PETA get their priorities wrong...Again
 

PETA have decided to get involved in the Victorian Bush fires , just their priorities for the prosecution of the arsonists are more than a little off - Very Likely 300 people dead and they want the arsonists charged with Cruelty to Animals...:nope:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...rom=public_rss

Good story, but I don't find that suprising at all. I've known PETA members and supporters that would prefer the extinction of the human race to the extinction of the The Canadian roundbeaked spotted owl, or whatever.

They're like suicidalists, but for everyone.

It's people like this that make everyone laugh and think Americans are stupid, at least here in Germany.

I think you may be reading a bit more into the story...

No where in the article is it saying that PETA want animal cruelty to be the only charges placed against the arsonist. I get from the reading that PETA wants to ensure that ADDITIONAL charges of cruelty to animals are levied.

As for David Tree, I agree totally with what PETA did in this situation. Mr. Tree did save an animal and it is only fitting that an organization like PETA recognized Mr. Tree's most compassionate act.

I am not a fan of PETA, but in this case, based on this article, I think you are being a bit harsh on PETA.

Translation = We could care less about the people that were killed, but MAKE SURE you charge them with animal cruelty.

-S

Only good thing about PETA:
http://themexbox360.craveonline.com/...derson%205.jpg

I would agree. I don't think PETA was saying the koala was more important than a human being. They were just applauding the fireman's act.

That so many people died is the truly tragic part. That is the primary offense the arsonists should be tried for. If PETA wants to lobby to have animal cruelty added to the charges that's ok with me.

The problem is, they have a history of showing that they care more for animals than humans. Such as requesting that the Hamas leave donkeys out of their attacks or something. Viewed by itself, this is harmless, but knowing PETA, it's just them not giving a damn about people

To be fair, there are no doubt countless other organizations that are handling the "People" part of all this.

Well, it's not like they can make up for it.

Too many crackpot ideas here. Listen, the Peta org and Peta pres have all said that animals are more important than humans. So why the sympathetic BS? Someone explain it to me because I'm not fathoming the sympathizers here.

-S

Here - this will help you understand the hypocritical BS that comes out of Peta. Quite entertaining.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY

-S

I hate arsonists. Charge them with anything you can that will get them locked up for as long as possible.

I dislike PETA but in this instance cut them some slack. The OP was about the Australian fires and in that instance I find no fault in them or their actions.

PETA always had their priorities wrong...

It's all there in the article. Try and look past your bias for a minute and read it again. You'll notice that PETA never said that they don't care about the fire victims, nor did they insinuate anything of the kind. They merely recommended charging the arsonists with animal cruelty, presumably on top of the other charges. That makes sense; prosecutors often charge defendants with every applicable crime to strengthen their case.

Sometimes dumb people can say smart things. Whatever you think of PETA, in this case they're in the right, which you would have seen if you had actually thought about it rather than just mindlessly react.