Jump to content

Save the Sea Kittens!!!!

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

PETA strikes again. This morning, on the way home from work, NPR had an item about Old George, the 20+ lb lobster in the NYC restaurant. The owners allowed PETA to return Old George to the sea, because he was somewhere between 100-150 years old.


Pack, we missed some nice aged lobstah that could have fed you, Gonzo myeslf and the families for a nice dinner.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Not a law, but campstaff skits???

Anyway, Pack, some of the others, and I like belonging to PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals). Just because it has the same acronym as the other, doesn't mean we are making fun of them,. Well maybe. Heck, definitely, but all in jest. I wonder how Langley feels about CIA (Central Insurance Agency), CIA (Culinary Institue of America), etc. I'm sure they privately behind the backs of the others, make fun in jest.


I'll take a peek into some of the other Bush/Obama bashing, and other making fun of threads to see if the same question has been posted there.


Let those without sin (earth based, Christain, Jewish Muslim, etc) cast the first stone. I'm now ducking for cover from those first cast stones now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I think Gern is trying to remind us to be careful about making insensitive statements toward people who hold very devout and personal beliefs. And, assuming I'm correct in that assertion, I get the point. His comment would apply equally, say, to remarks about the ideas of people who believe in geocentrism, or a flat earth, or creationism, faith healing, or name-a-religion. And I plead guilty when those beliefs directly affect my actions and goals, especially if such things are pushed in the legal arena.

When confronted with non-rational arguments, rational counter arguments don't work well. Satire and ridicule make the point much more effectively. This is the essence of employing reductio ad absurdum to their arguments and the beauty of the approach is that by confronting them with logical extremes, THEIR arguments are the ones that seem absurd as a result. Their hurt feelings should be an indication to THEM that they need to re-examine THEIR ideas.


In this case the idea that we should be humane (this is a mercurial concept in itself) to other creatures has been taken by PETA (the 'real' PETA) to extreme, and IMHO, superficial and idiotic ends. I doubt that many of the PETA members actually understand the philosophical threads that have led to these positions. At least I have met quite a few who don't. And I tend to ridicule them. Same as the snake handlers, faith healers, creationists, geocentrists, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...