Hot Button Topics (religion, politics, sports)

Started by Simonorged, January 23, 2013, 11:38:01 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

NejinOniwa

Well that's disgusting. When are we shooting this woman dead? I have an axe to grind.
YOU COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS

Chocofreak13

you, me, and half the world would like to see her assassinated, master. >>;

Penti-chan

>PETA

I basically ignore anything they say; bunch of scumbags that are basically like some sort of KKK for so-called animal rights activists :\

Chocofreak13

i was fine when they were just hating on meat-eaters and kill-shelters. this is going too far.

Simonorged

It's blatant hippocracy. No where near an accident, I'm guessing they believe that because the animals were in captivity that they were tainted. They want to be right so bad, yet they are as bad as the Westborough Baptist Church.
Simon was here :P<br />

NejinOniwa

>Hippocracy
gods, my sides

Sorry man, but that misspelling is just fucking hilarious.
YOU COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS

Simonorged

Simon was here :P<br />

Chocofreak13

found something on facebook for you.

[spoiler]On Aug, 28th, '12, on a flight from Miami to San Francisco, United airlines killed my 2.5 year old Mastiff, BamBam. United's "Pet Safe" program guarantees that your pet will be in an acclimated, a/c equipped cargo facility or Pet Safe van to and from the plane. All other airlines require a Certificate of Acclimation to fly, only United does not because of Pet Safe. On the day we flew, no other airline would have allowed us to fly because of the extreme temperatures in Miami AND in Houston, only United because of their program and their guarantee that pets remain in an air conditioned environment at all times. Cargo facilities, vans to and from the plane, the cargo hold. They broke every promise they made to us.

We had a 3+ hour layover in Houston. Again, we could have flown an airline with a direct flight, but none of them offer the security, or guarantee of constant a/c that United offers. This is of paramount importance for a giant breed such as a Neapolitan Mastiff. After being seated in Houston for the San Francisco leg of our journey, watching out the window for the Pet Safe van, BamBam arrived on an metal closed sided luggage cart, not a van, looking hotter than we had ever seen him. My boy who was used to Miami temperatures. It was 97 in Houston on the tarmac that day. Outraged at the lack of a van and how hot he looked, but assuming he would cool down once inside the plane, and the airplane doors already locked, we watched them load him and we took off to San Francisco. Never, not once did it occur to me that he had been in that condition for close to four hours, since we landed in Houston.

BamBam was dead on arrival. My beautiful baby boy. We were told he must be sent back to Houston for an autopsy, and so began four dreadful weeks of corporate America denying responsibility, non information, ridiculous necropsy interpretations and insulting offers. Eventually United offered us a return of his flight costs, the cost of his necropsy/cremation and travel vouchers.

We have since found out from United employees that at no time in Houston was BamBam ever in a/c. He was removed from the plane, set under the wing on the tarmac until a luggage cart came for him. He was then transferred to a "USDA approved holding area with a cross breeze from open windows and fans" instead of the cargo area with a/c as promised. We have now been told in layovers of under 4 hours, NO animal is taken into the cargo area, only the "holding area." Something we had never been told or accepted. No van would have been unacceptable, but no cargo area at the hight of summer? Outrageous. After 2+ hours he was put back onto a luggage cart and kept outside for another 40 minutes to travel 4 gates...until we saw him.

He never had a chance. We have now learned that every 9 days a pet dies on a commercial airline. Yet the airline industry holds all the cards. Almost zero regulation, accountability or informing of the public of the actual dangers of airline flight, even though his one way ticket was double my round trip. The airline and law consider him "luggage" and my recourse has been exactly that. In fact, only "pet" deaths are reported, not the hundreds of deaths of commercial animals, breeding pets, livestock, exotics, primates, etc. How can the public not be informed of this?

Unless you are prepared to take the exact same chance with your pet as with your bag, do not fly your pet on a commercial airline. The last words to me beautiful baby boy as I loaded him in the crate at the United cargo terminal, were,...

"Be a good boy, I'll be back for you, I promise." For 4 hours in a heat wave, as his body was closing down, as United's "trained" personnel walked by and ignored his distress, is this what went through his mind? If he was just a good boy I'd be back for him.

United broke every single promise they made to us. They killed my baby boy and tried to buy me off with travel vouchers and a complete denial of any responsibility on their part.[/spoiler]

http://www.change.org/petitions/united-airlines-have-petsafe-program-policies-changed-to-protect-the-animal-and-owner?share_id=cwunJnzRAj&utm_campaign=friend_inviter_chat&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=permissions_dialog_false

Simonorged

Simon was here :P<br />

Chocofreak13

it's a travesty. i signed too, but according to new facebook friend it's not valid since i didn't give my "real" address.

idk if that's true, but whatever. >>;

Bella

November 05, 2013, 08:17:43 pm #790 Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 08:27:38 pm by Bella
Quote from: Simonorged on November 05, 2013, 02:31:45 pm
It's blatant hippocracy. No where near an accident, I'm guessing they believe that because the animals were in captivity that they were tainted. They want to be right so bad, yet they are as bad as the Westborough Baptist Church.


There are two schools of thought about PETA's mass-slaughter of pets. The first suggests that they're killing them because sheltering pets require money, effort and commitment, and of course being a bottom-line corporation, PETA is unwilling to put forward any of these things. (Because why the hell would they use their money to actually, you know, save the animals whose rights they claim to champion when they could use it to fund body-shaming, racist and sexist advertising and pushing a wacky vegan agenda?)

As you touched on, the second school of thought claims that PETA kills most of the animals they rescue because they believe domesticated animals are held in a state of continual oppression and suffering, and the only way to end their "torture" is to kill them. (This goes for well-cared for, wanted pets as well as neglected and abused ones, obviously.) Despite what the president of PETA has said, I don't think it's clear if they're mass-euthanizing animals for financial or ideological reasons.

Chocofreak13

i disagree. the Penn & Teller Bullshit! episode on PETA speaks to their ideas about "animal rights", claiming that they (animals) should be afforded all the same rights as humans, such as owning property and voting.

this, of course, standing next to their idea that animals should not be kept in cages. which, if they were given the same rights as humans, would land them in jail for public defecation and tax evasion anyway. >>;

Chocofreak13

not looking to debate on this topic (the last time we did it resulted in an epic stalemate leading to the conclusion that we should never debate it again), but i figured it deserved more attention than just putting it in topicless. scary shit, dude.

http://memolition.com/2013/10/16/time-lapse-map-of-every-nuclear-explosion-ever-on-earth/

Simonorged

Not really sure there is anything I could say on this topic.
Explosions are scary, other than that I have one other topic

Do you think single gender schools do better with academics?
Why?
If it a good thing or simple discrimination.
Simon was here :P<br />

Chocofreak13

academics don't depend solely on whether you're male or female. it has to do with teacher competency, educational standards, iq scores and willingness to accomodate those outside of the norm, and relying on more than just one method of learning (because, as we all know, not everyone can learn from memorizing a textbook).

so no, i don't think they'd do better solely by excluding a gender. on the contrary, they likely learn more by interaction with a wider range of people.