Article PETA Dubs Buffy Actress 'Jeffrey Dahmer'

[Seeing Red]

How could they do that to Eliza? There are people who just hunt for the skins. PETA has other things to worry about then Eliza hunting legally.

 

[white avenger]

How could they do that to Eliza? There are people who just hunt for the skins. PETA has other things to worry about then Eliza hunting legally.

Just on a technical note, almost all furs and leathers used in garments either come from professional breeders or from trappers. Bullet holes ruin valuable pelts. And even those animals are used. Quite a bit of the meat is processed as food for zoo and park animals, and the rest goes for things like pharmaceuticals and fertilizer.

All except the otter blood. Angel buys all of that.

 

[Blondie Bear]

Just on a technical note, almost all furs and leathers used in garments either come from professional breeders or from trappers. Bullet holes ruin valuable pelts. And even those animals are used. Quite a bit of the meat is processed as food for zoo and park animals, and the rest goes for things like pharmaceuticals and fertilizer.

All except the otter blood. Angel buys all of that.

Yeah; when I was in Biology we dissected mink that were donated by a mink farm that raised them for the fur. There's not much else they could use mink for, so at least they weren't going entirely to waste. And we didn't have to kill them.

 

[Willow My Love]

Deer need to be hunted or their populations will spiral out of control. Should we never kill another animal ever? We'd be completely over run by animals! Survival of the fittest. We're smarter, we win.

 

[Aloverssoulz]

Deer need to be hunted or their populations will spiral out of control. Should we never kill another animal ever? We'd be completely over run by animals! Survival of the fittest. We're smarter, we win.

The human population has spread out of control, yet I don't see anyone saying that some people need to be hunted or that forced abortions, tube tying, forced vasectomies should be set in place.

If there were laws set in place limiting the number of kids allowed to be born per year it'd help fix a lot of problems countries have.

China is a perfect example of what a country is like when there's to many people. It might be making some good money now, but there's millions of people living in dirty old houses, 2-3 families living together, buildings pushing against eachother.

They wisely made a 1 child per family law that has helped slow their population growth that other countries should start using.

It's 2011 and there's around 6 billion people on Earth. That's a lot of people. What about in 100 years time? 200?

Such a high population will cause a lot of problems and not just for people or animals, but for the planet. Don't be shocked if you turn the news on in 20 years and you see a report on the USA and China launching nukes at eachother because they've run out of resources in their own country. Countries are already attacking eachother for things like oil and it'll only get worst as time goes on and more humans are born.

It's not this animal or that animal that needs it's population slowed down. It's humans that need their population not only slowed down, but reduced.

The planet Earth is more important than any race that lives on it and right now humans are acting like a virus on a computer, growing and spreading, destroying everything it touches. Humans need to put their ego's and feelings aside and start using their so called superior brains to fix the problems they started themselves by using logic and making the hard choices. If they don't slow down or reduce their population they might wipe eachother out altogether. Some superior species we are.

 

[Blondie Bear]

The human population has spread out of control, yet I don't see anyone saying that some people need to be hunted or that forced abortions, tube tying, forced vasectomies should be set in place.

Really? There's quite a few people who are saying those exact things, actually. Most with the same opinions you have (albeit much stronger, obviously) about overpopulation.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Yeah, I have heard alot of people say that too, Ole Egg Mother...

 

[prophecygrrl]

The human population has spread out of control, yet I don't see anyone saying that some people need to be hunted or that forced abortions, tube tying, forced vasectomies should be set in place.

If there were laws set in place limiting the number of kids allowed to be born per year it'd help fix a lot of problems countries have.

China is a perfect example of what a country is like when there's to many people. It might be making some good money now, but there's millions of people living in dirty old houses, 2-3 families living together, buildings pushing against eachother.

They wisely made a 1 child per family law that has helped slow their population growth that other countries should start using.

China's one child per family law was not wise in the slightest. A lot of China is extremely poor and the access to sex education and birth control isn't great. China's one child per family law became a huge motivator to abandon unwanted children. That and only having one child per family in a culture that privileges boys over girls has led to a huge gender imbalance in China. And then when the huge earthquake happened a couple years ago and all those school children died (since the quake happened in the middle of the day), a lot of those families were left without any children at all and with much smaller chances of conceiving again. Strictly limiting the number of children a family can have is really not the best way of limiting population growth at ALL. If we want to limit population growth AND reduce poverty, the best way is to empower women of third world countries to receive education or enter the workforce or something.

