PETA Wants To Sue Anonymous HuffPo Commenters 590
MarkWhittington writes, quoting himself: "PETA is incensed over an article in the Huffington Post that details that organization's unsettling practice of euthanizing animals in a Virginia facility that many have assumed is a no kill shelter. According to the New York Post, PETA wants to sue some of the people who have left comments on the article. The problem is that, following the practice of many on the Internet, many of the comments are under assumed names or are anonymous. PETA is attempting to discover the true identities of their critics so that it can sue them for defamation."
A name for PETA (Score:5, Funny)
Now, PETA, sue me over my opinion.
Re:A name for PETA (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only defamation if it's false. How do you sue people for telling the truth?
Re:A name for PETA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The truth is in the eye of a Judge whom is best swayed by a well-crafted legal strategy.
Protip: if in doubt, go with who.
Re:A name for PETA (Score:5, Funny)
Protip: Don't use 'protip' - you sound like a pompous ass.
Re:A name for PETA (Score:5, Informative)
1) Fill out the forms. A Civil Cases Cover Sheet, a Summons, and a Complaint all must be filled out in order to file a lawsuit. You must include facts concerning the case and a legally recognizable cause of action in order for the suit to proceed. It is best to have an attorney help you do this to make sure the forms are filled out correctly. See USCourtForms.com for sample forms you can use.
2) File the complaint. Make two copies of your forms, go to the courthouse, and file the originals with the court according to their instructions. Make sure you provide the forms in the format specified by the court, to prevent delays from occurring. In most cases you will have to pay a filing fee, but this can be waived if you show you can't afford it. Keep the two extra copies.
3) Have the defendant served. The next step is to notify the defendant that he or she is being sued by serving him or her with a copy of the court documents. The case cannot move forward until this happens. Documents must be served by someone over 18 who is not part of the case. You cannot serve your own documents.
Ask for help at the courthouse if you aren't sure who should serve your documents.
4) Wait for a hearing. After the defendant has been served, the court will review the lawsuit and instruct you on how it will move forward.
Re: (Score:3)
People have been successfully sued, despite telling the truth.
You can sue someone for basically anything (Score:3)
Doesn't matter how baseless it is, you can file suit. However, that is not to say you'll succeed or it is a good idea. A judge can throw the case out in pre-trial, and can impose sanctions if it is an extremely stupid suit.
In PETA's case, I imagine this is largely a publicity stunt and something to try and harass detractors. They wouldn't really want this to go to trial as it would not go in their favour.
Re:A name for PETA (Score:5, Informative)
You can sue people for whatever you want. The lawsuit might not stand up in court, but if you can bankrupt the person with legal costs (or otherwise force them to settle with you), then you don't have to win the case.
This is called a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP, and many states have laws against it. Unfortunately, not all of them do, and while I don't know what state PETA is suing in, worth noting is that Virginia (the state where the shelter in question is located) does not.
Re: (Score:3)
You're the sort of person they want to sue. That statement is clearly false, and constitutes defamation. It takes some time to process the animal through the facility before they kill it (even if that's just moving it from the receiving door to the slaughter table), so it obviously isn't immediate.
Re:A name for PETA (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is wrong,. It's only defamation if it's false AND the author knew it as false at the time it was authored.
The truth is an absolute defense of course. Another defense is no reasonable reader would have taken what was said as a matter of fact - factual truth- and not rampant speculation or snide remark or political statement or matter of opinion not likely to be based in fact. If the target is a person in the public eye, you have to affirmatively say, in effect "X is the actual, real facts" and know that it's not.
A famous case involving the National Enquirer and Carol Burnett springs to mind. She had to prove that the paper knew the allegations (about her being drunk) were false. She was able to do that in that case and the paper lost.
Mostly you can have at it WRT to famous people or undefined grouping of people "all lawyers' or "that industry" no lawsuit is going to be won, although of course anyone can sue anyone anywhere at any time for any reason.
