They are 'evil' because your friend had a hard time with two people with Peta memberships? FBI Investigation? Not ONE animal rights, environmental, workers, womens, blacks, latinos, gay...you bloody well name it is "under investigation" on a regular basis. Your a flaming cad and worse yet the people you flame arnt even here. I demonstrated all of your other sources as completely the creation of PR firms, you directly misquoted the material and now you want me to believe that an entire organization is evil because some friend of yours - {which surprises me less and less} says he wasnt neglecting his animals.

I couldnt help but notice one thing in this story youve told a few times now. The accusation the "Peta" people make to your friend isnt that there isnt any water in the trough; its that there is no H2O autofeed to the trough! Maybe thats the law (betcha it is) Your friend comes back to say "its full", well maybe it wasnt earlier. Maybe it doesnt and shouldnt matter if the trough was full or not. Maybe following the law is the important part here. (youd think being such a law man youself - such a fervant supporter of FBI investigations.)(or howzabout just the horse's well being no matter what your friend's education) Youve already demonstrated that you dont read very carefully and then make outlandish and rude statements based on completely unreliable source. I can usually live with that, but not when its founded on hogwash.

This definitely has drifted off topic, but I couldnt stand to see such unwarranted bashing of PETA without some comments for posterity. Im done.

This post has been edited by Singing Dog on Apr 7 2006, 02:30 AM

For some reason my last post...didnt.
To summarize:
"First your quote:The people who run the PETA do not care about animals. Not one bit. These are people who are affixiated on causing others grief because they have nothing better to think of with thier time. If you read the incidents about the PETA, they kill most, if not all the animals they "rescue" from bad people. Also, if you read thoughly, you'll find the story on the news about how the guys who killed the small animals and threw them in the dumpster. Illegal put downs without the use of drugs. if you read the petakillsanimals site, you'll find all the bad true stories directly from there."

This website Petakillsanimals.com is a creation of what I already stated once; is PR firm for the food industry.

This is me:
"The Center for Consumer Freedom , which is a PR firm for the food industry! Hardly an objective and reliable source! They claim PETA kills 85% of the animals that enter its Norfolk headquarters. This "fact" is completely undocumented. Nothing the sites have said have any legal creedence whatever. Wonder why its not even in the pro-corporate mainstream media? No 'respectable' media outlet accepts the site's "evidence". Its insupportable. They set it up."

Please, do me the honor of actually (and carefully) reading my posts; as much as it has already pained me, I do so for you.


This post has been edited by Singing Dog on Apr 7 2006, 02:29 AM

Right, I just use petakillsanimals beause they gather news from reliable sources and post it to the website. If you search the washington times, or any other news paper, you can see the full story. They are murders. If you want hard core proof, call the state court house where the trial was kept, I'm sure its one of the cases open to the public. Also, if you care to please take a look at the PETA's tv advertisements, you'll think a huge "wtf". yes, the real PETA tv ads, they are so pathetic. Please don't assume I'm taking data from invalid sources. Often sites like petakillsanimals just gathers data unto one site so everyone can read the trechery of a targeted organization.

I dont really understand what your motivation is to slander this organization. But I AM beginning to wonder. Yeah Well I DID go read the articles...and the follow up response by PETA. I actually read the whole thing. Goofy huh? :fool: I know thats hard. So I saved you the effort and got to the good stuff that will paint a clearer picture of the half truths and non truths Ive been reading from your recommended sources.

"PETA has provided euthanasia services to various counties in that state to prevent animals from being shot behind a shed or gassed in windowless metal boxes, both practices that were carried out until PETA volunteered to provide a painless death, free of charge. As you know, we believe euthanasia as a kindness for dogs and cats who are born into a world that doesn't want them, has not cared for them, and ultimately has abandoned them to be disposed of. We welcome discussion of this issue because the sad fact is that there too few good homes to go around, people patronize pet shops where dogs and cats can be bought on a credit card, and too few people spay and neuter their animals or keep animals for a lifetime. Although we have indeed placed dogs and cats from North Carolina in homes in fact, we have two cats and one dog from there living in our offices now. Dogs from N.C. pounds often have conditions like Parvo virus or contagious mange. Many have lived all their lives on a chain (one yesterday had a chain embedded deeply into his infected neck) and are not generally socialized or attractive to people, most of whom are looking for small, cute, housebroken puppies without medical problems. If anyone feels they can offer a home to any animal, please go to your shelters now, as there are many there who are waiting for you. PETA has certainly not created the problem of overpopulation and we seek to solve it by subsidizing spay/neuter services, but we do not and will not hesitate to roll up our sleeves and do the dirty work at our own expense, and we welcome any help. "
People for the Ethical treatment of Animals


Shame on you for calling them murderers.

