PETA: An answer to my email..

[Homer28]

This just in from the founder of PETA.......

Yeah...she is for real....I put her and her organization on the same page as Tom Cruise and his "special friends".....

Story ToolsFont size:****Photo visibility:Hide AllShow Top OnlyShow All PETA founder makes bizarre online will for animal rights
By Carolynne Burkholder, Canwest News ServiceMarch 23, 2009

PETA founder and president Ingrid Newkirk, is seen in this undated handout photo. She said that upon her death, she wants one of her ears 'removed, mounted' and sent to Ottawa to help the government 'in hearing, for the first time perhaps, the screams of the seals, bears, raccoons, foxes, and minks bludgeoned, trapped, and sometimes skinned alive for their pelts.'
Photograph by: Handout/PETA, ReutersOTTAWA — The founder of the world's largest animal rights organization wants to give Canada's parliamentarians an earful, in a bizarre online will.


Ingrid Newkirk, founder and president of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said that upon her death, she wants one of her ears "removed, mounted" and sent to Ottawa to help the government "in hearing, for the first time perhaps, the screams of the seals, bears, raccoons, foxes, and minks bludgeoned, trapped, and sometimes skinned alive for their pelts."


Newkirk said that she wants her body parts to be used to draw "attention to needless animal suffering and exploitation" after her death.


She asked that her other ear be displayed outside an India slaughterhouse "to remind all who do business there that the screams of the cattle who are slaughtered within its walls are heard around the world."


The U.S. government was also singled out.


The 59-year-old activist asked that "one of my eyes be removed, mounted, and delivered to the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a reminder that PETA will continue to be watching the agency until it stops poisoning and torturing animals in useless and cruel experiments."


She also asked that her skin be made into leather purses, her feet be crafted into umbrella stands "in remembrance of the elephant-foot umbrella stands . . . I saw as a child" and her liver vacuum-packed and sent to France in protest of foie gras.


As for the rest of her body, it will be used as a "human barbecue to remind the world that the meat of a corpse is all flesh, regardless of whether it comes from a human being or another animal, and that flesh foods are not needed," Newkirk wrote.


The controversial organization, which boasts two million members worldwide, has been an outspoken critic of many of Canada's environmental practices, including the annual East Coast seal hunt, which it describes as "Canada's shame."


The hunt, which began Monday in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, gives sealers licence to kill 280,000 harp seals this year.



Shoulda KNOWN she was from Canada........ROFL..... (J/K guys)

Here is the will itself......

http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html

Maybe it would be better in order to raise money to auction off her body parts on eBay! You can't tell me that Ted Nugent wouldn't pay with his left left to have her head mounted on his wall!!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0exLa6saV9o&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0exLa6saV9o&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Korastus]

My response.....

Jeff,

This dialogue has been about your organization and the practices that leave a bad taste in one's mouth. (not from eating meat) Your organization may not outwardly condone the things I have spoken of, but these things are done in your name and you love the publicity that supposedly brings the mistreatment of animals to the forefront. They do not.

Commercials comparing a young girl having sex to dogs and cats being spayed and neutered are ridiculous and those that compare the dog breeders to the KKK are in the worst taste possible. If you think a "dialogue" started by this type of foolishness will make people aware of animal abuse then there is no hope for you as a human being.

I despise the things your organization has done over the years not for the purpose behind them, but for the way in which they are carried out. It s the off the wall type of publicity that you seek that encourages the paint tossers in the first place, but you in the "PETA Cult" are blinded to that.

This is why you will never see support from me or those like me. I have posted your comments on a discussion forum that has over 70,000 members and you may (or may not) like to know that there have not been many kind words said about the organization you represent.

This larest "cruelty to seakittens" campaign has opened your organization up to ridicule and has most likely done you more harm than good. It certainly has done nothing for fish.

I and others like me have no problem with what you do for abused cats and dogs, but when you start in on the animals we breed, hunt, or catch for food, then you are just being ridiculous.

You have a right to your opinion and your beliefs. I respect that. The rest of us have a right to ours and your organization does NOT respect that.

In their eyes we are wrong for consuming meat products and do not see the foolishness of our ways and must be educated by the PETA gods.

I think not.

Ray

Well said!

I'll call fish "Seakittens", but only if I'm allowed to eat "Landfish."

 

[Ticklerguy4u]

Hmmm..they try to stop humans from killing animals but not animals killing animals,animals killling humans or humans killing humans. Interesting.

I wonder who a PETA activist would choose to live if their child was threatened by a poisonous or hungry animal and the only way one would live is to kill the other?

