All those with strong stomachs.

What has humanity come to!? Are we truly monsters of animal cruelty and abuse? Apparently so, according to this video....That's just horrifying.

*pukes*
Holy crap.
What the heck?
This needs to stop.

Ok, I made it all the way until the movie stopped, I have a very strong stomach but I do agree, this needs to stop.
*signs the petition*

^^^Please refrain from using too much vulgar language.

Like I said before that's how they make a living,plus they're not paid enough to care.Then again there aren't too many rules in those place,why that may be an illegal furring camp or the authorities are being bribed to look the other way.

poleio - Watch the language! Deleting...

I think I'll pass on the video. I could stomach it, but these things just stay in my head for ages if I do, like the time when I watched a video about abortions which displayed numerous pieces of aborted babies (no joke).

That is definitely cruelty. However, you have to blame the regular people for wanting that kind of stuff. Fur is a necessity for people so thus you can't blame just those who skin the animals, but those wear them

Wait v gamer used more perfainty then I did

There's not much of a debate here, but that's because I don't think anyone would disagree with me that what they're doing is grossly inhumane. I mean, if they had to kill it, they should just use lethal injections or even just shoot (to end its life quickly with considerably less pain) it in a place that will be inconspicuous in the fur.

Since there's not much of a debate with this topic (I was tempted to play devil's advocate, but I just can't think of anything to justify this), I propose that we refocus to PETA's general methods towards reaching goals. I'll start with this. Do the ends justify the means in PETA's other (i.e. not the raccoon thing) campaigns?

Personally, though, I don't like fur because it looks stupid, not because some raccoon got beat up.

I believe that peta is focusing on just how animals are badly treated,why sometimes I think they create the cruelty themselves and record when there isn't enough evidence to back whatever up.I also think their method of going out and telling little kids that their parents kill animals is just really low.Besides technically everything we eat,we killed (plants count).

On 20-Nov-2009 pwnthemonkeys said:

I believe that peta is focusing on just how animals are badly treated,why sometimes I think they create the cruelty themselves and record when there isn't enough evidence to back whatever up.I also think their method of going out and telling little kids that their parents kill animals is just really low.Besides technically everything we eat,we killed (plants count).

Actually, chicken eggs are not alive because they have not been fertilized.

Physically they're not alive,but there are still cells that multiply and create the needed (what's the word) nutrients(?) to create life.So you're kind of killing something (the cells),then again what you defy as living would change this argument.

On 20-Nov-2009 pwnthemonkeys said:

Physically they're not alive,but there are still cells that multiply and create the needed (what's the word) nutrients(?) to create life.So you're kind of killing something (the cells),then again what you defy as living would change this argument.

An egg is a singe cell, believe it or not.

Oh,shi...I forgot,my bad,my brain just deleted all of my Bio teachings.

Not everything is living,but we do kill numerous things that we eat.You can't stop humans or other living things from eating other living things.

On 19-Nov-2009 poleio said:

Wait v gamer used more perfainty then I did

Heh, tu quoque fallacy. ;) What I did may have been worse than what you said, however, um... I gave warnings...? I don't know. But because I did so doesn't mean it's necessarily a right thing to do.

Also, *profanity


My story is similar to Volke's: I've seen gross videos in the past, but like Volke, anything I see will stick with me. Albeit gross and though I was able to stomach it, the video was simply disturbing; I constantly thought about it during school and was therefore often distracted.

Heh, we need to rework the D&D rules since most likely, it's going to be more of a "Serious Business" forum than debates anymore...

Anyway, I almost stopped right when the guy hammered the raccoon onto the ground. But I made it to where the naked raccoons were.

It's not all lost though, because I recently read a news story about a Christian convert who's pretty high in the government and he's speaking his mind to people. There could be a huge change coming soon.

On 21-Nov-2009 tbug2007 said:

Heh, we need to rework the D&D rules since most likely, it's going to be more of a "Serious Business" forum than debates anymore...

Anyway, I almost stopped right when the guy hammered the raccoon onto the ground. But I made it to where the naked raccoons were.

It's not all lost though, because I recently read a news story about a Christian convert who's pretty high in the government and he's speaking his mind to people. There could be a huge change coming soon.

I don't know...China's official religion is state atheism, and I don't think that a single Christian will have any real influence. Also, if China has issues with human rights at the moment, why would animal rights have any sort of priority.

« Last edited by rate_me on Nov 21st 2009 »

No, Tbug, they really don't need reworking, as the "serious business" threads that get chucked in here either die after a few days, or they turn into a debate. These threads deserve perhaps a footnote, which I will work in at some point if I get a chance, but really they're not that much different from other threads that are posted in here. Serious discussion doesn't last long when everybody completely agrees with each other, and debates are the natural result of serious discussion when people don't completely agree.

Also... sorry, but the fact that there's a Christian convert in the government means absolutely nothing. Doubtless there have been other equally moral people in the government before (or indeed, more moral people if they were speaking their minds without having converted to Christianity and gaining a sudden fear of hellfire if they didn't do so) who have not succeeded in changing the Communist Party's views on various bigger issues of society, much less the fur trade. If you can't persuade them to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, what makes you think they're more likely to listen to some undefined list of "animal rights"? (These vary by country and don't have any sort of universal theme behind them in many cases, hence the "undefined".)

The guy is working on the country as a whole, and you're right :P

On 21-Nov-2009 tbug2007 said:

The guy is working on the country as a whole, and you're right :P

Forgive me if I doubt the ability of a single zealot to change the course of the largest single totalitarian establishment in the world. Entire governments have bent their collective wills towards the Chinese in the past, hoping to effect a change in the country's totalitarian methods, but even in the run up to the Olympics - probably their biggest publicity stunt of the century - they still continued with their previous course aside from minor "cosmetic" changes.

This man would stand near enough no chance in any other country to change its government's way of thinking single-handedly, and he stands absolutely no chance when the state-controlled media of the Chinese means that he can't even gain popular support against the Communists' methods.

The Chinese government hasn't exactly got the best record for listening to people. When some people complained about the olympics did they listen and take their comments on board or did they send them to detetion camps? (a clue, its the second one), this bloke has no chance. You said he's pretty high up and I do feel that just been pretty high up he isn't going to be in a position to make any changes at all. Besides even if he is influential enough, I would have hoped he would be dealing with some of the human rights abuses first and then tackling these other issues. Also agree with what Cath has already stated.

If you don't like the fur trade then obviously don't buy fur and try to educate other people as to what really goes on but it needs to be done in a sensitive way, simply telling everyone that they are murderers if they don't oppose it just isn't going to work, as pwnthemonkeys said that thing about telling children was just wrong in itself. I know I'd respond better to it been done that way.