Nitpick: Anti-PETA/Anti Fascist league

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-02-18 04:01pm

Sorry if this is blindingly obvious, but, in the majority of APAF members' sigs, the word fascist is spelt 'facist'. If this is intentional, then I apologise for my failure to see the meaning behind the mis-spelling.

Morning Star · Post by **Morning Star** » 2003-02-18 04:11pm

What's the Anti-PETA anyway.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-02-18 04:22pm

Morning Star wrote:What's the Anti-PETA anyway.

A group of people who are sickened by the antics of PETA, a group of people who constantly prove themselves to be unable to live up to the admitedly laudable goals of their organisation. They have the reputation of walking over a homeless person in order to throw red paint on a person wearing fur.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-02-18 04:23pm

A group formed to passively (As far as I can tell) oppose the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, because of their extremist tactics, as well as being generally Anti Fascist.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-02-18 04:24pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
Morning Star wrote:What's the Anti-PETA anyway.
A group of people who are sickened by the antics of PETA, a group of people who constantly prove themselves to be unable to live up to the admitedly laudable goals of their organisation. They have the reputation of walking over a homeless person in order to throw red paint on a person wearing fur.

Heh, beat me to it. Come to think of it, your answer was better than mine anyway.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-02-18 04:31pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
Morning Star wrote:What's the Anti-PETA anyway.
A group of people who are sickened by the antics of PETA, a group of people who constantly prove themselves to be unable to live up to the admitedly laudable goals of their organisation. They have the reputation of walking over a homeless person in order to throw red paint on a person wearing fur.

Is it really a laudable goal to make all vegetarians look like closet misanthropes?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-02-18 04:35pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:
Morning Star wrote:What's the Anti-PETA anyway.
A group of people who are sickened by the antics of PETA, a group of people who constantly prove themselves to be unable to live up to the admitedly laudable goals of their organisation. They have the reputation of walking over a homeless person in order to throw red paint on a person wearing fur.
Is it really a laudable goal to make all vegetarians look like closet misanthropes?

They say they want to decrease animal suffering. They act as though the only thing of any importance is to run their mouths to hear their gums slap together.

Morning Star · Post by **Morning Star** » 2003-02-19 06:39am

Ah, thanks.

I think it's a shame when people take things so much to the extreme that they lose the ability to criticise without being hypocritical.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-02-19 06:49am

Frank Hipper wrote:
Simon H.Johansen wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:A group of people who are sickened by the antics of PETA, a group of people who constantly prove themselves to be unable to live up to the admitedly laudable goals of their organisation. They have the reputation of walking over a homeless person in order to throw red paint on a person wearing fur.
Is it really a laudable goal to make all vegetarians look like closet misanthropes?
They say they want to decrease animal suffering. They act as though the only thing of any importance is to run their mouths to hear their gums slap together.

But Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's current leader, once said that humanity is a blight on the face of the Earth. If that isn't misanthropy, then explain what it is. Something suggest that this misanthropy might be the motivation for many of their members.

Morning Star · Post by **Morning Star** » 2003-02-19 06:54am

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:
Simon H.Johansen wrote: Is it really a laudable goal to make all vegetarians look like closet misanthropes?
They say they want to decrease animal suffering. They act as though the only thing of any importance is to run their mouths to hear their gums slap together.
But Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's current leader, once said that humanity is a blight on the face of the Earth. If that isn't misanthropy, then explain what it is. Something suggest that this misanthropy might be the motivation for many of their members.

They said what?! Tell me, does PETA happen to partake in the usage of mind altering drugs?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-02-19 11:55am

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:
Simon H.Johansen wrote: Is it really a laudable goal to make all vegetarians look like closet misanthropes?
They say they want to decrease animal suffering. They act as though the only thing of any importance is to run their mouths to hear their gums slap together.
But Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's current leader, once said that humanity is a blight on the face of the Earth. If that isn't misanthropy, then explain what it is. Something suggest that this misanthropy might be the motivation for many of their members.

Oh, I'm not arguing your very obvious point, just that less animal suffering is a good thing, but they will let that slip in order to stroke their sense of self importance. But don't you think you proved my point about them being in love with the sound of their own voices with that paraphrase? It seems we agree, but go different routes on reaching that agreement.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-02-19 12:02pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:Is it really a laudable goal to make all vegetarians look like closet misanthropes?

Given that most PETA members are openly misanthropic idiots I don't see what's wrong with what the Anti-PETA do. Especially given some of the extremist antics of PETA.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-02-19 01:28pm

There's two kinds of PETA members. There's the misanthrope who would step on a baby on his way to picket a McDonald's, and there's the misguided celebrity bimbo who thinks we shouldn't hurt animals because it's mean and animals are cute, who puts a pretty public face on the organization (Playboy playmates and the like who wear lettuce bikinis to PETA calendar photoshoots). I guess the idea with the first group recruiting the second group is that people will think, "Hey, if I go vegan, hot chicks will want me to fuck them!" If this is an effective strategy, please, somebody let me know.

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2003-02-19 02:34pm

I'm part of the Anti-PETA league because, dammit, those idiots sicken me.
They got pissed off because a frickin donkey got killed in a suicide bomber attack in Israel, but they cared nothing for thr 12 people that got killed in it!!

