First of all, I wasn't meaning to have this debate here. Silly me, thinking I could bring it up and not bring it on. My bad. Second, there is no such thing as a pro-abortionist. And if you think there is, I'd counter by calling you anti-woman. Third, no the same can't be said of "pro-abortionists" (at least for the last twenty years) since pro-choicers haven't made picket signs out of images of women bleeding to death in alleys since 1973. And also, incidental I know, but they've never shot anyone to death or blown up buildings. Fourth, pro-lifers who are pro-death penalty are definitely hypocrites. What's your argument for "pro-abortionists" being such? Put up or shut up. Please. Fifth, as I said in the beginning, if you'll search on my name and abortion on this bbs, you'll see that I am very torn on this issue and very sympathetic to both sides. And, in the end, given the incredibly difficult decision (thank Zeus I'll never have to actually make it), I'd pass it off to the woman whose life will be most affected since I can't hear directly from the fetus. Sixth, even while the above is true, I absolutely understand why pro-lifers use the tactics they do and I even respect them for it, as it is born of true, honest, sincere ethical belief. As is the case with PETA. I even understand why they kill folk over it. Seventh -- and this is a sidebar for Refman -- so what if people who run non-profits make good money? They make good money cause they're good at what they do (like politicians -- even the ones you like -- or, um, basketball players) and if they wanted to make better money, they'd move to the private sector. Making money is not exclusive to ethics. One needn't live like Mother Theresa to be ethical and a Republican shoudn't need a Democrat to tell him that. Eighth, I'm vegan. And I'm vegan on account of ethics. And if I really wanted to, I'd go all righteous on all your asses for joking about eating dead, tortured animals. But I'm not. I'm only in this thread cause my friend Refman called PETA unethical. And again, I'm okay with you calling them all kinds of other things, but when you call them unethical you get a big old "BULL****" from me. Ninth, see Eighth. I'm being gentle. Tenth, I'm ethically opposed to any living thing feeling pain -- physically, emotionally or psychically. I intend no ill will and I hope and trust no BBS posters or lurkers were harmed in the making of this post. Eleventh, come see A SOAP OPERA at the Axiom. Like rockHEAD says, it kicks @ss.
Peta's cause may be somewhat just, But they go way too overboard and make public fools of themselves. Much like the KKK, only the KKK are a bunch of bigots fighting for a racist cause.
Lemme help you out, Achebe. What moestavern is saying is that any group who believes in anything is like the KKK, only not racist. Just like Wellstone's like Hitler, only he didn't kill Jews.
You shouldn't have to have this debate here. The merits of abortion aren't at issue here. That is many other threads. Not true. Killing a murderous monster or killing a baby growing in the womb....hmmm...not the same thing IMO. End of this debate please. Let's try to stay on topic. We disagree and that's just fine with me. Politicians and ballplayers don't purport to have some moral superiority which has led them to fight for the cause. I'm not saying anything negative about the members of PETA or the scores of ethical vegans out there. I don't agree with the lifestyle...but hey...it isn't my place to say. It IS my place to call out people who purport to be so morally motivated and are really in it more for the high six figure salary. The people at the very top wouldn't make more money in the private sector...that's my point. It certainly seems strange to tug at the heartstrings of very principled people to give huge chunks of money so you can live in a big house in a nice neighborhood and drive a BMW 750. Never said that....it does seem strange to get really wealthy off of fighting for a cause that people donate money to. Making a good living is fine...it's a job. But making exorbitant sums of money off of people who donate so they feel they make a difference seems distasteful to me. The rank and file...no. The bigwigs running the show...you better believe it.
I think you're reading that wrong Batman. My take on what moes is saying is that the bigwigs at PETA take every chance they can to make a public spectacle of themselves. This is not to do the work they need to be doing...it is so more money will come in and the bigwigs can get bigger bonuses at the end of the year. Remember that little Johnny will eventually turn 16...and that bigwig will have to buy him his own BMW or Mercedes.
