ForumGarden

FROM FOX NEWS



Radical animal-rights activists may be the last people you'd think would be planning school lessons for your children. Well, think again.

Through its innocuous-sounding "educational" programming arm known as TeachKind, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has found a way to reach school children starting as young as kindergarten with its extremist agenda. The opportunity for PETA (:siteSearch('PETA');">search) to gets its message into the classroom has been paved, at least in part, by various laws on the books in at least 12 states mandating humane education in public schools ” thus creating a demand for curricula centered on teaching children about the humane treatment of animals.



Naturally, PETA is only too happy to provide ready-made lesson plans, videos and handouts to already overworked teachers.



"Kids who hurt animals may be on a dangerous path that will only get worse if it is not corrected. Psychiatrists, FBI profilers and law enforcement officials have repeatedly documented that kids who abuse animals rarely stop there," TeachKind warns.



Its fact sheet, entitled "Animal Abuse and Human Abuse: Partners in Crime," points out that "violent acts toward animals have long been recognized as indicators of a dangerous psychopathy that does not confine itself to animals," and goes on to detail how many notorious school shooters, including Columbine's Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were known to mutilate animals prior to their attacks on humans.



Full Story

The day any, and I mean ANY PETA material is taught in my son's school, I pull him out and home-school him. Period.

Is there an address to which one can send contributions? Do they take Paypal? The fewer people who pay for factory-farmed-animal products, the better the world becomes. I'm sure education is a major factor in reaching that state.

Spot are you being sarcastic? Please tell me you are.

If you don't know about PETA, please research them a bit further. These whackos are not good for anyone.

I've read some of their handouts. I've watched some of their publicity stunts. I've never seen anything about them that I disliked. They talk at length, and reasonably, about sub-A4 footprint battery chicken units, and growth promotors. What should I have noticed, specifically?

Well, do you have pets? If you do, then you are deemed "immoral" by PETA.

In an interview a few years back, the president of the organization was interviewed and asked if she was driving down the street and had to swerve to miss a dog, but found a child in her path, would she hit the dog or the kid? She was unable to answer the question. I will try to find that interview and post you a link.

PETA and affiliates make me mental.

Here in Cowtown we have the Calgary Stampede and every freakin year they hang out like vultures waiting for cowboys to hurt the animals. Cripe these cowboys are professionals who have roped, rode, tied animals all their lives. Any animal injury is an accident, it is not bloody abuse.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr If they came to jr.s school I think I would have to show up as the ever miserable Mrs. Minks and tick a few more officials off.

I don't keep a pet. Pets tend to be carnivores. Either I'd have to buy dead meat in tins for it, or I'd have to send it outdoors to destroy wildlife for sustenance.

I don't see that a child's life is more valuable in any sense than a dog's, and you did say that the hypothetical driver would have to deliberately choose to avoid the dog, in order to hit the child. I think, were I that driver, I'd go for the dog as the default, since it was in my way. I'm glad I don't drive, drivers tend to be involved in death more often than I'd want to.

If the dog were, instead, replaced by an endangered species of mammal, I'd swerve. Humans are not remotely endangered.

I'm not concerned so much with the quantity of life as the quality. Caged birds get up my nose, and anyone who makes a fuss about it is on the side of the Angels. Sheep on hillsides are fine by me. I eat sheep. I may stop drinking milk from massively-uddered cows, though, if they get much more obscenely engrossed.

spot wrote: I've read some of their handouts. I've watched some of their publicity stunts. I've never seen anything about them that I disliked. They talk at length, and reasonably, about sub-A4 footprint battery chicken units, and growth promotors. What should I have noticed, specifically?Spot:

How about this link from a PETA site.

http://www.teachkind.org/feat/mlk/index.html



It starts out as a Martin Luther King Jr. citizenship skills page and goes right into attacking big companies for testing on animals... Bull Puck Puck. A kid goes there to learn abt Dr, King and gets the Peta brainwashing in the art of protesting and boycotting. From the third lesson on it is ALL ANTI big business...........Brainwashing.

