PETA targets Alaska church--good for a laugh!

I'll check that out and bow to your superior knowledge for the now.

I am also giving in to the fact that this is such a highly charged situation it can no doubt attract zealots on either side.

I am trying to look at this as a whole. All the membership. Are there so many Anti as opposed to many who choose to be un-involved. I use that mish mashed word to describe someone who is involved but uninformed.

To make an analogy there are many non hunters who are lumped in by association with anti hunters. It is not that they are anti hunting. It is that their noninvolvement is used to by overzealous leaders to the advancement of their cause.

Money has no bias.
 
Kevin the grey said:
Josh? Lets keep sexual fantasies out of this. :rolleyes:

It is sordid enough as it is. :D :D :D

I do wonder at all the negative publicity.

Just because they have an overfondness for animals does not make them stupid.
Click to expand...


That's straight from the article, Kevin; animal rape isn't too high on my list of sexual fantasies.:rolleyes:
 
From what i have seen, peta members tend to be the activist type. i have met a couple. some may donate to peta and be somewhat uninvolved, but the organization promotes pretty extreme activities.

it would seem to me to be difficult to combine non-hunters with anti-hunters, unless the population being referred to is only comparing those who hunt to those who do not hunt (anti+non), thus creating a wide disparity.

the uninvolved or disinterested are unlikely to be associated with a group like peta.

dont mean to get on my soapbox,
soapbox.gif
 
They do not consider themselves uninvolved.

I agree it is a mistake to associate non and anti-hunters. Yet it is a mistake that is done repeatedly and intentionally.

It used to be proposed that there were two segments of the population hunters and anti-hunters. The non-hunters numbers would be added to the antis as proof that only a small part of the population is for hunting.

It is because this seems so obviously false that hunters were complacent for many decades. It may be obviously false to those involved. For those uninvolved all they can see is the percentage of people who hunt as compared to those who do not hunt.

Many made the incorrect assumption that all non are anti. Again I try to see this from as many perspectives as I can.
 
Josh Feltman said:
That's straight from the article, Kevin; animal rape isn't too high on my list of sexual fantasies.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Josh I am not serious in many of my postings and take pains that it be obvious. I do read the threads.


Just a gentle poke at the faintly ambiguous reasoning behind your theory?:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top