10

10 log in or sign up to start earning Butterfly Credits today!
learn more »
earn credits for web search

community & fun

groups

get together & make a difference

Groups > PETH > Discussions > Topic: why this group exists
Topic: why this group exists

powered by Care2.com • Care2 Home • E-cards & Fun • Shopping • Healthy Living • News Network • Petitions • Click to Donate


CheWorks L.	why this group exists April 10, 2006 10:31 PM This group was opened by me to show how silly and extreme animal rights activism can sometimes be. I didn't open this group for a soapbox. On the contrary, i opened this group fearing many left-wing people would consider me suicidal and many others would think I was here to get on people's nerves. [ send green star]
Jan C.	Also, April 11, 2006 4:27 AM It is nice to have a spot where people can discuss things other than animal rights. Dont get me wrong, animal rights do need to be fought for, but nicely and not to the extreme that people suffer from it. Human rights need to be considered here... [ send green star]
George R W.	I still wonder why. April 11, 2006 2:02 PM . [ send green star]
Sylvie G.	April 11, 2006 2:19 PM I didn't open this group for a soapbox. On the contrary, i opened this group fearing many left-wing people would consider me suicidal and many others would think I was here to get on people's nerves. Why lump all ARA'S as left wing??? so...all ARA are PETA supporters & left wing? LMAO! again..this group is tooooo funny! [ send green star]
Tony M.	April 11, 2006 3:20 PM This group is hilarious! it really is.... [ send green star]
Sylvie G.	April 11, 2006 3:22 PM Tony!! Please read the threads in this group! I soooo needed to laugh today! Thank-you wonderful hosts for starting this group! [ send green star]
CheWorks L.	Sylvie April 11, 2006 9:52 PM You need to read closer. I never said all Peta members are left-wing. I just know that they are mostly left-wing and it is the politically correct left-wing thing to do to be for animal rights. As a Marxist, my ideology doesn't include animals. People of the world unite. [ send green star]
Michelle M.	Che, April 19, 2006 9:47 AM Must it necessarily EXCLUDE animals? [ send green star]
CheWorks L.	Michelle April 20, 2006 10:21 PM Absolutely not. Perhaps I should reiterate that it includes humans before animals. At the same time, I want animals to betreated properly and to not be killed without very good reason. [ send green star]
	HUMANS,as well animals NEED August 03, 2006 5:46 PM LOVE, SUPPORT and ENCOURAGEMENT! neither animals NOR humans should be excluded from our LOVE, SUPPORT and CONCERN! WE should spend = time supporting HUMANE orgs AS clicking to donate!! [ send green star]
Billye T.	August 03, 2006 5:54 PM But humans cannot be killed for a good reason? [ send green star]
Sarah T.	August 03, 2006 8:19 PM Humans are animals. Che was speaking of animals. I am sure if he he meant to speak selectively about non-human animals, he would have said so. Interesting how in one post someone will point out that humans are animals as well, and then it is quickly forgotten and humans are excluded. Sort of like there is us, and then there is them. Sort of like in the case of people who battle each other in wars. There is us who are humans, and then there is them who are not. Or like the indigenous people who are closer to the stone age than the modern age. The name of the tribe frequently means "people" in their language. [ send green star]
	Quick Story.... August 03, 2006 9:33 PM When I was growing up, I was encouraged to get a hunting license - which I did at the age of 12. I didn't want one but I was trying to fit in with my family. They were all so proud of me when I passed the tests. I knew a .22 rifle was good for birds, a .30 .30 was good for bigger game like deer, and something like a 30 ot 6 would just about kick my butt to the ground. I am 33 yrs old now - and knew then as I do now that I could not kill another living creature unless it was a life or death situation. I don't understand the trophy hunter at all. Oh look - horns! I did that! So the hell what? What exactly does that mean? Providing nourishment for a family or individual in need is another story. We are 'thinking animals' - and there are many different aspects to be looked at....there is no one right answer. [ send green star]
Sarah T.	August 04, 2006 1:57 AM I do not own a gun. My parents do not own a gun. No one I know owns a gun. I do not like guns. No one I know has ever hunted. No one I know goes fishing. I do not own a pet. My parents do not own a pet. We are not allowed to S H I T on the street. Why do we have animals with us who do that and pee as well? How unsanitary. PETA preys on pet lovers for PETA's own interests. I do not like organizations that prey on people's guilt that the organization itself fosters. [ send green star]
Freediver O.	August 04, 2006 2:03 AM I see them the same way. Groups like PETA guilt trip little old ladies into adopting 30 feral cats, living in unsanitary conditions spending the last of their life savings to buy meat to feed them. Never do they say, 'look, it's OK, you can't save them all.' It's always 'Oh no, please don't let tabby the stray cat DIE!!!!!!, Save him!!!!!!' [ send green star]