 

[Mephistopheles]

I'd be more than happy to either:

-Club her to death and skin her (instead of a seal)
-Cook and eat her flesh (saves animals too)
-Perform medical testing on PETA-members

Save the animals, eat a vegitarian.

 

[Bugman]

I'd be more than happy to either:

-Club her to death and skin her (instead of a seal)
-Cook and eat her flesh (saves animals too)
-Perform medical testing on PETA-members

Save the animals, eat a vegitarian.

 

[kis123]

I'd be more than happy to either:

-Club her to death and skin her (instead of a seal)
-Cook and eat her flesh (saves animals too)
-Perform medical testing on PETA-members

Save the animals, eat a vegitarian.

Oh dear! You and Slaver have this "silence of the lambs" thing going on.

All that's missing is the fava beans........

 

[Sanhael]

I believe that we must put human life first, just as any animal species does its own, but I don't believe we need to put human life as our only consideration. I believe PETA's over-dramatized message attracts a lot of attention, and then proceeds to thoroughly alienate it with its ridiculousness, but I believe in many of their intentions, which are frequently not to eliminate meat-eating but, rather, to ensure more reasonable allocation of resources and more humane treatment of living creatures.

I do not believe that a domesticated chicken is a particularly vital animal. I would have a hard time calling it a "spiritual equal" of any kind, and I've no intention of abandoning my periodic meals at KFC. That being said, there is no need to be excessively cruel; chickens headed for the slaughter are subjected to scalding baths while they are still alive, then their feathers are plucked by rusty and outdated machines which frequently rip pieces off of the living chicken. How, by any rational standard, is this appropriate, let alone desirable? Hell, pain and stress in a living creature releases hormones that make the meat less tasty, if nothing else.

If a badly retarded child was killed at birth, many people would find it monstrous that "a human being" was treated in this fashion. Let me ask you, then: if it is not intelligence or mental functionality, what is it that makes a human "human" or, for that matter, deserving of more consideration on an individual level than any other animal, aside from the simple fact that we are human? Such an individual could not possibly hope to survive, let alone thrive, if left on their own; many "fully functional" people couldn't either, at that, if they were removed from their everyday comforts.

Is it simply such an extreme of self-interest that we see no wrong in displacing, domesticating, or killing countless animals -- indeed, entire species -- not simply for our survival, but for convenience... or even, in the case of situations where there are more viable alternatives to what some of these animals are slaughtered for, due to "tradition..." a.k.a. routine?

Is it the human "soul?" Many people do not believe in the concept of a soul; many more people believe that animals have an equivalent spiritual form. "Humans are special, and the Earth is ours" is not only a minority viewpoint if you take the world as a whole, its logic really doesn't stand up to what happens every time there's an earthquake, a tidal wave, a flood, an escape at the local zoo, or a confrontation between a human and an animal of much smaller size and lower weight where the human isn't carrying a manufactured weapon of some advanced nature. Is pointing to the soul as proof of human superiority simply an convenient way of denying the fact that this is nothing more than self-interest?

Before we had technology, before we lived in our isolated little glass-and-concrete bubbles, everybody who lived most closely with, and based their livelihood most esclusively on, the wild... including people of Western cultures... respected animals as equals. More than that; they did not claim to such with the expectation of ridicule. They didn't go around claiming it for all to hear, at all. The notion was a completely natural one to them, and the thought of being ridiculed for it would itself have been laughable had it occurred to them.

Our modern-day electrical and communication networks are built on top of, or connected to, or intertwined with, existing networks... as they were, with previously existing networks, and so on. There is hardware and software replete through both power and communication, in the modern-day US and Europe, which is no longer viable, but which nobody knows how to use, fix, or upgrade, and there is no way to "clean things up" without shutting down power and communications entirely for a prolonged period of time... in other words, it will never happen. We have separated ourselves from nature by an ever-growing, ever-more-complicated network of artificial systems, rules, and concepts, built successively upon each other, and should this increasingly unstable mass that is "modern civilization" ever come crashing down around our heads, what then?

How superior are we to many of the animals out there if we have no weapons with which to fight them, or medicines to treat our injuries... or antidotes for poison? Our "superiority" is itself a man-made concept rooted entirely in systems that are only stable because the mind shudders away from the implications inherent in their being otherwise. People are never the same when they learn the truth, either; I spent several years living near Three Mile Island. When that reactor had its "little problem" a few decades ago, it was 90 seconds from a critical meltdown... what the exact results of that would have been, nobody is entirely certain. There are theories that it would have melted its way to the core of the planet; however likely or unlikely that is, it'd be a Big Problem if it happened. Screw nuclear material, at that point. And, y'know, the people who live around there still have these funny little potassium pills around, just in case... as if a pill is going to help against a big full-body dosage of nuclear radiation.

