SeaWorld Admits Spying On Animal Rights Group

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:since I made no comment on the "rightness" of what each was doing, merely that this seems to be a case of the biter bit....

firstly peta has no moral high ground on which to stand...as I have pointed out befor now...

secondly they are of the same ilk as those that would have research shut down

thirdly THEIR tactics are as imoral as anyone elses...

Sea world may well be immoral too, certainly their practices dont amount to "best practice"

however that is in many ways irrelevant...


IF yo are going to play "dirty games" then surely you cant complain when the same is returned???

PETA cant indulge in as they put it, corporate spying, then complain when one of their targets does the same.


@ didge.....  you to faced hypocrite...6 months ago you agreed that hunting was no less ethical than farming....so I see thriough your pathetic game...

@ ben....I suppose I should have expected that from you....after all, when we bomb the ISIS we are "terrible" people

when they bomb us "its only a few" and a "price we must pay" etc etc

especially since (at least in tis current round) they threw the first one

NOW, granted it is likely 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, AND EVEN given that personally I'd pull out and just let em get on with killing one another, YOU seem to be content to vist any amount of horror on your own and marginalise the victims with some sort of bizzare justification (as long as you personally are safely out of the way)

THEN you whinge when I say "you dont care " and spend pages waffling on in some sort of justification.

we have had this conversation before....and you didnt answer.
either because you "missed it" why I dont know becasue it was a reply direct to a post you had made

OR becasue you recognised the truth in what I said...

You SAY you "care" and yet.......you expect us to "accept" more of the same  

put simply...iof one side wants to play dirty, especially in an arena where such things are not actually greatly regulated, then it cant really complain too hard when it gets a dose of its own...

its like palestine and israel....neither side is exactly covered in righteous glory......

                     

You know I'm all about bombing ISIS, so once again I'd thank you to not falsely accuse me of defending murderers.

In the very warped example you're providing, I suppose the refugees and ISIS are on the same side? That's idiotic, and it just goes to show once again what another here has said -- you think the good people and bad people are all on one side or the other. And you appear to think that the sexual assaults, etc. committed by a few (yes, it is only a very small percentage) of the refugees is somehow related to the fight against ISIS, which is thick beyond belief.

And, I never said the crimes committed by refugees must be accepted -- I never called for the suspension of law enforcement in those cases. I made a larger point about a merciful society accepting that when it welcomes a huge refugee population into its country, criminals will be among the ranks, but I never said those crimes must be tolerated or go unpunished -- a point which, of course, flew well over your head, which is why I stopped bothering.

Sorry, you can't compare the moral standing of PETA and SeaWorld. PETA has done nothing that could be construed as actual abuse of animals -- yes, the organization does euthanize dogs and cats at shelters, but they're not suffering.

Sneaky tricks are much easier to justify when they're done in the service of alleviating suffering than they are in the service of creating suffering. It is perfectly acceptable to condemn a group that not only promotes animal suffering, but engages in sneaky tricks on top of that.

Lord Foul wrote:I notice that you attempt to avoid te point ..yet again...running away


PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to Rodney Coronado, an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) serial arsonist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing memorandum, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime. PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich has also told an animal rights convention that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation,” adding, “Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.”


hardly hearsay

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:Now I am going to leave you to suffer more looking even more stupid

You do not decide what others feel most precious to them

Got that Victor?

Good

When you have some evidence for your bull, then left me know

Night

oh and...


we can apply the very point you just made there to my views on immigration and refugees

YOU do NOT decide what I feel is most important to me ....

got that didge

GOOD

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:since I made no comment on the "rightness" of what each was doing, merely that this seems to be a case of the biter bit....

firstly peta has no moral high ground on which to stand...as I have pointed out befor now...

secondly they are of the same ilk as those that would have research shut down

thirdly THEIR tactics are as imoral as anyone elses...

Sea world may well be immoral too, certainly their practices dont amount to "best practice"

however that is in many ways irrelevant...


IF yo are going to play "dirty games" then surely you cant complain when the same is returned???

PETA cant indulge in as they put it, corporate spying, then complain when one of their targets does the same.


@ didge.....  you to faced hypocrite...6 months ago you agreed that hunting was no less ethical than farming....so I see thriough your pathetic game...

@ ben....I suppose I should have expected that from you....after all, when we bomb the ISIS we are "terrible" people

when they bomb us "its only a few" and a "price we must pay" etc etc

especially since (at least in tis current round) they threw the first one

NOW, granted it is likely 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, AND EVEN given that personally I'd pull out and just let em get on with killing one another, YOU seem to be content to vist any amount of horror on your own and marginalise the victims with some sort of bizzare justification (as long as you personally are safely out of the way)

THEN you whinge when I say "you dont care " and spend pages waffling on in some sort of justification.

we have had this conversation before....and you didnt answer.
either because you "missed it" why I dont know becasue it was a reply direct to a post you had made

OR becasue you recognised the truth in what I said...

You SAY you "care" and yet.......you expect us to "accept" more of the same  

put simply...iof one side wants to play dirty, especially in an arena where such things are not actually greatly regulated, then it cant really complain too hard when it gets a dose of its own...

its like palestine and israel....neither side is exactly covered in righteous glory......