For instance, if PETA sued someone in New York State because they were arguing against PETA in a public discussion forum, then that person could sue PETA back under New York State's SLAPP Law (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ) protects people from being sued by (and gives legal recourse against ) entities if the action that person is being sued for was participating in a public forum on a matter of public interest.
PETA appears to me to be pulling a Scientology here and trying to get the word out to *everyone* that it's "dangerous" to say anything negative against PETA .
On the internet, this is known to be the opposite of a good strategy and PETA now has two PR disasters on its hand, one considerably worse than the other. They could have talked their way out of the first one (the Humane Society puts animals down also, it's just a logistical fact about animals and the amount of money and space to take care of them) .
But suing Susie Homebody because she said a bad thing about your big organization? That's just cyber bullying and everyone knows it. This is going to backfire on PETA big time and probably a lot of people are going to start posting statements online just to spite them, like :
"Ingrid Newkirk is well known to masturbate using lobster tails"
or
"PETA is listed as an organization likely to be associated with terrorism because it's radical members have been linked to bombing of animal labs in universities and one of their founders, Alice Newkirk has written that no movement for social change has ever succeeded without what she calls the militarism component, saying things like:
"Thinkers may prepare revolutions," she wrote of the ALF in 2004, "but bandits must carry them out."[95]
and
"Not until black demonstrators resorted to violence did the national government work seriously for civil rights legislation ... In 1850 white abolitionists, having given up on peaceful means, began to encourage and engage in actions that disrupted plantation operations and liberated slaves. Was that all wrong?"
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals [wikipedia.org]
More from Wikipedia on the PETA - TERRORISM connection:
In 2004 The Observer described what it called a network of relationships between apparently unconnected animal rights groups on both sides of the Atlantic, writing that, with assets of $6.5 million, and with the PETA Foundation holding further assets of $15 million, PETA funds a number of activists and groupsâ"some with links to militant groups, including the ALF, which the FBI has named as a domestic terrorist threat. American writer Don Liddick writes that PETA gave $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front in 2001â"Newkirk said the donation was a mistake, and that the money had been intended for public education about destruction of habitat, but Liddick writes that it went to t
Re: A name for PETA (Score:3)
What state are the animals in? It's not PETAS fault for being delivered animals (in some cases dozens from ONE incident) inches from death because of neglect or abuse. Vet care is expensive and I'm sure they just can't pay it. So they put most down so some can live.
It is a legitimate practice to saving anything, even saving people comes down to numbers when you get dozens of half dead ones at a once that a normal day you could save.
It's not PETA that's abusing the animals... But they do perpetuate the fair
Re: (Score:3)
Re: A name for PETA (Score:5, Informative)
From the original huffington post article we find, among other things, a quote by a veterinarian who handed them a mother cat and her kittens who were perfectly healthy. The PETA representatives said they would be "easy to adopt" and the vet was wanting to find them homes as they were in perfect condition.
The PETA guys killed them in their van mere moments after telling that blatant lie.
Isn't it odd that every other shelter organisation around has far fewer euthanizations and far more adoptions than PETA's shelters do ? That most of them keep animals for several months before considering euthansia while PETA animals rarely make 14 days - even if they are in perfect health ?
That animals coming to PETA with diseases which other shelters routinely treat and cure and then adopt the animals are simply left to die untreated ? Like Parvovirus - average survival rate among infected animals at shelters: 90%, survival rate at PETA shelters: 0%.
Re: A name for PETA (Score:5, Informative)
Re: A name for PETA (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, this happens routinely (discoveries of significant numbers of sick and neglected animals) - and shelters and humane societies around the country cope. They call in volunteers, they call up their usual supporters, they call in help from adjacent municipalities shelters and humane societies, they contact any nearby private shelters and any applicable breed rescues, they hit up the local media to ask for additional bodies, cash, and supplies.
They sweat and they bleed and they cry - but they cope and they do their damnedest for the animals. And they do it without immediately euthanizing the majority of them. That is what makes PETA so monstrous in this ongoing situation... they don't even try. Even when handed healthy animals.