SD

PS The Center for Consumer Freedom who created Petakillsanimals.com. its not a real site. Its a PR firm working for the food industry slandering PETA becasue they hate Justice inteferring with their profits and... :huh: OH! You WORK for them? NOW I Understand. I see. Nevermind. I was wondering about all those comments about " threats to our freedom that our country was built on" or some such.

This post has been edited by Singing Dog on Apr 7 2006, 05:23 AM

<_<

hah! I don't work for humans! :rolleyes: The canines are the masters. Seriously though, it doesn't give them the right to bother people who really love animals. Its like going to SF and bothering people because they are kissing in public. Also if you've read the peta site, there is tons of misinformation. They are over hyped vegetarians. If they were truely worried about what they were eating, they would also be posting information not only on vegetarian diets, but how food is grown organically/genesplicing. And they still kill animals ;) I'm a information addict on what they *try* to talk about. the peta are no better than the prs. And btw, anestesia doesn't cost much when you buy it in bulk ;) They take in way more money, and I'm still curious where it goes. Surely none of it actually gets to a decent organization like the ASPCA.

Perhaps the church officially banned it then, but it was definatly not accepted in any way before (well, perhaps long before during Roman times). Just to quote a wikipedia article (Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia - interesting to read btw):

-In 1468, Jean Beisse, accused of bestiality with a cow on one occasion and a goat on another, was first hanged, then burned (the animals were burned also).
-In 1539, Guillaume Garnier, charged with intercourse with a female dog (described as "sodomy"), was ordered strangled after he confessed under torture. The dog was burned, along with the trial records which were "too horrible and potentially dangerous to be permitted to exist" (Masters).
-In 1601, Claudine de Culam was convicted of copulating with a dog. Both the girl and the dog were first hanged, then strangled, and finally burned.

In rural areas things may have been different, but I'm not under the impression "coming out" would've been a very safe thing to do back then.

As for PETA, the former head of that organisation (Ingrid Newkirk) once seemingly spoke out in favour of bestiality (though she claimed later that that's not the case):
"If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong."
I doubt that's PETA's official standpoint, but it's interesting to point out.

I found links to detailed articles on zoo hate crime via the wikipedia definitions of words such as zoophilia...one case I remember was a man beating his son almost to death for it...at the trial, the zoophile wanted to bring his dog with into the court room (but that request was denied). might want to try looking there (wikipedia) if u still need anything..

Thank You Cetacean,

Im sure there is some explanation about Kits reading. But I had the same notion that prior to this it had to be still highly criminal. Perhaps it was tolerated in some places during the Renaissance and then when the church saw it becoming tolerated, leapt into action. There are aways these pockets of enlightenment that emerge and even sustain for a while sometimes. But the pattern is cyclic and spiral... oppression will visit those spots and try to keep them down; and it may even work...but >squidge< it'll come up elsewhere.

But I fully agree with you, it is just not imaginable from any History I have read that Beastility could have been openly tolerated on a broad cutural scale. Fantastic that you sited many examples...love you for it :wub: ...in my world...thats a 10! (though it doesnt seem to matter WHAT I vote number wise...its always only one)

Now quite outside of the 'House' definition here at beastforum, it interests me that peope would see farmers in History getting rid of excess sexual tension because he pissed off his wife and she aint having it; as any form of genuine animal interest.
I used to live in a very crude rural part of Canada, and there were always a dozen people around "known" to have been caught 'F*cking a farm animal. No one ever took it that they were zoophiles, or even beasts by any definition. They were seen as pathetic for having to cave into sex with a farm animal. An easy and hilarious target. It was seen more like masturbation, in this case in an animal. Youd be just as harassed, in similar manner if you got caught jerking off in the highschool toilet. So no one beat these peope up. They were mercilessly teased 'as if they [i] were [i/] like a zoo. Jokes abut animals as spouses or whatever. But around HALF (Shere Hite Report On Male Sexuality) of those guys who teased (and I believe more in this county Im taking about) have had sexual contact with animal too. Most of them lived on farms and most of them probably had horny and curious ideas about animals at one point or another and tried it; probably a few times. But I want to be clear about this. Knowing these people, they, by and large, were just using an animal as a sex object, a sex toy...a tool for their lonely horniness. Most of these farmers have long ago not only inured themselves to rude thoughtless treatment of their animals, but moved to outright using them as outlets for ANY feeling they have(sex through violence). Especially the socially unacceptable ones acts.

