PETA weeps for an ass

What an utterly bullshit piece of "journalism", in every possible respect.

Why would an animal rights group have anything to say about the carnage in Israel? This doesn't seem like a difficult concept.

It's not as if the donkey just happened to be killed in the explosion - they used an animal as a bomb. Yes, the human tragedies in that region far outweigh one donkey, but I think this is a development that an animal rights organisation would be right to comment on.

Or do you think the writer keeps their eyes open for things they can use to bash organisations like that? Hmmmm...

What Dev said. I understand where you're coming from, but PETA's job is to protect animals, not people. Now personally, I'd weep for Shannon Doherty's ass. Mmmmh! [wave upon wave of laughter and aplause from the audience]

Well it's like, "Oh, now you notice there's carnage going on?"

For the same reason a political candidate must declare -after press inquiries- his "stance" on abortion, PETA must be asked what their stance is on humans being bombed in Israel...at least I think that's the point here.

A candidate may not have a stance on abortion yet is roped into a position due to the almost extortionist tactics of the press.

Why PETA is never asked their stance on humans being bombed in Israel is what the author I feel is getting at.

Kronos, that makes no sense. Why should a group that only deals with animal rights have any stance on human rights? That's why we have Amnesty International.

I'm just trying to make sense of the situation...I still don't know why PETA has to take a stance on human carnage either. It's not their mission.

Kronos, do you expect the National Rifle Association to speak out on First Amendment issues? Do you expect National Organization for Women to speak out on utilities privatization? Do you expect the United Taxpayer's Association to review the latest Jurassic 5 cd?

Just as there is a division of labor in the economy, so too is there a division of labor in political activism. Members of PETA are free to speak out on the issues of the intifadeh however they see fit, but they should do it either as private citizens or in connection with some group whose express purpose is to deal with such issues. PETA's purpose is to deal with issues of animal rights and cruelty to animals. For them to go beyond those parameters would not only be unwise from the managerial perspective of overstepping one's area of expertise, but any resources devoted to same would be, in fact, a misuse of the money given to them by their donor. Such misuse -- since PETA is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization -- could even be considered criminal.

This story is very hard to believe. Its true but so absurd its surreal.

No, I don't. I was merely trying to answer the issue of why PETA has to take a stance on human carnage. It's clear they don't.

Why is it absurd?

Well I don't know devin strapping a bomb to a donkey than detonating it is absurd to me. Secondly what Peta is saying about it. Peta has every right to say something here but the collision of Peta and the Israel/Palestine conflict is strange to behold.

Donkey-bombers!

The US Navy has trained dolphin bombs.

Lmao Kronos.

Maybe now that PETA has voiced their concern, the two sides will realize the error of their ways.

We can only hope.

I believe that program ended long ago too. I have no idea how many dolphins got blown up in the testing/training process...or whether they were actually used in operation. But the fact is they don't need the services of dolphins any longer now with more advanced technology.

And there was a lot of knowledged gained from the program. I'm never going to say it was right, but I will only state that a lot was learned.

I have dived with dolphins. Wonderful creatures. I cannot imagine the cruelty committed upon them by fisheries and science.

I have very little experience with suicide donkeys.

Call me cold blooded but the life of one donkey just doesn't matter much to me. I certainly don't condone this but I imagine it was relatively quick and painless for the most part.

I just hope PETA doesn't get word of my gerbil hand grenades...

That's all well and good and nothing says that you have to have the same reaction to animal cruelty that PETA does. But if that were the point of the article, then it would hardly be noteworthy that a group called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals...CARES about the ethical treatment of animals. It seems the writer is ticked that there are people who would care about a dead donkey at all, and I can't figure out why that would stick in his craw so much. Regardless of anyone's feelings about the Middle East situation, I would think that everyone could agree that using a gentle innocent animal as a bomb is a shitty thing to do, and if PETA isn't the group to address it, then, well, who IS?

What if it was a really mean donkey who was not the least bit gentle or innocent?

