The animal rights con-job

In the late 1970's, the main focus of the anti-sealing industry was to stop the harvest of harp seal pups. For the last 20 years, the main focus by the anti-sealing industry is the making of money. In North America, each and every year, ten times as many deer are shot and killed compared to harp seals. More then 600 thousand deer are killed by vehicles alone in the United States last year. Add to that figure the two million white-tailed deer which are shot by hunters every year in North America (according to the New World Encyclopedia). The two million does not take into account all the other deer species either.

The 2009 Canadian sealing season brought in only 59 500 seal pelts worth approximately 1 million dollars. Animal rights groups, during 2009, earned approximately 300 million dollars worldwide protesting against the Canadian seal hunt. The majority on the money raised by animal rights groups, unfortunately, is not put to good practical use. One campaign by PETA for example ( People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), wanted all of us to only eat ice cream made from human breast milk rather then cows milk. This would be a real good example of how animal rights groups spend their donation dollars.

Animal rights today for the most part is a internet hoax.They do little or nothing at all for the environment, protection of animal species or animal welfare. Their job is to lay this guilt trip on us all in the hopes of getting you to donate money. The HSUS ( Humane Society of the United States)International Fund for Animal Welfare) earned a hefty 91 million dollars. Fundraising, not the care of animals in the objective here with these groups.

does exactly that and does it very well. In 2008, the HSUS earned 107 million dollars sucking in people with big hearts for donations. IFAW ( IFAW is one of the worst animal rights propaganda machines to have ever been in operation throughout history. No lie or deceit is to big to line their pockets. In fact the founder of the IFAW sold his name and affiliation to the IFAW when he retired for 2.5 million dollars even though he was making more then 3 hundred thousand dollars a year as their employee for years. The amount of money these so called non-profit animal rights groups throw around is just staggering.

HSUS in their 2008 taxes showed $5,454,258 had been set aside for retirement benefits. Nearly 5 and a half million dollars for retirement and this is what your donations are used for. And all of you thought the money was going to help out animals. Another good example of animal rights groups wasting your donations occurred when Peta tried to sue The California Milk Advisory Board in 2002 over a commercial they made showing "happy cows adds". "A lawsuit filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals challenges whether the California dairy industry's award-winning ad campaign featuring "Happy Cows" frolicking in verdant pastures is false advertising." PETA believed the cows were in fact "not happy" and spent 10's of thousands of donated dollars to prove it. One must really question the sanity here.


-Post submitted by "No Picture"

IFAW -International Fund for Animal Welfare

In 2008, IFAW worldwide funding was down to 99 million dollars from 111 million dollars in 2007. Afraid of another funding drop this year (2009), IFAW has cranked up their fundraising efforts early this year. The Canadian seal hunt is IFAW's biggest money earner and inspite of it's being more then 4 months away, the IFAW is on the fundraising trail. Protesting against the Canadian seal hunt is big business today. It is estimated that in 2007, three hundred million dollars was raised.

From the beginning, the seal hunt controversy has been a staged affair. Photos and videos of a bloody abattoir on the ice have been powerfully exploited to build comfortable financial empires for the IFAW. The Canadian seal protest movement is a sophisticated and very profitable industry. Their aim is publicity and revenue just like any other business. Every year they mount their seal hunt campaign, and the money rolls in. Honesty is not a requirement.

The once-a-year harvesting of predatory seals in a limited, controlled and monitored situation is no different than the slaughtering of beef cattle for our steaks or lobster for our plates. Why are people so sympathetic to seals and so indifferent to their legitimate balance-of-nature hunters? Because they've been duped. IFAW has conned you.

Sheryl Fink is a Senior Research and Projects Specialist working out of the Guelph (Canada) office of the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Trained and schooled in the effective use of propaganda, she specializes in using images and video of animals in distress for the purpose of soliciting donations. Emotional pitches and half truths are their bread and butter of IFAW and they do not want anyone tampering with their cash cow. According to the Canadian government, the harp seal population, as of last year, sits at 5.6 million seals off the east coast of Canada with close to 8 million worldwide. With such a huge amount of harp seals in the world, I will expect that Sheryl Fink is going to make a great deal of money this year for IFAW.