Anyhow, before I go off on too many more tangents... I'm not saying hug a tree (or a seal, or a wolf, or a fly) the next time you see them. I'm not saying that you ought to run out into the woods and survive by scavenging and gathering; I'm sitting here at a computer myself, typing this, after all. I can't say as I'd be perfectly comfortable were civilization itself to go down in flames... although, unlike most people, I'd be more than capable of surviving (nor am I referring to canned food and scavenged soda-pop). I'm just saying... people need to have a little more respect for something other than themselves.

Here's an afterthought, offered distinct and separate from the previous argument: medical experiments. The really risky ones. Let's offer them to someone who can make a choice: high-security prisoners, for example. Perks for pokes, how about that? Experiments on animals are next to useless; in the end, you've got to have human trials to see how a drug, or a procedure, will affect humans.

 

[Sanhael]

Hmmm..they try to stop humans from killing animals but not animals killing animals,animals killling humans or humans killing humans. Interesting.

I wonder who a PETA activist would choose to live if their child was threatened by a poisonous or hungry animal and the only way one would live is to kill the other?

They would most likely kill it, and they're not campaigning against that. They're against the wholesale slaughter and widespread cruel treatment of animals, as well as many of the widely-believed myths about wild animals (such as the one about hungry animals attacking humans as if they were their usual prey; this is an almost ridiculously rare event, even where children are concerned, without some sort of antagonism on the human victim's part preceding the attack).

They are particularly opposed to such situations as where the animals are being used to acquire nonessential "resources" (such as fur for massively overpriced garments, not even put practically towards something that will keep one warm).

I'm curious; how many of these "screw the animals" and "you're all hypocrites, you only like cute animals" posters were amongst those outraged at the stories of barely-pre-teen girls feeding kittens to aggressive dogs and filming the whole thing?

 

[Tiger.Lily]

I'm curious; how many of these "screw the animals" and "you're all hypocrites, you only like cute animals" posters were amongst those outraged at the stories of barely-pre-teen girls feeding kittens to aggressive dogs and filming the whole thing?

Wahhhh! Say what?

 

[ParanoidChant]

Sanhael - I'm glad someone expressed those viewpoints in this thread, if only for balance's sake -- I'm sure you're aware that most of us don't sympathize with many of the pet owners we see on Animal Cops: Houston, or believe that Hormel suppliers have the right to mindlessly abuse their livestock, or think that Michael Vick is someone to look up to anymore (for anyone who DOES believe in those things, I dare you to google 'Meet Your Meat' and watch the 12 minute video that comes up). But nah, this thread's only about making fun of PETA's more ridiculous actions, as you've noted.

Now, as for people treating animals as their equals back in the day, that's generally just a 'out of sight, out of mind' thing. I use to work at Yellowstone National Park, where bison would literally be grazing right outside out dorms, and damn straight if you didn't treat those animals with respect and distance (two of em got into a fight one time, and it was quite an awesome display of power). It just makes sense: you don't idly mess with a goddamn moose coz it would f*ck your sh!t up. If people had to deal with wolves on a day-to-day basis, we'd be more considerate of animals' place in the world.

You bring up an interesting point, though, in how people will respond in case of Doomsday/2012/y2k scenario where we're all put back at square one. As much as I'd like to discuss that, I think its a wee off-topic, so I'm gonna go ahead and start a new thread for that.

Oh, and I've been wondering ... what would you do if you were working in the Canadian Parliament Building's mail room and you receive a mounted ear? Do you just ... throw it away ... ?

 

[kis123]

They would most likely kill it, and they're not campaigning against that. They're against the wholesale slaughter and widespread cruel treatment of animals, as well as many of the widely-believed myths about wild animals (such as the one about hungry animals attacking humans as if they were their usual prey; this is an almost ridiculously rare event, even where children are concerned, without some sort of antagonism on the human victim's part preceding the attack).

They are particularly opposed to such situations as where the animals are being used to acquire nonessential "resources" (such as fur for massively overpriced garments, not even put practically towards something that will keep one warm).

I'm curious; how many of these "screw the animals" and "you're all hypocrites, you only like cute animals" posters were amongst those outraged at the stories of barely-pre-teen girls feeding kittens to aggressive dogs and filming the whole thing?

I'd love to hear more explanation of your last paragraph because I don't know anyone else that has seen this. Provide a link please.....I'm curious.