Also, forced abortions, forced vasectomies, etc. ARE common in places like China. Human rights violations, yo. It's awful. We can't look to China of all places for proper population control. Things are not looking up over there.

---------- Post added at 02:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------

Oh yeah, and we definitely do need our population growth to slow down. It's really unsustainable right now. There are just better ways of doing it than forcing abortions (like increasing sex education, offering tax incentives to keep families small, etc.) and making one child per family laws.

 

[Aloverssoulz]

China's one child per family law was not wise in the slightest. A lot of China is extremely poor and the access to sex education and birth control isn't great. China's one child per family law became a huge motivator to abandon unwanted children. That and only having one child per family in a culture that privileges boys over girls has led to a huge gender imbalance in China. And then when the huge earthquake happened a couple years ago and all those school children died (since the quake happened in the middle of the day), a lot of those families were left without any children at all and with much smaller chances of conceiving again. Strictly limiting the number of children a family can have is really not the best way of limiting population growth at ALL. If we want to limit population growth AND reduce poverty, the best way is to empower women of third world countries to receive education or enter the workforce or something.

Also, forced abortions, forced vasectomies, etc. ARE common in places like China. Human rights violations, yo. It's awful. We can't look to China of all places for proper population control. Things are not looking up over there.

---------- Post added at 02:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------

Oh yeah, and we definitely do need our population growth to slow down. It's really unsustainable right now. There are just better ways of doing it than forcing abortions (like increasing sex education, offering tax incentives to keep families small, etc.) and making one child per family laws.

Sex education won't stop horny teenagers from having sex and I don't see how empowering women in 3rd world countries will help slow the number of kids born. Birth rates are high in the richest of countries, not just 3rd world ones.

If some people are unable to have kids or only allowed to have a certain number of kids it'll stop the growth rate of the population. Yeah, in some countries they'll favour one genre over another, but that would only help beat the population problem. Human rights violations or not it should be done because like I said before, the Earth is more important than us and right now humans are messing it all up, not only for themselves, but for everything else on the planet.

I think I read a few months back that there's been work done to change DNA so parents can choose if they want a boy or girl. If that's true it could be helpful.

All that sounds very cold hearted because it is, but even with very good sex education in all schools the population will always keep growing and it'll get to a point where countries will run out resources and start wars with other countries to take their resources. Countries are already going to war because of those reasons. What will the world be like when there's 7 billion people? 9 billion? 12 billion? Once super power countries that have nukes need to look else where things will get nasty. After all the saying "survival of the fittest" is true, so if something seems cold, wrong or cruel it's needed.

Though people love themselves to much to take such measures so I think we're all going to be screwed.

 

[NY State of Mind]

Why do we have to care in quantities? Why is belonging to a certain species morally less valid than e.g. ethnicity or gender? Animals are sentient beings. Why does their suffering mean less than human suffering? I'm extremely sorry to hear about your experiences, but just because I care about humans doesn't mean I can't care about animals. Suffering is bad. The less there is, the better.

Species is different from enthnicity/gender....
I agree with the less suffering for all animals is for the better, point blank. However, let me ask you a question. I don't know your life setup, but lets just say you have a younger brother/sister and a dog/cat. Now a gunman comes into your house and says I'm gonna murder one..either the sibling or family pet. Which one are you gonna choose to live/die?

Now to say a dog/cat, etc. are worth the same value as humans I can't totally agree with. Should any animal have to be killed for selfishness? NO! but that doesn't mean everything is completely equal. Those kids I'm refering too HAD futures infront of them...Who knows what they could of been. All these organizations want to talk about the animal rights, but won't speak on these matters or nobody really for the matter. I see commercials on animal abuse but none on this. So my peers lives were equal or less than all these animals?

I don't wanna seem like I'm picking on you, and don't even want you to feel like you have to reply. Cause I know it's hard to understand something you have no experience on. But even this thread helps prove my case when we have topics like this and vegan/vegatarian ones, but none on incidents like I'm talking of. Thanks for your time.

 

[prophecygrrl]

Sex education won't stop horny teenagers from having sex and I don't see how empowering women in 3rd world countries will help slow the number of kids born. Birth rates are high in the richest of countries, not just 3rd world ones.

