I am in here late but let me say this about that. I did not watch the movie. These "barbaric" practices have come under criticism before in the USA with regard to the ritual slaughter of animals to follow the rules of Kashruth, more commonly referred to as keeping kosher. The "other" Semitic peoples have similar practices known as Halal (no relation to me.) In all of these rituals, the dignity of the animal should be protected; that is the slaughter must be quick and effective in order to minimize pain and suffering for the subject.
PeTA (People Eating Tasty Animals) is a terrorist group that is funded by American tax dollars (they are non-profit). They are responsible for the euthanizing of thousands of domesticated animals that they were supposed to be protecting. Their headquarters has a room-sized freezer for the storage of carcasses pending cremation. That is the tip of the iceberg. I am not going to continue because there isn't enough time left to enumerate the collection of dishonest, immoral, and/or illegal things that have been done under the PeTA mantle of "save animals." Ingrid Newkirk is a hypocrite as well. I am sorry if I have repeated anything mentioned in the prior messages on this thread. I did not read all the posts. HALinNY -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Leafe Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 10:04 To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] ME slaughterhouses exposed as barbaric On Aug 2, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Dominic Burford wrote: > To be quite honest, I don't really care what these rogue elements did > in the *past* (who were *not* supported by PETA, and were perpetuated > by > copycats) That's a convenient claim, but since you've so strongly asserted that PETA is not an organization that uses terrorism to achieve its goals, and I have provided evidence that they did in fact target children with "Buckets of Blood" and "Unhappy Meals" with images of blood-spattered clowns. I've asked for a link in which a PETA official denounced these tactics, or the tactic of throwing blood on suspected animal fur wearers, and called for the punishment of those who carried out such acts. If these people were indeed copycats who had nothing to do with PETA, then such a link should not be hard to find. They start with a *personal* belief (killing animals for any reason: food, saving human life - is *murder*), and then use that to justify their actions. After all, their only goal is to prevent murder, so how could some act that is at best an incovenience or which inflicts a psychological scar on a child be wrong? They do not allow for the possibility that others may hold differing POVs; those who do are by definition murderers and do not need to be considered. They are no different than the anti-abortion radicals, who likewise start with their personal definition of murder, and then try to impose that on everyone else by whatever means necessary. If you truly want to help advance the improvement of the treatment of animals, you'd be better off ditching PETA and finding a group that isn't so self-righteous. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
