PETA

In reality animals have no rights at all. The idea that they do is a result of human ideology and has no basis in nature. In fact the notion is an example of illogical reasoning.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can accept animal rights, I agree with that. spam_I do not agree that animals have MORE rights than people. spam_Let's just look at it from a natural viewpoint. spam_Survival of the fittest right? spam_We are the fittest for now. When any species evolves that takes our place, so be it. spam_Now I don't agree that we should be driving species to extinction, but I don't think we should have to worry about that anytime soon when it relates to animals like chickens. spam_</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

The Survival of the Fittest is an excellent example, but not in the way it was intended in the above quote.
By definition, SOF allows for no inherent &quot;rights&quot; for any organism, but only the tools to survive as best it can.
An antelope has no more right not to be eaten by a lion than it does a human animal (which is what humans must be classified as according to the principles that accompany SOF).
Throughout nature we see the recurring theme of the strong using the weak to better their own chances of survival. On what basis are humans excluded from this natural order?
The result of the support of animal rights is not the raising up of the status of animals, but tearing down that of people.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And as I said in a previous post... How can you love animals called pets and eat animals called dinner? I love my hognose snakes, ball python, leopard gecko, cats, veiled chams, axolotls, rat, etc. way too much for that.
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

This argument has always amused me when presented by pet keepers, particularly those who keep reptiles.
How about a reversal of sorts on the above statement.
How can you love animals others call dinner, while confining to a virtual prison animals you call pets?

Take the following examples:
1) I shoot a deer. The deer is dead within minutes and I have meat in my freezer for the next few months.
2) You buy a hatchling kingsnake, bring it home and put it in a cage, where in one form or another it will spend the next 15 years in complete subjection to your whims.

You cannot deem the first example cruel and not the second.
You cannot be against some utilitarian uses of animals (food, clothing, medical research) while not only tolerating, but participating in others (such as pet keeping). In regard to reptiles as pets, it is a utilitarian use, because it serves only the needs of the keeper, be they emotional, psychological, or financial, with no coresponding benefit to the kept.
I am not condemning the keeping of reptiles by any means, merely demonstrating the absurdity of this line of thought.

Animal rights is an all or nothing prospect. You cannot choose selective application according to personal interests.
Take for instance a reptile keeper who believes killing a pig for food is wrong. Then take a pig farmer who believes reptiles are wild animals and should not be confined to cages. They are both right from their own perspectives.
If animals do have rights, they must supercede human beliefs and opinions. Since the idea that animals have rights at all is not based on nature, but instead is only a result of human beliefs and opinions, this is an impossibility.

It is a great display of arrogance for one to believe that just because they feel eating meat or wearing leather is wrong, that makes it so.
By what cosmic provision does your opinion carry the ability to set moral standards while mine, or anyone else's does not?

On the subject of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
This organization is little more than PeTA with a facelift. As some people would say, it’s like putting purfume on a pig.

To begin with the name is misleading. Physicians make up only 5% of the total membership. This 5% is equivalent to only 0.5% of the nations doctors. They are hardly a physicians committee by any stretch of the term.

The president of the PCRM is Neal Barnard, a psychiatrist, who at one time if not still today, was the medical and science advisor for PeTA. He still maintains close connection with that group.
Himself along with Ingrid Newkirk are on the board of the Foundation to Support Animal Protection. This foundation is a money funnel between PeTA and other animal rights organizations, and is also a large supporter of the PCRM. The foundation also pays the mortgage on PeTA’s Norfolk offices.

The American Medical Association has issued several resolutions against the PCRM for their irresponsible and inaccurate information concerning nutritional advice and medical research. The fact that the AMA, one of the most respected medical groups in the country denounces the findings on the PCRM with statements such as it “finds the recommendations of PCRM irresponsible and potentially dangerous to the health and welfare of Americans” brings into serious question any possibility that the opinions they put forth are based on anything resembling factual data.

