community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Furs!
by CalTechGuy
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 8:40 AM
They're back....
Has anyone else noticed the huge increase in the number of fur coats this winter? I thought society finally grew up and realized that furs do nothing but cause the death and maming of innocent animals. I guess we'll never learn....I think we should re-educate the public on this one. Comments?
Furs?
by Jackel
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 8:46 AM
Yes, I have a comment. Furs keep you warm and killing animals is simply a way of getting them. I guess we shouldn't kill cows either but then you liberal pansies wouldn't have a McDonalds to go to after your next meaningless rally!
Tasty Treats
by S.Odamninsane
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 9:32 AM
It is only the best use of resources if I make a coat out of the hide, adn don't just throw it away after I eat the tasty little critter that was inside the hyde.
Unfortunately
by CalTechGuy
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 9:42 AM
I definitely agree with the best use of resources but haven't seen fox on the menu recently. Honestly, I'm not really an anti-fur advocate but I certainly get disgusted when I see a dramatic rise in the number of furs that are not related to edible animals... It's just senseless killing in my view.
Additionally
by CalTechGuy
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 9:46 AM
I'm headed to NY today for an anti-war rally in Manhattan. Not a big one but just a bunch of old friends from my west coast days. I may have to have a fur sign made too just for kicks although that may dilute our message.
Deliberately Provocative
by Prodigal Yunzer
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 9:52 AM
I was criticized on this board for spelling "YUNZER" incorrectly. Your posts indicate that you would appreciate the irony of anarchist poets imposing their langwidge hegemony on my posts.
To elaborate, my family comes from an unlikely union of powerful Lincoln-Lemington and Upper Lawrenceville clans. Many issues had to be ironed out before my parent's seven year engagement could culminate in a marriage, noit the least of which was the proper spelling of "yunz".
I share this insight into my personal life to establish my credentials as a peacemaker. While I appreciate the alternative spelling of "yunz", to deem it "correct" would offend half of my family, so I defer to the Marriage Agreement while offering my sympathies for the alternative spellers. One thing we can all agree on is the spelling of "jagoff", which is what someone who would rudely correct them would be.
Did you ever make your own fur coat? There is an archery season for bear next year. Its a lot less sewing if you start with a bear, as opposed to chipmunks and such. I might write a poem about it.
Kill The Wabbit
by S.Odamninsane
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 10:02 AM
Yeah, I got a bear a couple of years ago. Unfortunately it wasnt a big bear, probalby only a couple of years old. I suck up on him while he was sleeping I think. But he got up quickly and I swear he was reaching for that rock to use as a weapon. How was I to know it was only his large paw in the early morning fog that looked like a rock. I blasted him anyway.
Very nicely done
by CalTechGuy
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 10:07 AM
Like I said, if someone is eating the meat, I have much less of a problem with it. It's just the caging and killing of fox, lemmings, etc for no other purpose than to make a coat, etc that pisses me off and it should piss everyone off.
Lemming Coat
by S.Odamninsane
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 10:12 AM
I think that everyonen of you peace rallying misguided imbeciles are all wearing Lemming Fur Coats...oh wait, those aren't coats you are actually lemmings.
Take it easy brother
by CalTechGuy
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 10:15 AM
Hey, we're not blasting you, just expressing concerns. But, like all conservatives, rather than argue the facts you simply make jokes. I'm used to it so I'm glad you got your rocks off. Once you grow up, maybe you can help us out in righting these types of wrongs rather than just spew your hate at us.
What is Wrong with Fur?
by Prodigal Yunzer
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 11:05 AM
Are your objections to fur aesthetic or religious? Of course "everyone knows fur is wrong" but not me. I ask, why is it wrong? Is it the "needless suffering of animals"? Almost all commercial furs are made from animals created for the purpose of yielding their pelts. It is a business. Their fate is no different from the chicken you eat or the steer who gave you those snazzy shoes, both of which were created for that end purpose. They are products, assets on some balance sheet. You get a vote in the matter by declining to buy them. Why do you ask others to deny themselves the luxury when you already have a vote in the marketplace? If you can convince me that something is wrong with fur per se, then please enlighten me.
Furs
by CalTechGuy
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 11:23 AM
My objection to furs is not at all one of aestetics or based on religious convictions. I see it only as a waste of life to yield only a pelt. Everyone has their own line that they do not cross. Raising animals for meet and skins to me is an efficient use of the animal so long as the raising and killing are done in a humane fashion. What a disagree with is essentially torturing animals (e.g. tying down calves, feeding them steroids and milk to get more soft meat quickly) and with raising an animal solely for the pelt. And, if an animal is going to be raised for just a pelt, assuming I would agree that is justifiable in my own mind, then it must be done humanely and, from my experience seeing pelt farms, it is not.