Then they could have at least made him into donkey burgers, instead of blowing his guts all over a marketplace.

I heard the donkey was a real ass.

I think it is just that this event just helps to bring out reasons why some of us hate PETA. I understand their whole purpose is to look out for animals, and it is that purpose which bugs the shit out of me. There are human animals (as Jiminy might say) who get treated like shit every day & these people are worried about rabbits getting makeup applied to them.

I mean, PETAs reaction is so funny because it makes it seem as if they have no clue. The blowing up of a donkey is certainly one of the least horrible things happening in the middle east and it is just that which gets these people involved. Again, I realize that's what they do and that is what pisses me off.

What else should get them involved?

Should all other advocacy groups end their work so they can focus on what YOU think is important?

I just don't see that being true. The issues of terrorism and world affairs are discussed every day, in every home, office, church, and classroom in America, and probably around the world.

The issues of animal rights are not.

This is a small blip on a very large radar, and among the many stances PETA has taken over the years, this would have to be considered one of their more moderate and sensible. Is it likely to effect change? No, of course not. But at least one can support the spirit of this stance, as opposed to, for instance, giving money to the legal aid fund of guys who've firebombed animal research laboratories.

If you want to blast PETA, there's no shortage of issues to get off on a rant about. I can't see that this is one of them.

In a way, I am saying that.

Isn't one of the main things we're all saying in these forums is - "I think things should be done differently"? Every time someone says we shouldn't go to war, they are hoping that those pushing for war change thier minds.

[quote]Guttenberg Fan Club:
And quite possibly the most entertaining!

Yes, but that's taking a specific stance on the war, and it is not the majority stance at the moment. Nonetheless, I think if you were to poll people about whether they were concerned about the war, or about terrorism, and compare that with those who are concerned about animal rights, the numbers wouldn't even be close.

Moreover, I don't exactly find the sort of person who would bother to sign an e-mail petition to be representative of the population at large. Grown-ups, those over the age of 30, who would generally be most likely to recognize the essential pointlessness of e-mail petitions, would also be those least inclined to give a horse's ass (pardon the pun) WHAT Peta was up to. Were it not for the likes of Bill O'Reilley constantly getting their dander up about organizations like PETA, I doubt your typical American would have ever heard anything about them at all.

I can't say there's any campaign I could imagine PETA -- or any PAC for that matter -- engaging in that I'd consider terribly "productive." By design, the only product they offer the public is hot air, at best. But for those with the time, money and inclination to get involved in these efforts, I say knock yourself out.

Don't care much about the donkey. Waste of a good farm animal in my opinion.

Don't care much for PETA either. Their hearts are in the right places, but they tend to go overboard. "It's not my business to inject myself into human wars," is an odd, snooty comment to make when "PETA has no stand on the Middle East" would do. But it makes sense nonetheless. They don't need to have a position on any of this. Why should they? PETA's members may be split 50/50 on political issues but still have common cause when it comes to animal rights. That's why they banded together, after all.

Don't care for the reporter much either. Picking on PETA because they haven't said anything until now? Huh? Might as well pick on the political views of the NHL or the IAU, because what they do is just as relevant to foreign politics as what PETA does. She seems to think PETA's views should have weight and derides them at the same time. Huh?

"(Odd. No mention of our dead soldiers, MIAs, POWs or even loyal South Vietnamese allies who were left behind, but again, I digress.)...How does one respond to such moral ambiguity?"

A better question would be, why does one respond? Second-rate Coulterrorism (hah!) is what this is.

This whole thing makes me feel tired. Okay, first of all, using a donkey as a weapon is horrible, there is a bit of humour in it I will admit but it doesn't make me feel any better about the poor thing. Second, PETA may not be the most effective organization out there but at least they do manage to raise awareness with all their wierd stunts. Third, it really doesn't make sense for anyone to be upset that PETA hasn't spoken up about the things going on overseas until now, they are a small organization with their own agenda, it isn't their job to get involved with human conflict.