You know Jack, you could atleast make a seemingly legit attempt at this instead of the obvious BS that you put up.You know full well that the PETA protest has nothing to do with the town trying to ban public nudity but the real reason is because of those that are underage that are nude and or view the nudity.

Posted by: Mars | November 2, 2007 06:37 PM

Hi
I just saw the film and I started to cry. I did`t see the whole thing i feet so sik. I wonder how pepole can do this to animals.
You rock P.E.T.A.
Love Sofie

Posted by: Sofie | November 2, 2007 11:51 PM

Hi
I just saw the film and I started to cry. I did`t see the whole thing i feet so sik. I wonder how pepole can do this to animals.
You rock P.E.T.A.
Love Sofie

Posted by: Sofie | November 2, 2007 11:51 PM

The truly bizarre part of this story is the ongoing, endless debate in Brattleboro's local paper (reformer.com) about permitting public nudity. Public opinion was mostly in favor of it following a so-called "old man" parading naked around downtown several months ago. The one thing that Brattleboro apparently cannot tolerate is beautiful naked women. Why is that? VT is very big on hunting, so clearly they will abondon their beliefs if permitting nudity also involved permitting a message from PETA.

Posted by: Romola | November 3, 2007 08:46 AM

hi peta, jack and all the animal lovers: i had a computer crash and shall have to reset it: i'm happy to give you at least this message - i must let you alone for a while but shall be back as soon as possible! in the meantime fight the good fight and don't let the evil-ones overwhelm the blog!

Posted by: animalfriend | November 3, 2007 09:19 AM

That's right, Jack. You could at least make a very legit attempt at this than the VERY obvious BS that you put up. You know full well that the ANTI-animal rights' activists like the space cadet (MARS) and friends' hate-filled, vindictive comments has nothing to do with learning about or promoting ANIMAL RIGHTS' and should be banned. The real reason they're on here is because they are attention-seeking losers who have nothing better to do than to waste their time making worthless comments against the rights of animals and any other kind of silly nonsense.

Posted by: Ariel | November 3, 2007 08:12 PM

animalfriend

So if you aren't a PETA supporter that makes you evil? HA!

Posted by: Caboose | November 3, 2007 11:07 PM

Keep the working up x

Posted by: Jenny Hunter | November 4, 2007 09:36 AM

Nude protests dont work. I means more eye candy for the guys. :D

Posted by: Caboose | November 4, 2007 12:31 PM

That makes you important, right socialist Ariel?

Posted by: Caboose | November 4, 2007 06:42 PM

Still waiting on that proof of animal rights that you say exist Ariel.

Posted by: Mars | November 4, 2007 06:55 PM

Mars,

"Rights" are not a tangible, physical thing. You can't buy a pound of rights, nor prove they exist.

They are a concept that beings that have a self-interest have a right to pursue that self-interest. Also, beings that feel fear, pain, subjugation, isolation, deprivation, enslavement et cetera, should as much as possible be spared those sufferings. Those rights are largely enshrined solely for the human animal, but all animals are deserving of those rights.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 5, 2007 10:56 AM

Quite the contrary, Caboose. I do not consider myself important, never have, never will. Considering myself important would be egotistical, self-centered. To be an a/r's activist, one has to be self-less, as well as having the understanding that we are not in this for praise and glory - because we do it solely for the animals who are not capable of thanking us, which makes this one of the most thank-less positions in which one can be involved.

Posted by: Ariel | November 5, 2007 04:03 PM

Mike Q;

"Those rights are largely enshrined solely for the human animal, but all animals are deserving of those rights."

Correct. We as humans have documented Rights. Animals do not and we cannot give them those rights because doing so is an admission that they are not capable of doing so themselves and therefore have no rights in the first place.They must claim rights and no one or no group can do it for them.That is why there are no animal rights and never will be.

Posted by: Mars | November 5, 2007 07:24 PM

Okay

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 5, 2007 10:01 PM

Okay Ariel

"Disappeared out of nowhere and beat up Tucker, which was awesome, and took the sword. Also, someone may have been a little suprised about that, and peeded their pants, just a little bit.....or a lot."
Caboose, from Red vs. Blue Episode 100

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 5, 2007 10:07 PM

dont you all have anything better to do with your life. you all think you have a solution to every problem in the world but you dont all i see is a bunch of bitching moaning and groaning over nothing. if you all want to fix something how about starting with your so called supporters. and put an end to the methods you use to protest. because all i see is a bunch of idiots indecently exposing themselves. its hard to take you all seriously when you resort to such childish and illegal acts.