Yes, I have a vote and exercise it through not purchasing furs. However, I also exercise my right to inform others of how pelt farms work and that we need to be socially responsible in the exercise of our rights with respect to animals.
Socially responsible to whom?
by Prodigal Yunzer
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 12:39 PM
Whom is it that requires my social responsibility? Animals? No, animals do not engage in social activities in my human social circle. Did you hear about the Iraqi Doctor Doolittle? He made the animals talk.
I have no social responsibilities to anyone except human beings. "SOCIAL" is a word with a meaning. My religion instructs me to be a kind and conservation minded master to the beasts that were put here for my use and enjoyment.
I suspect that you are a transcendentalist, perhaps an animist, and I reject my responsibility to alter my life to conform to your religious suspicions. I beg your pardon if you have a more rational argument that I have failed to discern.
fur coats are for real bitches
by rebecca
Thursday, Apr. 03, 2003 at 10:04 PM
malekincat@earthlink.net
Hey! why does it somehow not surprise me that Mr. S. Odamninsane (or whatever) and co. get a kick out of killing animals? You know, we could really be on to something here! What is the link between thinking it's OK to blow Iraqi civilans up in the interests of democracy (or eliminating WMD, or Al Quaida or whatever - I have a hard time keeping up...) and thinking it's totally OK to keep other living things in the most abominal conditions factory farming can offer in the interests of eating them, or keeping them in tiny squalid cages only to anally electrocute them (want to know what that is, look it up, let's just say it's kind of long, excruciatingly painful but keeps their pelts looking all nice) in the interests of wearing their coats, when we now have microfibers that do the job much better.
Anyway, you guys all need to go vegan - it's obvious your brains are all clogged up with animal fat (but it's OK we'll be there to bolster your health insurance premiums when the time comes for that triple bypass - and we won't even say we told you so)...
Thanks for bringing this topic up, whoever brought it up.
Now, back to that tofu cheesecake...
Well Said
by .
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 12:09 AM
Well said Rebecca. These freaks would probably make cots out of Iraqis if you let them.
Well Said
by .
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 12:12 AM
Well said Rebecca. These freaks would probably make cots out of Iraqis if you let them.
social responsibility
by animal_liberation
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 12:51 AM
-
fur production, along w/ industrialized agribusiness, are entirely detrimental to the environment. runoff from animal agribusiness - including fur "farms" - is the number one source of pollution. if you agknowledge SOCIAL responsibility, then how can you contribute to this destruction which hurts everybody - INCLUDING HUMANS.
Fur is an expensive commodity, an ostentacious show of wealth which destroys the planet. It is entriely inferior to synthetic fibers we have today, which is why no polor expedition uses fur anymore. Additionally, there is nothing 'natural' about confining animals in tiny cages where they literally go insane pacing back and forth in their cages, until they are finally killed by anal electrocution - frying them from the inside out. There is nothing 'natural' about upsetting the natural ecosystem to trap beavers in brutal leg-hold or conibear traps, which also trap so-called 'trash' animals such as non-fur-bearing wildlife (dear, esp.) and domesticated animals which wandered away.
On the subject of meat - well, if you agknowledge SOCIAL responsibility to humans, consider this: it takes 6 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. The global hunger alliance estimates that if the world adopted a vegetarian diet, there would be enough food to feed 10 billion people - more than the entire population of the world. The high-rates of meat consumption in the west are a prime cause of inequal distribution of resources which victimize people in developing countries.
Whats more, it takes 2500 gallons of water to produce that same pound of beef. It takes only 250 gallons to produce a pound of soybeans, or just 60 gallons to produce a pound of potatoes. Rainforests are being destroyed for, more than anything, grazing land for cattle.
So, where's your social responsibility? I hope you'll make the right choice
Violence to animals is the first indication that a child will grow up to be violent to humans. By teaching compassion to ALL living things, you do the most effective thing to engender understanding and promote peace. Non-violence starts with YOU - what you eat, what you wear, what you buy.
http://www.banfur.com
http://www.tryveg.com
http://www.whyvegan.org
"In relation to animals, all men are Nazi's. For them, it is an Eternal Treblinka" -Isaac Bashevis Singer, Holocaust Survivor + animal rights advocate
Microfibers Drain Mother Earth's Precious Blood
by Prodigal Yunzer
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 1:51 AM
Microfibers aka polyester are petrochemical products. Every fleece vest you own lined Dick Cheney's hunting lodge brother's pockets. I mean with money, not fur, or fleece. Clearly the solution is to go naked. Avoid polar climates, where humans are not meant to habitate. Sleep huddled together for warmth (note to Rich Mackin, this is not an invitation to unwanted advances).
