no one posting here probably thinks they will win either. So where's the harm in trying and raising awareness about it? And can you really blame people for exploring every avenue for something they care about?

    Is there nothing that's important to you that isn't protected by law? Don't you have any strong feelings that aren't shared by the majority?


  • Options
    #51
    LumpyGravy
    Registered Users Posts: 123 ✭✭LumpyGravy


    If Orca should have the same rights as people, should these fellas be sent to the electric chair?



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Paparazzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭Paparazzo


    Ro: maaan! wrote: »
    Besides disliking PETA in general, does anyone have any actual problem with this court case? Wasting the American courts time/money? Is that a real concern for you? Is it that you think they are asking for too many animal rights? Do you think PETA are being hypocrital somehow specific to this case?

    Basically, how is this doing more harm than good? And for the people who said they do care about animals, how can you hold it against anyone who is trying to make things better for animals when it's hurting no one?

    I don't think they will win this case. I doubt they think they will win it. And no one posting here probably thinks they will win either. So where's the harm in trying and raising awareness about it? And can you really blame people for exploring every avenue for something they care about?

    Is there nothing that's important to you that isn't protected by law? Don't you have any strong feelings that aren't shared by the majority?

    The problem with PETA is that this isn't about the whales. It's about getting PETA in newspapers, and this is the exact same thing again. PETA are about self promotion, not saving animals. If animals are the same as people according to PETA, they should turn themselves into the nearest police station for genocide. Because they kill thousands of animals themselves every year. Oh yeah, they dont kill thousands of animals a year, they "euthanize" them :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #53
    Slippin Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,031 ✭✭✭Slippin Jimmy


    Going by what they are saying, would it be cruel for me to keep a dog on my property?


  • Options
    #54
    Ro: maaan!
    Registered Users Posts: 6,592 ✭✭✭Ro: maaan!


    Paparazzo wrote: »
    The problem with PETA is that this isn't about the whales. It's about getting PETA in newspapers
    To what end? Do you think that all they want is to be in the papers and that they have decided that animal welfare is the best way to do that? Or do you think that they like to be in the papers because it raises awareness about their actual goals?


  • Options
    #55
    TanG411
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,836 ✭✭✭TanG411


    PETA tried to ban Super Mario 3D Land because Mario can wear a tanooki suit, and it would promote the skinning of animals.


  • Options
    #56
    jebuz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭jebuz


    CrazyRabbit wrote: »
    I hope they don't win. It could lead to legal changes here and I wouldn't be allowed to continue forcing my team of monkeys to write my posts for me.

    It was the best of times...


  • Options
    #57
    skregs
    Registered Users Posts: 746 ✭✭✭skregs


    Skid wrote: »
    PETA should stick to having naked Supermodels do adverts for whatever it is they are campaigning about.

    The 'I'd rather go naked than (whatever it was)' adverts. They were good.


    Nothing beats the feeling of having a **** to those ads while eating a burger


  • Options
    #58
    Slippin Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,031 ✭✭✭Slippin Jimmy


    ThinksAmoral wrote: »
    PETA tried to ban Super Mario 3D Land because Mario can wear a tanooki suit, and it would promote the skinning of animals.

    It's a bloody game! Nut jobs. I read before that they were doing something with porn. How does porn and animal welfare relate?


  • Options
    #59
    Paddy Cow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭Paddy Cow


    Ro: maaan! wrote: »
    Besides disliking PETA in general, does anyone have any actual problem with this court case? Wasting the American courts time/money? Is that a real concern for you? Is it that you think they are asking for too many animal rights? Do you think PETA are being hypocrital somehow specific to this case?

    Basically, how is this doing more harm than good? And for the people who said they do care about animals, how can you hold it against anyone who is trying to make things better for animals when it's hurting no one?

    I don't think they will win this case. I doubt they think they will win it. And no one posting here probably thinks they will win either. So where's the harm in trying and raising awareness about it? And can you really blame people for exploring every avenue for something they care about?

    Is there nothing that's important to you that isn't protected by law? Don't you have any strong feelings that aren't shared by the majority?
    They are wasting their money on a case that cannot be won. That money would be better spent taking care of the 85% of animals who are put down in their shelters. It's a very expensive publicity stunt, nothing more.


  • Options
    #60
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    I think they have a point, I'm against Zoos and animal shows like seaworld. I know zoos are involved in conservation as well but they are horribly cruel and the same goes for keeping a large whale enclosed in a small pool for our entertainment, it's simply wrong.

    It's just a pity PETA are only interested in sensationalist tabloid chasing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    danniemcq
    Registered Users Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    Ro: maaan! wrote: »
    Besides disliking PETA in general, does anyone have any actual problem with this court case? Wasting the American courts time/money? Is that a real concern for you? Is it that you think they are asking for too many animal rights? Do you think PETA are being hypocrital somehow specific to this case?


    its also wasting the money of people who have donated to them thinking they were helping make a difference
    Ro: maaan! wrote: »
    Basically, how is this doing more harm than good? And for the people who said they do care about animals, how can you hold it against anyone who is trying to make things better for animals when it's hurting no one?


    because it is making people who care about animals to be complete nutters. You care about animals, PETA cares about animals, PETA are nutters QED you are a nutter. People who care about animals will get painted with the same brush. Thats sad but its a matter of fact. Look at any incident where a minority of people make the majority look the same (Football recently is a perfect example)

    Ro: maaan! wrote: »
    I don't think they will win this case. I doubt they think they will win it. And no one posting here probably thinks they will win either. So where's the harm in trying and raising awareness about it? And can you really blame people for exploring every avenue for something they care about?

    see my above points
    Ro: maaan! wrote: »
    Is there nothing that's important to you that isn't protected by law? Don't you have any strong feelings that aren't shared by the majority?

    there is a difference in protecting something by law (conservation etc) and trying to get whales recognised as people and protected in the American constitution.

    I also have strong feelings that i'm probably in the minority about but i'm not gonna go crazy with lawsuits making my cause look bad.


Advertisement