Posted by: claude | November 6, 2007 12:25 PM

Mars said, "We as humans have documented Rights. Animals do not and we cannot give them those rights because doing so is an admission that they are not capable of doing so themselves and therefore have no rights in the first place.They must claim rights and no one or no group can do it for them.That is why there are no animal rights and never will be."

There are human groups that are incapable of claiming rights or even being aware of them (infants, seniors with dementia, people who have suffered brain damage through accidents, people living under a dictatorship, people with limited mental abilities, new immigrants). Should none of these people be accorded rights according to your definition?

Animals ALREADY possess certain rights as regards animal cruelty laws and humane slaughter statutes. Slowly but steadily these protections are increasing.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 6, 2007 04:30 PM

As usual, MARS is wrong again and using its usual twist on words.
Now, let me start out with this: animals cannot speak for themselves. Understood? Therefore, we -who have the capability - speak for them, just as much as certain humans cannot speak for themselves: those who are mentally handicapped, comatose, babies, children, and the elderly who suffer in such cases as Alzeheimer's. Although the people in these certain circumstances do have rights -even unknown to them- their rights are NOT always carried out with their best interest, OR not carried out at all. Nevertheless, IF no one were to justifiably speak for them, then in a lot of cases, their rights would be denied.

Since animals are helpless in certain matters that humans inflict upon them, EVERY state in the country has laws that protects their rights because caring people have worked at animals' rights. Therefore, their rights are LEGALLY documented and should be, must be carried out according to the law. (research the computer to see pages of legally DOCUMENTED animal protection rights as specified by each state)
There are also laws against the illegal transportation of animals from one country to another, from one state to another - as well as there are laws to protect endangered species. A perpetrator who harms or kills a police dog is automatically prosecuted for that reason alone.
However, we -as a/r's activists- work towards the animals having MORE rights: the freedom from suffering, torturing, and exploitation -to which EVERY living creature is entitled to by all that is humane, compassionate, decent, and civilized.
And if it thinks that no one can claim their rights for them (other than a/r's activists), it can talk to magistrates and judges who have passed down sentences to animal abusers - anywhere from fines to jail terms - for abusing the rights of the animals due to intentionally inflicting harm, neglect, torture, and/or killing.
Oh, and find out how many lawsuits RBBB&B circus had (and have) against them, and were fined for animal abuse.

Why all of these fines and sentences? Because animals DO have LEGALLY DOCUMENTED laws for their RIGHTS that the courts uphold.

Posted by: Ariel | November 6, 2007 07:13 PM

Claude

Yeah, their tactics take too long to affect anybody. Another easy way out I say. :/

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 6, 2007 09:23 PM

claude and caboose: what kind of tactic's would you propose???

Posted by: gino | November 7, 2007 01:28 PM

Ariel and Mike, you guys are right on the mark!

Anybody who thinks that a/r activists are engaging in the "easy way out" is out of his/her mind. Unfortunately, activists have to battle against deeply ingrained prejudice, arrogance, and just plain ignorance. When politics and $$$ is involved, there is no "easy" solution, because governments and companies want to maintain the status quo. Just like in the fight to end slavery and in the suffrage movement, there were small victories along the way, but significant change did not happen overnight. Dedicated, compassionate people worked tirelessly and selflessly to bring about change to help the oppressed, and that is what is happening with the animal rights movement.

Change is also not going to happen if all we do is quietly ask people to please, please, please stop abusing animals. We have to get people's attention, and this demo is just one way of doing so.

If any anti's or skeptics here are thinking that we are not having an impact or getting people's attention, just look at the first few months of Jack's PETA files. Most topics had just a few responses each. In November 2006, there were a few threads that received hundreds of comments - not surprisingly, they were for Burberry fur protests involving lots of fake blood. Since then, each month has seen more and more people posting comments, with most topics receiving 20, 30, 50+ comments each. Many receive more than 100 comments. People are noticing, people are becoming informed, and people are increasingly voicing their concerns about how animals are being abused.

Kudos to these nude protesters, and kudos to anyone who is brave enough to bring this kind of attention to themselves in order to open people's eyes to the plight of our fellow earthlings.