OK time to breathe...(wicked Tanzanian Peaberry Coffee gets me going) :twisted:

This post has been edited by Singing Dog on Apr 8 2006, 02:00 AM

The ancient Greeks and perhaps in a lesser extent the Romans as well didn't seem to mind bestiality all that much. A good example of this is that in many Greek myths deal with bestiality (Zeus taking the form of a swan to have sex with a woman and the human-animal hybrids such as centaurs and the minotaur). Even the word zoophilia is Greek (Zôon = animal, philia = love) and there's a famous sculpture of the Greek god Pan showing him having sex with a goat. Bestiality seems to have played a prominent role in Greek culture.

lol um I think this has been derailed :ph34r:


But back to the original topic, very sad about the sack of dead puppies and what not. I my self have never seen a zoo hate crime, but only read about them. The reason there are so few, compared to lets say gay hate crimes. Is well because most people are fine with being openly gay in the public or whatever, and society for the most part has become pretty tolerant etc.

But you do not see many people at all, of the small percent of zoos, that are openly zoo, so there for alot less people know and it doesnt happen to often.

Cetacaen,

Whereas the Greek GODS had such privelege of interspecies sex, that was just the typical 'amorality' of the Gods. The Ancient Greeks were pretty prudish from my research. They definitely saw beastiality as a paraphilia for a human to do, and such relation dehumanizing and animalizing of the person committing the act. Homosexuality, no matter what anyone says was definitely looked down upon, despite pederasty. Pan and Zeuse's sexuality are legendary, few other God's willingly copulated with animals. but its not like the repressed eroticism didnt crop up, just like in our cuture, This is scarcely a zoo positive culture (in any sense it seems) and yet you sure can find it. this forum to whit!

Roman's delighted in perversity incorrupt phases. The sex theyy had with animals seems to be based on that kink, not love or even real desire for an animal. I saw the movie Caligula, so Im an expert... :D

SD

I haven't found the original article yet but the facts on PETA's euthanasia of animals were reported in the San Francisco Chronicle June 23, 2005:

[FONT=Courier]But last week, two PETA employees were charged with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty each, after authorities found them dumping the dead bodies of 18 animals they had just picked up from a North Carolina animal shelter into a Dumpster. According to the Associated Press, 13 more dead animals were found in a van registered to PETA.

The arrest followed a rash of unwelcome discoveries of dead animals dumped in the area. According to veterinarian Patrick Proctor, the PETA people told North Carolina shelters they would try to find the dogs and cats homes. He handed over two adoptable kittens and their mother, only to learn later that they had died, without a chance to find a home, in the PETA van. "This is ethical?" Proctor railed over the phone. "I don't really think so."

This is not the first report that PETA killed animals it claimed to protect. In 1991, PETA killed 18 rabbits and 14 roosters it had previously "rescued" from a research facility. "We just don't have the money" to care for them, then PETA-Chairman Alex Pacheco told the Washington Times. The PETA animal shelter had run out of room.

[font=times] PETA employees and members have had association with ALF, which breaks into and thrashes research labs, farms, mink ranches and other animal industry sites (including dairies). Hence there is an FBI investigation.

Newkirk did make zoo-neutral statements but they were later retracted and disowned by the organization, as Peter Singer was lambasted for his position that bestiality might not be so bad.
PETA , HSUS, Animal legal defense fund, and other animal [SPAM] have all been supporters and initiators of criminalization of bestiality laws in the USA. These [SPAM] are not friendly to us, nor do they take a neutral stance. Lets look at what was said in WA state recently:

or this from Answers.com

HSUS in 2000 had produced the model anti-zoo law and ALDF has pursued that legislation ever since. Both [SPAM] were involved in introducing Oregon's anti-zoo law in 2002.

Again, don't support these [SPAM]. They are opposed to us and our interests.

THANK YOU Lugarou for posting that second quote. So often I've seen organisations refer to this research of course without providing a link to it, I guess this explains why.

