This was a feat of ELF, not PETA. Yes, PETA gave them money. That does not necessarily mean that they knew exactly what was going on. If I give you a candy bar, and you trade it for a rifle, which you in turn shoot people with, am I a murderer? Just a thought...
I know PETA is an extremist group, that is why they are effective. That is not really an issue in question, despite the tone of the article.
The real issue lies in the fact that they were distributing funds to other organizations while maintaining a non-profit taxation status.
Just clarifying... it seems like the statement "PETA must die" is a bit of an over-reaction.
Oh, bullshit. You mean to say that when a radical animal rights group, known to advocate terrorism, gave money to a known environmental terrorist organization, they had NO IDEA what the money would be used for?
As an active member of PETA, I can assure you that they do not advocate terrorism. Perhaps you should turn off your television, and stop being brainwashed by capitalist media.
Clearly you aren't interested in (or capable of) rational discussion. Therefore:
*sigh* Dumbfuck liberal. If I believed in God, I'd thank him that the lot of you haven't succeeded in reducing us all to vegan, pagan, doubletalking lesbians. As it is, I have only my fellow humans (some of them, at least) to thank for that.. but I am thankful, nonetheless.
WOW, that comment was incredibly offensive, on many levels. Just because you perceive that someone isn't capcable of rational discussion, doesn't mean you should sling around the insults. It only invalidates your argument, IMHO.
I sincerely hope so; one good turn (or not) deserves another.
As to my argument, it's already been made, and no one has refuted it, unless you count kneejerk accusations of brainwashing. If you consider facts less important in an argument than an insincere veneer of politeness, then I must question your capabilities also.
Unless you're working off of at minimum more then the foxnews article then you definitely do not have enough information to make that judgement. So no your point isn't terribly valid or relevent as you're only saying "in my opinion surely they would have known what the money was going to be used for", and though it's nice of you to weigh in with your opinion, you don't have an argument to base it on, at least not one that you've presented.
And politeness is perhaps the most important aspect of rational discourse. Without it the actual topic, and the facts, are quickly obscured by personal attacks, and your own hatred of the person presenting the opposing view will make you irrational.
In my opinion PETA knew what the money was for.. kind of like how in my opinion, the sky is blue. Are you saying that when PETA gave away thousands of dollars, they had no idea what it was for? Did they just do it on a whim? Did those people win the PETA lottery or something?
PETA gave the money to terrorists. They're the ones holding the smoking gun here. I'm not the one whose views need defending. If PETA or its near-sighted apologists want to challenge my argument, they could start by explaining what the money WAS intended for.
One other thing: I love how I'm being criticized for the content of my comments, while no one EXCEPT me sees fit to criticize miss "I love PETA and you're brainwashed retards!" here. Why don't you people lecture her? Is it because you consider her utterly beneath you and unworthy of any response.. or because you're in the habit of using liberal thought-police dodges to dismiss opposing viewpoints without having to form a credible counterargument?
Well of course not, dearie! I've been brainwashed by the capitalist media working through the television (that I hardly ever watch), remember? How could I make a coherent argument against a near-criminal organization when I'm just some industry's handpuppet?
So then it would be okay for a group to give money to Hamas since in addition to blowing up buses and restaurants they offer education to the poor? I mean, after all, the group giving the money isn't the terrorist group!
b)I think you're missing my point. First, PETA did not allocate the usage of the money (as far as we know). Secondly, the real issue in this, the reason PETA is being investigated, is because they GAVE money away. They're a non-profit. Non-profits can't distribute money to other non-profits. If they do, uncle sam thinks they are a "for-profit" venture, therefore, they should be paying taxes. As opposed to non-profits, who don't pay taxes. [read: the issue here, regardless of the journalist's cheap attempts to play to irrational human emotion, is one of taxation, or, essentially, tax evasion.]
Of course I read the article. I'm just curious if you have.
The real issue is why did PETA give money to a man who has attempted to murder a medical researcher? They donated $7,500 dollars to his defense fund. This man was convicted btw.