They just used Dr. King as a ploy to get them there.... BAITED SITE

All these wackos are ANTI business. They LONG for everyone to be a third world country again. To do this "brainwash the young."

Here are some of their lessons for TEACHERS to downlod:

http://www.teachkind.org/onlinelessons.asp#pedagogy



How about this brainwashing...........MEET YOUR MEAT.

http://www.teachkind.org/pdf/meetyourmeat.pdf



Sorry you struck a chord with me and their propaganda STUNTS

BTS, wasn't that you who posted the link to the President's will? Now THAT showed what a true whacko is all about. I'd like to see that up here again.

(Holy crap, something BTS and I agree on! :yh_bigsmi )

Thank you BTS, I checked all those links. I'd be happy to associate myself with any of them, they seem laudable.

spot wrote: Thank you BTS, I checked all those links. I'd be happy to associate myself with any of them, they seem laudable.Well....I guess that says it all...... :yh_eyerol

minks wrote: Here in Cowtown we have the Calgary StampedeTell me, how many of the animals involved are volunteers? I accept that, these days, they're "owned", but there must be some limit to what you can do with cattle. Just saying that it's in their playful nature to be rassled to the ground doesn't quite cut it.

spot wrote: The fewer people who pay for factory-farmed-animal products, the better the world becomes. I'm sure education is a major factor in reaching that state.
can you explain your rationale for the first sentence?

anastrophe wrote: can you explain your rationale for the first sentence?I can try.

The world becomes better as the quality of life of its residents improves. The world becomes worse as the quality of life of its residents diminishes.

Both factory-farmed-animals and non-factory-farmed-animals reside in the world.

Factory-farmed-animals have a lower quality of life than animals which are not factory-farmed.

The fewer people who pay for factory-farmed-animal products, the lower will be the proportion of life that is factory-farmed.

spot wrote: I can try.



The world becomes better as the quality of life of its residents improves. The world becomes worse as the quality of life of its residents diminishes.



Both factory-farmed-animals and non-factory-farmed-animals reside in the world.



Factory-farmed-animals have a lower quality of life than animals which are not factory-farmed.
while many factory farmed animals do indeed have a lower quality of life than non-factory farmed animals, that is not always or demonstrably the case.



if all factory farms increased the quality of life of the animals raised there to approximately or equal to the quality of life of non-factory farmed animals, would that satisfy your objections?

spot wrote: I can try.



The world becomes better as the quality of life of its residents improves. The world becomes worse as the quality of life of its residents diminishes.



Both factory-farmed-animals and non-factory-farmed-animals reside in the world.



Factory-farmed-animals have a lower quality of life than animals which are not factory-farmed.



The fewer people who pay for factory-farmed-animal products, the lower will be the proportion of life that is factory-farmed.
Just a few questions............. Please define factory-farmed-animals as opposed to Non-factory-farmed-animals...

Are you saying that it is more economical to raise them in a Non-factory-farmed enviroment?

I think the term "factory-farmed-animal" is a BUZZ word that needs to be defined.

How much would a # of chicken be if it were raised in a Non-factory-farm enviroment.

CHEAPER?

Tad bit more?

OR outa the PARK?

anastrophe wrote: while many factory farmed animals do indeed have a lower quality of life than non-factory farmed animals, that is not always or demonstrably the case.



if all factory farms increased the quality of life of the animals raised there to approximately or equal to the quality of life of non-factory farmed animals, would that satisfy your objections?I might want to see the specified minimum farm standard but, in principle, yes. I don't want bio-engineered animals on these farms, I don't want genetic modification or extreme focused breeding, I don't want high-dose fertilizers or antibiotics or hormones, but so long as you're not being tricksy and these are traditionally-farmed traditional animals then fine, all objections removed. They can all die prematurely for the table and I'll not blink once.

BTS wrote: FROM FOX NEWS



Radical animal-rights activists may be the last people you'd think would be planning school lessons for your children. Well, think again.

Through its innocuous-sounding "educational" programming arm known as TeachKind, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has found a way to reach school children starting as young as kindergarten with its extremist agenda. The opportunity for PETA (:siteSearch('PETA');">search) to gets its message into the classroom has been paved, at least in part, by various laws on the books in at least 12 states mandating humane education in public schools ” thus creating a demand for curricula centered on teaching children about the humane treatment of animals.



