First, we need to make a distinction between “animal rights” and “animal welfare”. “Animal welfare” allows humans to use animals to satisfy certain needs, such as: food, clothing, medical research, even entertainment. The animals should, however, live in good conditions and be treated in a humane way. “Animal rights”, on the other hand, imply that humans do not have the right to use an animal for human purposes. Animal rights organizations include: PETA, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Animal Liberation Front and HSUS. Animal welfare organizations include: the World Organisation for Animal Health and the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA).

Most controversy arises around animal rights groups, because of the extreme position they occupy, the methods they sometimes use, and their tendency to impose their ideas upon others. In doing so, they seem to attach little importance to factual data, and the truth often only appears to be relevant insofar it proves their point. Anything that is contradicting their views or arguments is carefully ignored, or dismissed as a lie. This modus operandi appears to be a constant throughout the communication of many groups, and the mere fact that such kind of propaganda methods are felt necesary, puts a dark shadow on the “good intentions” of these groups.

If a killer whale throws up a seal in the air, breaking every bone in the poor animal’s body,causing internal bleeding that will lead to a certain death, I don’t hear anybody denounce this as an act of sheer cruelty. When the killling (for food, or for research) of an animal is done by a human predator, however, it becomes an act of barbarism.
Some actually claim that animals should have the same rights as humans: the School of Helsinki even listed a number of basic rights for Cetaecans, comparable to the Declaration of Human Rights by the UN: the right to live, the right of habitat, etc… But I wonder how much the orca cared about those “rights” when he first spotted that seal? The only right I can think of was for the seal to serve as dinner.

In 2002, AnimalScam.com was put online, a project of the “Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF)”. The idea behind this project is that every consumer should have the right to decide what to eat, to wear and to do in his/her freetime, and it’s goal is to expose any lies or twisted truths, that are sometimes part of the activists’ propaganda. CCF argues that many of the things that we take for granted, are likely to dissapear if the animal rights groups get it their way: no more meat products, no more dairy products, no more eggs, no more fish, no more leather, no more visiting the circus,…

So, should attributing “human rights” to animals not imply that humans get “animal rights”?

Does this mean PETA, who has referred to as out the ex-sex tape star in the past for her fur coat affections, orchestrated the assault? No, the group insists. But that doesn’t imply it’s unhappy the incident took place.

“It was not [us],” a rep for PETA tells TMZ, adding: “PETA has tried every thing from polite letters to public protests, but Kim Kardashian has not been moved by the news that animals are beaten, electrocuted, and even skinned alive for real fur garments. Whoever threw that flour could reach her when our well mannered appeals did not.”
And, hey, if flour is unsuccessful, little question a message from Courtney Stodden will do the trick.
“It was not [us],” a rep for PETA tells TMZ, adding: “PETA has tried every thing from polite letters to public protests, but Kim Kardashian has not been moved by the news that animals are beaten, electrocuted, and even skinned alive for real fur garments. Whoever threw that flour could reach her when our well mannered appeals did not.”
And, hey, if flour is unsuccessful, little question a message from Courtney Stodden will do the trick.

1. Rihanna and Ashton Kutcher: Rumored One-night Time Stand Alert! 
2. Tila Tequila to Enter Rehab for Substance Abuse, Psychological Points
3. Tremendous Tuesday Outcomes: Mitt Romney Pulls Ahead, However Republican Race to Proceed on
4. Tim Tebow on Being The Bachelor: Undoubtedly Not!
5. Tamra Barney and Eddie Choose: Engaged!
6. Kate Upton Zoo York Advert: Banned by MTV!
7. Lady Gaga Pulls The Plug on Interviews: Wth?!

Killer Whale Fin (Photo credit: Ndecam)

A U.S. judge has been asked to rule on whether animals should be protected from slavery in the same way as human beings. This case is being heard in San Diego and has been brought by PETA, who named five orcas as plaintiffs in the case. The US District Judge Jeffrey Miller called the hearing.

 The orcas reside in San Diego and Orlando, and are forced to live in tanks.  PETA lawyer Jeffrey Kerr says ‘This case is on the next frontier of civil rights’, despite the fact that these orcas are not expected to respect the civil rights of their audience.  Theodore Shaw, Sea World’s lawyer, says the lawsuit is a waste of the courts time and money. He added that a court does not have the authority to answer the ethical question of whether animals should be treated as humans.

