PETA Invading WoW to Stop Baby Seal Slaughter

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peta also kills more animals then they save, FACT

Peta, Feminist Nazi's, Environmentalist Whack Jobs = Left Liberal Dems. It's all there to take away our freedom! Please people... See this now before it's to late. If Global Warming was a REAL ISSUE, All racing would be banned, along with all other oil essential activities. If you love Obama then you will hate that comment. If you love American freedom, then rise up and don't let this country fall in to socialism.
 
All that can define this is a facepalm or someone throwing out an EPIC FAIL.

Captain Jean-Luc Picard would be sad.

Oh, and can I get a video of it when everybody goes seal hunting in WoW, priceless.
 
[citation][nom]overloaded007[/nom]Peta also kills more animals then they save, FACT

Peta, Feminist Nazi's, Environmentalist Whack Jobs = Left Liberal Dems. It's all there to take away our freedom! Please people... See this now before it's to late. If Global Warming was a REAL ISSUE, All racing would be banned, along with all other oil essential activities.[/citation]
Nnnnnnno, because it's more significant to tackle industrial CO2 emissions and pollution and (even) agricultural practices than NASCAR. Besides, I suspect that if such strong measures were taken, you'd just find a way to say it was a sham anyway and that Big Ol' Socialism was Takin' Our Freedums! Believe it or not, the scientists (you know, those people who have dedicated their lives to understanding how nature works) are pretty much all convinced that global warming is real, and that people are exacerbating it. They are convinced because they are the ones who came to this conclusion, by examining the evidence over decades of study, not because they're being led by the nose by some outside group.

And what exactly qualifies as a "Feminist Nazi?"

[citation][nom]overloaded007[/nom]If you love Obama then you will hate that comment.[/citation]
I love facts over paranoia and I hate that comment.


[citation][nom]overloaded007[/nom]If you love American freedom, then rise up and don't let this country fall in to socialism.[/citation]
We're already socialist in many important ways. Quit living in a dream world where the US is purely Capitalist, and where being purely Capitalist is desirable, and where Pinko Commie Subersives are trying to overthrow the bourgeois.
 
I didn't say nascar, I said all racing, nascar is .5% all of the racing. It's also just for fun, so it would be one of the first things to go if Co2 emmisions were a real concern. Any NON ESSENTIAL ACTIVITY WOULD be banned first if this was a real issue. How can you not believe that? In 2005 Jeff Gordans expeneses for racing fuel, traveling team, etc used 120,000 gallons of fuel. Add 40 more racers to that and you get 4.8 million gallons of fuel, or $31 million. And you still have not put a dent in racing industries consumption of gas use.
 
LMFAO. Killing animals in video games is awesome. Because it does no harm in real life. I hope they join my PVP realm so i can gank them and show them real pain. Camp them out till they LOG OFF!!!
 
[citation][nom]n3ard3ath[/nom]it's clear this website is over-visited by an audience with an inflated self-righteousness. The lack of any maturity or compation in those people is clear, and they'll even give you a bunch of -1, like they'll do with me, just cause you dared mensionning the cruality those animals suffer.[/citation]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this post of yours got a -1 because it was typed poorly and was designed to insult everyone reading it. Not because it had anything to do with animal cruelty. Call it a hunch.

[citation][nom]n3ard3ath[/nom]
Some say PETA is a joke, it can, does'nt mean the actual belief they prone about the respect of animals or nature is flawed.[/citation]

Respecting nature and the environment is good for countless reasons. No one has denied that. What we don't care for is a bunch of @$$hats that lie, dramatize, and do the equivalent of egging people's cars on a wide scale without remotely prioritizing what the more serious environmental issues are.

By point of comparison, the human society which actually gets a degree of respect has managed to put steadily increasing economic pressure on the situation by reducing the number of companies that accept fishery products from canada until commercial sealing is banned. While I doubt it should prevent natives from getting a license to privately hunt (total assumption on my part) it does put pressure directly on the fisheries to come up with an alternate profitable off season plan.

PETA on the flip side will continue to provide entertainment and annoyance while serving to discredit any situation they encounter. There are already legitimate organizations that handle these problems appropriately. As wheels said. PETA often does more damage than good.