Re: (Score:3)
Back in 2005 a veterinarian in NC arranged to have PETA take perfectly healthy and adoptable pets off his clinic's hands on the promise of finding good homes for them. The PETA employees would come down from Virginia in a van, take the animals, kill them with injections in the parking lot, and toss the bodies in a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, AFAIC no person should be paying income taxes and if he is forced to then he is in captivity, relative slavery. Applying PETA position in this case would mean it's better to kill people that pay income taxes than to have them suffer this way.
However if somebody actually ASKED those people that end up in that situation, I bet almost without exception they would prefer to stay alive even if they are forced into that relative slavery (after all, most of the actual slaves that were owned by specific peop
Re:A name for PETA (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the news that PETA kills a far higher percentage of the animals it receives than ASPCA, for example, is not widely publicized.
Because PETA is the darling of the bleeding-heart liberals, assumed to value all living things except humans.
Re:A name for PETA (Score:5, Interesting)
Liberals HATE PETA. Every liberal I know HATES PETA.
You're talking about anarchists and a few Hollywood icons who don't know jack about PETA but will participate in a no fur campaign (because, hey, it's a chance to take off your clothes in front of a camera).
That's who supports PETA.
Every rational adult liberal I have ever discussed with with basically snorted and spit their name our of their mouth if the topic was ever broached.
This is like saying most conservatives are militia members. It's total bullshit.
And with this move... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And with this move... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And with this move... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would probably never have known anything about this if it weren't for this. I will never donate to PETA again. Streisand indeed.
Re:And with this move... (Score:4, Insightful)
You donated to PETA before this?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And with this move... (Score:5, Insightful)
So... The dude made a mistake. Feels bad and is going to stop making the same mistake, and you come down all medieval on his arse calling him a dumbass and "not bright." Nice... Have you ever noticed what this makes you look like? Or that in any discussion, this sort of approach will have the opposite affect of what you desire? You're clearly not "sorry". Just, to be blunt and frank a bit of an ass.
PETA has a fairly effective brainwashing technique. Most of the PETA supporters won't believe a word of this no matter how much evidence you show them. It is completely stupid and inane drivel they spout, but if you never look deeply into it (for whatever reason), it is quite possible you'll never see it. The GGP might simply have taken them at their word, "we help animals." Sure he should have checked, but not everyone has time or is quite as cynical as you might be.
As for myself, I only support the People Eating Tasty Animals variety of PETA. But I have made donations I have deeply regretted when I found out more. Never anything substantial, but I $2 here or there can add up to a nice steak, and I like my steak.
Re: (Score:3)
Feels bad and is going to stop making the same mistake, and you come down all medieval on his arse calling him a dumbass and "not bright." Nice... Have you ever noticed what this makes you look like?
In my experience, it makes him look just like a typical Slashdot poster.
Re: (Score:3)
No, nobody knew about this - at least not your average Joe who thinks "Gee, they help animals, I should toss them a couple bucks...". That's what PETA was counting on.
I hope this brings to light - to those of us who have better things to do than 'follow animal rights issues' - how awful these people really are(beyond their stunts) and how wasted any money you may donate is.
Going out on a limb here .. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So if you personally don't know something exists, it doesn't?
hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
euthanizing an animal is good
euthanizing an animal and using its protein is evil
now excuse me while I use the protein of a lovely and beautiful and once-free-and-frolicking sea kitten
Re: (Score:2)
If God didn't want us to eat animals, He shouldn't have made them out of meat.
If PETA leadership would spend as much time learning basic animal science as they spend on stupidity and lawsuits, Maybe they wouldn't be such a bad organization.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, most of PETA's members are made out of meat, too...
Re: (Score:3)
I hear they taste like chicken.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:hypocrisy (Score:5, Informative)
I'll make it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmissible_spongiform_encephalopathy [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh, sea kittens.. I just had a bowl of these myself.
People Eating Tasty Animals (Score:4, Funny)
If we weren't supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be made out of meat.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How can you have any pudding, if you don't eat your meat?
