PETA are ethical

If you have any emotion, any empathy and any moral codes. You would see that PETA are a very ethical organisation." I do have emotion, empathy and moral codes. Hence why I can not condone PETA's actions. On the point of concentration camps. There is a difference. All concentration camps kept people in terrible conditions, they disregarded human rights and weren't monitored by sensible, ethical people who had the health and safety of the victims in mind. Plus concentrations camps were created and used because of the warped views of one evil, hate filled man where as livestock farms are used for essential resources obtained from the killing of animals however the process of killing is handled badly. There is a beautiful thing called the 'Federal Animal Welfare Act' that was put in place to prevent the abuse of animals. Do some farms slide into unethical treatment? Yes, I'll give you that. Will they be corrected and punished? You bet they will. It may take time but if reports are put in, investigations will take place and places will be shut down. Abuse is evil but it does not justify PETA's slander, hypocrisy and disregard for freedom of humans. Is there a logical progression? There is a small, minute progression yes but it does not excuse the trivialization of one of the world's darkest moments. Also, it's not an effective analogy, it's undignified juxtaposition. Finally on this point, the ability to twist an analogy does not take away the offensiveness of a separate analogy. "the majority of animals we eat could defeat us if we fought without weapons." I'm sorry but this is hyperbole, plain and simple. "The main point I was trying to make was that PETA and you are both ethical, your ethic is not more or less right than theirs." Actually this can be debated. I don't slander and protest against people who kill animals, whilst killing animals. We've discussed this before and I believe the figure you stated was '60%'. I advise you take a look at the reports obtained by 'The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' http://www.petakillsanimals.com... I don't offend people's religious beliefs as a means to inspire support of a hypocritical, shady cause: http://www.petakillsanimals.com... http://www.petakillsanimals.com... I have never killed animals and dumped their bodies in dumpsters: http://www.petakillsanimals.com... You see. My ethics involve being a good person and enjoying my freedoms. I do not pretend to be a good guy whilst actually being a bad guy. I do not change my beliefs to suit an argument and I do not, nor will ever deny my fellow human the right to potential future medicines. "they clearly don't violate any moral codes and instead are moral codes themselves." - They needlessly kill animals that could be saved, they use sensationalized imagery to incite anger and hatred, they are possibly some of the biggest hypocrites I have ever had the misfortune of coming across and they twist their beliefs to fit a situation. There is a difference between situationalist and flawed ideas. "Thirdly, I would just like to point out that PETA might see all domestication of pets as wrong but the only pets that they physically remove from homes are that of neglected or abused animals. Therefore, despite their ideal of taking all animals and letting them free what they are actually doing is ethical because in practise they realise it is silly to remove a dog from a loving home." - If I may, I would like to present a quote from Ingrid Newkirk taken from a convention: "Our goal is total animal liberation and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitative purpose." You can't get clearer than that. The exact definition is all animals in captivity by any means and reason will be set free to live life be their own accord and wishes. ALL ANIMALS, this comes directly from Ingrid Newkirk. They're not picking and choosing. Unless of course Ingrid Newkirk is wrong about what she said and if so, what else is she wrong about? It's not just the abused animals they'd remove at least, not by what the leader says. "to understand exactly what PETA want to see explode you must understand how unethical the enemy of PETA is." - We've all seen the footage. However two wrongs do not make a right. Yes the abuse is evil but that does not justify the promotion of violence and acts of terror. "Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden, two people who genuinely treated their victims far nicer than animals in slaughterhouses and fast-food owned farms do" - That statement is possibly one of the most foolish statements I have ever come across, I was going to leave it alone but I had to actually highlight the fact that you are comparing the dictator Saddam Hussein to livestock farms. This is a long quote but I have to use it just so people know exactly what you're comparing the process of killing animals of food to: "After a few days in these camps, the men accused of being insurgents were trucked off to be killed in mass executions. In its book Iraq's Crime of Genocide, Human Rights Watch/Middle East writes: "Throughout Iraqi Kurdistan, although women and children vanished in certain clearly defined areas, adult males who were captured disappeared in mass ... It is apparent that a principal purpose of Anfal was to exterminate all adult males of military service age captured in rural Iraqi Kurdistan. Only a handful survived the execution squads. Even amidst this most systematic slaughter of adult men and boys, however, "hundreds of women and young children perished, too though the causes of their deaths were different -- gassing, starvation, exposure, and willful neglect -- rather than bullets fired from a Kalashnikov.Nevertheless, on September 1, 2004, U.S. forces in Iraq discovered hundreds of bodies of Kurdish women and children at the site near al-Hatra, believed to be executed in early 1988 or late 1987" http://en.wikipedia.org... The reason no one complained about ethics when they were executed? They unjustly, inhumanely killed thousands of people because of the view of one evil man. We kill chickens and cows for food just sometimes it's handled badly. There is a difference. "PETA fund ALF to save animals, ALF use that funding to save animals. The issue with ALF is, patronisingly, an issue with ALF! Not an issue with PETA." - As well as other terrorist groups such as Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified "domestic terrorist" group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats etc etc. My point is this. If I fund a business and I find out it's dealing in shady business? I STOP FUNDING AND SUPPORTING. To use your analogy of the ethical man and the pedophile, he's only unethical if he doesn't act to stop or distance himself from the pedophile. "unauthorized collection of stray animals, such as Jerry Greenwald," - Unauthorized? He runs a shelter that takes in abused and stray animals, you know, like PETA are supposed to. "aggression doesn't mean they are unethical it means they as passionate and ruthless with being ethical at any cost." - We are a world governed by laws. Violence and intimidation are never an acceptable substitute for the democratic political process, or for substantive public debate and also Violence is not a civilized tool for changing minds; it's a sign that some activists have lost the debate and are trying to force their views on others. "You forgot the fact that, regarding the 2001, Earth Liberation Front involving ALF, PETA spokesperson Newkirk states "The donation was a mistake, and the money had been intended for public education about destruction of habitat" - What, did they not learn from the previous arsons before funding? My point - PETA are either unethical hypocrites or fools. Or both.