Naturally, PETA is only too happy to provide ready-made lesson plans, videos and handouts to already overworked teachers.



"Kids who hurt animals may be on a dangerous path that will only get worse if it is not corrected. Psychiatrists, FBI profilers and law enforcement officials have repeatedly documented that kids who abuse animals rarely stop there," TeachKind warns.



Its fact sheet, entitled "Animal Abuse and Human Abuse: Partners in Crime," points out that "violent acts toward animals have long been recognized as indicators of a dangerous psychopathy that does not confine itself to animals," and goes on to detail how many notorious school shooters, including Columbine's Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were known to mutilate animals prior to their attacks on humans.



Full Story
a few comments on this.



while i generally am quite opposed to PETA for their hostile and sometimes violent actions against people with whom they disagree, and the fact that they take extra-legal actions in pursuit of their goals, that doesn't mean that everything they say or do is therefore wrong.



there is a lot of known correlation between *cruelty* to animals by children and later sociopathic behaviors. note, it's a correlation, it's not proven to be a cause or necessarily a contributing factor. i know when i was a child, i committed an act of cruelty to an animal - pouring salt on a snail to watch it dissolve. i did not feel good afterwards, and have never been cruel to an animal again. those who are cruel to animals offend me deeply, to the point of wanting to do violence to the perpetrators if i ever got a chance (e.g. group of young men who tied kittens to the back of a car and drove around for a while, until there was essentially nothing left of the kitten - i'd happily do the same to the perpetrators themselves).



that said, i don't believe that killing animals is necessarily cruelty. everything dies, eventually. without death, there is no life, period. killing animals so that i can have a carnitas quesadilla does not offend my sensibilities at all. someday my corporeal form will feed other living things. PETA, however, does not accept any killing of animals, which is fine, but they also do not believe that anyone else should ever kill animals - also fine, until they actively try to interfere with my (right? privilege?) to eat meat or use animal products.



plants are alive also. you have to kill the wheat plant to enjoy that loaf of bread. killing is killing - just because the wheat doesn't cry out when it's killed doesn't mean that it's any less a taking of life. when PETA starts fighting to stop all killing, then i'll consider listening. though they won't last very long without food, so it'll be a pretty small window of time during which i'll be able to listen....

spot wrote: I might want to see the specified minimum farm standard but, in principle, yes. I don't want bio-engineered animals on these farms, I don't want genetic modification or extreme focused breeding, I don't want high-dose fertilizers or antibiotics or hormones, but so long as you're not being tricksy and these are traditionally-farmed traditional animals then fine, all objections removed. They can all die prematurely for the table and I'll not blink once.
i'm in complete agreement.



make a note of the time and date. this is a historic moment at ForumGarden.

anastrophe wrote: i'm in complete agreement.



make a note of the time and date. this is a historic moment at ForumGarden.SO NOTED.......................

BTS wrote: Just a few questions............. Please define factory-farmed-animals as opposed to Non-factory-farmed-animals...You could do this yourself, it's so obvious. Something like:


animals confined with little or no access to sunlight

limited room for natural movement

overuse of antibiotics to combat the conditions

food borne illnesses resulting from cost-effective substitutes to a natural diet

disposal problems from overdensity - lakes of urine and heaps of manure

mutilation to fit the animal to the environment - debeaking poultry, clipping pigs' tails and teeth, docking cows' tails


BTS wrote: Are you saying that it is more economical to raise them in a Non-factory-farmed enviroment?Not for the business raising them.

BTS wrote: I think the term "factory-farmed-animal" is a BUZZ word that needs to be defined.Well, I did try.

BTS wrote: How much would a # of chicken be if it were raised in a Non-factory-farm enviroment.

CHEAPER?

Tad bit more?

