there might be a topic about this already. i searched it. but, nothing came up.

anyway, i was watching an e! special about murders. then the show "pam. girl on the loose." came on and she never seems to shut the f**k up about peta. if you like peta, whatever. but, don't prance around with your dog on a leash while wearing a peta shirt.

i can see why peta wants to help animals. but, i really hate ingrid newkirk and mary beth sweetland. they're pretty much hypocritical neo-nazi's.

discuss.

haha true, Ingrid sends me freakin emails every week, so annoying :]

she could be using all that time euthanizing animals!



the holocaust = starving goats

it's the same thing!

/sarcasm

Saving animals from mistreatment is good. They shouldn't be treated like they're nothing but a hunk of meat. Although it doesn't need to be to the extreme. PETA could get somewhere if they chilled out.

the more chill commercial is with that basketball player. that could get them somewhere, right?

i agree completely. but, peta extremists shouldn't be bombing testing facilities to save animals. when the testing is for saving humans. which is funny because peta is against the testing against animals, which is cool. except, the vice president uses insulin, which was tested on dogs.

"i need my life to fight for the rights of animals."

go euthanize yourself, mary beth sweetland.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm?headline=2343

Violent actions lead to deaths, and serve no purpose, they never help.

Animal testing should only be banned if it's killing animals. Getting a rash is nothing because humans get rashes from being tested on, also. The point is, we need to stop killing animals carelessly.

You know where the debate forum is?

these animals aren't being killed carelessly. these animals don't belong to someone as a pet. they're helping cure diseases.

i'd rather 50 million animals die if it's going to cure something like aids or cancer. there is still going to be animals abused no matter what we try to do. but, ASPCA is trying their hardest to find those people and stop it.

i think i've seen the same clips used over and over in every dvd i've gotten from peta. you'd think if there was so much abuse, they'd have more than just a couple of the same videos.

I'm vegetarian but I don't agree with what PETA does. I hate how people assume that I'm pro-PETA just because I don't eat meat. PETA is to radical and honestly they're not helping the image of animal rights activists.



I read somewhere that testing on animals won't even be necessary in the future because of new technology (I can't remember exactly). Now that's just for makeup, hair, etc. I'm not sure if diseases are included.

that's very true. they want ethical treatment for animals. but, they can't be ethical themselves.



i haven't heard anything about cosmetics being used on animals in along time. that could just be me though. from what i know animal testing is an important part of research.

I posted in the previous thread about this.
It might take me a while but when I find my sources I will explain how evil they are.
They try to corrupt the minds of children. They kill animals themselves. There is a bunch more.
But, basically f**k peta. I would love to save the animals, but it's just not going to happen.

They don't really test disease cures on animals more so than shampoos and makeup. And yes, they still do that. Animals can have allergic reactions (and die) and aren't treated properly in testing facilities.

Another thing is, why is human life valued other over life? It shouldn't be. Just because one is more intelligent than the other doesn't mean it has less living value than another. If this were true, people wouldn't go to jail for killing intellectually disabled people. So why is it any different?

so are you telling me that the cures for chicken pox, flu, hepatitis b, measles, mumps, polio, rabies, smallpox, whooping cough and yellow fever are shampoos and other cosmetics?



i think everything has it's reason to be here and some animals should sacrifice their life to science. that's not saying the animal is less important. sometimes we have to make difficult decisions.

who is killing mentally disabled people anyway?



http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm

Then why can't humans be sacrificed to science then? It is saying they're less important because they are being sacrificed to save another race that believes they're superior based on intelligence.

No, I'm not saying cures are shampoos and cosmetics. I'm saying they test cosmetics and shampoos on animals more than they test cures because there are more brands and types of shampoos and cosmetics than recent advances in cures, am I right? Animals should not be sacrificed for health and beauty aid. If mice die in the fight for finding a cure, that's not really the issue. The issue is cats and dogs are being sacrificed to make people look prettier and that's not right. I still think humans should be tested on for health and beauty aid, if the product is for humans, it needs to remain on humans.

No animals were made to be sacrificed, because keep in mind, we're animals too. Who's going to sacrifice us when they become superior?

PETA is a good cause but they are one of the worst market leeches. I get totally turned off to their cause because of their tactless ads.

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/...small.jpg"

A young man was beheaded on a bus in Canada and then had some of his flesh eaten. A couple of weeks later, PETA exploited this tragedy and made this ad.