Ahh I'm just jaggin ya, the fur business does suck, because of the cruelty. See I'm not such a bad guy after all.
leather
by Jan
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 1:54 AM
I bought a black leather jacket at a thrift store 4 years ago. I wear it alot, it lasts and lasts. But i feel bad wearing animal skin. I would never buy a new fur or leather coat. I wouldn't want to encourage them to make more. maybe Is hould get rid of my leather. I don't like animals dying for me.
Maybe the aliens are fattening us up to be food for them. Maybe it was their idea to feed us food with steroids in it.
Animal Steroids
by Prodigal Yunzer
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 2:12 AM
Don't affect humans. Steroids are not stored in an organism's meat anyhow. Steroids are metabolized through one's liver. They don't top the steers off with steroids before they slaughter them. That would be a waste of money. All the steroids they ever get, if any, are metabolized well prior to their flesh sizzling on your propane grill. Just like a greasy dollop of bull semen won't make you produce satyrs, neither will consuming bovine steroids make you fatter. The health risks associated with meat are due to the fat, and also if you eat really cheap burgers, you are eating like a thousand different animals. Eww I even grossed myself out.
-
by -
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 2:17 AM
4 years after renouncing it, I am leather-free. I kept my wallet until it literally fell apart, and now I have a nice cruelty-free one.
The #1 thing I hear from animal haters is "leather shoes" - but both my shoes (discount store) and work boots (http://www.veganwares.com) are synthetic. The boots are especially great - cheaper than doc martens (unfortunately, shipping wasn't cheap, but, they were STILL cheaper, even w/ the special-requested steel toe) and they've lasted me for years now and still look brand new.
animal steroids
by jan
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 11:45 AM
ok. thanks for clarifying prodigal. Can you tell me why they put steroids in meat then? I am a dumbass.. thanks!
Steroids in Beef
by S. Odamninsane
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 12:00 PM
Bullfighting. The give the cattle steroids to bulk them up so the have bigger muscles and can fight better.
JAN Not a Dumbass
by Prodigal Yunzer
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 12:46 PM
They put bovine steroids in some cattle to make them larger. Unless you are the world's first cow with Internet access, they would have negligible effect on your meat, even if you took them by injection.
uh don't know about that
by Rebecca
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 1:14 PM
Hormones (anabolic steroids) are safe!? Prodigal, the entire European Community wouldn't agree with you on that one... US-approved growth hormones are banned over there (doesn't stop some farmers using them on the sly though). They've been associated with breast cancer and much more. And then there's the rGBH hormone use in dairy - BIG questions about the safety of that (pressure from Monsanto got a team of Fox - yes Fox!! - news reporters fired in Florida when they wouldn't back down on the "truth" they discovered about rGBH heath risks - Monsanto just happens to produce rGBH). The FDA and agribiz are practically one and the same, don't believe everything they put out.
Anyway I'm really not supposed to be here right now, just couldn't leave that unopposed.
Rebecca Do you Know the Difference
by Prodigal Yunzer
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 7:48 PM
Between a man and a cow? Your hypothalamus does. You owe it to yourself to find out that cow hormones do not have the same effect on another mammal that they do on a cow. Maybe your superstitions would yield a bit to open your personal vistas.
Too much of the counterculture is based on duping the gullible with plausible scare tactics. Here is a good way to determine if something is safe to eat: if it is appetizing to you, try it. If it agrees with you, have some more at the next opportunity. Don't eat the same things day after day Live a little.
Difference?
by Phoenix
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 10:53 PM
This isn't about steroids, but I noticed Mr.Yunzer
that you assume that anything effecting cows cannot effect other mammals. If this is true then could you please explain to me how viruses have the ability to species jump, i.e. bovine spongiform encephalopathy, an evil little prion, jumped from sheep to cows to cats to humans(not neccesarily in that order). This may not apply to steroids, but please do not generalize your superstitious beliefs about the inter-species relationships, or biology.