The Judge has now heard the evidence from both sides, before deciding to take the case under advisement and to issue his ruling at a later date.  The implications of a ruling in favour of PETA could be significant, allowing animals to be plaintiffs in a law suit. It would also raise questions concerning how scientific data is gathered, and in the use of animals in the military.

Defence lawyers say the issue at the heart of this case is not whether the animals have been abused. The case aims to give animals the same rights as humans, so keep them captive would clearly be wrong if PETA was to win the case. PETA say any ruling would only apply to the entertainment industry, but the ruling could have repercussions in many subsequent animal rights cases.

Some people were once considered property, and animals also should be thought of as humans and have their rights protected in the same way. This is an interesting ethical question; these animals did not choose the life they lead. But at what point do equal rights become impractical? Will a decision ultimately lead to the life of animal being equal to that of a human? The judge in this case has not set a date when he will announce a verdict.

20 vegetarians can live off of the same land as one meat eater.

Many people are trying to go green to save the earth but “Meat’s not green”

Because of the demand for meat is so high animals are no longer killed humanly.

Animals have bad living conditions when raised and sold for food.

Meat is high in saturated fat making a meat eater more likely to get diabetes and heart disease.

Animal farms cause a lot of unnecessary pollution.

The price of meat continues to increase so the more you cut out of your diet the cheaper your grocery list will be.

Despite what people say there are many more ways to get natural protein that don’t include eating meat.

You are much more likely to get an illness from your food if you eat meat because animals carry disease.

Vegetarians and vegans get sick less often of meat eaters.

You will be saving lives everyday.

All of the above are food reasons to become a vegetarian. They are also good reasons to become vegan but here are a few more reasons directed more toward being vegan.

Most of the food a vegan eats is fresh food so you know exactly what you are eating.

You are taking foods from an animals that they had to work very hard to create so they would be able to get benefit from it, not you.

You’re stealing milk from a baby cow (which contains puss)

No one can argue that in its defense for animals, the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) knows few bounds, and that includes pornography.

In a mind-bending move, the organization has announced that it will create a pornographic web site.  The website, says the organization, will help it raise awareness.  Clearly, that’s not the only thing that will start to rise once gents and ladies get an eye full of what will be on PETA’s triple X website.

New .xxx Domain Available

The new website will be launched in December of 2011.  That’s when the Internet domain .xxx will be available for commercial use.  PETA says their new .xxx site will be a useful way of addressing a hot topic and their animal rights message at the same time.

While critics suggest the new PETA triple X website is just another marketing method by which PETA can advance their views, others say the new site could be useful.  However, there are several people who think the new campaign joins other crude and tasteless PETA efforts – such as their “Save the Whales. Lose Blubber. Go Vegetarian campaign – that ultimately does the organization little good.

Animal Mistreatment Videos

So, what will be on the new site?  PETA says they will have actual pornography, but it will be interspersed with videos of animals being mistreated and links to websites featuring vegetarian and vegan messages and products.

PETA says it hopes to gain a “whole new audience of people” by launching their porn site.  No doubt about that, but will all those new people have much of an interest in anything but the human animals that will be romping around in the all together?  I guess we’ll have to check it out – all in the name of science and research, of course.

Click here for more articles by The Writin’ Cowboy.

The porn site will have sexually explicit content which includes animal abuse. Lindsay Rajt says the sexy videos will give way to the sinister world of animal cruelty.

PETA is known for its campaigns against animal cruelty, but little did any one imagine that the organization would go so racy in its campaign.

“You will be able to find the site at peta.xxx and it will be “a pornography site that draws attention to the plight of animals,” Rajt said.

PETA is widely known for its “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” ad campaigns with celebrities like Eva Mendes and Khloe Kardashian showing off their skin and bones in support of animals.

The porn site has yet to be launched and the .xxx domain is not yet secured.

I have been a vegetarian for nearly fifteen years. At first, I thought you were pretty cool, PETA. I had some of your stickers on my laptop. I thought you were so smart and clever and that it was great to get the message out. Vegetarianism is the way to go. But you just don’t get it, PETA.

Your protests get more attention from horny men than anything else. This is probably intentional, too. Men tend to be far less sympathetic to the vegetarian perspective than women. But you aren’t convincing men to become vegetarians by parading naked women around times square with butcher markings on their butts. Instead, you’re just making them hungry! I can’t imagine that your protests have actually convinced very many people to switch to vegetarianism. They are just too insane to convert any rational person.