[citation][nom]n3ard3ath[/nom]
Seals are the main food source of sharks, and sharks in the pacific ocean are actually suffering decimation cause of the asian shark wings market. Which is probably one of the main link between any over-population of seals there may be, that's what I call breaking the natures balance. Killing baby seals is'nt an excuse to supposedly rebalance it. Everywhere you go so see fucking morons saying uneducated garbage as if whatever junk coming out of their mouths were the ultimate truth. [/citation]

Culling a population that gets out of control rather than letting it starve to death because of over fishing (common problem in many parts of the world) isn't garbage or stupid. And fails to take into account the heart of the issue. Ask yourself what is driving the over fishing. Pointing fingers is easy. Coming up with a practical solution is not.
 
Spectrum alignment is a circle, not a line.

The problem with PETA is not their values its the fact that they resort to extremism. I guess they do not realize that when they go overboard they alienate the more reasonable people.

The fact is it's a game. I kill digital people on a daily basis. I wiped out a town with a Nuke a few months back (in a game). But you know what? I have no desire to commit violence against any person or animal in real life.

With all the real problems in this world, these people care if someone digitally kills a seal in a game? Who really needs to get a life in this situation?
 
LOL!!! Yes lets spend our time protecting virtual animals that don't exist. HEY PETA that animal is made of 1s and 0s. It doesn't have any F-ing feelings. We should make a game called baby seal smasher. Seriously, virtual reality is the only place that it is acceptable to do something like this. Better to let people club seals that don't exist that real ones.
 
I'd also like to add that these people are obvious wierdos. Honestly most people can relate to protecting animals but when you protect something that is not real you are boarderlining on freak and people think you are strange and you are more likely to alienate your group than to get more members. Wanna get more members/support? Show terrible cruelty acts on the news and speak out against it.
 
So killing the seals for their fur is wrong (in a game where the basis of the entire economy is killing animals, demons, undead, humanoids, dragons, etc)? But killing Horde players (who are intelligent humanoids) is not wrong?

Animals > Humanoids?

I'm not sure I see the morality here. Murder is preferable to hunting, I suppose.
 
[citation][nom]FlayerSlayer[/nom]So killing the seals for their fur is wrong (in a game where the basis of the entire economy is killing animals, demons, undead, humanoids, dragons, etc)? But killing Horde players (who are intelligent humanoids) is not wrong?Animals > Humanoids?I'm not sure I see the morality here. Murder is preferable to hunting, I suppose.[/citation]
Yeah, our country is going to crap and we care more about animated seals.

Pathetic.
 
I'll preface this with the fact that I am in no way associated with PETA, just my mother happens to be a dietician, and my father a physics major. (Ok, maybe I'm a health nut a bit, but give me a break. My family has a history of heart disease, and I don't want to go there.)

[citation][nom]solymnar[/nom]I always love the efficiency argument that grasslands used for grazing only give you 10% of the energy return from the animals raised vs. the raw grass itself. The only minor problem being that humans don't eat grass, and without MAJOR genetic tinkering never will. You were born an omnivore and will die as one, there are few ways around this that are healthy in the long term.[/citation]

Except the fact that we're *not* built to be carnivorous for the most part. Want proof? Go smile in the mirror. Tell me that your teeth are sharp enough to take down a gazelle. Felines for instance, are *built* that way. It just so happens that human beings were smart enough to make spears. Also, eat that gazelle raw. Turns out human beings have to cook meat (which denatures the proteins by the way, so we don't get the full nutritional value out of it) because our digestive tracts can't handle it. On the other hand, we can get all of the nutrition we need out of just plants, with the correct diet. There are even edible types of grass. Good source of fiber (cellulose anyone?)

Also, despite your personal opinion, the efficiency argument happens to hold up fairly well. Ever studied thermal dynamics? The same rules of entropy apply. Calories are lost each time food passes down the chain (essentially each time the energy must change forms.)
 
[citation][nom]overloaded007[/nom]I didn't say nascar, I said all racing, nascar is .5% all of the racing. It's also just for fun, so it would be one of the first things to go if Co2 emmisions were a real concern. Any NON ESSENTIAL ACTIVITY WOULD be banned first if this was a real issue.[/citation]
Argh, no it wouldn't. The amount of CO2 emitted by racing (not just NASCAR) is pretty much insignificant compared to the amount emitted by fossil fuel power plants, industrial processing of raw materials, etc. Don't just take my word for it, someone else has done some back-of-the-envelope calculations. (crosses fingers for link to work). That's comparing NASCAR with normal commuter traffic alone. According to these figures, if NASCAR is half a percent of all racing, then racing contributes less than two tenths of a percent compared to regular commuter CO2 emissions in the US alone.
And by the way, I used NASCAR as a familiar face for racing, not as the sole focus of any supposed bans. You don't have to think literally all the time.

