In my book anything that upsets PETA (not that it is hard thing to do) can't be a bad thing. (http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon08/news/story?id=3458900) ;)

LONDON -- Wimbledon came under fire from animal activists on Tuesday for using marksmen to shoot down dive-bombing pigeons.

The tournament employs two hawks to scare away pigeons who had become a pest swooping down on Centre Court and distracting players in the middle of tense matches.

But the hawks failed to keep the pigeons away from the players' lawn and the open-air media restaurant so marksmen were called in.

"The hawks are our first line of deterrent, and by and large they do the job," Wimbledon spokesman Johnny Perkins said.

"But unfortunately there were one or two areas where the hawks didn't deter the pigeons, so it was deemed necessary to take a harder approach," he explained.

The marksmen were summoned by Wimbledon as pigeon droppings on the restaurant tables were thought to be a health hazard.

The decision to call in the marksmen was condemned as "cruel and illegal behavior" by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which complained to the tournament organizers and the police.

"Since the use of marksmen to kill pigeons appears to have been carried out as a first, rather than a last, resort and not out of a concern for public health but rather because the animals were deemed inconvenient by players, you appear to be in clear violation of the law," PETA vice president Bruce Friedrich said.

Can't we just go straight to the source & shoot the PETA members first?

It's against the law in England to shoot pigeons?

Excuse me, but isn't pidgeon **** all over the tables of an open air restaurant a public health concern?

It's against the law in England to shoot pigeons?It usually is when you are doing it in a crowded London suburb that isn't zoned for hunting...

I don't really like PETA, but without extremists to set a high bar for what 'moderate' means, nothing ever gets done. They serve a vital function in balancing politics.

When it comes to PETA, and many other similar organisations, it just boggles my mind to see people get so involved about animals. Animals are nice and important but there are millions upon millions of human beings that die and suffer for even worse reasons than what we do to animals. How can people dedicate their lives and all their money to give homes to stray cats when children are dying in droves all over the world and it would take so little to make a difference? For the time and effort to save a mangy cat you could be saving a human being. When we learn to treat each other right then I think we can start working on treating other species right.

I don't engage myself in anything but I do not understand the priorities of people who spend their entire lives helping animals. Then again, it is not only animals our charity and engagement priorities are completely screwed. We are spending millions upon millions of charity money on research in treating various "luxury" diseases (cancer, alzheimer, parkinson). Diseases that generally strike older people and which are basically part of "natural cause of death" when there are children dying of malnutrition.

I don't know, I just think that if you are a person who wants to help, who feels the need to ease your guilty conscience or just plain is a good person why not start with the most basic and urgent problems in our world? Why spend all your time and efforts knitting sweaters for hairless cats in colder climates?

But...But... they look so cute in those fuzzy little pink sweaters!

Frankly I like cats better than children, and there are too many humans on the planet already. If I want to give money to Cats Protection or the RSPCA to help animals that have been suffering due to human cruelty, neglect or ignorance, then that's my perogative.
Having said that, I abhor deliberate cruelty to any living things (including children), but culling a few pigeons, if done humanely and without endangering anyone, is fine with me. I'm assuming they'll have got the correct permissions to do this - it would be a bit stupid of them if they hadn't.

Of course it is your perogative just as it is my perogative to not give anything to anyone. I personally find it quite repulsive how so many people value animals over humans. I have seen so many people making similar comments to yours Cal, how a cute fuzzy little cat (it is very often cats, cat people are wacky) missing a meal is such a huge tragedy while they could not care less about all the human suffering in the world. To me it is like spending your time adjusting the paintings on your walls while the house is burning down around you. Sure, it is nice with paintings that are hanging straight but dealing with the burning house might be a tad more urgent.

Of course it is your perogative just as it is my perogative to not give anything to anyone. I personally find it quite repulsive how so many people value animals over humans. I have seen so many people making similar comments to yours Cal, how a cute fuzzy little cat (it is very often cats, cat people are wacky) missing a meal is such a huge tragedy while they could not care less about all the human suffering in the world. To me it is like spending your time adjusting the paintings on your walls while the house is burning down around you. Sure, it is nice with paintings that are hanging straight but dealing with the burning house might be a tad more urgent.