Posted by: Michele | November 7, 2007 03:40 PM

Well said, Michele and Ariel. It takes a lot of guts to open yourself up to potential ridicule as these protesters do. The protests themselves represent purely selfless, altruistic actions.

I think the internet has been, and will continue to be, crucial to all the great progress being made in the AR movement.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 7, 2007 05:43 PM

Hi, Mike Quinoa! : )

I would just like to let you know that I wrote was not in anyway meant to over-ride your comments,which had the same points. Your post wasn't posted at that point on the site, but it shows that we were on the same wave-length. : )

I also would like you to know that I addressed your hilarious but TRUE "quiz" about the vivesectors, but I don't think my comment was posted. I would enjoy another one like with relationship to your excellent percepton of the "pros" and "antis" that you have posted under a more current heading. : )

---Ariel,(animal) "socialist" and what ever else I'm supposed to be. LOL

Posted by: Ariel | November 8, 2007 11:35 AM

Hi Ariel,

I thought it was pretty amazing that we had both posted the same thoughts independently. Great minds think alike?

Are you referring to the all-purpose, handy-dandy "anti" posting template? :)

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 8, 2007 04:03 PM

gino

I suggest some .50 cal aspirin, or seizing power.

And you say animals are smart. If you cant fight for your rights(includes North Korea, and several African countries), you dont really deserve them. Thats your choice, to live in injustice! EVOLVE if you want to be really free.

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 8, 2007 04:12 PM

Hi, again, Mike! : )

Yes, GREAT minds do think alike! And you know, that wasn't the first time you and me crossed paths in the same manner. : )
I forgot to mention before that I ALWAYS enjoy reading ALL of your posts because I learn a lot from your comments.
Oh the anti's have a template alright - I think it's actually a computer programmed plate implanted in their heads.
And some day the same old gang of us are going to have to list how many "titles" have been bestowed upon us. I don't think you ever had the "priviledge" of receiving any, but I think I'm in the lead over everybody else! LOL : )
Hmmmm...I wonder what I'm going to be next....stay tuned, and we'll find out! : )

Posted by: Ariel | November 8, 2007 09:00 PM

Caboose, your most recent posting is just completely unbelievable. According to your logic, people should only fight for their own self-interests. So we should just let the starving people in third-world countries just deal with their own problems, we should let the elderly in nursing homes continue to be subjected to abusive caregivers, we should let infants be neglected, and we should let severely disabled individuals just waste away with no human interaction. Do you think we should ignore the plight of dogs used for fighting, or a cat who is tortured by its "owner"?

Posted by: Michele | November 8, 2007 09:36 PM

I meant easy way because you guys want to bar meat, fishing, etc, instead of finding an Earth frienly way of doing these things.

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 8, 2007 10:03 PM

Mike Q posted

"Animals ALREADY possess certain rights as regards animal cruelty laws and humane slaughter statutes."

Laws governing care of domestic animals are not rights.Animals must claim their own rights and they must apply to all animals.If a domestic rabbit claims it's murder for a human animal to kill it then it must be equal murder when a fox kills a wild rabbit.Animals at that point are not innocent. With Rights come responsibilities and with responsibilities come choices and choices are right or wrong.

Posted by: Mars | November 9, 2007 08:33 AM

Mars,

There are more than 90 law schools that are now offering animal law programs.  

There are also animal rights lawyers.

These represent de jure existence of animal rights. 

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 9, 2007 03:58 PM

Michele

Thats their choice (Im not talking about infants. Is the term "In General", or "as one species" too compfusing?). In this world, in any time period, something was fought for, be it human against human or animal against animal, or man vs beast. The point is that it's better to earn, or fight for something that you or your HERD wants/needs, than to receive it without struggle. (AKA: laziness). A perfect example is in school. You gotta work hard for grades man!(or get CREATIVE wink wink)

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 9, 2007 04:29 PM

Children cannot claim their rights; first of all they cannot even understand the concept "rights". So adults, particularly women, fought hard for children's rights. And even with those rights they need parents to protect them and make choices for them. Try and find a five-year old who can explain what "rights" are and make decisions concerning their welfare. Because of the rights fought for them, child labor was eradicated and children have the right to an education. Do they really know the value of an education? No, but they still have that right.

Even the Constitution of the USA did not confer the same rights on men. Only white men who owned property could vote and have a voice in government. Luckily, the constitution is a "living" document and amendments were added to change the inequalities many people faced. Otherwise, more than half the population would still be chattel (women and children), for example.