Difference?
by Phoenix
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 10:53 PM
This isn't about steroids, but I noticed Mr.Yunzer
that you assume that anything effecting cows cannot effect other mammals. If this is true then could you please explain to me how viruses have the ability to species jump, i.e. bovine spongiform encephalopathy, an evil little prion, jumped from sheep to cows to cats to humans(not neccesarily in that order). This may not apply to steroids, but please do not generalize your superstitious beliefs about the inter-species relationships, or biology,
Peace
ENDOCRINOLOGY
by Prodigal Yunzer
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 11:03 PM
A virus is a separate organism from a mammal. A hormone is a compound. My biology is education not superstition. If we had a meteor hit Farmer Marburger's Dairy Farm, the catastrophe would affect both cow and man. in the metaphysical realm of the anarchistic poet, everything affects everything else. But hormones from other species are not going to stimulate your endocrine system, the DNA is not common. Biologically, you could marinate meat in bovine hormones with a little soy sauce and I promise you won't grow a rudimentary stomach or horns.
Never said you would
by Phoenix
Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 11:20 PM
I apologize if my post seemed to be directed towards supporting all the people worried about beef horomones, it wasn't. I was merely commenting on how you appeared to generalize about things effecting both man and cow not being possible. I am well aware that viruses are seperate organisms, my point was not about horomones. I specificly said that, and I also said that I was talking about viruses. I thought that I had made it clear that I was criticizing what appeared to be a generalization, not horomones. By the way, I do not think that eating beef horomones will cause you to become part cow.
OK Well, Did You Ever Eat Meat in Europe?
by Prodigal Yunzer
Saturday, Apr. 05, 2003 at 10:29 AM
The EU bans our meat because it is higher quality. They would not be able to sell their stew-grade beef if they "levelled the playing field" to use the idiotic vernacular and allowed US beef in. They do allow some Japanese Kobe beef in, and it sells fast. Their objections to our agricultural products are based on protectionism, and they gull people with low grade understanding of science with the foolishness I refer to above.
it's more than that
by Rebecca
Saturday, Apr. 05, 2003 at 11:10 AM
and wouldn't ya just know, those evil French are at the center of all this!!!
I couldn't comment on whether US beef tastes better, although French ("hisss") visitors here tend not to appreciate it for some reason.
I think you have a point about the protectionism aspect because there is an element of that, it's the old Gaullist thing. But as someone who's lived in both the UK and then France ("booo...") for several years before coming over here, I can assure you that concerns about US beef do NOT just come from those with a financial interest in keeping it out of the country. On the contrary, a lot of farmers would love the opportunity to legally stuff their animals with growth hormones, and agricultural unions hold a lot of weight in the EC. But the hormone issue has been covered and discussed widely in the media to the point that I don't even think people are that interested in it any more. There is pretty much a Europe-wide consensus now that it's not a good thing and not the way to go in the interests of public health..
Would you say the same for GMOs? Europeans don't want them because of protectionism? Or maybe, just maybe, they might have a point. The situation is the same, some farmers would love to grow GMO crops. And GMOs, on the other hand, are still a big public issue, whereas here in the US most people don't even get exposed to a critical view of GMOs from what I see.
So I don't think it's so much us who are superstitious and naive. Why do you believe everything you're told? Or do you work in the livestock industry and have a vested interest in taking Cattlemen Association press releases as the truth and nothing but? Like I said before, the FDA does what agribiz tells it to here and stifles any opposing views (rGBH example again). So if I had to decide between who's likely to be right on the hormone issue, and without idealizing European decision-makers who don't merit it, I'd rather opt for Europe (but then I don't eat the stuff so I guess it doesn't make any difference either way).
We kind of lost the topic of cruelty along the way. The fact still remains that factory farming stinks and is totally unacceptable to anyone with any notion of social responsibility and acceptable treatment of other species on the planet.
Again with the Social Responsibility
by Prodigal Yunzer
Saturday, Apr. 05, 2003 at 11:21 AM
Maybe you have a social responsibility to cloven hooved quadripeds, but I'm glad that I do not, because it is hard enough to find comfortable and stylish shoes. These French who prefer French beef to American- is there anything in America that they deem superior in quality to that of their homeland? My posts have been making the point over and over- I do not have to read people's minds to discern their motives for saying what they say- I informed myself about what a hormone is and how it works. Your bloodstream is awash with hormones that only act on the specific molecule that they are meant to act upon. The bovine hormones do not have the DNA key to unlock your organs. Nor do they collect in some bolus waiting to explode inside of you.
gmo from tokyo
by vegan
Saturday, Apr. 05, 2003 at 12:41 PM
the point is, nature, despite all of your science training, is unpredictable. sometimes things just don't go "as planned," especially when dealing with genetically modified hormones. do you find it odd that "they" are starting to see a correlation between rBGH meat and breast cancer? when fucking with nature on the dna level occurs, who knows whether it will create the key that fits the lock.