Neal Barnard has also worked with Kevin Jonas, who is with a violent animal rights group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. This man was formerly known as Kevin Kjonaas when he was a spokesperson for the Animal Liberation Front, a group deemed by the FBI to be domestic terrorists.

The PCRM also maintains several other websites one of which being www.CharitiesInfo.org where they attempt to convince people not to donate to such charities as the March of Dimes and the American Heart Association based on the sole reason that they support medical research involving animals.

In the year 2000 the PCRM received funding from a number of sources, but the top few were these:
Nearly $600,000 from Foundation to Support Animal Protection
Over $500,000 from New England Anti-Vivisection Society
Over $250,000 from PeTA
Looking only at who supports the group tells a tremendous amount about what their true agenda is.

Just to clarify my earlier statement about survival of the fittest. &nbsp;I didn't mean to imply we had the &quot;right&quot; to destroy fauna at will just because we can. &nbsp;I meant that even if you take away all of our tools and gadgets, we would still be killing animals for food, furs, etc. &nbsp;Just like our ancestors did. &nbsp;Those thumbs are great ain't they?

One point I have to say is this

From the good book


Genesis 9:1-3

1 &nbsp; So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: &quot;Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.&quot;
2 &nbsp; &quot;And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand.&quot;
3 &nbsp; &quot;Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs

<img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>
Well said Frank, well said ! &nbsp;<img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>

God Bless !
Ben Sparks &nbsp;<img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>

Nobody has yet explained *why* they eat some animals but not others.

Clay...You bring up some great points, however I have to disagree with you on your &quot;all or nothing&quot; theory, while at the same time applying it to all of you. That is, either you think ALL animals are the same and you'd eat the meat of a crow or a hagfish or a tarantula or whatever...or...NOTHING: you won't eat any animals because they all hold the same value to you.
2nd: I indeed CAN keep pets while being a vegetarian. True, I'm opposed to hurting or killing animals. And okay, my pets eat crickets, mice, etc. but these feeders are actually kept and killed in much better conditions than the average slaughterhouse animal. Really. (This does not apply to Berlin...There was a new law passed last year that pig farmers must spend an average of 15 seconds with each pig, either by giving it physical attention like petting or by looking at it so it &quot;knows it has someone who takes care of it&quot; or something.) And whether my ball, Charlie, is in captivity or in the wild, he'd still be eating little animals. (It's not his fault that he's a carnivore. I'd never make any of my carnivorous animals be vegetarian like those vegans who only feed their cats vege kibble, essentially destroying their innards, I'm sure.) And *that*, my friend, is the benefit of being a captive pet: free food on a regular basis, plus freedom from predators.

Again I have to point out that I never said that what I believe is the ultimate right. I, of all people, would be the last to say something like that because right and wrong are personal opinions, nomatter what. But whereas my idea is not hurting animals, your idea is to hurt animals for our use. Don't argue that point; I'm just trying to simplify. My point is, I'm not hurting anybody, literally! And yet everyone makes it harder for me to stress my point. It doesn't make much sense.
PCRM...I've read a lot of their reports, none of which were a &quot;hazard to human health&quot; or anywhere near that. Besides, while we're talking about endangering human health, how about the World Health Organization intentionally refusing to release information about the dangers of tobacco? Of how about that food pyramid you all adhere to? Did you know that the USDA board of 13 members who came up with it happened to have 9 members of the agricultural industry, including reps from pig farms, egg &amp; poultry, dairy, and beef organizations and businesses. Hmm....

The reason they're anti-March of Dimes is because they do old-fasioned animal testing to research things we already know. For example, much of their testing involves injecting pregnant apes and monkeys with various drugs, including nicotine, cocaine, etc. to determine the harm to the fetus. Now, call me crazy, but didn't we all know already that crackheads give birth to sick, often mentally-retarded preemies? So why are they spending thousands of dollards on these things when it could be spent actually helping babies, their &quot;cause&quot;?