One of the first things you will learn is that IFAW is blatantly misleading the public on the topic of the Atlantic seal hunt. Seal hunt becomes seal slaughter, 8 million harp seals becomes harp seals are going extinct. Now this is how one effectively uses propaganda to make money. This is what IFAW is taught. All over the net one can see people holding a white seal pup. It's against Canadian law to hunt the white seal pups. But once again, the white seal pup photo is used to get people's wallets to fly open and donate. Young harp seals are cute, have large eyes, are fluffy, white and cuddly. They can trigger the empathetic and infant-protection instincts easily in people. The photographs of the white seal pup has to be used to fundraise. How many are going to donate if a grey colored seal photo is used? The scandal about all this is that so many nice old ladies, so many well-meaning animal lovers, so many decent people have been suckered into sending cash and to organizations like IFAW that thrive on this misplaced concern for big-eyed, fish-eating seals.

In short, Sheryl Fink's job is to use people's emotions against them in order to fleece them out of money. How this lady can sleep at night is beyond me. In 2007, a seal species was officially declared extinct. Caribbean monk seal is gone forever. Sheryl Fink and the IFAW said and did nothing about it. In fact they are not ever aware of it. You can't make any money out of a extinct seal species so instead they protest for Canadian harp seal, the most numerous marine mammal on the planet.

Toby the bunny

Just how easy is it to con people out of money under the ruse of animal cruelty? How about we hold a bunny rabbit as ransom?

Even when it sounds totally out to lunch, just the mention of perceived animal cruelty is enough to set off the animal rights crowd, no doubt getting more donations as well. Taking a cue from Bonsai Kitten, a site called Save Toby used a creepy premise to throw animal rights activists into a tizzy.

The Save Toby saga began in the early days of 2005, when the site announced that its owners had found a wounded rabbit (which they named Toby) and nursed it back to health--but then declared that if they did not receive $50,000 in donations for the care of Toby by July 30, 2005, they would be forced to cook and eat the rabbit.

The owners asserted that the site was not a hoax: They would, indeed, cook and eat Toby if they did not receive the money. Animal rights activists cried "animal cruelty," to which the owners responded that they were doing nothing cruel to Toby--in fact, they were trying to save him. Supposedly, the site collected more than $24,000 before Bored.com bought it, and Toby was saved. But holding a bunny hostage for ransom?

And you think that no one would take the "Save Toby" seriously?? Well, guess again. Here is a response:

"yeah, you sick bastard, I took the liberty in notifying PETA of your actions, cruelty to animals as well as demanding money for for a life.And trust me, you can expect hell to be raised for you and your sick friends from the law and the largest animal rights groups soon.Have fun with the activist's and the courts, asshole! If you were smart, you hand over the bunny to a shelter and refund all of the money donated to you before you get yourself into a world of hurt."
-Jason

PETA already knows all too well how to con people out of money. They are experts at it.
In 2008, PETA made 31 million dollars.

A book was released in September 2005. The book made a new threat: if 100,000 copies of the book were not sold, Toby would be eaten at Thanksgiving dinner. A sucker and his money is soon departed.

http://www.savetoby.com/


-Post submitted by "No Picture"

Peta only tells half the story

As usual peta is only interested in half the story. They don't mention that products containing gluten, a vegan product can have exactly the same effect.

"The jury is still out on whether or not diets free of gluten and casein can reduce autism, but the little evidence that there is suggests it's possible that it could help some children."

Autistic children often have gastrointestinal tract disturbances such as abdominal pains and diarrhea which make it hard for them to digest certain milk proteins properly.

Many people, including doctors, nutritionists and parents of autistic children believe that this can be somewhat relieved by eliminating certain foods from the diet.

A casein-free diet is an eating plan in which milk protein (casein) is eliminated by removing all dairy products from the diet. It is often, if not always, used in combination with a gluten-free diet, which calls for the elimination of wheat, barley, rye, oats, and any products made from these grains which would include food starches, semolina, couscous, malt, some vinegars, soy sauce, flavorings, artificial colors and hydrolyzed vegetable proteins.