Alina M.	August 04, 2006 5:20 AM If there would be another 'animal' in the chain, after the human, feeding exclusevly on humans, then we'd be an animal. Now, we're the most developed examples of thinking and aware kind of 'animal', so, we can decide and choose not to kill, this means it is not necessary for us to kill, so, we probably shouldn't kill, anybody, any. Why on earth would we kill seals? Let them enjoy their life in their oceans and let them be happy. It is sad that some ppl need to advocate for animals, because they themselves cann't. But the first 'animal' that needs to be cultivated is human, and taking care of animals is maybe just one way to do it. But the key to address this issue should be in the head of every human, but .. don't know really what are the chances of that, since men have been killing since the stone age onwards .. Guess for some ppl meat equals food. Ok. How about men killing men ? Is that humane behaviour ? . [ send green star]
Tanya R.	August 05, 2006 12:09 AM Why do we have animals with us who do that and pee as well? How unsanitary you have obviously lived a very protected life. I suppose this means that you are not very keen on camping without flushable toilets and warm showers. I disagree that PETA is solely self-serving, I think that you support that idea is self-serving. Freedriver, sometimes you are just full of it. You obviously do not keep up with anyhing that animal advocates believe. No one wants old ladies with few resources to live in unsanitary conditions with too many other animals. [ send green star]
Kathy G.	August 05, 2006 8:50 AM I may not agree or support Peta in every single thing they do.... BUT---- there is NO other organization that has raised awareness to the cruelties involved in the circus industry and vivisection (surgery without consent) as they have. NONE. This is not a group to bash Peta, etc or to be for/against an org-so WHY does PETA keep ending up the topic of conversation???? Or-have I totally misunderstood Che on the purpose of this group entirely...tho the name certainly implies..... Che----what say YOU? [ send green star]
Tanya R.	August 05, 2006 10:38 AM The first line in this topic from Che: "This group was opened by me to show how silly and extreme animal rights activism can sometimes be." and here is the revised purpose of the group: http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=8520&pst=306401&archival= Literally vivisection means to cut the living, surgery, but the word is used for any type of experimentation done on any living organism. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vivisection vivisection the action of cutting, dissecting or other painful treatment of a living organism for the purposes of physiological or pathological scientific investigation. The term is mainly used by opponents of animal research. [ send green star]
Kathy G.	August 05, 2006 12:49 PM Tanya It just pisses me off because somehow, and for some reason-Peta always seems to be brought up in almost ANY topic...almost like we're being "baited". And when I was almost hired by Peta a little over a yr ago, I clarified their stance on "owning" animals....and the public is badly misinformed thanks to media misrepresentation, it would seem. I was told I could bring my dog to work at any time-and many employees there do...I have a "working relationship" with a couple of their circus reps, so I even asked them on a personal level...and they too-not only love it there because of how they step in to fight the cruelties of the circus-but that they CAN take their dogs to work with them. As I said-I do not support them in everything they do like I support Best Friends Animal Society, but they DO have their good points...and have brought awareness of animal cruelty to the public like none other in history. [ send green star]
Sarah T.	August 06, 2006 2:36 AM "have brought awareness of animal cruelty to the public like none other in history." Sort of a slap in the face to those who started the RSPCA in Britain in 1824 and then the ASPCA in the USA with other english speaking countries following shortly afterwards. Those laws were enacted before there were laws against child labour. http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/RSPCARedirect&pg=about_the_rspca&marker=1&articleId=996827934749 [ send green star]
Kathy G.	August 07, 2006 12:58 AM No, no slap in the face. I was referring to my 8:50 post of cruelty in the circus and vivisection....there is not one agency, who has surpassed Peta's exposing these atrocities to the public....and if anyone can find an agency who has done more to expose the cruelties in these 2 arenas; please do share. [ send green star]
Sarah T.	August 07, 2006 10:46 AM Since I am from British Columbia, I think I have no problem doing that. There are 18 municiplities, which include the most populated ones in the province, which have banned circuses from performing within their boundaries if they use exotic animals. That probably covers about 70% of the population of BC. I think there are not that many in all of Canada, outside of BC. Can any of the states within the USA boast a 70% coverage of exotic animal act bans? The main reason why this is so in BC is because the BCSPCA has been quietly working behind the scenes. http://www.spca.bc.ca/animalissues/circus.asp They refer to 6 other organizations, PETA is only one of them. This is another main one, I believe. http://www.zoocheck.com/programs/entertain/case/index.shtml Alberta, our next door neighbour, refers to the BC activities on their site. http://www.albertaspca.org/circus.asp [ send green star]
CheWorks L.	August 09, 2006 8:34 PM take it easy anonymous or I will disable the feature. [ send green star]