A thought about PETA

[Targa2]

PETA is all about RIGHTS of animals, correct? Common law is all about three basic rights:life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.Application of this law exist when one infringes upon the rights of others.What are an animals' rights? Who stands in judgement of them? Opinions?

[Dutchman]

I stand in judgement of all legal wild game that gets in range. Or fish that I may pursue. Should I judge them keepers, they're in the livewell or the back of the truck to the next stop, the deep freeze, then to be enjoyed by myself and other as a delicious meal.
PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals

" Fishing is the pursuit of what is elusive but attainable, a perpetual series of occasions for hope "

[Red Ruffandsore]

P-eople E-njoying T-errorist A-ctivities

gotta go...salmon steaks are burnin'


Stay off the pipe...and don't forget to wipe.

Red

[Water Dog]

It is a waste of time to try to use logic with these zealots .
Lord knows , I've tried .

We know they are misguided , they think we are evil !

When they break the law , we need to prosecute !

Tough when they are supported by the far left political establishment.

I believe that their domestic terrorism antics will backfire on them in time . Everyone's thinking clearer after 9-11 .

I believe we as sportsmen can band together to protect what is ours .
Speak up and speak freely . Do not let anyone shout you down .

Sportsmen are the true conservationalists and defenders of the environment .

[tjsker]

PETA members cannot justify their own existance. As for me, I have no problem with being at the top of the food chain.

[Red Ruffandsore]

PETA wants everyone to be vegetarian. If we all buy into that fact, how much land will be "consumed" to grow all the crops? How much wildlife will be displaced to accomplish this task?

You want a perfect world, you'll get it soon. When the Borg get here, let's see what the PETA people are gonna do then? Have you ever seen what the collective does to a deer. It ain't pretty.




Stay off the pipe...and don't forget to wipe.

Red

[Captain Picard]

After the Borg assimilates the deer, the deer would probably eat the PETA people!
ENGAGE !

[LakeRat]

I guess if a person wanted to use "reason" for everything, we would have to start with the premise that all living things, plants, insects and animals have no right to take anothers life in order to sustain life. Nothing stands in judgment of another. Given that we cannot survive on dirt and water alone and the fact that we would then be devouring many microscopic lives, it brings one to the conclusion that in order to protect all living things from each other, all must die from starvation.

So, PETA....... Go die and start a trend, but don't get too dissapointed if the rest of society doesn't see it your way!

[fishpoop]

What I can't understand is how peta expects us to value animal rights when we humans as a species haven't even learned how to value Human Rights. When humans stop wars, killing and torturing humans, then I might think about animal rights. Until that day I'll just keep on fishing and eating meat. I really don't think that I'll ever have to stop fishing and learn animal rights cause I really don't think we'll ever learn Human Rights.

[targa2]

Some good and humorous answers. The borg, I love it.I believe that " rights " are the domain of people and that animals could only have rights if they were assigned to them by people. If rights are assigned then they no longer fall under the definition of rights , they become privileges ,which are less dominant than pure rights in a court of law.If an animal did indeed have rights, whereby they were assigned to them by the PETA organization ,then the true rights would be the domain of the assigner. This is because an animal has no understanding of these rights and cannot assert them.If an animals' rights are that of the assigner(PETA) then in a court we are back to fighting about human rights;life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.To pass judgement where rights are in question ,my rights must infringe upon the rights of another.Where then does our right to fish and hunt infringe on the three basic rights of an animal rights group member?Sound like a lot of jibberish I know but I believe this battle will be eventually fought in the courts and that we must have some understanding of how "the law of the land"pertains to the issue.Any lawyers want crack at this?

[Fish_on]

If a deer has the right not to be killed by a hunter, then does it also have the right not to be killed by a cougar or a bear?

If any animal has a right not to be killed by a human, then don't all animals have rights? (mosquitos, bacteria, microorganisms)

I have spent a lot of time evaluating all this, and I can tear apart any animal activist by making their argument look so foolish it's laughable. Sometime if you have a 100 hours or so, we could talk about all this (it's a little too complicated for this board).