If you can't get industry and power generation under control, along with better efficiency and less emissions from the cars and trucks that a billion people globally use every day as opposed to a few thousand using their equipment a few hours a week, it simply WILL NOT MATTER. Sport racing is a tiny drop in the bucket, CO2 regulations are aimed at the gallon-sized contributors.

I think it's very telling that you suppose the only possible reaction to a real threat of global warming is going to include government-enacted bans on recreational activities and sports. It seems to indicate that you not only misunderstand the scope of climate change and humanity's role in it, you also have an extremely naive view of government and their role in society, which also fits in with your simplistic and paranoid views along the lines of "OMG OBAMA = SOCIALISM = BAD!" Grow up, son.

And as for the comments about "IF YOU SPEND YOUR TIME PROTECTING VIRTUAL SEALS..." um, isn't almost every activity in WoW virtual? I don't see a problem if people engage in virtual simulations of real-world activities, even if the intention is to spread awareness about real issues. That's not really off-putting. What's off-putting is crap like this. THAT is how you know PETA is ridiculous, not because they set up a silly WoW campaign. I'm all for PETA-bashing, as long as the bashing itself doesn't become stupid.
 
How about leather? Has that gone out of fashion too? I'm wearing 3 items of clothing as I type this which claim they're made of "Genuine Leather." I never understood why animal rights activists have issues with fur. Whatever, the only PETA I know stands for People Eating Tasty Animals.
 
Man, you need to wake up "WheelsOfConfusion"

Getting through to any Obama supporter is like trying to explain basic math to a newborn.

Look, racing is just 1 example of a non-essential activity, you've also got to look at the rest, private jet fuel consumption, large vehicles that people just have to buy these days that get terrible mileage. The list is pratically endless. IF Global warming was such a serious issue then all fuel / oil guzzling luxuries would be halted Today, in order to save humanity. There is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise, it's just common sense. Banning all luxuries would stop 15% of this problem. So would creating large forests through-out the world. But the problem isn't even real, this planet has always had warm and cold cycles throughout history. Lately it's been Global Cooling !! Wake Up!!

http://www.nolanchart.com/article6199.html

Industry is only a 16% contributor to global warming, and more regulations are being enforced each year. Power stations are the largest contribution to carbon dioxide output not industry. If the US would go all nuclear it would solve every problem. But i would hate for the coal industry folks to lose there jobs.

http://www.workers.org/2007/world/global-warming-0118/

Obama's Admin will try and gain and control over healthcare, the automobile industry & the banks of America. There are no formerly-poor nations that have adopted socialist governments and then become prosperous. EVER EVER EVER!

This is the most extreme Leftist Liberal party to ever see the whitehouse is U.S. history. Obama's Church tells it all. Now your going to agree with "Jeremiah Wright" because of who you are. But this same supposed black hating country gave Michelle Obama a princeton scholarship and also her brother attended princeton on a scholarship, because their parents couldn't afford to pay for college. Along with the majority of white voters electing Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzhl-endvco

Michelle Obama acttual said "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw

The smallest minority is the individual!!!!

I'm off to slaughter some baby seals, and maybe myself after trying to save another Left Lib Nazi.

Sorry to tomshardware for going so far off the topic. Your website is one of the greatest places for info junkies like me. By the way my C2D e6400 has been happilly running at 3.8 ghz for 2.5 years on air cooling.
 
Can you skin the seals? I need to level-up my Skinning/ Leatherworking
 
[citation][nom]overloaded007[/nom]Look, racing is just 1 example of a non-essential activity, you've also got to look at the rest, private jet fuel consumption, large vehicles that people just have to buy these days that get terrible mileage.[/citation]
Private jets are probably about the same level of problem as sport racing, perhaps even smaller. Unless you're also including corporate jets, which have legitimate uses as a means of reducing expenses and increasing the amount of work that can be done over distances. As for large vehicles with bad mileage, that's why the legislature passed tougher fuel efficiency standards, with pressure to do more and raise the standard even higher as other countries have already done. Conveniently forgetting that this stuff actually does happen, eh?

