Their activism is designed to get lots of free publicity. If they had a billion dollar advertising budget, perhaps they could be more demure.

But I can't stand their sexist and stupid ways of getting attention so I can't take them very serious.

Yeah, they get a lot of free press but then so does westboro baptist.

One group hates and the the other is compassionate toward horrible treatment of animal and tries to get people to understand.

Westboro also believes they're helping people. Both groups believe there's no such thing as bad publicity. PETA is enormously sexist.

Belief in the rightness of your cause is not a legitimate excuse for terrible behavior.

You're comparing people who harrass at funerals and tell gay people god hates them and going to hell with people who use sexual (not sexist) means to help the helpless.

In what universe are they similar. The KKK thought they were right in lynching people. Want to include them too?

Analytical thinking seems to be in short supply in this world.

"right vs wrong" in this argument, it's a good comparison.

Both groups believe they're right. Both groups believe the rightness of their position gives them license to behave like assholes. Because you think one group is right, and the other is wrong, you're not seeing the comparison.

But both groups are assholes.

Do things that get you bad publicity and then claim a victory because you got publicity.

Just because peta gets people to post about them does not mean that people like them because of it, same with other groups.

I see people post here all the time about westboro - do you think the publicity is helping them??

You (or at least most people) would know a hell of a lot less about the mistreatment of animals without the publicity.

The idiots use this to bash PETA? WTF?

A few of their leaders want to outlaw having dogs and cats.

Others want to outlaw fishing.

Others want to mandate that everyone go vegan. (Including *NO* dairy or eggs either.

Of PETA's problems, the worst is whenever these "animal rights" terrorists who destroy farms get caught, who shows up with highly-paid lawyers? PETA.

This rates a story because...?

It must have been horribly stressed, and the idjits who used it knew they were harming it.

For those of us who love animals and hate their abuse, this is a story.

At least Kmart won't be exploiting wild animals for no goddam good reason anymore, so the poor shark didn't suffer and die in vain.

and died for no goddam good reason.

a judgement call.

10 out of 10 for "Aw, poor fishy", but minus several million for actual significance.

it is significant to everybody, though, whether they realize it or not. It goes hand in hand with lack of respect for earth and all the beings that reside on it.

The same mentality that has no problem exploiting a shark for entertainment purposes has no problem exploiting people, no problem exploiting earth's resources, etc. for the almighty dollar. And the hell with the suffering they inflict today and tomorrow.

I can make a moral distinction between the treatment of humans and the treament of non-human animals. Heck, in the last few days I've eaten puffin, horse, reindeer, and whale (I'm on vacation in Iceland as I type this) and yet I feel no desire to mistreat H. Sapiens.

There is a difference.

What a tool that poster is...

Swimming with dolphins...cool. The circus? Yay! Using animals in commercials, movies, etc., in spite of the occasional death of said animal...go for it.

I'm a speciest through and through, as the vast majority of people are.

Enjoy your current incarnation, brief as it shall be.

This thread isn't about *you.* It's about a shark.

Just because that isn't important to *you* doesn't mean it isn't important to *others.*

You essentially asked what the point of the thread was, while offering your opinion. I answered you. That is all.

Even something as trivial as the death of a fish.

Up next on News For The Overly Concerned...Young boy attacks anthill with magnifying glass! While casualties are reportedly high, the queen is safe, I repeat the queen is safe!

The shark is just another example of our casual disregard for the welfare of the earth and all the living beings on it.

It is one thing to kill for food. It is another to take another's life for no goddam good reason.

Btw, thank you for the news report. It made me

Ants. Slugs. Newts. Starfish. And yes, sharks.

Qualification: i do care for them as a species, rather than as individuals. Animals are renewable resources, and should managed accordingly.

Btw, thank you for the news report. It made me

Thank yew, I'm here all week!

I think we need, as a species, to give up our self-adulation and any notion of either domination or stewardship of earth. Let's try managing ourselves (and our appetites) instead. We, too, are renewable resources, as well as replaceable. Both as individuals and as a species.

Ants, slugs and starfish all have a place in the ecosystem.