Now, to reiterate, I'm not Christian and I've read only pieces of the Bible, however...
1) the Bible is people's word, not God's word. It's just how they interpreted what he said, and though he is perfect, people are not BY FAR!
2) There is plenty of anti-animals-as-food scripture in the Bible as well.. [a little self-contradicting, isn't it?]
3) Hello, have you ever heard this one?

THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

I don't see any ambiguity in that. If you do, well damn, I'm not going to repeat myself again, just read my post on the other thread.

Well,

&nbsp; &nbsp; Florencia not are you way off base about pretty much everything you know nothing of the bible. &nbsp; It is God's word interpreted by people. &nbsp;Thou shalt not kill is in context to humans not animals. &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; So, by all means stick to what you know ..... nothing, and please don't repeat yourself, you are babbling about things that even you admitted to not knowing anything about. &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; Testing on animals can be a very important to the overall human race, if you or one of your family members got sick and they had a vaccine but it was tested on animals would you refuse that vaccine? &nbsp; NO! &nbsp;I think not! &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; I have to agree with the bible scripture and my overall belief that animals were put on this earth for us to befriend, and to live off of. &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;I am sorry that you are so misguided, read the bible and then tell me where I can find the anti-animal scriptures, all I can remember was that it was forbidden fruit that got people in trouble! <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'>

So your snake is a carnivore, and as of no fault of his own he has to eat meat and Vegans are tearing up the insides of their cats by feeding veggie kibble.

So sense we are omnivores, meant to eat meat and plants.

Then you are saying you are tearing up your insides by not doing so. Sense this is how you were born and you were fed off the breast of your mother. And in doing so started life off as carnivore.

As to what animals we eat and do not eat that is all by choice and they would all be good for you in some way.

You say you are not hurting anything but you feed your snake mice?

As to the Bible it is a book of God's word written down by man. So man was his secretary, he wrote down what he was told.

As I do not know anything of other religions. I can not debate what they believe. I do know the Bible does not say what animals to eat and what no to. Most is based on what they are best for. As an Ox could be used to plow fields, dogs to help hunt and cows food. And I'm sure when your dog is old he could be eaten if you choose.

This is one comment that is the reason people are talking to you in the way they are.

You said (Florencia R.)

&quot;I have to say that they still have some good ideas, in theory--mainly the ones about compassion for animals, not only for the sake of the animals themselves, but also for the sake of the environment, public health, etc. (For info, see www.taxmeat.com--it's a silly idea and it's run by PETA but it has info that I can prove to you is true.)&quot;

What people read is that you agree with PETA but not the way on which they pass on their message. And PETA would like to see all humans eating plants not animals. Also if they have their way no one would have any pets even your pet snake. So make sure you side with the people on your side. We all have ideas and ewe need to protect those ideas and not try to change laws so all people have to go by what I believe.

*sigh*...

Just to make another point, regardless of what your beliefs are, creationism or evolution, we are still meant to eat meat. &nbsp;Either we were made that way or we evolved that way but that's how it is. &nbsp;Nothings going to change that fact, true you have a choice to not eat meat, or to not use products that come from animals but you are fighting your nature, regardless of where it came from.

Question, how can PETA support groups that kill or hurt people and fight for animal rights?
Are we not living creatures as well? &nbsp;Do we not have rights as well? &nbsp;That's like saying I'm going to kill all the minks on this farm so they don't have to suffer by being turned into fur coats. &nbsp;(Not that I am in support of senseless uses of animals such as fur coats, just an example) &nbsp;How does that help the animals?
And blowing up buildings and setting fires sure as hell can't be all that great for the environment.

No I don't wear fur, nor snake/lizard/alligator skin anything.
Yes I do wear leather
Why?
Because that's what cows are for, burgers, steak, car upholstery, and my favorite pair of Gladiator boots.
Why can't we get this many people to band together and fight something totally senseless like rattlesnake roundups and the like.