Another thing; do you think the end justifies the means? I see PETA as little more than another extremeist group similar to those who think because they hate abortion, it's okay to bomb the clinic! There are other animal activist groups that aren't nearly as extreme in their approach. Do you think throwing paint on a fur is going to stop people from buying the product? No, it's going to get someone's ass beat one day if not arrested for assault! It doesn't do anything for the cause of the animals at all.

About 25 years ago, PBS had a special about wolves. Back then all I ever wanted was a blue fox fur coat-that was my dream. That special showed from beginning to end a wolf being trapped, captured, killed, and skinned. Guess what? I've never desired a fur since. Instead of destroying people's property and having yourself mutilated to prove a point, how about a real education like that PBS special. It worked for me to change my mind about things, I'm sure it'll work for others. Right now PETA is making itself their own punchline with their antics; don't blame others for hating them-they brought it on themselves IMO.

 

[Mister Scruff]

If a badly retarded child was killed at birth, many people would find it monstrous that "a human being" was treated in this fashion. Let me ask you, then: if it is not intelligence or mental functionality, what is it that makes a human "human" or, for that matter, deserving of more consideration on an individual level than any other animal, aside from the simple fact that we are human?

Why, is that not enough anymore?

Before we had technology, before we lived in our isolated little glass-and-concrete bubbles, everybody who lived most closely with, and based their livelihood most esclusively on, the wild... including people of Western cultures... respected animals as equals. More than that; they did not claim to such with the expectation of ridicule. They didn't go around claiming it for all to hear, at all. The notion was a completely natural one to them, and the thought of being ridiculed for it would itself have been laughable had it occurred to them.

No they didn't. They revered certain species as sacred and ascribed mythical powers to others, but they still kicked the shit out of horses to train them and sacrificed farmyard animals tro consecrate the foundations of new houses, and I'm willing to bet a lot of the druidic and shamanic rituals involving animals paid no heed to the pain and suffering of the creature as it's head was cut off or it was stoned to death in the fashion most pleasing to Cerunnos.

The whole myth that the human race was once at one with nature really is a big load of shite. We used to be closer to it, sure, but skim-read through any period in human history and you'll find that Homo Sapiens has never been just another species since he figured out that pointy stick rub on pointy stick make sparkies. How do you think the cromagnon hunter-gatherers compelled reindeer and other creatures to offer up their meat for supper? Did they gently coax them into a slumber with soothing melodies and then tenderly guide their spirits into the next world as painlessly as possible, or did they throw a big load of spears and stones at them until they were dead enough to cut up and cook?

Here's an afterthought, offered distinct and separate from the previous argument: medical experiments. The really risky ones. Let's offer them to someone who can make a choice: high-security prisoners, for example. Perks for pokes, how about that? Experiments on animals are next to useless; in the end, you've got to have human trials to see how a drug, or a procedure, will affect humans.

But preliminary results gleaned from testing on animals can inform the application of such experiments on human subjects. I don't care what a person has done, how far he has removed himself from the trail of human society by his actions; if the choice is between testing a potentially caustic experimental medical drug on him or on a rabbit, then Mr Floppy is eating the acid every single time. Why? Self-interest. I don't care about a rabbit's insides bursting or having it spontaneously combust, but if I ever inflicted such upon a fellow human being I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. It's not even as noble as "he is the same species as me"; it's pure, unadulterated selfishness on my part.

Yeah. I share the opinion that animals have as much right to exist on this planet as we do, I support the laws which provide punishments for people who cause unnecessary suffering to animals, and I agree that when society does crumble down around our ears humans as a species are going to be pretty low on the food chain, but until that happens human life should be our primary concern and I reserve the right to regard with disdain anyone who thinks the suffering of a trawler-caught fish is a more pressing issue than the fishing industry's health and well-being.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Oh dear! You and Slaver have this "silence of the lambs" thing going on.

All that's missing is the fava beans........

and a nice chianti 😎



But seriously, I have no moral objections to cannibalism. It's just that human meat is kind of impossible to obtain without murdering somebody.

 

[kis123]

and a nice chianti 😎



But seriously, I have no moral objections to cannibalism. It's just that human meat is kind of impossible to obtain without murdering somebody.

Ever watch the movie "fried green tomatoes?"

According to that movie, we barbecue nicely!

Okay, it's only a movie folks.......😀

 

[Mephistopheles]

Ever watch the movie "fried green tomatoes?"

According to that movie, we barbecue nicely!

Okay, it's only a movie folks.......😀

Well, from what I've heard from Arwin Meiwes's story, penises aren't very edible but I believe our good friend from PETA hasn't got one. (although I would not be surprised if she did 😀)

 

[slap'n'ticklee]

Well, from what I've heard from Arwin Meiwes's story, penises aren't very edible but I believe our good friend from PETA hasn't got one. (although I would not be surprised if she did 😀)

You bugger, I was just thinking of this when it was going into the territory of eating human flesh, ya beat me to it

 

[Bugman]

You bugger, I was just thinking of this when it was going into the territory of eating human flesh, ya beat me to it :neener neener:

No bug,don't say it.Must resist the temptation.Be strong.