[citation][nom]overloaded007[/nom]The list is pratically endless. IF Global warming was such a serious issue then all fuel / oil guzzling luxuries would be halted Today, in order to save humanity.[/citation]
Except that this is completely impracticable. Your standard of what should be done is irrational and unrealistic, and when you don't see governments jumping up and down to implement them, why, obviously it must be because global warming isn't a real threat, right? Or maybe it's because you're a git who doesn't know what he's talking about. You obviously don't care that the scientists who study the phenomenon are convinced, so who exactly are you trusting to give you accurate information about the climate? From the looks of it, just your own uninformed opinions and crazy imagination. Sorry if I'm not convinced by that over the words and papers of the experts on climate.

[citation][nom]overloaded007[/nom]There is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise, it's just common sense.[/citation]
You wouldn't know common sense if it jumped out from the corner and started carving you up with a chainsaw while shouting "I'M COMMON SENSE! I'M COMMON SENSE!" And obviously there's nothing I can say to convince you that you're wrong, you're already convinced that your opinion weighs more than scientific consensus.

[citation][nom]overloaded007[/nom]Obama's Admin will try and gain and control over healthcare, the automobile industry & the banks of America.[/citation]
And then what, declare himself Dictator for Life?

[citation][nom]overloaded007[/nom]There are no formerly-poor nations that have adopted socialist governments and then become prosperous. EVER EVER EVER![/citation]
The US isn't currently poor, we're still top of the heap when it comes to national wealth and position in the global economy, while China is just starting to crest. Despite this, our per-capita income is rotten, our healthcare system is demonstrably less effective and more expensive, and our education system is abysmal compared to almost all other Western nations. Despite our vast wealth, quality of life here is, by many metrics, is surpassed readily by those "OMG SOCIALIST!" countries in Western Europe and Japan. Do not try to spook me with the threat of looming socialism, just because YOU are afraid of it. You haven't demonstrated any reason for me to believe that your fears are founding on something other than ignorance.

[citation][nom]overloaded007[/nom]Now your going to agree with "Jeremiah Wright" because of who you are. [/citation]
I barely remember who Jeremiah Wright is, but you sound more like Pat Robertson to me.
 
WheelsOfConfustion, you are absolutely hilarious..."scientific concensus"... wow, scientific consensus is worth less then what I just wiped from my back-side. Let's see this same group of "scientists" actually put forth their efforts into actuallty trying to prove or disprove global warming using scientific methodoligy... real science, not "consensus"... damn thats funny.
 
Your scientific concensus theory is totally not true, if you would stop letting msnbc & cnn make your opinions then you might learn some truth. Do some actual research before you go stating garbage about the scientific concensus. It's completely divided when it comes to global warming. As I said stop getting your facts from Nat Geo, Discovery, CNN & msnbc. Do some actual research and read the info on the links from my last post! I dare you to spend 1 hour reading through the links from wiki, stop being a drone and try and make your own conclusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2009/02/24/americas-are-tuning-out-of-cnn-msnbc-and-turning-to-fox-news-in-droves/


Like I said, Telling Obama lovers anything is near immpossible. You win and yes I'm afraid of the goverment running and making all important decisions in my life.
 
[citation][nom]slob[/nom]Except the fact that we're *not* built to be carnivorous for the most part. Want proof? Go smile in the mirror. Tell me that your teeth are sharp enough to take down a gazelle. Felines for instance, are *built* that way. It just so happens that human beings were smart enough to make spears.[/citation]

Correct. Humans are not carnivores...we are omnivores...thus the slicing and tearing teeth up front and the crushing grinding in back. Plenty enough so to tear meat off a bone just peachy (cooked or not) or grind up grains and squash the bejesus out of berries. Felines by comparison can not grind very well and horses have no canines to shred with. If humans were not intended to have any meat in their diet we wouldn't have canine teeth that exist purely to aid in that process. The notion that we have tools now that severely mitigate our need doesn't change the point that you and your ancestors have been omnivores for as far back as anyone knows.

In general your healthiest diets consist of a good mixture of foods, including meat. Most people who try to go 100% vegetarian or far far too much meat tend to suffer health problems for their efforts. Moderation is usually a good thing.

Ask your nutritionist mom how a vegan gets enough B-12 in their truly animal free diet without taking supplements or eating foods artificially enriched (often soy milk etc.)...and then consider the likely source of those supplements...yes even vegans usually end up eating animal product one way or another (unknowingly of course)...because you are an omnivore.