Also, there are many people about whom I do not care individually. Or, rather, I do care in the sense that the world (or at least my world) would be a better place without them.

Likewise, there are many individual humans starving today or being tortured today that don't even exist in our consciousness, yet somebody, somewhere cares about them. Or they care about themselves and value their own lives, even if we don't know they exist. But to learn of their needless suffering is equally abhorrent to some of us.

I think we need, as a species, to give up our self-adulation and any notion of either domination or stewardship of earth.

Not going to happen. Humans have had more of an impact on other species than any animal on earth since at least the invention of agriculture. Forget the shark, or even the T. Rex...humans are the deadliest predators in the history of the Earth.

This being the case, and especially now that there are so many of us, we need to manage the Earth's resources wisely. Some resources such as wheat or deer are renewable; others (such as crude oil) aren't.

Also, there are many people about whom I do not care individually. Or, rather, I do care in the sense that the world (or at least my world) would be a better place without them.

I agree, and will state it more explicitly: there are people whom I wish were dead.

Likewise, there are many individual humans starving today or being tortured today that don't even exist in our consciousness, yet somebody, somewhere cares about them. Or they care about themselves and value their own lives, even if we don't know they exist. But to learn of their needless suffering is equally abhorrent to some of us.

There aren't enough hours in the day to actually feel concern for every person who is needlessly (as opposed to needfully, I would point out) suffering. Oh, I can say that in in the abstract I'm concerned about the millions suffering under the tyrannical rule of Kim Jong-un, but to be perfectly honest I've devoted more of time debating where to go for dinner.

"now that there are so many of us, we need to manage the Earth's resources wisely"

We could grow enough food for all if some of us gave up the addiction to animal protein.

On the other hand, that wouldn't help, because then we'd just keep on reproducing until we couldn't grow enough of anything to feed us all.

Regardless, we won't. Billions will starve or die of antibiotic resistant plagues or in wars over resources.

The only question is how much damage will we manage to inflict on earth before we die off enough to stop being such a pestilence.

I confess I killed an eggplant for dinner tonight. I dressed it with oregano and tomatoes and wheat grown specifically for slaughter. Also cheese made from a cow's milk. Awesome homemade eggplant parmesian

Look at the difference between North and South Korea.

We could grow enough food for all if some of us gave up the addiction to animal protein.

That won't help those living under tyrannical/corrupt governments.

On the other hand, that wouldn't help, because then we'd just keep on reproducing until we couldn't grow enough of anything to feed us all.

Unlikely, since a more prosperous economy results in in lower birthrates.

The only question is how much damage will we manage to inflict on earth before we die off enough to stop being such a pestilence.

Even were such a thing to happen, humans would eventually bounce back...even if it takes thousands of years, the cycle would inevitably begin anew.

I confess I killed an eggplant for dinner tonight. I dressed it with oregano and tomatoes and wheat grown specifically for slaughter. Also cheese made from a cow's milk. Awesome homemade eggplant

Sounds yummy! I had the best dinner of my vacation tonight (I'm in Iceland). I did the tasting menu at a restaurant in the center of Reykjavik, and including dessert there were 10(!) courses.
Lightly salted cod, puffin, squid, wild goose, and even minke whale!

(just for the record, the minke whale isn't endangered in the slightest...but it Is delicious!

Government is one of them. Climate is another. And production methods are another. Another dust bowl, and we'll be in some trouble. And at the rate we're going with destroying top soil and undoing the good the was done to end the last dust bowl, we're headed there again.

"Unlikely, since a more prosperous economy results in in lower birthrates. "

Your conflating food production with the economy. They are 2 different subjects. We have a piss poor economy here in Maine, but are the organic gardening capital of the US. When I moved here 10 years ago the University of Maine published that we are able to feed 80% of our population locally. We are working toward making that 100%. In the meantime, our population is declining, so it may happen by downsizing...

I wouldn't want to eat puffin. They are too cute to be food.

I wouldn't mind 2 of my neighbors being dead. Actually, if either of them tries to kill my dogs again, I may kill them with my bare hands.

This should go well.

Really?