For me personally, I have never had any "hate crimes" against me for me being a zoophile.

Most of the time, if someone is beaten down, the police need to know what the reason was for and most of the time, when zoophilia is mentioned, they keep it quiet and make up some other reason because assult no matter the reason for it is illegal and people know that.
If they tell the police that it was for that reason, it would be my guess that the police would join in the beating and just say you tried to hit one of them.

I have had people make fun of me and even threaten me but nothing has ever come of it so as for me personally, I have not had to deal with it but would like to know as well if these things happen because it would help my project as well.

As Wirehair... if you have information that you don't care to share in the forum, you may write me directly.

i went to answers.com and found the quote you included in your last post. i strongly advise you to go back to it and click on references #5 and 6. answers.com twisted what PETA said. number 5 is a copy of a letter written to asst state attorney of florida regarding a man having sex with a dog. there are no case particulars described, so i can not make a judgement as to whether or not this was truly a sexual assault. here is the pertinent excerpt from PETA's letter:

Mental health professionals and top law enforcement officials consider cruelty to animals, including zoophilia, to be a red flag. The American Psychiatric Association identifies all forms of animal abuse as diagnostic criteria for conduct disorders, and the FBI uses reports of animal abuse in analyzing the threat potential of suspected and known criminals. A recent study by Jory, Flemming, and Burton shows that 96 percent of offenders who had engaged in bestiality also admitted to sexual assaults on humans. Experts agree that it is the severity of the behavior, not the species of the victim, that matters.

that is quite different from what they said PETA wrote.

excert #6 is from the jory, flemming, burton study PETA cites above:

Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders Admitting to Sexual Activity with Nonhuman Animals

This study compared the family characteristics, victimization histories, and number of perpetration offenses of juvenile offenders who admitted to having had sex with animals to juvenile offenders who did not. The study found that 96% of the juveniles who had engaged in sex with nonhuman animals also admitted to sex offenses against humans and reported more offenses against humans than other sex offenders their same age and race. Those juveniles who had engaged in sex with animals were similar to other sex offenders in that they also came from families with less affirming and more incendiary communication, lower attachment, less adaptability, and less positive environments. Those juveniles who had engaged in sex with animals reported victimization histories with more emotional abuse and neglect and a higher number of victimization events than other offenders. This would seem to indicate that sex with animals may be an important indicator of potential or co-occurring sex offenses against humans and may be a sign of severe family dysfunction and abuse that should be addressed in the arenas of psychological intervention, juvenile justice programs, and public policy.

in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this study alone. although FBI studies i have read indicate that about 50% of juvenile sex offenders have also violated animals. the FBI also notes that this is most likely under reported. these are juvenile offenders with psychological problems. studying a group of known juvenile offenders will give you much different results than studying a population without a criminal history who engage in bestiality and especially zoophilia. that's where PETA made a mistake. *could* have been an honest mistake. we should not make the mistake of assuming that all human/animal sexual contact is NOT harmful.

although PETA played loose with the facts of a study, answers.com completely distorted what PETA said. and it is not surprising because if you scroll to the bottom of the page you will find a long list of books, articles, documentaries that appear to be all PRO bestiality/zoophilia. looks like our community is just as guilty at twisting facts. my mind is completely unfettered of any sort of allegiance to any group. i am purely "just the facts maam". this is why i have i have problems with the AR [SPAM]. often they have pledged allegiance despite facts. i know for a fact that some of the local animal rights people that i have worked with have deliberately lied or exaggerated a story to further their cause. i have a huge problem with that. i hope this group will not make the same mistake.

my education is in social sciences (political science, psychology and sociology). i am very familiar with social research, propaganda and how statistics can be used to further one's point of view, therefore i am skeptical of EVERYTHIING that i read. everyone should be.

as for supporting AR [SPAM], they are just like any political candidate that you would vote for. the candidate will not always agree with you and i can pretty much guarantee none will support zoo interests but there will be shared common ground somewhere. i am confident that every member of this forum would approve of at least one PETA campaign. i HATE defending PETA. they have had embarrassingly bad insensitive campaigns like the pro-vegetarian billboards in milwaukee making a connection between meat eating and serial murderer & cannibal jeffrey dahmer. and they promote vegan diets among dogs and cats but for the most part i share their feelings about animals.

lassie13