 

[desdemona]

The thing that pisses me off about PETA is that the message gets lost in the diatribe and stunts. Promote something for the good of society, but don't mock us. And saying that it stimulates debate is beyond ridiculous. I think they should be fined for gross negligence for the distorted misinformation they use in their propaganda. It's like when Oprah reported on Mad Cow disease and beef prices plummeted. Her abuse of reporting the facts led to an economic crisis for the beef cattle raisers. I was happy to see them sue her - only disappointed that they lost.

People with power distorting things and determining how others should lead their lives is what scares me - almost as much as the "minority rules" seems to be taking over everywhere. The sad thing is, in the veterinary community, if we don't take a leadership role, we'll soon be forced to accept what the rest of society dictates to us as humane care. For animal welfare activists, this may seem like a win. But if states succeed in passing laws that make owners "caregivers" (and I do prefer that term, but in a legal sense, it gets very sticky), the rules soon change. No longer can we euthanize a sick or injured animal. Finances would no longer be a justification for being unable to treat an animal. A "pet" would be legally considered a child and would require much stricter guidelines for care. While that may thrill some of us who already treat our animals as family, I know it would also place a burden on a lot of people who can barely afford minimal veterinary care.

Some of these changes are causing factions to split off. As a result, the American Veterinary Animal Welfare group just joined forces with the Humane Society of the United States (I'd say they are on the same parallel with PETA). We're so far behind other countries that only now has the American Veterinary Medical Association spoken out against ear-cropping (already banned in the UK and other countries) - royally pissing off the AKC. I can state that not only were we not taught how to do ear crops in vet school, many of my colleagues do find the procedure barbaric. It's a cosmetic surgery that the AKC has failed to abolish. I know many owners who want the service and I think that it should still be allowed (of the few vets who still do any ear crops they charge a small fortune for it) - but we'd see the number of surgeries diminish greatly if the AKC changed some breed standards. Until then, I'm afraid of the breeders out their who are snipping their dogs' ears with scissors at home. It's sad that we're so wrapped up in "protecting" everything - common sense has all but flown out the door.

So that's just my two cents on the madness of the animal vs. people world. There are a lot of other issues out there - seakittens are just the tip of the iceburg. But mockery isn't what we need. Compassion and common sense FTW.

 

[kis123]

People with power distorting things and determining how others should lead their lives is what scares me - almost as much as the "minority rules" seems to be taking over everywhere. The sad thing is, in the veterinary community, if we don't take a leadership role, we'll soon be forced to accept what the rest of society dictates to us as humane care. For animal welfare activists, this may seem like a win. But if states succeed in passing laws that make owners "caregivers" (and I do prefer that term, but in a legal sense, it gets very sticky), the rules soon change. No longer can we euthanize a sick or injured animal. Finances would no longer be a justification for being unable to treat an animal. A "pet" would be legally considered a child and would require much stricter guidelines for care. While that may thrill some of us who already treat our animals as family, I know it would also place a burden on a lot of people who can barely afford minimal veterinary care.

If these laws came into fruition, the domesticated animal world has the potential to be turned upside down IMO. I know I certainly cannot afford surgeries or costly treatments for my pet. I can barely keep him fed and kitty-littered; if the law forced me to spend that kind of money, I'd let him die quietly at home. I don't want him to suffer, but I simply cannot afford it. I can barely keep up with health care for myself and daughter-no way for a pet.

Besides that is not my child; he is my pet. I am a pet owner (sorry I know you don't like the term but that's how I see it) not a pet parent. I see a lot of pets dying in shelters because people would be scared to adopt due to added burdens created by these laws.

A little common sense would go far in this situation wouldn't it?

 

[venray]

The thing that pisses me off about PETA is that the message gets lost in the diatribe and stunts. Promote something for the good of society, but don't mock us. And saying that it stimulates debate is beyond ridiculous. I think they should be fined for gross negligence for the distorted misinformation they use in their propaganda. It's like when Oprah reported on Mad Cow disease and beef prices plummeted. Her abuse of reporting the facts led to an economic crisis for the beef cattle raisers. I was happy to see them sue her - only disappointed that they lost.

People with power distorting things and determining how others should lead their lives is what scares me - almost as much as the "minority rules" seems to be taking over everywhere. .

Exactly how I feel Love.....