Two things at the root of it all:
1) It's not wrong to kill animals. We all kill animals every day. We kill them when we walk across our lawn, we kill them when we brush our teeth. We kill them indirectly even when we eat vegetables. It's impossible not to kill animals, so it's impossible to give these animals rights. So it becomes the issue of which animals have rights (just the "cute" ones of course). And who determines what these rights are, and who enforces them. (how can we presume to determine which rights are appropriate for animals when, as they say, we are simply animals ourselves? If animals have rights, shouldn't the most basic of those rights be the ability to choose which rights they are?) That's where their argument begins to fall apart.

2) Animal rights comes down to the basic issue of whether or not human life is intrinsically more valuable than that of an animal. And that's a religious issue. There is no way to get around it, animal rights is at its core a religious issue.

I'm glad to see people asking these deep questions, because there are good, logical answers for them. Someday I will write a book about this. I promise.

[Read the Big Book]

Read the Bible, it's all there in black and white. Peta is wrong.

[Fish_on]

Where do people get their rights?

One of the uniquely great things about the USA is that our founding fathers had the foresight to realize that if rights are given by people, then people also have the right to take them away. They believed that we have basic fundamental rights given to us by God that cannot be taken away by other people, and they stated so, "All men are created equal and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights."

That is the one single most important thing that separates us from other countries. Others may try to take our rights away, but our constition itself says that we are endowed with them by a power outside of, and higher than, ourselves; that we are born with them and no man or government can take them away.

[sib]

I have spoken to the corn community, they are tired of the terror that the deer and other wildlife have inflicted on them. They asked me to speak on their behalf. They want to assert their rights, too.

It's food chain, the corn grabs minerals and water from the soil, the corn doesn't even ask the earth for it. Then the deer eats the corn, once again, the deer doesn't ask permission. Then I eat the deer and I don't ask permission. Does the corn have to justify it's stealing of minerals and water? Do the deer have to justify their theft?

It's nature, it's the way it was designed. peta would have us ignore nature, but we won't allow that.

Once the continents were isolated, because cultures didn't have to knowledge or vessels to discover what was out in the vast blue ocean. If you look at the isolated societies it's amazing the parallel development that was going on. None of the cultures had contact with the other, but many progressed in the same way. Most were hunters and gatherers.

I'm Human and I'm an animal, I have my human rights, and I have the same rights that wildlife has, the right to eat what I choose, when I choose. NO ONE will dictate what I eat, NO ONE.

It's sad, every generations malcontent’s has their own little way of saying, "I hate my parents."

[SUPERTROLLER]

People for the Ethical Teatment of Animals.
Since I hunt and fish according to the ethical laws of the State of Michigan I think I'm okay. "My ancestors didn't climb to the top of the food chain for me to become a vegetarian." I love that quote! Don't know who said it first but, it fits. As long as the animals I harvest are done legally, I have a clear consceince. I'll eat what i want, when I want. I'm allowed to make that choice. The bear does.

[EyeJacker]

P-lant E-ting T-errorist A-ffiliation!
Now back to the veal parmesan!

[targa2]

Hey sib I like the seperate continents theory. Have you ever heard of the 'hundredth monkey syndrome'.Zoologists dicovered that a breed of monkey living in groups on totally seperate islands made a simultaneous change in there eating habits by beginning to wash the sweet potatoes that were their main diet.

I am impressed constantly with the intelligence that is displayed on this board. A lot of people avoid deep topics of philisophical content and I love to hear this kind of exchange. Great ideas here and we need to remind each other of these truths on occasion.

[targa2]

I could talk to you about it for a hundred hours fish_on. One of my favourite passtimes is making a mockery of animal rights people. Ive used the housefly/bacteria arguement to irritate many of them.Their completely without logic after that.