To be honest, the problem is that 90% of human suffering is caused by humans.

We arent this awesome species that everyone wants to be like, we are as bad to each other as we are to animals and plants.

A lot of 3rd world poverty and hunger is a direct result of the greed of those in power in the respective countries, and the profiteering of those supposed to help them.

A hungry cat, in a place where no natural prey can be found, only has humans to be blame.

Anyway, to actually talk about the topic at hand:

"Since the use of marksmen to kill pigeons appears to have been carried out as a first, rather than a last, resort and not out of a concern for public health but rather because the animals were deemed inconvenient by players, you appear to be in clear violation of the law," PETA vice president Bruce Friedrich said.

Not that they are jumping to conclusions much. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to lose much sleep over getting rid of what is, in this case, some pests. They've tried something else (hawks), and maybe some others, and deemed that this was the best way to deal with the situation.

I don't really like PETA, but without extremists to set a high bar for what 'moderate' means, nothing ever gets done. They serve a vital function in balancing politics.

Agreed.

I'm with Joaqin on this one -- these losers need to get a life. Human needs take priority over animal needs in my book, and that doesn't mean I advocate torturing animals for fun, it just means I have logical priorities.

However, I also agree with Drew (STOP THE PRESSES!) in that I am not sure that I am comfortable with the idea of people shooting guns off in a populated area, no matter how good as marksmen they are. It's one thing to use a gun to kill a filthy criminal. That's a valid reason to use a gun. It's another thing to use a gun to kill a pigeon. The risk to innocent bystanders is too great.

There's a good documentary about the woman who co-founded PETA.

There's a scene in it where she takes a dog to a vet to get medication for heart-worm and I thought "she's killing those poor worms! Don't they deserve to live just as much as the dog?"

I guess even PETA draws the line somewhere; the question is where?

LKD, they are probably using air rifles shooting pellets. Some of the better models can propel the pellet as fast as a firearm using compressed co2.

Martaug, the question of collateral damage still remains. If the pellet is going that fast going up towards the pigeons and it misses, it will be going almost that fast when it comes back down toward a crouded city street.

Of course, it may be a situation where this isn't an issue, like the restaurants are set up so that the marksmen are shooting from one high building onto the roof of another where the pigeons congregate. In that case, stray pellets would just bounce around on the roof-top and not be a problem. Like others, I would assume the Wimbeldon officials considered all this and got proper approval beforehand.

I suppose I would be a bit less nervous about airguns, but still, one bad shot and some tennis spectator ends up at the first aid station.

Though I have to say, I'd rather be shot than actually be forced to watch tennis!

Martaug, the question of collateral damage still remains. If the pellet is going that fast going up towards the pigeons and it misses, it will be going almost that fast when it comes back down toward a crouded city street.


Well, not really, actually. Once the pellet reaches the peak of its trajectory, it will start falling down guided just by the force of gravity. Upwards it was propelled by compressed air, giving it high velocity. Once it starts falling down, its velocity will be determined by its mass and the air resistance. The pellet has a very low mass, and the air resistance will limit its speed to a certain value, which cannot be exceded, regardless of how much the pellet exceeds the height required to generate that speed.

My point being, the pellet falling down would have very low potential of doing any serious damage. It's small, rather light, and uncapable of producing the velocity needed for a harmful impact.

On topic:

I'm against harming animals in any way, but it seems that they tried the hawks solution and it failed. Maybe something else should have been tried too, but this amount of fuss is not necessery, imo.

There are so many endangered species out there that could use the attention that those pigeons are getting.

So what alternative has the PETA suggested?

Funny how there is a fuss about pigeons, yet not seagulls and all. Considering there are similar tactics used against them.

Hehe, I'd use hawks. Much cooler, too. That'll please PETA, I'm sure :shake:

Joa,
I wholeheartedly agree with you about creeps who value animals over or equal to humans. That's silly. I only recently had an exchange with one of those people who call butchering 'murder'. I took delight in drawing his ire when I pointed out that murder is the voluntary killing of a human, qualified through special intent or conduct, as opposed to the destruction of a thing with a few (granted, important) special rights.

However, I find your comments about cats utterly reprehensible and extremely incomprehensible :p

I wholeheartedly agree with you about creeps who value animals over or equal to humans.One problem. These people don't exist. Animal rights activists - even the kooky ones - do not value the lives of animals more than people. Find an animal rights activist, and you've just found a human rights activist, too. Animal rights activism goes hand in hand with human rights activism and environmentalism (although it isn't always true in reverse). Spending the time and effort to advocate for animal rights doesn't preclude one from doing the same for other causes...

But you have to admit drew, that a fair number value animal life AS MUCH as they value human life, which was part of his statement.

As far as animal rights activists go, you seem to be the only rationale one i have ever encountered. The last PETA members i encountered were protesting at a food bank that was accepting their first shipment of meat from the North Carolina Hunters for the Hungry(NCHFTH). Now these food banks help feed people who have nowhere else to go & this low-life piece of trash, whose rights i risked my life to defend in the marines, had the audacity to call me a bambi-killer,murderer, etc. & then spat in my face. Do you know how hard it was not to break his little tree-hugger neck right then & there? I could have & been within my rights as what he had done can be considered assault with a bodily fluid. I didn't but i bet my blood pressure could have sent a rocket to the moon. The administrator called the police & had them removed from the property & of course they complained that WE were violating their rights!
I wouldn't believe anything a member of PETA swore to on a stack of bibles, they are all a bunch of zealots.

Drew,
they do exist. Now I don't make a general rule out of that, but they do exist. I have met such people. And I am old enough to have met the really confused folks back in the 1980s. For one they are generally very empathic. Their problem is to put all their empathy into proper context.

One of them, in the 1990s, had such great empathy that he, in face of a massive deforestation for open coal mining (go to 50°54'25.47"N/ 6°30'10.86"E on Google Earth and you'll see what I mean), with great anger scolded me for disagreeing with him on that re-settling people to restore a forest is a great idea. It is not that I disagreed with him in that the deforestation was bad. The forest was wonderful, one of the few really old ones in my area, and they resettled people and entire villages to get to the coal - the problem was that I didn't go far enough. Uprooting trees is always a sad thing, but for me uprooting people from the place they and their ancestors lived in and grew up is much more of a concern, because it deprives especially the old people who have live their all their lives of their roots and culturally of their heimat. It was not conservation of the forest that he wanted (sign me up, I am conservative), it was restoration to the status quo-ante, before man set foot into the forest, or maybe to how it was back in 1000 BC.

The common denominator that I can spot is a guilt complex. The more radical ones subordinate the the interests of the human race under a greater cause, the eco-system, the planet or some other abstraction. The consequent pursuit of such reasoning can take you to some very dark places. As far as guilt is concerned they remind me of people who feel so guilty for the burden they put on the planet by the mere act of living, that they consider having large families an eco-crime (http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1752235.ece). Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-495495/Meet-women-wont-babies--theyre-eco-friendly.html).

martaug makes a good point on that many who are less radical are still equalling the live of a creature and of a human. That is in my understanding one of the points behind being vegan. To me that is a silly thing. I respect the dignity of the living creature, but I see there is a difference to a human being. I love my tomcat dearly, and I terribly spoil him, but he is still just a cat.

Well. Call me extremist or crazy or whatever, but since when have we been given right over pigeon lives? Two innocent birds fluttering around is less important than two humans hitting a ball around? I don't care how many people are watching that tennis match nor how important it is - why should the pigeon deaths be justifiable? I understand when scaring off or even killing birds at airports, but that could potentially cause hundreds of human lives to be lost. This is only a stupid tennis match. It's not really that important. Nobody's going to die because of the pigeons.

Giving an analogy, that's like two dogs walking across the street and a pedestriain being justified to sniper shoot them in the face because they would have distracted drivers. And that's not even a good example, because a car crash could cause deaths. This can't.

Taking a step back, I understand the perceived importance of the tennis match, but they could've used tranquiliser darts or something, could they not?

Drew, all you need to do is scroll up in this thread where Cal Jones claims to like cats better than children. There are many many people who both value animals over humans and then another huge group who value them equally (mostly only cute and furry animals of course).

I do not disagree on your opinion of their general views, they probably share similar views as me. The difference is that they are people who actually act, spending time and effort to improve things but what is it they spend their energy on? It sure isnt the humans and the human issues, it is the animals. Neither me nor them actually do anything about human suffering, me because I so very lazy and they because they already spend all their time, effort and money on housing abandoned cats.

Deathmage,
hunting pigeons (or rats for that) in cities is sensible because they're a health concern. Fed by old ladies and feeding on trash their numbers multiply fast. They're ****ting all over the place. In Cologne they routinely hunt pigeons for that reason. Occasionally, they send out hunters with hawks to parts of the city, and it is an amazing sight to see the hawks catch their prey.

That it is at the occasion of the Wimbledon tennis matches that they do hunt pigeons doesn't make hunting pigeons per se any less sensible. It is an additional incentive.

Ragusa,
I suppose with the gathering of people at Wimbledon, it is an important health concern, and thus justifiable (though you'd think they could clean the tables a bit more - as they should after each meal anyway - and put up tent-thingies...whatchamacallits).
Still, that article makes it seem like the health incensitive was "tacked on" as an additional reason.

DM,
nope. The health concern exists independently of Wimbledon; it exists in all major cities.

I know. I meant in Wimbledon especially it might be a big concern because of the big gathering of international people who could spread it blah blah.

Wrote a rant, but it's much too ranty to post here.

Basically - not everyone should be expected to care about what you think is important. Animal activists get out and do a lot for their chosen cause and interest - I doubt the people in this thread saying 'Oh, they should go and help Africans instead' are doing a tenth as much for Africans as animal activists are for what they care about, and so really should just stfu. Just because they're activists doesn't mean they have to care any more about the starving children in Africa or do any more to help them than the average person does (i.e. nothing).

A lot of people here seem to be saying that activists should have some kind of greater obligation to go and help starving Africans by virtue of being activists. Perhaps you should go and rant at people who do nothing for anything instead? That would probably be hypocritical, but oh well. There's nothing quite like telling people what they ought to be doing instead of the entirely valid thing that they actually are doing.

I've recently been on the receiving end of such pompous dickery ('OMG, why aren't you protesting *this* instead? It's sooooo much more important than *that*'). It sounds stupid to me every time they say it, especially when it's a pretty sure thing that they're not doing anything for what they think you should be doing.

Agreed. People should do whatever they feel most strongly about and others should respect that. The fact I give a toss about cats doesn't mean I'm some bleeding heart tree hugger who puts animals above people. I eat meat (free range if possible - animals really do taste better if they're chilled out and happy), weather leather and enjoy watching the Grand National.

As far as kids go, I'm just not a maternal woman and have a low tolerance for children, so I've chosen not to have any myself and generally avoid situations where a lot of children are present. Having said that, if I was in a burning building and was forced to choose between rescuing a child and rescuing a pet, then I would rescue the child, obviously.

But, I don't agree with the notion that humans > all else. The fact this planet is such a mess is because there is too bleedin' many of us. The ecosystem is out of balance, resources are running out, and we're warring over the fragments. So forgive me if I'd rather give money to causes other than starving Africans.

Re: pigeons - I'm sure the marksmen are not shooting the pigeons while people are around - after all, a dead pigeon falling into someone's lunch is a lot worse than pigeon poop. :D

That is the thing Aikanaro, I personally do not care enough about anything to actually do anything about it. What I really do find is hypocritical is people who do care enough about things and go out and do things about it. They have hte interest to make a difference and then they make a conscious decision of what they find to be the most important and those decisions are in my opinion horrible. We are spending billions on prostate cancer research and cat saving and god knows what else while the world is such an injust place most people, me including, just close our eyes and pretend it isn't there. Heck, I know most people do not see things as I do and on some level it is probably better to do something than to do nothing. I just get revolted when people get so upset about certain things while ignoring so many others. At least I am consistent and ignore everything. It is like the horror the world had for the 3000 people who died on 9/11 and yes it was horrible but not many cares about the hundreds of thousands of people who die equally horrible deaths all over the world. This spring there was a horrendous murdercase here in Sweden where a man kidnapped, raped, killed and then burned a nine year old girl. The country was in an uproar and everyone was lamenting the horror of the death of that child. Where is that outrage when things like that happen every single day all over the world? I find it repulsive that people who can be so selectively outraged and caring while not giving a flying frick about 99% of the horrors that happen in the world. That I find truly hypocritical.

Most of us only care about things that they can relate to and feel for, cute puppies, blond adorable little girls. Who gives a rats ass about smelly potbellied African children? About Iraqi children with blown off limbs from American clusterbombs? About Bangladeshi brothels full of ten year olds? I guess it is safe and it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling that you are doing good when you dedicate your life to some minor inconvinience and it makes it easier to live with yourself for ignoring all of the above and so much more.

What I really do find is hypocritical is people who do care enough about things and go out and do things about it. They have hte interest to make a difference and then they make a conscious decision of what they find to be the most important and those decisions are in my opinion horrible.
But you see, your opinion is entirely irrelevant, insignificant and not worthy of consideration because of this:
I personally do not care enough about anything to actually do anything about it.
Basically, why should anyone give a hoot about your opinion when you don't give a hoot about anything?

That's pretty harsh, Splunge, but accurate! Perhaps some people are thinking along these lines: I can't do much about the Bangladeshi brothels or the maimed children in Iraq, but I CAN do something locally. If that's the logic behind some animal rights activists then I can empathize with them a little more, but I still have to go with Joaqin and say that even locally there are lots of people who need our help and should get it before the animals do.

Of course no one needs to listen to what I have to say, that doesn't stop me from saying it. I comfort myself in being consistent in ignoring everything. I do not understand people who have the energy and interest to get activated and then pick those silly causes to devote their lives to.

Don't get me wrong, i fully support PETA or any animal rights groups right to protest however when their protest involves spitting on someone or violence against someone that disagrees with you than you have violated their rights.

Not trying to put words in you mouth joacqin, but it seems that you are saying & acting like you feel that there is too much suffering in the world so why bother? is that a correct summary?

Not really, I am just very lazy and selfish and can't be arsed. I care enough to be aware of the problems but thats about that.

Let’s say I support the Humane Society. Now joacqin might say that’s silly when I could be supporting a food bank. But at least I’m supporting something worthwhile; maybe not as worthwhile as a food bank, but worthwhile nonetheless. Alternatively, I could be like joacqin and support nothing, and instead spend my money and time on only myself. I would call that being selfish (as did joacqin in the above post). I’m not sure how supporting a worthy cause not related to humans is worse than selfishly supporting nothing. To try and hold oneself out as somehow being superior for doing nothing rather than something (when that something isn't harmful) is IMO an odd way of thinking.

Edit: I just realized that this might be bordering on getting too personal. I wouldn't have posted it if joacqin himself hadn't admitted he was lazy and selfish, but in any event, that's all I'm going to say in this regard. Not to mention that it's way off-topic.

I'm not certain it's that far off topic, though, because in cases like this Wimbledon deal, my first reaction to the PETA people is to say "don't these people have anything better to do with their time?" Many agree. I'm not saying they don't have a legal right to protest through legal channels, but even when they do so I think they are wasting their time and energy when IMHO there are a lot of other more important things they could be putting their efforts into, like helping local homeless people.

In moral terms (as opposed to legal ones) I find what they are doing to be reprehensible in that they are utterly obsessed with the actions of other people. If those actions do not affect the protesters, I am a big believer in minding one's own business. If they don't want to kill pigeons then they don't have to, but that's no reason to go out and inconvenience people just because of your own personal beliefs.

PETA picks Wimbledon merely because of the publicity, suggesting that the pigeons are being killed off to spare the rich the possible poop out of the sky. Which is just a silly PR stunt as pigeons being hunted is everyday business. They're basically a pest in any large city, and are being dealt with accordingly.

However, spinning it as 'Rich people order pigeons being killed off for convenience!' is a chance for visible activism with a good yield. It sounds plenty outrageous, and that makes it sell better as it cleverly exploits class bias, that is what makes it appealing. Never mind that it is a distortion as long as the cause is just.

Drew, all you need to do is scroll up in this thread where Cal Jones claims to like cats better than children.Lots of people hate kids, and I'm pretty damn sure his tongue was inserted firmly in cheek.

EDIT: Sorry, Ms. Cal Jones, for getting your gender wrong. I'd correct it, but the error is a matter of history and the ensuing posts would make less sense without it's presence.

Drew, they do exist. Now I don't make a general rule out of that, but they do exist. You've failed to prove this. What you've provided was an example of a kook who lacked the sense of proportion necessary to recognize the utter ridiculousness of re-locating large populations of people as a method of combating de-forestation. Lacking proportion and caring more about animals than people are not the same thing. People do the wrong things or employ the wrong methods for the right reasons all the time. There are adherents to every ideology who take their ideology too far. This doesn't mean that these people care more about than they do about people.

Environmentalists who go too far do not care more about the environment than they do about people, just as businessman like Ken Lay who go too far in the name of profit still love their families and children more than they love money - and it is often [i]because of their love of their families (who, may I point out, are people) that such individuals become so obsessed with getting ahead that they throw conventional ethics out the window.

martaug makes a good point on that many who are less radical are still equalling the live of a creature and of a human. That is in my understanding one of the points behind being vegan. No. This is not what animal rights activists stand for. The founding philosophical statement upon which the modern animal rights movement is based is arguably found in Animal Liberation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_(book)), by Peter Singer.

While Singer is hardly the first person to apply the concept of moral standing to non-human animals, it is upon this work that the modern movement, at least, is based*. In Animal Liberation, Singer himself rejects the use of the theoretical framework of rights when it comes to animals. Instead, he argued that the interests of animals should be considered because of their ability to feel suffering and that the idea of rights was not necessary in order to consider them.

The central argument of his book is an expansion of the utilitarian idea that 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is the only measure of good or ethical behaviour. Singer -and, by extension, the animal rights movement - argues that there is no reason not to apply this to other animals.

* Groups like AAVS (the American Anti-Vivisection Society) have been around for well over 100 years, so no one can really claim credit for being first.

You've failed to prove this.I don't have to. And how can I? I explicitly said I do not make a generalisation, but that there are people with problematic views.What you've provided was an example of a kook who lacked the sense of proportion necessary to recognize the utter ridiculousness of re-locating large populations of people as a method of combating de-forestation. He also suggested that sabotage would be a splendid idea. With that I want to underline that there is a direct connection between the fervour of belief or subjective weight of grievance and the desire for action.Lacking proportion and caring more about animals than people are not the same thing. People do the wrong things or employ the wrong methods for the right reasons all the time. There are adherents to every ideology who take their ideology too far. This doesn't mean that these people care more about than they do about people. No? What does 'taking their ideology too far' mean then? By implication, it means they do care more about their ideology than about people. Whenever people take their ideology very much to their heart, there is the chance that it offers itself as political violence, or ideologically motivated violence. And by saying that I do not make a judgement on their personal character. Bin Laden thinks it is perfectly ok to kill Americans and Westerners in pursuit of his jihad, but he probably is a nice person to his family.Environmentalists who go too far do not care more about the environment than they do about people, just as businessman like Ken Lay who go too far in the name of profit still love their families and children more than they love money - and it is often [I]because of their love of their families (who, may I point out, are people) that such individuals become so obsessed with getting ahead that they throw conventional ethics out the window.

No. This is not what animal rights activists stand for. The founding philosophical statement upon which the modern animal rights movement is based is arguably found in Animal Liberation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_%28book%29), by Peter Singer.

While Singer is hardly the first person to apply the concept of moral standing to non-human animals, it is upon this work that the modern movement, at least, is based*. In Animal Liberation, Singer himself rejects the use of the theoretical framework of rights when it comes to animals. Instead, he argued that the interests of animals should be considered because of their ability to feel suffering and that the idea of rights was not necessary in order to consider them.

The central argument of his book is an expansion of the utilitarian idea that 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is the only measure of good or ethical behaviour. Singer -and, by extension, the animal rights movement - argues that there is no reason not to apply this to other animals.

* Groups like AAVS (the American Anti-Vivisection Society) have been around for well over 100 years, so no one can really claim credit for being first.But what is the greatest good for the greatest number is an assessment on the way to which you can make some substantial errors. The lack of sense of proportion is probably the single most important thing on this way. The outcome of your argument depends largely on which animal's right you put in front. This world is dominated by humans, and like it or not, the assessment of what's 'the greatest good for the greatest number' has to take that into account.

Now you're a nice person with a proper sense of proportion, and no doubt there are many others. We disagree on much less than it sounds like. What worries me is the kooks who clearly do lack the sense of proportion. They do cause harm. In that I include folks who spray on furs or leather jackets (I have seen that happening in Cologne's city center), liberate milk cows who then perish because they don't get milked or, and that was really a stroke of moronic genius, who liberated North American Minks from a fur farm in Bavaria (That'll teach them rich! Enslaving animals for their precious furs! Outrageous!) into Freedom with a capital F - to be precise the freedom of these aggressive little buggers to invade a wildlife resort that held threatened species of rare birds where they then swiftly wiped out about 80+% of the local bird population. Crass examples, and, conceded, relatively rare ones too, but this is reality based crassness, that indicates a clear lack of clear thinking on part of those who took action for the cause.

Splunge I do not hold myself above people who are chagrined about the plight of hairless cats in colder climates and who spend their lives knitting them sweaters. What does get on my nerves is those people who because they are oh so active in some minor problem and thus puts themselves on some moral highground. "I help abandoned puppies, that means I am such a good and awesome person and better than all of you", my entire point is that to really earn an attitude such as that you might want to pick your causes with more thought.

To stay more strictly within the topic : when will PETA protest agains all the rat poison being put out all over the world? Bug zappers? Cockroach poisons?

I would like to see their lists of which animals it is right to protect and which we shouldn't. I am sure they are outraged about the shootings of street dogs in many places around the world while they couldn't care less about the attempted genocide on the common rat that happens everywhere despite feral dogs being just as big a problem as rats are in some places.

To stay more strictly within the topic : when will PETA protest agains all the rat poison being put out all over the world? Bug zappers? Cockroach poisons?

I would like to see their lists of which animals it is right to protect and which we shouldn't. I am sure they are outraged about the shootings of street dogs in many places around the world while they couldn't care less about the attempted genocide on the common rat that happens everywhere despite feral dogs being just as big a problem as rats are in some places.Yup. That's my point about pigeons as a pest.

So forgive me if I'd rather give money to causes other than starving Africans.

Actually giving money to starving africans is one step of the process of creating stability in Africa. Economical stability will prevent conflicts which rise from lack of resources. Reducing mortality rates and malnutrition will make it possible to give education. You can't educate people who are struggling for their lives. Educating women will decrease birth rates, which will lead to declining number in population. Lesser people with better education in how to use their resources more productively will increase the chances of economical stability, which will lead to better chances of ecological stability as well.

One of the biggest threat to endangered species is illegal hunting which is done in the hopes of getting profitable income. Poaching in Africa increases dramatically during times of conflict and the money is used to buy weapons for war.

Species extinction is a major loss to the health industry, decreasing the possibilities of researching new medicinal plant and animal extracts and ultimately better medication for the future. As an example: Environment and health: 7. Species loss and ecosystem disruption — the implications for human health (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/164/1/66)

So all in all, giving money to starving africans might not be such a bad idea after all...

But giving money to PETA? Don't know enough abut PETA to make a stand, but AFAIK and in the light of news such as this they seem like a bunch of fanatics, which isn't such a good thing...

What does get on my nerves is those people who because they are oh so active in some minor problem and thus puts themselves on some moral highground.
Ah, OK, I see now. You're basically saying that it's OK to get involved in non-human causes, but don't go around acting like a saint if the cause is trivial. That wasn't how I interpreted your earlier posts, but thanks for the clarification. Although the problem is who gets to decide what is trivial. Not you. And certainly not me. I'm not saying I disagree with you in principle, but I'm not sure how one defines "trivial". Certainly you have your definition, and I have mine, but our respective definitions may differ from each other, and from other people's as well.

To stay more strictly within the topic : when will PETA protest agains all the rat poison being put out all over the world? Bug zappers? Cockroach poisons?

I would like to see their lists of which animals it is right to protect and which we shouldn't. I am sure they are outraged about the shootings of street dogs in many places around the world while they couldn't care less about the attempted genocide on the common rat that happens everywhere despite feral dogs being just as big a problem as rats are in some places.

Agreed entirely. Although this kind of gets back to what I said above about who gets to decide what is important.

I would argue that you shouldn't go around acting like a saint even if the cause is serious. Christ says in the Bible that when you give charity, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. I'd say that's good advice regardless of your religious persuasion. Nothing to me is as obnoxious as these people who go around saying "I give money to the children in Africa, I give to the local food bank, I volunteer at the animal shelter" and their tone and demeanor clearly says "what are you doing? I'm better than you!" It's the attitude more than the behaviour that bothers me.

On the other hand, I know a lot of people who simply go around, contributing to the community in all the ways mentioned above, and don't make a big deal about it. Those are the people I respect.

When we talk about PETA, as Ragusa so ably pointed out, they want attention, the more the better, and while I don't agree with their agenda, if they pursue that attention legally, that's their right -- as is the right of their adversaries to defend themselves legally.

As soon as they start throwing paint on people wearing furs or breaking into private property to release animals that are legally owned, though, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law -- unshakeable personal conviction does not give you the right to commit assault on law abiding citizens or trespass and destroy property.

(Off topic)
Lots of people hate kids, and I'm pretty damn sure his tongue was inserted firmly in cheek.

Heh. Not quite, don't hate 'em, I just I really don't have any tolerance for them, never wanted them and don't want to be around them. I don't mean 'em harm either, and despise child cruelty, but who doesn't?
Oh and I'm a "she" by the way - which is why my horror of small stinky brats is all the more horrifying. :D

Back to pigeons, starving africans and laziness, then.

No? What does 'taking their ideology too far' mean then? By implication, it means they do care more about their ideology than about people.What you are forgetting is that environmentalists* often see their cause in human terms, believing that the consequences for all life - humans included - would be exceedingly dire should we not take extreme and radical action. These people obviously place their ideology above reality, but they do not do so because they value their ideology more than people. In fact, they quite often do so out of concern for their fellow man.

* Animal rights activists are often a different story, but you never really hear about animal rights activists intentionally killing people in order to save the lives of animals, which would indicate that they value the lives of people - or at least their human, non-animal selves, since they aren't willing to risk their own lives or life in prison "just" to save an animal's life - more than the lives of animals.

We disagree on much less than it sounds like.Agreed.

To stay more strictly within the topic : when will PETA protest agains all the rat poison being put out all over the world? Bug zappers? Cockroach poisons? When it would actually have a chance of being taken seriously. PETA isn't going to protest roach poisons, per se, because not only is there a public health element to leaving such infestations alone, but they would also be a laughing stock if they proffered such an argument. They naturally recommend preemption (keeping the house exceptionally clean, using natural repellents), but they recognize that extermination of roaches is sometimes necessary when preemption fails or isn't conducted. PETA isn't going to protest bug zappers because no one would care, but good luck finding a member of PETA who owns one. PETA doesn't protest rat poison, again, because no one would care, and protests only work when they generate a response, but they strongly advocate using the numerous no-kill pest solutions currently available on the market.

I am sure they are outraged about the shootings of street dogs in many places around the world while they couldn't care less about the attempted genocide on the common rat that happens everywhere despite feral dogs being just as big a problem as rats are in some places.You'd be quite wrong about this. PETA protests animal research on mice, so it should be fairly obvious that they don't discriminate on the basis of size or significance (they discriminate on the basis of feasibility, instead, choosing not to waste their time on hopeless causes) when deciding which animals to advocate.

What you are forgetting is that environmentalists* often see their cause in human terms ...Cynical me would agree with that sentence would it use 'frame' instead of 'see'. See is probably not in all cases correct. They have to operate in the human sphere, so they would lose much appeal if they expressly put animal interests first. There is a chance that 'We campaign to resettle all of you to save the beavers (or else)' will fail to generate much support for their cause, let alone raise funds. Let us find a way to save the beavers and live together in balanced harmony with nature'! sounds much better, especially if this half hearted weak sister compromise it is being uttered by, say, a hot chick.

Even though that insight admittedly can be interpreted as a design of reflection and moderation, which suggests I ought to be more generous, it can alternatively mean that they merely have acquired some marketing skills, which means they are just deceptive :skeptic: Deep down in their zealous black hearts they're probably still the evil druids from the BG games :skeptic: Druids, you're on notice!

Christ, it has to be said... you guys don't half argue about some pointless rubbish!

Oi! Cockroaches is serious business!