Refman, first of all, that's not what moestavern is saying at all. At all. It's what you're saying. moestavern is saying that PETA goes overboard. He said nothing about the bigwigs at the top. That's your beef, not his. If you have a problem with the bigwigs at the top, take it to Elizabeth Dole who ran the Red Cross. What was her salary? Six figures or more, I'm guessing. Figure she didn't do it JUST for the love of sick folks. Is she an unethical hypocrite? Take it to the head of ANY successful non-profit. They bring in the best of the best to raise money for their cause, because they believe in their cause and they believe they need the best to run the organization and to raise the money to run the organization. And the best cost. Such an incredible non-issue and such a weird reason to call PETA unethical. And I venture a guess you'd never say the same about a non-profit whose cause you supported. Is it just non-profit bosses that need to prove their ethics by living like church mice? What about heads of religious congregations? Are they unethical? Should the president of the American Lung Association take minimum wage to prove he's about the cause and not the cash? Or is it enough that he's qualified for the job and deserves to be paid? The stuff about Johnny needing a new car? "Class warfare" as the party of the wealthy like to call it is downright surreal coming from supporters of same. You guys like to talk about taxes, no? How many of "Johnny's" new cars have been written off as business expenses by CEO's? If I asked that question in a different context I'd be called anti-capitalism. Here I guess I'd be called unethical. Weirder and weirder...
When was the last time you saw the Red Cross (or any other non-profit I can think of) make a public spectacle of themselves in the manner PETA has? What I take umbrage with is the lengths the bigwigs will go to in order to increase their bonuses. While I'm at it...I have no problem with a nice healthy salary for the heads of non-profits. I loathe that many of them have bonuses tied to the level of donations. To me it's distasteful given the charitable nature of the work. Maybe that's just me. It is my opinion that much of the money donated to non-profits today gets wasted in the form of executive bonuses. I hate it...across the board. The spectacle that the bigwigs at PETA have seen fit to make their organization makes it worse IMO. I have been a staunch Catholic my whole life and have yet to meet a rich priest. If proven...those CEOs are reclassified as felons. I'd like to see all such instances proven so justice may be done. Again...that may just be silly old me.
CEO's of large corporations absolutely write off personal items, vacations, vehicles, homes, etc. on their taxes. I don't have to prove it. I've lived it. My stepfather was an S&L crook. It goes on today still. And I don't have to prove that either. I see the creeps getting drunk at Rudyards on their corporate cards. (And if I see it at Rudz, I can't imagine how bad it is at Rick's. But I've had friends waitress there and trust me it is bad.) As for religious leaders, you think the Osteens live in a seminary? They don't. I'm only saying here that I think you're finding a problem with PETA because you have a problem with PETA. Go back to my first post in this thread and answer it again, please. Your first post called an organization whose tactics you abhor unethical. The organization is NOT unethical. They are, if anything, too ethical for your tastes, most likely because you don't share their ethics. And I assert again that their bosses need not be poor to be ethical. I also assert again that it is weird, weird, weird for you play the Mercedes card. If I wanted to I could play it every day in every way against every single ethical politician, business leader or non-profit leader of every cause that you support. You don't like the ads. They offend you. But the ads aren't about raising more money any more than pro-life or anti-tax ads are. They are all partly about money because they need money to advance their cause. It's a shame, but that's capitalism. And the people who preside over those ads ALL give their kids Mercedes'. That's what rich people do. They spoil their kids. And then, sometimes (as long as we're in the realm of cheap shots), their kids grow up to be successful without working hard. Some even become president. That doesn't mean the organizations or even the bosses of the organizations were unethical. Political contributions are tax-deductible too. The charitable thing doesn't work here as an argument. People who strongly believe in certain things have no problem giving money to organizations who hire the best of the best to lead them and compensate them accordingly. But I really don't believe that's what you have a problem with, or you'd have left the Republicans and formed the Constructionists. I believe you just don't like PETA or their tactics. And that's fine. But please don't call them unethical.
Trust me...should I ever come up with the money it takes to run a campaign and a group of party members...I'd jump at the chance to make the Constructionists a reality. I'd like to think that you'd be a member. Imagine a party where the Refman's, MadMax's and Batman Jones' of the world can unite. I think I'd be setting myself up for cannonization.
See my response in the privacy thread. I think the basic concept could use some work, but it's not a stretch to me at all to think we could co-exist successfully in a new party, along with several others on the board. Long as we all agree to be vegan though, right?