Re: (Score:3)
Comments were indeed lies (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair to PETA, at least one example from TFA is absolutely false:
it objects to terms like "animal Kervorkians,"
It is completely false and unfair to compare PETA to Dr. Kevorkian. Dr. Kervokian only killed people who volunteered to die. PETA, on the other hand, is killing animals who have not volunteered to die. PETA is an organization animal murderers (the meat goes to waste, therefore it is murder and not food) while Dr. Kevorkian assisted patients in committing suicide. Big difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently they don't, since they kill a far, far higher percentage of the pets they receive than even your underfunded local county animal shelter. The viewpoint of PETA members that I have spoken to is that any domesticated animal is in a permanent state of misery since their life is "not natural", and they would be better off dead rather than living in a warm house in the company of humans.
Let's tell it like it is (Score:5, Insightful)
PETA is attempting to discover the true identities of the supressive persons [wikipedia.org] so that it can sue them for defamation.
FTFY. Like Scientologists, these people and free speech don't get along.
OH ic, anonymous adjective, not noun _Anonymous_ (Score:4, Funny)
Proud to be a member of the *REAL* PETA (Score:2)
People for the Eating of Tasty Animals--BEHOLD!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/358317592 [flickr.com]
and
http://www.amatteroftasteinc.com/peta.html [amatteroftasteinc.com]
Claimer: I proudly own these "Mashed Potatoes" and "Vegetarian" shirts and people take pictures of us all the time--99%+ of people love them and they're the BEST ice-breakers! (No joke)
Talk about hypocrisy, PETA kills most animals.. (Score:5, Informative)
in its shelters. "In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) behaved in a regrettably consistent manner: it euthanized the overwhelming majority of dogs and cats that it accepted into its shelters. Out of 760 dogs impounded, they killed 713, arranged for 19 to be adopted, and farmed out 36 to other shelters (not necessarily "no kill" ones). As for cats, they impounded 1,211, euthanized 1,198, transferred eight, and found homes for a grand total of five. PETA also took in 58 other companion animals -- including rabbits. It killed 54 of them."
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/ [theatlantic.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Re:Talk about hypocrisy, PETA kills most animals.. (Score:4, Informative)
in its shelters. "In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) behaved in a regrettably consistent manner: it euthanized the overwhelming majority of dogs and cats that it accepted into its shelters. Out of 760 dogs impounded, they killed 713, arranged for 19 to be adopted, and farmed out 36 to other shelters (not necessarily "no kill" ones). As for cats, they impounded 1,211, euthanized 1,198, transferred eight, and found homes for a grand total of five. PETA also took in 58 other companion animals -- including rabbits. It killed 54 of them."
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/ [theatlantic.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html [huffingtonpost.com]
I fail to see any regret in their actions of 2011, since they continued in 2012: http://www.vi.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2012
Re: Talk about hypocrisy, PETA kills most animals. (Score:3)
Sounds like Profitable and Efficient Termination of Animals.
Who is supporting these bozos. (Score:3)
I can only imagine its some out of touch half drunk twits that sign checks at cocktail parties so attractive but vapid people can pretend to like them.
Who is honestly proud of anything PETA has done? They have no impact on the society. So at best they're failures. At worst... Oh god, does it get bad.
They were sort of funny when they threw red ink on socialites wearing fur coats but then they went after people's pets and BACON!... there's no coming back from that.
Re: (Score:3)
So what?... What has she accomplished lately?
These organizations likely did accomplish something in their early history. But what does an activist group do when its won? Does it disband and go back to their day jobs? No. They just move their platform to the next radical step... something far enough out that no one will ever accept it... and in taking that insane position they ensure that they'll always have something to complain about.
its like if you started an organization to outlaw child porn or something
Re: (Score:3)
No problem.
Demonstrate that we don't need that power by lowering local power consumption to such an extent that the dam's power is redundant and that's a reasonable idea.
But destroying the dam PRIOR to that being demonstrated with no agreed upon fall back option is a non-starter.
You don't screw with water, food, or power. You mess with basic utilities and destroy communities or possibly get people killed.