Correlation within how many Standard Deviations?
by Prodigal Yunzer
Saturday, Apr. 05, 2003 at 1:22 PM
You make my point with that last post. When "they" find a correlation, look at the study, and if it is scientific, it plainly states that you cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the data, but at three standard deviations a "correlation" is suspected that does not show up in the statistically significant range. And that is what leftist unschooled advocates use as their "evidence". And the human sheeple all bawl as their prejudices are reinforced with "science" when they plainly are not if you have the ability to read a scientific paper.
eating animals
by Jan
Sunday, Apr. 06, 2003 at 3:07 PM
Oh well, its too bad that the public is not informed on many things related to this issue, since it is an important one.
I have read articles about the early onsets of puberty in the population today. In the past 20 years, kids have started puberty earlier and earlier... girls as early as 8 have gotten their menarche. Some resources say that it may be linked to the hormones found in meat and dairy.
I like to know what I am eating. People who want to eat meat can, and those who don't shouldn't. I, for one, am leaning towrds being a vegetarian. And I don't think anyone should be condemned for their diet choices.
eating animals
by Jan
Sunday, Apr. 06, 2003 at 3:08 PM
Oh well, its too bad that the public is not informed on many things related to this issue, since it is an important one.
I have read articles about the early onsets of puberty in the population today. In the past 20 years, kids have started puberty earlier and earlier... girls as early as 8 have gotten their menarche. Some resources say that it may be linked to the hormones found in meat and dairy.
I like to know what I am eating. People who want to eat meat can, and those who don't shouldn't. I, for one, am leaning towrds being a vegetarian. And I don't think anyone should be condemned for their diet choices.
Amazing
by CalTechGuy
Monday, Apr. 07, 2003 at 1:32 PM
Not sure how my original post on furs has extended to the quality of US beef over foreign beef. Let's just say that my original post was meant to provoke some thoughts on the proper preservation of our animals whether it be by eliminating the fur industry or just proper and efficient (but humane) production of meat products. I think many have just lost sight of the fact that animals should be treated fairly in any context.
I disagree
by Ken Kaminski
Monday, Apr. 07, 2003 at 5:01 PM
naaa1123@yahoo.com
I have precisely zero interest in the treatment of animals, and nothing here has yet changed my mind.
As for the argument of resource effeciency: if we more effeciently used (ie without capitalism) agricultural resources, like farmable land and fertilizers and what not, we could have meat AND have more than enough food to feed the population of the world. A more brutal and ecological altering treatment of "nature" would, in my mind, be a more likely successful attempt to eradicate world hunger.
Komrade Ken
by S.Odamninsane
Monday, Apr. 07, 2003 at 5:11 PM
Kenny boy, we tried that idea and here is how it went.
First we got rid of capitalist market influecnes adn turned the means of production over to the state. Then, the state gave the tools of production to the people, at least to the extent that the state was able to produce the tools of production. Then, the state established a distribution bureaucracy to see the (1) seeds, fertilizer and other necessary farm implements got to the farmers, and (2) that the fruits of our farming labors got to everyone who needed it. Then, we all starved to death and lived like animals while the rest of the capitalist world got fat and happy since they had farms and means of production and distribution that actually worked. Then, to avoid starving to death we ate the animals. Then, some guy named Ronald Reagan came along and saused our cruel and corrupt government to collapse. Then, we all became capitalist.
Sorry you must not have gotten the memo. It is okay to be capitalist now.
animal cruelty
by Jan
Monday, Apr. 07, 2003 at 6:45 PM
You're right the topic did diverge from the main point made. I agree that animals should NOT be treated cruely (used for frs, shoes, etc). And I really do think being a vegetarian is good. I hate eating animals.
ken's dogma is running over his karma
by Rebecca
Tuesday, Apr. 08, 2003 at 9:34 AM
malekincat@earthlink.net
"I have precisely zero interest in the treatment of animals, and nothing here has yet changed my mind."
Ken - oh no!! your karma score just went down 10 points!! We hope you'll feel better in your next life (although watch out for that karma score or you might end up as a lab rat testing heart disease drugs).