They are extremist morons.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-02-19 06:37pm

The Anti-PETA part is because there a bunch of morons that make asses of themselves through protest, as well as aiding domestic terrorist groups such as the ELF. The only good thing they gave us were those pictures of naked chicks.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-02-19 07:25pm

Now, I have nothing against naked chicks (quite fond of them, actually...), but, seeing that, technically they have porn on their website, yet they are tax exempt by the US government. Uhm, can they do that (sell material that is 'technically' pornographic and get US federal tax exemptions)?

Oh, BTW, take a look at this, they are now claiming that hundreds of dogs are mistreated and exploited durin the Iditarod. I guess next they will be saying gun dogs don't like to hunt...
http://peta.org/feat/sled/index.html

On their www.peta2.org website, they promote destroying shops that sell fur:http://www.peta2.com/ot/o-featmemb.html
(quoute: I like to destroy shops which sell fur.)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-19 07:28pm

Since when is it pornography to show a picture of a nude female not engaging in a sex act or spreading her labia for you?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-02-19 07:33pm

Darth Wong wrote:Since when is it pornography to show a picture of a nude female not engaging in a sex act or spreading her labia for you?

If it is designed to cause sexual arousal, if it has no artistic/cultural value, if it appeals primarily to a prurient interest, it's porn, and I think your nude females may fit the description.

Not that I care either way. Porno good.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-02-20 04:07am

RedImperator wrote: I guess the idea with the first group recruiting the second group is that people will think, "Hey, if I go vegan, hot chicks will want me to fuck them!" If this is an effective strategy, please, somebody let me know.

That's actually the way PETA got most of their members!!

NF_Utvol wrote:On their www.peta2.org website, they promote destroying shops that sell fur:http://www.peta2.com/ot/o-featmemb.html
(quoute: I like to destroy shops which sell fur.)

Why do the PETA need two websites?? To appear more powerful than they are??

Glare · Post by **Glare** » 2003-02-20 04:41am

Hey, I'm a PETA member!!

People Eating Tasty Animals that is

Okay, so it's not in the best of tastes (winces at unintended pun) but my ancestors did not claw their way to the top of the food chain for me to become a herbivore and slip down a rung to become a prey species

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2003-02-20 07:42am

Oh yeah you're right. I neverr noticed cause I just copied and pasted it.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-02-20 08:24pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
RedImperator wrote: I guess the idea with the first group recruiting the second group is that people will think, "Hey, if I go vegan, hot chicks will want me to fuck them!" If this is an effective strategy, please, somebody let me know.
That's actually the way PETA got most of their members!!

NF_Utvol wrote:On their www.peta2.org website, they promote destroying shops that sell fur:http://www.peta2.com/ot/o-featmemb.html
(quoute: I like to destroy shops which sell fur.)
Why do the PETA need two websites?? To appear more powerful than they are??

I guess it's because rthey ran out of space on the first one, and since they spend all fo their money on vandalizing fast-food restaurants and telling people meat and dairy products led to the rise of Hitler, they can't afford to get more space.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-02-20 10:36pm

Heh, I just saw a thing on the news about some new research coming out about how the eating of cooked meat helped us develop our brains into what they are now. So, according to PETA, we do not need to eat meat to be healthy. That would mean that, if we never ate meat, we would have never have evolved to this state, and, therefore PETA would not exist. So, really, they are just wanting to destroy themselves.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-02-21 07:58am

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:
Simon H.Johansen wrote:
RedImperator wrote: I guess the idea with the first group recruiting the second group is that people will think, "Hey, if I go vegan, hot chicks will want me to fuck them!" If this is an effective strategy, please, somebody let me know.
That's actually the way PETA got most of their members!!

NF_Utvol wrote:On their www.peta2.org website, they promote destroying shops that sell fur:http://www.peta2.com/ot/o-featmemb.html
(quoute: I like to destroy shops which sell fur.)
Why do the PETA need two websites?? To appear more powerful than they are??
I guess it's because rthey ran out of space on the first one, and since they spend all fo their money on vandalizing fast-food restaurants and telling people meat and dairy products led to the rise of Hitler, they can't afford to get more space.

Meat and dairy led to the rise of Hitler?? If PETA are telling people this, then they are throwing stones from a glass house, since Hitler was a vegetarian.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-02-21 10:20am

I seem to recall an article where PETA claimed that keeping pets is evil.

That's right. PETS. Now, think about that. Leaving out the small minority of sick fucks who abuse their pets (and if I ever see a person abusing a pet, I swear I will rip out his fucking liver and feed it to him), pets have a pretty cushy life. They get food on a daily basis (unlike wild predators, which get food whenever they can catch it), tummy rubs pretty much whenever they want to and medical care whenever they need it. Domestic animals live quite a bit longer on average than their wild counterparts because they don't get sick as often, they get medical care when they do get sick and they have more food on a regular basis.

But why are PETA really opposed to pets? Because pets benefit humans. And anything that benefits humans, to PETA, is evil. So that labrador retriever that leads a blind man safely across a busy street? Evil. The cat that's the only thing keeping an elderly widow sane? That's evil too. It goes without saying that PETA especially hates hunting dogs - spaniels, hounds, retrievers and terriers (there's something severely wrong with any human being whose heart doesn't melt when a golden retriever puppy looks at him).

But of course, PETA itself is careful never to get involved in any activities that could be considered terroristic (especially post-9/11). They leave that to the Animal Liberation Front. Who are another group of sick fucks I'd like to conduct own-liver-feedings on. How does it benefit the earth to burn down somebody's house, anyway!?