If some people are unable to have kids or only allowed to have a certain number of kids it'll stop the growth rate of the population. Yeah, in some countries they'll favour one genre over another, but that would only help beat the population problem. Human rights violations or not it should be done because like I said before, the Earth is more important than us and right now humans are messing it all up, not only for themselves, but for everything else on the planet.

I think I read a few months back that there's been work done to change DNA so parents can choose if they want a boy or girl. If that's true it could be helpful.

All that sounds very cold hearted because it is, but even with very good sex education in all schools the population will always keep growing and it'll get to a point where countries will run out resources and start wars with other countries to take their resources. Countries are already going to war because of those reasons. What will the world be like when there's 7 billion people? 9 billion? 12 billion? Once super power countries that have nukes need to look else where things will get nasty. After all the saying "survival of the fittest" is true, so if something seems cold, wrong or cruel it's needed.

Though people love themselves to much to take such measures so I think we're all going to be screwed.

Horny teenagers are not the only people who get pregnant, nor are they the only ones with restricted access to sex education or birth control.

Empowering women in developing/third world countries changes things dramatically- women are brought out of the home, opportunities for gainful employment increase, and there's great incentive for reducing family size. Not to mention it also plays a large role in reducing poverty, which also affects infant mortality rates. Study after study has linked women's empowerment and education to reducing birth rates and the population.

Research is fun! 😀
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hboHlfuYX7-7E5wPRixdHRut8YjA

WASHINGTON (AFP) "” Giving women in poor nations better access to birth control and education would help to slash millions of unwanted births in the developing world, the World Bank said Thursday.
"Fifty-one million unintended pregnancies in developing countries occur every year to women not using contraception," the World Bank said in a statement released on the eve of World Population Day.
Although birth rates have fallen in the past 30 years, in 35 countries -- 31 in sub-Saharan Africa and East Timor, Afghanistan, Djibouti, and Yemen -- birth rates are more than five children per mother.
A global approach, encompassing not only contraception but also better access to education, is needed to bring down the fertility rate in countries where it is still too high and puts the lives of women at risk, said Sadia Chowdhury, senior reproductive and child health specialist at the World Bank.
"Girls' and women's education is just as important in reducing birth rates as supplying contraception," said Chowdhury, who is also a pediatrician.
"Women's education provides life-saving knowledge, builds job skills that allow her to join the workforce and marry later in life, gives her the power to say how many children she wants and when.
"And these are enduring qualities she will hand down to her daughters as well," said Chowdhury, co-author of a World Bank report on contraception and unintended pregnancies in Africa, eastern Europe and central Asia.
Countries with a high birth rate also tend to have high maternal mortality, infant mortality and poverty, and poor education, health care, and nutrition, Chowdhury said.
"It all adds up. When you see one thing not happening, you see other development aspects not happening," she said.
Women who have poor access to contraception often turn to abortion as a means of birth control, the report said.
But according to the report, around half the 42 million abortions performed annually are unsafe, and some 68,000 women die each year as a result of abortion.
Another 5.3 million suffer temporary or permanent disability.
Abortion is also more costly than contraceptive services, the report says.
"Findings from ... Nigeria suggest that the annual cost of post-abortion care (estimated at 19 million dollars) is approximately four times the cost of contraceptive services (estimated at 4.5 million dollars) to prevent induced abortions; and it consumes about 3.4 percent of total health expenditures," the report says.
"If contraception were provided to the 137 million women who lack access, maternal mortality would decline by 25-35 percent," it says.
The World Bank called for better and expanded information to be made available to a broad range of society -- both men and women -- as well as easier access to quality contraceptive services.
Among the benefits to be had from readily available contraceptive methods and correctly practiced birth control would be fewer maternal and infant deaths, as well as a reduction in the transmission rate of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, it said.

^ Pretty much the consensus when it comes to links between women's empowerment and declining birth rates. Increase education, opportunities, and family planning to that crucial half of the population=lower birth rates, lower infant mortality rates, lower maternal death rates. Good news for everybody.