Ultimately, ALL animals have the right to live. My cats don't need to vote but they should live free of torture and abuse and are entitled to remaining alive and not be subject to any malice. What about the harmless herbivores people eat? They are no threat and deserve to live. The specious argument that because a wolf will eat a rabbit therefore I should show no regard and eat the rabbit is just stupid. So because cannibals eat humans we should do the same and have humanburgers? Not ALL people know what is right or wrong either; for others it is subjective.

Posted by: Ana | November 9, 2007 05:20 PM

If the whole world went vegan, we would become the prey or producers in the food web.

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 10, 2007 06:07 PM

Mike Q;

Again, animal laws are not rights. Post the rights that Ariel and now you insist exist.Animal laws are property laws.

"Luckily, the constitution is a "living" document and amendments were added to change the inequalities many people faced. Otherwise, more than half the population would still be chattel (women and children), for example."

Name one other admendment other then women voting that gave rights to women,children or non-whites.

"Ultimately, ALL animals have the right to live."

Prove it. Post that right.No animal has the right to live otherwise there would be no death.No animal has a right to be pain free.

"The specious argument that because a wolf will eat a rabbit therefore I should show no regard and eat the rabbit is just stupid. "

Mainly because you are unable to refute it.

"So because cannibals eat humans we should do the same and have humanburgers?"

Now that is stupid. Humans DO eat humans that's what a cannibal is.DDUUHH!

Posted by: Mars | November 11, 2007 02:19 AM

There is a blog battle going on NOW :D

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 12, 2007 05:16 PM

ALL animals have the right to live, and ALL animals have the right to be pain free.
The PROOF is in the FACT that all animals and human animals (except the human animals who commit suicide) have a natural desire to want to live. The PROOF is in the conscience of conscienable human animals who respect life. Death is a natural occurrence, and should ONLY be a natural occurrence.
Pain is an uncomfortable, unnatural feeling that ALL sentinent beings seek relief from naturally and should not be denied relief.
Only the unconscienable, self-centered human animals cannot see any refute in that. And since that is so, then it could be fair to say that they believe no human animal has the the right to live or has the right to be pain free. Therefore, we have murders and wars to kill, and infliction of pain on other human animals. It could also be fair to say that the unconscienable draw the line as to what beings should live and what beings should be killed or tortured. So in all basic good conscience, WHO really has the right to take another living being's life or to inflict pain? WHO really has the right to take YOUR life? No one! So YOU or no one has the right to take another's life be they animal or human animal.

Posted by: Ariel | November 13, 2007 06:17 AM

Mars:

You really are STUPID!!!! No reading comprehension, you did not get my message with the cannibals. I won't bother explaining because you are a waste of time and completely pathetic. Your knuckles must be raw from crawling back into your cave daily.

Ariel

Mars is really stupid....13th, 14th, 15th amendments....duh. We are wasting our time on an idiot. Let's write about helping animals because obviously this dumb human animal lacks knowledge about any topic and reading comprehension. Peace!

Posted by: Ana | November 13, 2007 04:14 PM

Hi, Ana, : )
I am absolutely appalled to learn that IT is stupid and has a reading comprehension disorder. You see, all along I thought IT was a scholar on every single subject pertaining to biology, history, medicine/science, theology, social economics, the judicial system, the Constitution, on and on... LOL (just kidding of course). : )
I always had (and have) the belief that one of most stupid kind of person is the kind that doesn't have a clue about what he or she is talking about and then argues with one who has highly educated credentials, which he or she uses WISELY. So if there is any proof that would be needed about IT being stupid and a waste of time, that would sum it up, since that is the exact scenario of my belief between IT and you.
I think it must have calluses by now from crawling into ITS cave daily.
Anyway, you are right. It is totally useless to try to explain anything to IT, as well as providing UNbiased proof that ITS always squawking about having.
Yes, we need to help the animals because they are our focus. And the kind of help that IT needs, well that would require a psychiatrist, then a psychologist, and then counseling follow-ups - because there HAS to be somthing VERY wrong with someone like that who insists on being wrong day after day, month after month. And then when proven wrong, resorts to false accusations, false claims, etc.
Peace! : )

Posted by: Ariel | November 14, 2007 12:57 PM

Ana

You Funny(in a good way)

Posted by: Caboose (Combine Slayer) | November 14, 2007 05:46 PM