I understand what you're saying. They're unreasonable pie eyed flakes. Set them some very reasonable sta
fundraiser (Score:4, Funny)
Dear PETA... (Score:4, Informative)
You're a bunch of liars, hypocrites, and assholes. And do feel free to give it a shot, we have excellent anti-SLAPP provisions in my state.
I'm no fan of PETA, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I'm no fan of PETA, but... (Score:5, Informative)
No, but you certainly appear to have drunk their kool-aid... because you repeat their party line almost word for word.
There's nothing in there that people who actually follow animal rights issues haven't heard before - and it's not all hearsay. This shelter has been under fire for years for it's euthanasia policies, and PETA's involvement with questionable euthanasia policies in other locations is well documented.
That sound you heard was the article's point zooming over your head - while your head was either deeply buried in the sand. PETA advertises the facility as a shelter - but makes no effort to operate it as a shelter. There's no adoption hours, no counselors, no rehabilitation, nothing but a freezer to store bodies.
I see... it's wrong for Mr Winograd to spread hearsay... but it's perfectly acceptable for you to do so. And you're amazingly ignorant of the state of animal advocacy in the US if you believe that there's so few opponents to PETA that an author has to create sockpuppets to make it appear that people support him.
tl;dr version: Either you're a PETA sockpuppet, or you're amazingly ignorant the facts.
Re:I'm no fan of PETA, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
PETA sockpuppet,
1. Look at the user ID. It's so new it's still wet behind the ears.
2. Aha, let's look at their postings. Only postings in this thread - no other history.
3. So let's check Loba Art's friends...
Loba Art (2933853) is all alone in the world.
I would agree with your assessment. Loba Art is a PETA sock.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
The core of his argument is based around documents filed by PETA's shelter to the state indicating the intake, adoption, and euthanasia rates of their "animal shelter".
Note the part of his discussion which centers on the fact that by calling their operational a "shelter", there's an understanding that they'll ac
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm no fan of PETA, but... (Score:4, Informative)
More to the point, where is the proof that they don't, other than their own PR site I mean.
They should be allowed to sue (Score:4, Interesting)
PETA should be allowed to discover the identities of the posters for the purposes of suing them, if the statements are in fact defamatory. But the first bar PETA should have to clear is to demonstrate to the court that the statements are in fact defamatory. And they should be required to identify the allegedly-defamatory posts publicly, so the posters can retain counsel and contest the allegations without having their identity revealed. Only after they've prevailed on the "the statements are defamatory" part should they be allowed discovery as to the identities of the posters. And if they fail to follow through and file suit, sanctions should be imposed for abuse of process.
Being anonymous should not mean you can't be held accountable for what you say, but the first step should be showing that someone could be held legally accountable for saying what was said. If what was said isn't actionable, then it shouldn't matter who said it.
Forget PETA politics for a sec... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a YRO story. Can the courts compel HuffPo to turn over the identities of the users? Under what circumstances? If the courts have the legal power to do this, SHOULD they have this power?
I tend to err strongly on the side of free speech. I don't like the idea of courts having this power, because the circumstances under which they could compel disclosure of identities are always subject to change. Today it might be defamation, tomorrow it might be legitimate criticism of the government.
Leaving aside the question of existing law, I would argue that rantings of an AC on an internet forum can't meet a standard of causing "harm" to a person or organization. Regardless of how libelous or scandalous the comment, an AC has zero credibility unless they are able to provide facts which can then be independently verified. If the facts harm the reputation of a person or group, then truth should be an absolute defense (although in many countries that's not the case). Otherwise, any anonymous and unsubstantiated accusations should be dismissed out of hand and deemed 'harmless'.
Re:Oh brother (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh brother (Score:5, Funny)
If they really want us to recycle, they'll make this damned system easier...
Re: (Score:3)
I heard they are the Kervorkians of the animal kingdom. Now please sue me.
Re:Oh brother (Score:4, Funny)
Pets Emulsified and Toasted as Appetizer?