OR outa the PARK?People bought chicken long long before any stinking profiteer thought of turning their conditions into a living hell. Then greed stepped in, and the legislators stood back.

anastrophe wrote: i'm in complete agreement.



make a note of the time and date. this is a historic moment at ForumGarden.Go and have a try at my cartoon, then. It (the cartoon, not your agreement) is worrying me.

spot wrote:



People bought chicken long long before any stinking profiteer thought of turning their conditions into a living hell. Then greed stepped in, and the legislators stood back.
OK.......... But how much is a # of chicken in a Non-factory-farmed enviroment?

Do you eat chicken?

BTS wrote: OK.......... But how much is a # of chicken in a Non-factory-farmed enviroment?

Do you eat chicken?I do not eat chickens in restaurants, I don't know where they've been.

I've never in my life used a fast food outlet.

Most of the meat I cook comes from one source, http://www.sheepdroveshop.com which is 400 yards from here. Their farm is in Lambourne, 50 miles toward London, and I've called in there several times. The chickens do, as they claim, have trees for shelter and comfort, and plenty of space out of their coops. They have established pecking orders, they look healthy, I'm still glad I'm not a bird.

The shop price is about double that of supermarket birds.

I have several recipes that I cook which include chicken. I'm good in the kitchen, as are my children.

Interesting points. Must admit I was surprised when children in my daughter`s class at school (some years ago when she was about 10 or 11) were TAUGHT that "eating meat is WRONG". Excuse me, I thought it was a matter of OPINION and children shouldn`t be endoctrinated with teacher`s own personal hang-ups?!

I tend to despise the PETA group...in more ways than one. Below is a great link.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

People seem recently to be more prone to giving their opinion without their reasons for holding it. The reasons, rather than the bald announcement, would be more conducive to discussion.

No need to give a reason...their whole sick reputation speaks for itself. The recent link also just showed how hypocritical they really are.

oh.. I enjoy PETA... = People Eating Tasty Animals

spot wrote: People seem recently to be more prone to giving their opinion without their reasons for holding it. The reasons, rather than the bald announcement, would be more conducive to discussion.
Ok a few reasons why I think Peta is a American Bashing bunch of Bull Puck Puck..............



When images of American POWs brutalized by Saddam’s regime came back from the war zone -- reminding us of mankind’s capacity for barbarism -- PETA loudly fretted that the hens used by the army to detect chemical weapons “never enlisted” and that the dolphins locating deadly mines in the Persian Gulf “have not volunteered.”

Heaven forbid they save an AMERICANS life doing it.



Having proclaimed the life of a roaster chicken to be as valuable as that of a person trapped inside a collapsing skyscraper or imprisoned in a death camp, a murder victim, a federal worker in Oklahoma City, or an innocent Israeli civilian, PETA continues to place greater value on a dolphin than on a ship packed with American soldiers. “I don't believe that people have the right to life,” Newkirk has said. “That’s a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”

In this sense, Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden may be seen as heroes to PETA. By taking thousands of humans out of the food chain, they saved far more chickens and cows than they killed people.



Where as peta is killing thousands of animals every year and the numbers are climbing.

Hypocritical eh?

greydeadhead wrote: oh.. I enjoy PETA... = People Eating Tasty Animals:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

*gasp*

:yh_rotfl

oh stop...it hurts to laugh that hard!!!

spot wrote: People seem recently to be more prone to giving their opinion without their reasons for holding it. The reasons, rather than the bald announcement, would be more conducive to discussion. These actual quotes are good enough reason for me too......



“If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it. [click here to listen]” ” Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s vegan campaign coordinator, at the “Animal Rights 2001” conference





“Serving a burger to your family today, knowing what we know, constitutes child abuse. You might as well give them weed killer. ” ” Toni Vernelli, then-coordinator of PETA’s European operations





“Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” ” PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue





“Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.” ” Ingrid Newkirk, in the April 8, 2002 issue of US News & World Report









“I will be the last person to condemn ALF .” ” Ingrid Newkirk, in the New York Daily News, December 7, 1997





“McVeigh's decision to go vegetarian groups him with some of the world's greatest visionaries.” ” Bruce Friedrich praising Oklahoma City bomber and mass-murderer Timothy McVeigh, for choosing a vegetarian last meal