Okay, and then you lost me at "human rights violations or not it should be done". There is no one arguing on the side of overpopulation, and there's no one who honestly believes that the present rate of population growth is sustainable. But disregarding human rights? If we're going to cross that line, (going to the logical extreme) that puts genocide on the table. I say no thank you, sorry. 😛

 

[MandaMeena]

I'm also a vegetarian and I can't stand PETA. I also don't think that people who hunt are bad people. My family used to do that all the time for food back in the day. It's natural. So silly.

 

[Goby]

However, let me ask you a question. I don't know your life setup, but lets just say you have a younger brother/sister and a dog/cat. Now a gunman comes into your house and says I'm gonna murder one..either the sibling or family pet. Which one are you gonna choose to live/die?

Now to say a dog/cat, etc. are worth the same value as humans I can't totally agree with. Should any animal have to be killed for selfishness? NO! but that doesn't mean everything is completely equal. Those kids I'm refering too HAD futures infront of them...Who knows what they could of been. All these organizations want to talk about the animal rights, but won't speak on these matters or nobody really for the matter. I see commercials on animal abuse but none on this. So my peers lives were equal or less than all these animals?

Just because we're talking about not killing animals doesn't mean we don't care about other things too.

I spend my days fighting for victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse. I spend a whole lot more time helping humans than animals. Yet when it's dinner time, I honor these magnificent animals, and my religion, by not consuming animals.

We also don't talk about prostate cancer, breast cancer, AIDS or heart disease here. When is the last time any of you helped one of those causes? I just sold some rare shaving gear for a $50.00 donation (instead of putting it on ebay) and 100% of the money went to breast cancer research. I'm not saying this to toot my horn, I'm just saying it because I help humans a whole lot more than animals.

But when there is an opportunity to hopefully change someone's eating habits so they are more compassionate towards animals, I'm not going to pass up the opportunity.

BTW, people who have been vegetarians for a long time (10+ years for me) are so sick of the scenario you just stated. (Usually the scenario takes place on a desert island with just you and a cow). How any times in the history of MANKIND has someone been given the choice "Do I kill your little sister or you family dog?" How about... NEVER! And I guarantee that 100% of all vegetarians on the planet would say "Kill the dog." Duh!!!

 

[Aloverssoulz]

Horny teenagers are not the only people who get pregnant, nor are they the only ones with restricted access to sex education or birth control.

Empowering women in developing/third world countries changes things dramatically- women are brought out of the home, opportunities for gainful employment increase, and there's great incentive for reducing family size. Not to mention it also plays a large role in reducing poverty, which also affects infant mortality rates. Study after study has linked women's empowerment and education to reducing birth rates and the population.

Research is fun! 😀
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hboHlfuYX7-7E5wPRixdHRut8YjA



^ Pretty much the consensus when it comes to links between women's empowerment and declining birth rates. Increase education, opportunities, and family planning to that crucial half of the population=lower birth rates, lower infant mortality rates, lower maternal death rates. Good news for everybody.

Okay, and then you lost me at "human rights violations or not it should be done". There is no one arguing on the side of overpopulation, and there's no one who honestly believes that the present rate of population growth is sustainable. But disregarding human rights? If we're going to cross that line, (going to the logical extreme) that puts genocide on the table. I say no thank you, sorry. 😛

That was an interesting read, thank you.

I always try to use logic over emotion, so for me taking away some human rights and forcing the laws we talked about on them would be the right choice if it would work. I feel people let their emotions cloud their judgement to much, which will end up with everyone in worst shape than they are now, because even if people were sad that they couldn't have kids or do other things, they're helping make the Earth better than it is. At the end of the day it would be for the greater good.

 

[Blondie Bear]

That was an interesting read, thank you.

I always try to use logic over emotion, so for me taking away some human rights and forcing the laws we talked about on them would be the right choice if it would work. I feel people let their emotions cloud their judgement to much, which will end up with everyone in worst shape than they are now, because even if people were sad that they couldn't have kids or do other things, they're helping make the Earth better than it is. At the end of the day it would be for the greater good.

I understand where you're coming from (to a point) with this. The question it always comes down to for me when I consider overpopulation and forcible population reduction is: who gets to decide? Who gets to say "Only so many kids per family and YOU have to die, and you and you and you, but not you." Also, any system set up around this would inevitably lead to corruption--anyone who can pay the "extra child" fine (assuming we don't go completely evil dictatorship and kill the extra child) would have as many kids as they felt like, while people at the lower rungs (or in religions which forbid the use of contraceptives, cause you know that will continue despite laws) would continue to suffer.