Smile in a mirror...you have canines. 😉

[citation][nom]slob[/nom]
Also, eat that gazelle raw. Turns out human beings have to cook meat (which denatures the proteins by the way, so we don't get the full nutritional value out of it) because our digestive tracts can't handle it. On the other hand, we can get all of the nutrition we need out of just plants, with the correct diet. There are even edible types of grass. Good source of fiber (cellulose anyone?)[/citation]

Who told you humans have to cook meat? That's blatantly false. People cook meat for taste and to help ensure there are no living parasites on it when they eat it (worms...not fun) it has jack and squat to do with being unable to digest it. We are most certainly capable of eating it raw...and many people do. You're digestive track will typically handle it just fine, especially if you do it remotely regularly.

In terms of being able to live completely without animal products I never said it can't be done. I said it was difficult to do properly for most people. Also prairie grass is VASTLY different from the kinds you and I can eat and get any decent nutritional value out of. Its not like you can simply swap them out. Additionally this is a further misleading argument since humans can't digest cellulose and you get nowhere remotely close to 100% of the energy stored in a low starch/low sugar plant, by comparison you get MUCH more from meats and fats.

So the delta for what you can reasonably use as a human from "edible grass" vs. eating a grazing animal that actually can digest cellulose is no where close to the 90% idea you are sold.

[citation][nom]slob[/nom]
Also, despite your personal opinion, the efficiency argument happens to hold up fairly well. Ever studied thermal dynamics? The same rules of entropy apply. Calories are lost each time food passes down the chain (essentially each time the energy must change forms.)[/citation]

Yes slob...I have. I'm a double major in chen eng and biochemistry spent a fair time of my youth around farms and also spent and my wife is a biologist with an emphasis on plant biology. I would say I have a pretty in depth understanding of thermodynamics. I've even studied environmental science where they pound the 10% pyramid argument into your head repeatedly based on the predator/prey hierarchy. The difference is I know how they got that data and where it does and doesn't hold water vs. memorizing a chart and blindly applying it.

I'm not convinced you fully understand what you are talking about. Entropy is used primarily to define irreversibility and to add proper boundaries to problems. Most certainly it is used to to determine idealized limitations on energy transfers, but that's on things you can measure such as a chemical reaction and it sure as hell doesn't always yield the answer of 10% some conversions are great, others suck, despite my "personal opinion".

A great question to ask your father, if gravity increases the amount of order in a system, where is the correct chaos generated to keep total net entropy positive? (and yes I'd actually really be curious what his response is)

Last time I checked no one actually monitored how much usable ATP/GTP was generated on the grass a cow ate vs. how much was generated by a predator that ate the cow. Nor does anyone really know how much is used on a given animal/person in a given situation. Even if they did the values vary tremendously with an astounding array of variables...simple things like weather have major impacts and are unpredictable. So we simplify and generalize the crap out of things to get a relative averaged out scale. Which means that anyone who claims to truly KNOW the actual % lost from plant to animal to animal is full of it. All we know is that if we ignite and burn a cow that ate x amount of grass vs igniting and burning x amount of grass, then we get very loosely 10% of the total heat energy from the combustion.

And this is what you use to tell others that we can feed the world multiple times over if everyone becomes a vegetarian.

Never mind the massive energy costs to turn usable grazing grasslands into irrigated fertilized farmland alone, assuming the soil is decent enough to even support it without hauling in soil from somewhere else.

Next to nothing is ever as simple as people try to make it sound.
 
We just did the global warming thing thread 2 weeks ago.

Facts are pretty simple.

We are still coming out of an ice age. If the temprature doesn't steadily rise over the next few 1000 years it implies something is pretty messed up. Since none of us look at things in geological scales you have to be half retarded to claim you have a clue how much global warming is occuring naturally vs. man made over a paltry 10 or even 100 year time span.

Reducing pollution = good. Mercury, N02, S02...all suck royal. Claiming we must reduce CO2 to save the planet is probably false.

20 years ago easily bendable scientists caved into popular will and a few claimed that we were in for major global cooling, which of course the media ate up and pushed. Same thing happens today but with global warming. It makes money. /shrug

Its being utterly abused left and right to push various agendas. However most of those agendas involve increasing efficiency and reducing pollution in general...which I'm all for. So while its a BS tactic, like many government tactics, it also gets the job done for other things that are good and useful too.

With any luck we can then sell this clean technology to china so that I stop sucking down their air pollution from thier power plants over here in the US (good ol jetstream spreading the "love").

Maybe then the mercury levels in water would drop low enough so that I wouldn't have to check which fish will poison me if eaten in any sizable quantity regularly. Shark, tile, sword are waaaaaay off the menu at this point, I'd like to keep my hair and sanity thankyou. Most salmon, and trout are pretty darn safe however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom