Thanks for the source on the flour-throwing thing. I can't say I see flour-throwing as a particularly heinous or fanatical action, but you're right that it was endorsed by PETA.

When you say PETA endorses and funds a concept, what you're really saying is that they express a particular point of view (namely that violence against animals should be resisted by any means necessary). I'm sure you disagree with it strongly, but expressing a viewpoint is a lot different than doing violence, isn't it? Do you really want to make the claim that endorsing a disagreeable philosophy is the same as violence? That reminds me too much of the War on Terror.

There are certainly some people who work for PETA who support using violence as a political tactic. There are also people within the ACLU who support using violence to defend our constitutional rights. Neither has much to do with the organizations themselves. I think you might be cherry-picking the individual opinions of certain people in order to fit a pre-conceived notion of what an organization as a whole stands for.

Regarding your (and your link's) claim that PETA provides aid and support to the ALF and ELF, see my explanation above. To reiterate: the ALF and ELF are not organizations, they're traditions. It's like saying PETA provides aid and support to "goth". It's not possible.

Maybe certain members of PETA gave money to other people who turned out to be connected to someone who was involved in a sabotage which was claimed under the banner of ALF, but now we're getting into the witch-hunt territory that the FBI uses to spy on peace groups and freeze the assets of Muslim charities. Do you really want to be a part of that?

Consider your opinion respected though. I'm not a fan of PETA, but I'm not a fan of anti-PETA zealots either.

Sorry, I missed the part in the article you linked to where PETA claimed responsibility for flour being thrown on that person's fur coat. Just because somebody did something mean in connection with animal rights doesn't mean PETA did it.

Also, ALF is not an organization, it's a banner or concept. Sort of like "open source". It's not possible for PETA or anyone else to fund the ALF, because there's no institution to give the money to.

I hoped you would take the time to learn about those you disagree with before leveling criticisms...the way you're doing it makes you look just as rabid and ideological as PETA.

violent? Really? You're entitled to be as hostile as you like to the idea of animal rights, but PETA is about as violent as the ACLU. Perhaps you're thinking of the ALF?

jiggawho?

No, it's totally unreasonable.

I, for one, support a more flexible policy along the lines of:

All photos which matter must have no significant alterations beyond basic cleanup and color/contrast adjustment.
However, photos of some stupid shit nobody would care about can have a bunch of unicorns or whatever pasted in there to make them more exciting.

Well, if we're working to overthrow the government, I don't see any reason why not to accept its benefits. In this context, the government is a clear enemy, and if resources can be drawn from it, that's a weakness that should be exploited. Certainly it would be a bad idea to depend on such resources, but hey, if you can get it, why not take it?

If your government is at war with you, questions of whether it's ethical to accept its "handouts" become pretty trivial.

Right, work to overthrow the government. That's like, one of the most important concepts outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and when a government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

That's something many "lefist/liberals" are talking about these days, because our government is clearly bought and paid for, even with "friends" like Obama in office.

Loyalty, yes. But loyalty to a nation or an institution is for the weak-minded. Instead be loyal to principles and ideals. Because while it may seem to you that nationalism built the world, in fact it was built by those who were loyal to ideals and principles, sometimes in cooperation and sometimes in direct conflict with their nations.

I'm not denying anything, just looking for further information on the claim that a non-insignificant number of vegetarians get hospitalized each year due to lack of protein. So far I have to say I'm not impressed.

Fair enough. In that case I believe totally in mind control. In fact, there seems to be some kind of conspiracy to inject mind control images and sound into my television programming every 5-10 minutes, which try to convince me that I must consume products in order to avoid misery.

So, so far the answer to the question "how many vegetarians get admitted to the hospital each year because they don't take in enough protein and eventually become malnourished?" seems to be: A baby one time, only it was vegan not vegetarian.

Actually, it occurred to me that a good source for these kind of statistics would be vegetarians who went on hunger strike (there have been hunger strike campaigns for human rights and anti-war causes recently). They would certainly technically end up in the hospital because of lack of protein...maybe that could help y'all spin the facts to support your claim?

That's not mind control by a longshot, it's just targeted audio. Advanced versions of this off-the-shelf technology: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/work/8636.html

On one hand I feel the need to explain to you that there is no unified front of communist environmentalist hippy liberals who are all out to screw up whatever you support. On the other other, I realize that holding such mistaken and backwards beliefs is probably one of your biggest weaknesses when it comes to influencing society, so why not let it be?

The response many of these people have is "No, I'm not important at all! I could understand gangs wanting to stalk and harass important officials or celebrities, but why me? I have no idea." Many people who experience what they believe is organized stalking don't have a unified theory about who's doing it or why - they may be completely at a loss, just like you are. But that doesn't change their experiences. Just like with real-world phenomena, being able to rationalize something doesn't change whether it's happening or not.

Do you know how many vegetarians get admitted to the hospital each year because they don't take in enough protein and eventually become malnourished? More than a few.

o rly? Got any citations for that? Seriously. I mean, I am calling BS, but I'd also genuinely be interested in your sources if there are any.