As for the "meat for the planet" issue. There are plenty of books that go into that in a lot better detail than I ever could - Erik Marcus, John Robbins, Frances Moore Lapp�... If people are genuinely interested they can email me directly & I'll give them some references (no not PETA websites).
Be grateful that there are so many activists now who do see the link between all these things. We might just save this planet yet.
Glad to hear it
by CalTechGuy
Tuesday, Apr. 08, 2003 at 10:19 AM
Nice to hear that someone is thinking about the issues. I personally am a vegetarian and have been for about 10 years. Just a personal choice and shouldn't be imposed on everyone. However, the ethical treatment of all animals should be imposed on everyone.
Like I Thought RELIGION
by Prodigal Yunzer
Tuesday, Apr. 08, 2003 at 10:38 AM
KARMA is a Buddhist concept. ETHICS are based on morality. I already have a religion thank you. My religion instructs me that all of nature was created for my use and enjoyment. It is my duty to be a good steward of creation's wonders. That includes raising them for slaughter and eating them, making clothing from their hide and hair, etc. Chopping down trees no matter their age and providing shelter.
gag
by someone with no religion
Tuesday, Apr. 08, 2003 at 11:23 AM
QUOTE My religion instructs me that all of nature was created for my use and enjoyment. It is my duty to be a good steward of creation's wonders. That includes raising them for slaughter and eating them, making clothing from their hide and hair, etc. Chopping down trees no matter their age and providing shelter.UNQ
...invading countries no matter their child population so i can run my SUV cheap. ravishing ecosystems no matter what future generations have to deal with. more and bigger and better and faster, and it's all 4 me
and i know i can do all this because Rush Limbaugh told me so
Keepin' it real
by Agent: Crybaby
Tuesday, Apr. 08, 2003 at 12:00 PM
Karma is physics. Ethics and morality are a delusion.
I CARE LESS
by Prodigal Yunzer
Tuesday, Apr. 08, 2003 at 3:38 PM
About my religious beliefs offending you than I do about offending your animist superstitions about karma and animals posessing little souls. Why don't you raise funds and open a veterinary hospital for suffering animals? My religion builds hospitals that would take you in and treat you to assuage your suffering. We have bigger problems to worry about than meat and fur.
Good point
by -
Tuesday, Apr. 08, 2003 at 5:42 PM
Donkeys can talk, people can fly, and a man named Jesus lives in the sky.
People Could Fly
by Prodigal Yunzer
Tuesday, Apr. 08, 2003 at 6:06 PM
before Napoleon dynamited the Negro nose off the Sphinx. I think I hear the Mothership! Nah its just my girlfriend gathering the chi.
People can STILL fly
by -
Tuesday, Apr. 08, 2003 at 6:55 PM
The tM folks will show you how, for $16,000 a semester, or if you spend enough money and offer up enough children to L. Ron Hubbards sock. Skinpopping ketamine out of the veterinary bottle will do it too
fur wearing is a disgrace
by Mary
Wednesday, Apr. 09, 2003 at 5:12 PM
i can't believe all the smug meat eaters who justify the wearing of fur. Most anti fur activists are not protesting the use of fur by eskimoes or ppl in cold climates who 'utilize' other parts of the animal for food,etc..They are protesting the wantan killing and suffering (they live overcrowded in tiny cages & exhibit zoo psychosis their entire short lives) so that rappers, actresses, and so forth can impress ea other w/their 'wealth'. And even if you could care less about the wantan killing of an animal the idea of someone spending all that money on one item of clothing when alternatives are available....thanks for bringing it up. Its sad when someone admits to caring about an animal they are besieged w/namecalling and hatemongering by nitwits. NEVER STOP CARING ABOUT OTHER CREATURES ON THIS EARTH.
Disgraceful Display of Conspicuous Consumerism
by Prodigal Yunzer
Thursday, Apr. 10, 2003 at 12:15 AM
Hey tofutti, look up about a foot and a half- I agreed with you on the cruelty thing.
There are but two classes in the USA- conspicuous consumers, and wanna-bes.
I just like to point out when people attempt to persuade me with religious arguments that they are unknowingly doing so in many cases.
Call me argumentative. But don't mad dog me.
Absolutely
by CalTechGuy
Thursday, Apr. 10, 2003 at 8:12 AM
I could not have said it better myself. Bravo!
By the way
by CalTechGuy
Thursday, Apr. 10, 2003 at 8:14 AM
My last comment was to Mary's comment but it's out of order. FYI.
Oppose animul crulty
by Leo
Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2003 at 6:06 PM
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)