A couple of novels I enjoy that deal with this problem are Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card and the Pegasus series by Anne McCaffrey. I think they're both right about the sorts of fallout that would happen in society if we enacted measures to actively fight population bloat.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

when I consider overpopulation and forcible population reduction is: who gets to decide?

Income; if you make over x amount you are allowed x number of kids. Simple as that. However education can be used as a sliding scale for adjustments. The more education you have the more likely it is to bump you into the next progeny bracket and the less the opposite effect. Like taxes.

 

[Blondie Bear]

Income; if you make over x amount you are allowed x number of kids. Simple as that. However education can be used as a sliding scale for adjustments. The more education you have the more likely it is to bump you into the next progeny bracket and the less the opposite effect. Like taxes.

Okay. That's an idea (one of the more reasonable ones I've heard, actually.) And who decides what the cutoff is? What if you fall out of your bracket after having too many kids for the lower brackets? Are you also required to have x number of kids if you make x amount of money just to make sure we don't end up regulating ourselves out of existence?

It's a really sticky problem! I like my solution better: populate other planets!

 

[Skanky Vamp]

What if you fall out of your bracket after having too many kids for the lower brackets?

The IRS comes and takes them back, they in turn had them over to people that jumped up income brackets that need to have spare kids.

I think if we just start looking at kids as currency it would be a much better place.


and how dare you say it was reasonable! I certainly wasnt going for reason

 

[prophecygrrl]

Income; if you make over x amount you are allowed x number of kids. Simple as that. However education can be used as a sliding scale for adjustments. The more education you have the more likely it is to bump you into the next progeny bracket and the less the opposite effect. Like taxes.

LOL, funny that real life works exactly the opposite way. 😉 Also, issues of race, education, opportunity, and of course class factor into income levels. Are we really going to start regulating how many kids poor people have? (Operating on the idea that children are desirable) That concept is just...too similar to eugenics for me. 😛

Let's fix our messed up foster care and adoption system first, at least.

---------- Post added at 07:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 PM ----------

and how dare you say it was reasonable! I certainly wasnt going for reason

Oh whoops, I thought you were serious before. Sorry. Disregard. 😛

 

[NY State of Mind]

Just because we're talking about not killing animals doesn't mean we don't care about other things too.

I spend my days fighting for victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse. I spend a whole lot more time helping humans than animals. Yet when it's dinner time, I honor these magnificent animals, and my religion, by not consuming animals.

We also don't talk about prostate cancer, breast cancer, AIDS or heart disease here. When is the last time any of you helped one of those causes? I just sold some rare shaving gear for a $50.00 donation (instead of putting it on ebay) and 100% of the money went to breast cancer research. I'm not saying this to toot my horn, I'm just saying it because I help humans a whole lot more than animals.

But when there is an opportunity to hopefully change someone's eating habits so they are more compassionate towards animals, I'm not going to pass up the opportunity.

BTW, people who have been vegetarians for a long time (10+ years for me) are so sick of the scenario you just stated. (Usually the scenario takes place on a desert island with just you and a cow). How any times in the history of MANKIND has someone been given the choice "Do I kill your little sister or you family dog?" How about... NEVER! And I guarantee that 100% of all vegetarians on the planet would say "Kill the dog." Duh!!!

If it's a "duh" then don't put the lives of the animal equal to peers of mines. I was never personally attacking you, but had distaste for the claim that "That dog is equal to You"...Really? And I never said you didn't do anything for people or that you personally do anything else for that matter. I'm talking about these organizations and groups who go over the top for a pet, but don't care about these communities filled with problems. And I've been performing charity work for about 6 yrs now and me and my company donate money towards Cancer, AIDs, Education also..so don't make it out like I'm just talking and not doing anything. I come from an environment filled with violence, AIDs, bad health, etc. Not only do I come from it but I lived it...I've watched my uncle die from AIDs along with my grandmother, aunt with heart disease and my grandfather, uncles, aunt from various Cancers along with being raised in domestic violence among other things. But yes I agree that people need to eat right and abolish these wrong food habits. Still....don't protest for Bambi but not for the People. Once again, I'm not talking specifically about You.

PS: I'm glad and moved that you work for your community....so my hat's off to you. We're likely more alike than not and just read things wrong....anyways carry on.