Ummmm...that isn't a core platform item. However...veggie burgers will be available at all party functions. As the founder of the party I can state with certainty that people of all groups will be welcome. All it takes is a love of the Constitution and a desire to breathe life into every word. When a need arises then Amendments should be made. Laws inconsistent with the true meaning of the words should be struck down.
What a helluva image for those of us not wanting to see it. But it must be OK cuz its PETA. Geez how 'bout a warning or something in the thread title, I'm shocked and offended... Jeff wrote in my thread using WORDS... "To Everyone: PLEASE use something in your title that reflects the gruesome or sensitive nature of posts like these. There are many on this board - myself included - who would prefer it if we knew beforehand what we were getting into by reading a post like this. Maybe put (sensitive) or (not for the squeemish) or something like that in the title. Thank you." Jeff, I know you are a vegetarian and probably a strong supporter of PETA, but I beg you to describe to me what the difference is between this thread and my edited thread!? IMHO this is even worse than reading a headline stating some crazy guy killed a kitten in front of a child. A DEAD SKINNED FOX IN FULL COLOR?! CMon man... OH, and sorry I offended you. I felt like a total dumb-a$$. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45120
Walk down 30th ave in Astoria (Queens) and there are all kinds of dead baby goats and rabbits and **** hanging in the display windows staring out through dead eyeballs at you. Kinda like that Uncle Sam poster where his eyes follow you no matter where you go in the room. Now THAT is much more grotesque than this fox picture. Go tell the Greek butcher he is a murderer and you might get a clever in your head. I don't see what's so shocking about the add. I would imagine most meat eaters know you have to skin an animal to get to the meat, right? And that is probably going to be bloody, right? I mean, the animals already dead when they skin it, yes? Except chicken skin, which when fried like at KFC can be the tastiest part. Uh....or pork skins. Hey, if you never skinned animals there would be no pork skins. That would suck. Although here in the UK they tend to overcook them and they are like freakin titanium. I prefer the puffed up style like from Frito Lay (I know I'm a corporate sell out). Unless someone broke into your house, then you could use a slingshot and the UK pork skins to hurt someone, real bad. PETA is just obnoxious. Imagine if someone protesting dolphins getting caught in tuna nets came and spit on your tuna fish sandwich. You'd knock their ass out. Imagine if some vegan came and took a **** on your bar-b-que grill. You'd knock their ass out. If you come throw red paint on my fur coat, I'd knock your ass out. btw: did you know that new studies are showing that plants do feel pain. The standard way to measure pain is whether something responds in a discernable way to injury. Studies have shown that plants will actually move away from something injuring them. And I don't mean trees growing around some obstacle. STOP THE VEGGIE MURDER & TORTURE. (I bet its the School of America that is teaching these vegans to do this)... FUR IS DEAD. No ****. Who the hell would wear a live fox?
Batman -- you've got it wrong. CEO's of large corporations run their expenses through the company's income statement -- not their personal income statement. Therefore they do not write it off on *their* taxes, they write it off on their company's taxes. Budgets are approved by the management team and/or board of directors. Heads of *private* companies would be the ones writing expenses off on their personal taxes. This just sounds like an emotional, jealous rant from you. Get over it.
Like u said. . . why bring this into this thread? Not exactly. . . I stated it you are Pro-Abortion [a play on the Pro-choice ideal] Therefore So being I'm Anti-abortion then I would be called Anti-Choice.. . . but that is inaccurate as well [not unlike the Pro-abortion thing] but. . . . no but they have expanded some's right while limiting someone elses . . . .they fight for the choice of one while restricting the choice of two others I agree. Pro-Life should be about all life [including plant life] if you think a man is not effect you are insane. . . .if you think the fetus is not affected wel. . .you just being purposely dense [suicide is illegal so the fetus could not technically will its own destruction] using vulcan utilitarianism Better to kill one to save a 100 Could you please explain this to me. Forreal no joke. I never could understand the ethical reason for not eating meat. . . I see life as life. . . . Plant life. . .Animal life. . fungus life it is all life. . .killing one is no different than the other. Do I mean killing a fly = to killing a man??? NO!!! but killing a fly is on par to killing a mushroom how do you know plants do not feel pain etc? maybe in just a different way. Rocket River
The ad mentioned here is very over the top. However, through the seriousness of the artricle this just stuck out: Come on now, how can you not think this is the best p*rn name ever. Now you guys can carry on with the serious discussion.