PETA's leadership has shown their true colours time and time again. They disgrace everything that animal rights should stand for. Their tactics are failing and yet people still give them money. Have you asked the leaders of PETA why they support a group who destroyed an innocent family's home? (http://web.archive.org/web/20010713205136/http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2000/06/11/sunmag/features/eco.htm)
PETA should not have given ANY money whatseover to the ELF. If they are truly supportive of animal rights they should have known better. I'm very hopeful that their tax exempt status gets thrown out.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
k... hold on a second.
I know PETA is an extremist group, that is why they are effective. That is not really an issue in question, despite the tone of the article.
The real issue lies in the fact that they were distributing funds to other organizations while maintaining a non-profit taxation status.
Just clarifying... it seems like the statement "PETA must die" is a bit of an over-reaction.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-17 03:25 pm (UTC)"a radical animal rights group, known to advocate terrorism"
As an active member of PETA, I can assure you that they do not advocate terrorism. Perhaps you should turn off your television, and stop being brainwashed by capitalist media.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-17 11:43 pm (UTC)*sigh* Dumbfuck liberal. If I believed in God, I'd thank him that the lot of you haven't succeeded in reducing us all to vegan, pagan, doubletalking lesbians. As it is, I have only my fellow humans (some of them, at least) to thank for that.. but I am thankful, nonetheless.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 12:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 12:30 am (UTC)As to my argument, it's already been made, and no one has refuted it, unless you count kneejerk accusations of brainwashing. If you consider facts less important in an argument than an insincere veneer of politeness, then I must question your capabilities also.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 04:03 am (UTC)And politeness is perhaps the most important aspect of rational discourse. Without it the actual topic, and the facts, are quickly obscured by personal attacks, and your own hatred of the person presenting the opposing view will make you irrational.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 12:03 pm (UTC)PETA gave the money to terrorists. They're the ones holding the smoking gun here. I'm not the one whose views need defending. If PETA or its near-sighted apologists want to challenge my argument, they could start by explaining what the money WAS intended for.
One other thing: I love how I'm being criticized for the content of my comments, while no one EXCEPT me sees fit to criticize miss "I love PETA and you're brainwashed retards!" here. Why don't you people lecture her? Is it because you consider her utterly beneath you and unworthy of any response.. or because you're in the habit of using liberal thought-police dodges to dismiss opposing viewpoints without having to form a credible counterargument?
Re:
Date: 2002-09-18 12:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 01:06 pm (UTC)*rolls eyes*
Re: k... hold on a second.
Date: 2002-09-17 04:00 pm (UTC)I mean, after all, the group giving the money isn't the terrorist group!
Re: k... hold on a second.
Date: 2002-09-17 04:54 pm (UTC)b)I think you're missing my point. First, PETA did not allocate the usage of the money (as far as we know). Secondly, the real issue in this, the reason PETA is being investigated, is because they GAVE money away. They're a non-profit. Non-profits can't distribute money to other non-profits. If they do, uncle sam thinks they are a "for-profit" venture, therefore, they should be paying taxes. As opposed to non-profits, who don't pay taxes. [read: the issue here, regardless of the journalist's cheap attempts to play to irrational human emotion, is one of taxation, or, essentially, tax evasion.]
Did you read the article??!
Re: k... hold on a second.
Date: 2002-09-17 06:13 pm (UTC)The real issue is why did PETA give money to a man who has attempted to murder a medical researcher? They donated $7,500 dollars to his defense fund. This man was convicted btw.
PETA's leadership has shown their true colours time and time again. They disgrace everything that animal rights should stand for. Their tactics are failing and yet people still give them money. Have you asked the leaders of PETA why they support a group who destroyed an innocent family's home? (http://web.archive.org/web/20010713205136/http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2000/06/11/sunmag/features/eco.htm)
PETA should not have given ANY money whatseover to the ELF. If they are truly supportive of animal rights they should have known better. I'm very hopeful that their tax exempt status gets thrown out.
Re: k... hold on a second.
Date: 2002-09-18 12:08 pm (UTC)