What convinces most of us to become vegetarians in the first place is compassion. Whether you are compassionate for the environment, your own body, or the lives of all animals, you become a vegetarian out of compassion. But what you do, PETA, is present absolutely twisted, insane concepts to the world. And then you expect them to become vegetarian/vegan.

Look, I get it. I understand what you’re saying when you have people lay naked, soaked in red paint and wrapped in saran wrap. I immediately recognize the relationship to the super market. But do you think my grandmother is going to feel more sympathetic towards a cow she never met because your naked babes are laying there like that? You’re more likely to get the attention of confused fourteen year old boys than anything else. And believe me – peer pressure will keep most of them from ever becoming vegetarians.

And do you really think that when you are the public’s predomninant perception of what vegetarians are like that they would want to join your ranks? You’re constantly going beyond the acceptable boundaries to make a point and get in the news. But all you are doing is polarizing vegetarians even further.

Sure, you might convince some angsty teenagers to become vegetarians with your outlandish stunts. But I doubt that many of them really get it. They’re just doing it because it’s cool and counterculture. Just like Elvis. For them, it will only be a fad. You’re not really spreading the compassion part.

PETA: If you want to convince more people to stop eating meat, stop it with the outlandish stunts involving naked, barely legal girls. While I love the hot action, I can’t believe that it’s actually effective in bringing more people to vegetarianism. Instead, show others what the meat industry does to our animals, our lands, and our bodies. If people get to see the real, brutal truth, that will convince them.

Stop turning tricks. Start turning stomachs. Then you’ll get some results.

“If you donate to the aid of cows being tortured and being confined into smaller living quarters with poor conditions, then you will yourself get better quality meat for your table. By supporting the rights of animals, you can potentially make the food you eat far better than it is. Besides, would you want to be imprisoned in horrible conditions your whole life before being eaten?”

However, with that logic, the other side of the token could be used.

“There is no need to help these cows. All you’ll do is decrease the amount of meat we can produce annually, causing humanity to either lose space for farmland or to starve itself to death as meat prices rise. By not supporting organizations for animal rights, you could potentially help save the world from starvation.”

Now that both arguments have been seen, you can hopefully see that both arguments rely heavily on logic. You should also be able to see that logic you can use logic to provide a counterargument for logic. The only thing that really matters now is public opinion.

Well, enough with the introductions, logic is pointless because of the fact (you can’t really say this is an opinion, as I have just provided evidence) that one could argue one point with logic but could find retaliation with logic of the same potency.

Basically, logic is like a pendulum, when one thing is said about something, you’ll have to expect that the argument will come back to hit you in the face. However, the thing about pendulums is that, eventually, they’ll slow down. Much like this, with an argument based on logic, each time the same piece of logic is used, the argument will weaken, usually due to repetition.

The one reason logic is still heavily used in arguments is that most people are not very capable of countering logic with logic, as the average human intelligence is declining (in fact, I believe I myself have lost 30 IQ listening to crude humor), so is the capabilities of the human mind to comprehend certain things, logic being one of these things. With that, it gives people a false sense of security that their argument is flawless (provided it is a persuasive piece of literature that is based on Logos, rather than any other style of rhetoric).

Well, time for our brief summarization, logic is pointless.

At Toronto’s Fashion Week PETA supporters came out to protest the continued wearing  of animal fur and skin. On Tuesday afternoon, PETA supporters hoisted their “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” banner.

Outside  the Prince’s Gate close to Toronto’s Fashion week location, a small group of protesters gathered to make a statement about the wearing of animal skins, leather and fur displayed by Canadian fashion designers.

Aside from the fully clothed protesters, with signs like “Animals are not ours to wear” and “Trapped by Greed” there were the a few daring,  full breasted beauties who decided to bare it all, well almost.

The sexy  protestors stripped down to their panties standing behind a banner that said “Bare Skin—Don’t Wear Skin.” Their exposed voluptuous breasts were barely covered by the tips of their hands.

These naked protesters almost seemed like paid models.  Peta runs a risk with these sorts of displays.  Who or what got more attention, the campaign against wearing animal fur or the naked beauties braving the Toronto chill?