Re:Oh brother (Score:5, Funny)
No, It's People Eating Tasty Animals!
Re:Oh brother (Score:5, Funny)
Pets Euthanized and Touted as Adopted
Re:Oh brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh brother (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of PETA as the environmentalist equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church, and suddenly it all makes sense.
Re:Oh brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh brother (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh brother (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
There countless animal welfare organisations more worthy of donations that these clowns. Organisations that spend their money improving welfare and reducing cruelty to animals without the dumb moralising or activism.
Re:Oh brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh brother (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
What is a "right"? What does it mean to have a "right to life"?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but I kind of like it when their sexy members get naked and stuff though :) I used to have a "PETA" folder somewhere but I lost it. Could someone post a few?
Not true - hyperbole (Score:5, Informative)
But the difference lies in adoption rate. PETA kills 95+% of what it get given not really bothering giving animals as pet, after all "pets"! are in genral against their policy. Shelter private or public depending on the animal get 40 to 60% back to adoption.
Re:Lets try logic (Score:5, Insightful)
due to the typically brutal lives that wild pets usually endure fighting disease and competing for territory and food
Otherwise known as "nature"...
Re: Oh brother (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the issue, there are more pets than people can properly care for due to the economy, as well as extra animals from neglectful owners that abuse or don't "fix" their pets and let them run the streets.
There isn't enough money to care for strays, or people willing to take them. So eventually the shelters have to put the animals down. Sounds like PETA didn't like that basic fact being published... But it's still a fact that they CANNOT save all the animals they rescue, its not their fault. But they created this "bleeding heart movement" that's going to backlash on them.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is that other shelters at least try to find homes.
Not PETA. They take in animals, and then they kill them. There's no intermediate step.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh brother (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh brother (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Well indirectly Greenpeace has help accelerate global warming by effectively running a campaign to end all current product and future research on mankind's ability to split the atom.
This comment couldn't have been brought to you without the help of our local brown coal fired powerplant.
Re: (Score:3)
PETA is far worse than Greenpeace. Greenpeace is just nutty. PETA is outright evil with their "a dead animal is a non-suffering animal" shelter policies.
Re: (Score:3)
I have two cats from a no-kill shelter (i.e. not run by PETA). That good enough for you, PETArd?
Re:Oh brother (Score:4, Insightful)
PETA is and always has been such a joke.
PETA is an organization that pretends to love animals.
What PETA really is is an organization that hates people. Their fundamental position is that basically, no animal would ever voluntarily want to even be on the same planet as the evil horrible creatures known as "humans", that simple proximity to humans is intensely stressful to them, and that all humans are good for is to exploit, torment, and kill animals.
Their ignorance of what the animals themselves actually want and need is outright appalling. When they go full-on "rescue", the poor animals might as well be in an abattoir. They turn the phrase "killing with Kindness" quite literal. In fact, abattoirs have are often more humane. At least abattoirs are set up for relatively quick and painless death as opposed to panicked animals being smeared all over the highways and general mayhem.
I strongly believe in respect for animals. But to truly show respect, you need to gain understanding, not arrogantly assume you know best.
Re:Oh brother (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oh brother (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you're not really paying attention.
While the NRA wants to be pretty much free from the dictated rules of others, PETA wants to be the one dictating.
NRA: Leave us alone, we're doing our thing.
PETA: Stop what you're doing or we'll harass you.
See the difference?
LK
Re:vs the James Rosen / Stephen Kim story (Score:5, Insightful)
is this accurate? im really confused.
I think you may be mistaking what are actually contrasting and often contradictory statements of discrete individuals across several communities for a monolithic statement of belief by a single collective mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah they still have that 'Sexiest Vegan Next Door" competition.
But I draw the line on their faux foods section. Vegan quesadilla?? Hello, you're missing the point - by definition it's a tortilla with CHEESE.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep we lost one comment to the Scientologists already. Although since their operations manual has leaked out revealing that their strategy is to threaten lawsuits wantonly with no intention of following through, I'd hope that Slashdot would call their bluff in the future.