Why is human life more valued? It just is. Survival of the fittest. Don't fight nature. I bet you use products to like deodorant or shampoo or something. If any of those products caused an adverse reaction, you would sue because the product caused you harm.

Why do PETA supporters waste millions in donations to save animals when millions of children are starving and dying of diseases in Africa?

The Holocaust was one of the worst atrocities in our history. If all the cows or chickens died, it still won't compare to the horror of the Holocaust.

Thank you Juday.
I found some of the ads I was looking for but I can't seem to find all the facts. I wish I could find that old post.
I think one of my main points was the marketing they do towards the youth, like these ads for children.

i barely hear anything about animal testing on cosmetics anymore. sooo, i really don't know. i'd appreciate it if you could show me some back up for that statement.



there's tons of people that get tested on. whatchu talking bout?







these pictures crack me up!

You don't hear anything about it because no one talks about it as much. But look at any of the newer shampoos and cosmetics and somewhere I'm sure you will find something about it being tested. I've seen it on my shampoo bottles.

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that a life is valued over another. It just means that sometimes in certain situations one may die because one is stronger. It doesn't mean that they kill each other for advances in science whatever it may be for; and quite honestly I haven't heard anything about advances in science having to do with any other animal except a rat. I know this because I have a friend who is a biochemist and he talks about testing on rats. I do know however, that it's almost impossible to test cosmetics on rats because they would die too easily and they don't have much hair. They have to test SOME type of animal if the bottle says they have, and I'm assuming from the past publicity that these animals are dogs and cats. I may be wrong, but it's not a completely off-the-wall accusation.

I'm still standing by my statement that no life form is superior to another, even if they are more intelligent. They all have in common the most powerful thing that surpasses intelligence and strength and that is life.

i'd like for animals to not be tested on at all either. but, at the end of the day it's an important part of research and i'm going to have to side with science on this one.

But, we are all different, correct? I mean, we certainly aren't equal, even if you could argue that we're all "equally alive." Even if, you couldn't further say that we are "ultimately equal." To demonstrate this simply, you might allow a tax specialist to file your taxes but you most likely would not allow a retard to do the same task - they're not equal. You constantly make distinctions within your life and act on those distinctions as well. So, although superiority is largely a subjective concept, there are certainly distinctions between life forms, hell... there are even distinctions between specific lives within a single form. So, why is it so inconceivable to you that mankind, as a whole, is more cognitively advanced, more sensitive to suffering and pain, generally more valued, and more dominant in the world? Wouldn't this make us, in a sense, "superior" - at least to non-human animals?

Yes, we're all different, but I'm saying all life forms are equal and one cannot become more superior. Intelligence and strength cannot distinguish between superiority. Although intellectually disabled people (please do not call them retards) and regularly functioning human beings are not equal in intelligence they both have the opportunity to be either more or less intelligent. Animals also have this chance, the same as humans do. Perhaps we just haven't discovered an animal on par with regularly functioning human beings, but it is evident that they have the chance, just as we do. The evidence being: discovering animals that are smarter than others, or more specifically discovering more highly functioning gorillas with the same IQ as a low-functioning intellectually disabled person. However, some gorillas are not as high functioning as others.

The only thing that makes us humans different from unintelligent animals is that we seized the opportunity to further our intelligence level. Therefore we believe ourselves superior because of the simple fact we had the opportunity to become more intelligent and our ancestors ran with it.



How do you know animals aren't sensitive to suffering and pain? They haven't yet given us the opportunity to communicate with humans.

Also, how can you say humans are more valued when you are a human yourself? That would be like someone saying they are better than someone else and that is obvious they would think more highly of themselves than they would others. Like I have said, the statements above are incorrect until given the chance to communicate with animals in a direct way. Not by some crazy physic person who believes they can communicate with animals, but really can't.

You guys are talking about the term "speciesism". I'll get back to this topic when I have more free time. I just recently finished an Animal and Human Culture Humanties course about this whole ordeal.

That sounds interesting, I want to take a class like that

While I agree with reducing animal cruelty all around the world . I don't like their sensational advertising. I'm a practicing vegetarian myself .

i use dove shampoo and conditioner and it didn't say anything about animal testing. you should probably stop using those brands because it would just make you look like a hypocrite.

You can check PETA's website to see which companies are cruelty free. However, a lot of affordable drugstore brands are still testing on animals.

If you read the news about these companies, they admit to testing on animals for only a particular list of their products. Not every product under their brand is tested on animals but as a whole, they would be cruelty free.