There are different possibilities for ways in which this could affect children with autism. The most studied theory is that eating or drinking milk protein leads to high levels of protein by-products, called casomorphines, in some children with autism. These by-products may then affect behavior like a drug would. Specifically, in these children, casomorphines could reduce their desire for social interaction, block pain messages, and increase confusion. If milk protein is taken out of the diet, the idea is that this will reduce the level of casomorphines, and behavior will improve as a result.

The effectiveness of elimination diets in improving the behavior of children with autism has only recently been scientifically researched. This research has almost always examined diets that are both casein- and gluten-free. The tested diets were both casein- and gluten-free, so it is not clear whether it was the elimination of casein, gluten, or both that resulted in any improvements.

According to one theory, some people with autism cannot properly digest gluten and casein, which form peptides, or substances that act like opiates in their bodies. The peptides then alter the person's behavior, perceptions, and responses to his environment.

Medical tests can determine if your child has a sensitivity or an allergy to gluten, casein and other foods such as eggs, nuts and soybeans.

There is also a wide range of web sites and parent support groups exist that provide advice and support to parents trying to follow gluten-free and casein-free diets for their children with autism.

Do not, under any circumstances take nutritional advice from peta. They do not consult with doctors or researchers and much of their information is based on hearsay.


http://www.autismcanada.org/glutensugar.htm

http://www.autismweb.com/diet.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9875.php

http://www.informedhealthonline.org

Advocates of exploitation

Submitted by Broken record

It is often said that we should understand the other side’s viewpoint in disagreements. I think we can agree that this is good advice in all disagreements, regardless of the topic or the participants. In this essay, I explain my general understanding of animal exploitation advocates’ viewpoint. I limit the essay to the viewpoint of advocates of exploitation as opposed to those who exploit, but generally remain silent on the issue of whether we are justified in exploiting, harming, and killing innocent nonhuman beings. There are additional considerations regarding those who exploit, but do not actively advocate exploitation, which I will not address here. I believe these years of experience provide me with a reasonable basis for understanding and assessing the exploiters’ viewpoint, whether advocated for or not.

Almost all animal exploitation advocates like to consume and are in the habit of consuming the flesh (i.e. meat) and bodily fluids (e.g. milk, cheese and eggs) of nonhuman beings. Many animal exploitation advocates also like to shoot nonhuman beings for fun, experiment on them for money (ostensibly also for “scientific” reasons), hang on the wall or wear parts of nonhuman beings, use them for entertainment, or make money off the numerous ways we exploit them. These uses, individually and collectively, are doubtlessly the primary, if not the only, motive driving the arguments of animal exploitation advocates. Exploitation advocates all have one thing in common: self-interest and personal gain, no matter how great or trivial.

Animal exploitation advocates start with the notion, “I want to [fill in the blank: hunt, eat meat, consume dairy products, profit from exploitation, etc.]” and work from that self-interested idea to search for premises to support a conclusion "justifying" the desired use. Included in the premises found by exploitation advocates are some of the common cultural prejudices handed down to us from philosophers such as Rene Descartes, who told us that nonhumans are literally “automata” or “God’s machines” and Immanuel Kant, who told us that, because nonhumans are not as “rational” as us, nonhumans are “things” (never mind how irrationally humans often actually think and behave; and not to mention the complete irrelevancy of rational capacity in distinguishing beings from things). The cultural prejudices are even embedded in our language when we refer to nonhumans as “it” (even when we know the gender) instead of he or she and “that” instead of who. Well, obviously if nonhumans are really mere “automata” or “things”, then we certainly have no moral obligations to them. Under this distorted view, nonhuman beings are no different from rocks, tables, and trees. There are other dubious, even absurd, premises selected for their fine fit with the desired self-interested conclusion that nonhuman beings are morally irrelevant, but status as “things” is the most common and popular, both implicitly and explicitly, when animal exploitation advocates are working backwards from the assumed conclusion to the “premises.”

Why do people sometimes hold onto such distortions of reality as the notion that nonhuman beings are “things”? Why do some of us so blatantly ignore the evidence of sentience and moral worth? I think part of the reason can be described by an extreme form of the doctrine of William James called The Will To Believe. “The Will to Believe” is derived from James’ pragmatism whereby the epistemological standard of truth of a belief, when we lack evidence, is measured by how well it benefits us to hold the belief as true. If this is our standard of truth, then according to James’ pragmatism, we can ignore a lack of evidence regarding a self-benefiting belief and “will” ourselves to hold that belief. Animal exploitation advocates take James' "will to believe" further than James by ignoring contradictory evidence regarding a self-benefiting belief. How much we are willing to ignore contradictory empirical evidence, such as the morally relevant similarities of human and nonhuman beings, or the similarity of dogs to pigs, to hold a belief that personally benefits us is a fairly good measure of how radical our self-interested dishonesty is.

Intellectual honesty is what has led and will lead to greater social justice and moral progress in the world, whether the victims of injustice are human or nonhuman beings. If animal exploitation advocates embraced intellectual honesty by placing themselves in the inevitable and unenviable position of being thrown into the world as a nonhuman being subject to the cruel and exploitive whims of humans through no fault of their own and worked from that premise, applying a fair version of the Golden Rule and letting the conclusions result from the intellectually honest premises instead of letting bogus premises result from preconceived conclusions, then many animal exploitation advocates would change their minds, go vegan, and stand on solid epistemological and moral ground.

So it is not difficult to see the world from the exploitation advocates’ viewpoint, or the violent criminal’s viewpoint, or the tyrant’s viewpoint. All we need to do is place our self-interest at the center of our criteria for “determining” truth and reality to the exclusion of others’ interest, contradictory evidence, and intellectual honesty, and we’ve arrived at the essence of the exploitation advocates’ viewpoint.

Greenpeace is protesting the oilsands again

Twenty-one Greenpeace activists were at Ft. McMurray, Alberta again protesting what they claim is dirty oil. Would you believe they floated down the Athabasca River 20 miles to the oils sands plant. The point I am going to try and make here is that Ft. McMurray is a 5 hours drive north of Edmonton. Did Greenpeace drive some environmental friendly bus all that way or did they take their 8 cylinder SUV's like they normally would? Several of the activists were from Europe. Did they fly to Canada as they usually would or use a sailboat that used no fuel??

Here comes the Greenpeace is a hypocrite part. Greenpeace should be setting the example for all of us (you would think) by cutting back on their carbon footprint instead of making things worse. Money people donate to Greenpeace is going into oil company coffers. Greenpeace is protesting against an oil company while at the same time they are using the very product their protesting about. Where is the sense in that? Go figure. Lately it seems as though "environmental activist" has become synonymous with "hypocrite."

Post submitted by "No Picture."

Feminists are pissed at PETA

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ) has gotten women showering together in public, making love to vegetables, in cages and appearing naked all over the place. As a red blooded male, I just love to watch some hot girl-on-girl action, but I do understand what the feminists are talking about. The billboard seen below is what set the feminists off.


Calling women who are overweight "whales" and inferring that their bodies are like blubber, is fat hatred. In response, the Portland Feminist Action League decided to organized a "flash protest." Where you ask? At Ingrid Newkirk's (fearless leader of PETA) book signing held at Powell's Book Store. As Newkirk prepared to speak at the store on Tuesday, August 18, a dozen Portland feminists were crouched on the sidewalk a block away, drawing up large protest signs, with messages like "Stop fat-shaming women," "Stop disrespecting women," and "Cut it out with your mistreatment of women." Newkirk says that shaming fat women would be a good thing because it would wake them up to vegetarianism and veganism. No joke. One feminist spoke to Newkirk: "I approached Ms. Newkirk a few minutes later as she was speaking to another [person] in our group, who was emotionally telling her history of supporting PETA from the age of 12 until she came to realize their hurtful, embarrassing approaches to promoting animal rights. Ms. Newkirk, in short, responded with the idea that "these obese people are hurting their children," and spoke again about meat eating leading to fat bodies. As, I walked up, [being] clearly the chubbiest in the room, Ms. Newkirk looked me in the fucking eyes and said, "I'm not okay with the fat positive movement," and began to personally lecture me about obesity, heart disease, and the ills of eating meat and fast food. I told her that I'm a vegetarian with a healthy diet, which she glossed over as she said, glibly, "We love whales, and we love women - we'd just like to save them both." I told her I didn't need saving, and she again threw out some bogus information about how all fat people are more unhealthy than all thin people."

...and you wonder why the feminists are mad at PETA.


Post submitted by "No Picture."