                     

You know I'm all about bombing ISIS, so once again I'd thank you to not falsely accuse me of defending murderers.

In the very warped example you're providing, I suppose the refugees and ISIS are on the same side? That's idiotic, and it just goes to show once again what another here has said -- you think the good people and bad people are all on one side or the other. And you appear to think that the sexual assaults, etc. committed by a few (yes, it is only a very small percentage) of the refugees is somehow related to the fight against ISIS, which is thick beyond belief.

And, I never said the crimes committed by refugees must be accepted -- I never called for the suspension of law enforcement in those cases. I made a larger point about a merciful society accepting that when it welcomes a huge refugee population into its country, criminals will be among the ranks, but I never said those crimes must be tolerated or go unpunished -- a point which, of course, flew well over your head, which is why I stopped bothering.

Sorry, you can't compare the moral standing of PETA and SeaWorld. PETA has done nothing that could be construed as actual abuse of animals -- yes, the organization does euthanize dogs and cats at shelters, but they're not suffering.

Sneaky tricks are much easier to justify when they're done in the service of alleviating suffering than they are in the service of creating suffering. It is perfectly acceptable to condemn a group that not only promotes animal suffering, but engages in sneaky tricks on top of that.

perhaps the problem lies with perception then.....you are happy to prosecute ...great

BUT....thats kind of a bit late innit...the crime has been done...too late for the victim, to get anything other than "hard luck me duck, chin up"

some how...maybe its just me....but I would NOT accept that a few years in even a german prison is adequate "closure"
perhaps...just maybe...if the damage done was transferable to those politicians in charge.....then something more effective than a late in the day prosecution would be forth comming.

perhaps if the politicians wages were docked 20000 each to be paid to every victim ...something would be done

dont forget..in general...we in europe voluntarily disarmed and gave our safety over to the politicians via the police.....

they fail us perpetually.....in every walk of life....

Lord Foul wrote:hokay

firstly why does it matter...

you COULD take the view that dead is ...well .....dead regardless of how that lamentable condition is arrived at.

however

firstly i enjoy shooting , as a skill...I also shoot a lot of clay targets...

at about 85-95%

and edible targets are of course a bonus

Now...

firstly game meat is FAR superior to farmed meat, it is lean and tasty. It has few chemicals in it...
secondly what i Shoot in the main is vermin...rabbits pigeon and crow (and a fair number of rats and grey squirrels

hint I dont eat crow, rat of squirrel, although I'm told squirrel is tasty too...but tree rats...nah...give over

I dont do "driven game" personally I dont like it...but I will have the odd pheasant or duck in season as the oppertunity arises

now we come to the interesting bit

I consider the hunting of game , as I do it to be at least as , and in all concience more ethical than farmed meat...

Its not mistreated on the farm, its not mistreated during transport and its not mistreated during slaughter.

on the few occaisions where its not a clean instant kill using the shotgun, the bird or rabbit is retrieved in very quick order by my retriever and dispatched humanely immediately...or if it is evident its not sufficiently well hit to "down it" it gets barrel number 2.
If im using a rifle for small game there is always a second round to follow if needed...

so the level of suffering inflicted is minimal

I "keeper" over 350 acres of good farm land and 25 acre of woodland

shooting rabbits etc is necessary for balance,and stock safety,  the woods have improved markedly in terms of diversity since I thinned out the crows and magpies that were devastating the songbirds...and the health of the woodland itself has improved somewhat for removing the resident grey squirrels...

so ...

whilst it may not strictly speaking be necessary to hunt for food...there are a number of perfectly good reasons to do so...

and

necessity is NOT the arbiter of what you should or should not do....
and
as i say to the anti who gets stroppy ...but eats meat non the less....that is moral cowardice...you (as the anti but meat eater) are merely shifting the blame effectively to the "judas goat" i.e slaughterman

at least I have the balls to strangle my own dinner (thats a metaphore btw...just in case you think I meant "strangle" literally)


now...just as a matter of info


rabbits did 390 MILLION pounds worth of damage  at least last year to land, stock and crops.....

yep...thats NOT a typo....

6 rabbits eat as much as a sheep.....

get an infestation of rabbits and thats like well....... depending on land area...6000 rabbits would NOT be an over estimate.....they breed like......rabbits.....

as I said to didge...what about the guy who keeps chickens for meat...????

I bet they are better treated in general than those kept commercially...and killed just as humanely...

so whats the difference between that and me hunting ?

oh and dont beleive the ranting idiot...my dog doesnt "rip it to bits" thats just his lies....I mean..what good would that be to me...I want the rabbit/pigeon/pheasant back in one piece thanks....

Lord Foul wrote:the squirrels arnt "killed for kicks", they arkilled becasue they are a pest

they damage trees, quite severely
they predate birds nests for eggs and nestlings
and of course the grey squirrel is the animal equivalent of an invasive weed

if they didnt NEED thinning out....I wouldnt shoot em

for instance ...the moor hen and coot are considered "wild fowl" and as such I could shoot em in season

thing is they taste like the bottom of a pond...so I am not going to eat em...so I dont shoot em

oh and just because its "organic" doesnt mean its of necessity humane......