As Usual, PETA is Wrong About Whaling
Protecting endangered animals is great, but ignoring history isn't.
Read Full Article
Protecting endangered animals is great, but ignoring history isn't.
Read Full Article
As Usual, PETA is Wrong About Whaling
- Thread starter Robert Rath
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's interesting that NASA apparently still uses whale oil for some purposes, though surely not in the quantities that would have been encountered in industry of the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries.
I do feel compelled once again, however, to point out that there are strong implications in Dishonored that whales of Dunwall are not the creatures we would recognize in our world as "whales". This is not to say that there aren't still parallels between the "whaling" of the fictional world and the real one, but there is a strong degree of fictionalized distance between the two.
I do feel compelled once again, however, to point out that there are strong implications in Dishonored that whales of Dunwall are not the creatures we would recognize in our world as "whales". This is not to say that there aren't still parallels between the "whaling" of the fictional world and the real one, but there is a strong degree of fictionalized distance between the two.
I want to point out an often made mistake. PETA is not for animal welfare. They are for animal rights. There is a huge difference there. Animal Welfare is the current policy of the federal government in regards to animal research. Animal rights is something more akin to civil rights, applied to animals.
PETA talk bullshit. Do you know how many animals they kill each year? There was even a case where they were caught dumping a load of dead dogs into a dumpster. They say they are for animal rights, but then say no animals should be pets and those pets are deemed worth killing as PETA consider them worthless. Worse thing is they dont believe in animal testing, but there highest member takes insulin....how is that allowed? An this is my problem with PETA and not the RSPCA. The RSPCA actually have more respect for animals welfare and rights. PETA doesnt....they are like the Pro Life group that murdered an abortion doctor, total hypercritical arseholes.
Bloody PETA... doing more to harm animal welfare then Cruella De Vil... Anyone who donates to that group is a moron and should be slapped around the head. Give your money to the RSPCA or ASPCA depending on where you are.
Look I think whaling is an odious practice, hell I think my government (Australia) needs to grow a set of balls and send ou navy down to the Antarctic waters we claim and sink the damn whaling boats 'conducting research' that's how much I'm against it... but from a historical perspective it happened, like the article said it was a vital part of the economy of the times, hell I grew up in a city that was literally founded (oldest in my state btw) as a place to hunt whales, there are still whaling artefacts around for the tourists.
If you're writing or making something set in a historical time period you really should do your research, as it seems the makers of AC4 are doing, PETA is just attention whoring again, like the author said in the article whaling, as terrible as it is, is something that needs to be involved as it is a historical vital bit of information, and gaming are increasingly becoming a medium for teaching things.
How many people learned more about the Crusades in AC1 than they did in their 'history classes', even after stripping the fantastical elements out, you can slip a lot of real information into a narrative if your careful.
Look I think whaling is an odious practice, hell I think my government (Australia) needs to grow a set of balls and send ou navy down to the Antarctic waters we claim and sink the damn whaling boats 'conducting research' that's how much I'm against it... but from a historical perspective it happened, like the article said it was a vital part of the economy of the times, hell I grew up in a city that was literally founded (oldest in my state btw) as a place to hunt whales, there are still whaling artefacts around for the tourists.
If you're writing or making something set in a historical time period you really should do your research, as it seems the makers of AC4 are doing, PETA is just attention whoring again, like the author said in the article whaling, as terrible as it is, is something that needs to be involved as it is a historical vital bit of information, and gaming are increasingly becoming a medium for teaching things.
How many people learned more about the Crusades in AC1 than they did in their 'history classes', even after stripping the fantastical elements out, you can slip a lot of real information into a narrative if your careful.
Personally, I think Peta refuses to view the past as anything but footnotes and stock footage for their campaigns. It explains some of their more deplorable ideas. I'm for regulation of many things concerning animals and their cultivation, but I'm a voracious eater of animal protein, and like to read into how said nomnomnom stocks are currently produced, which helps I figure that helps people in the long run develop more eco-friendly (well... as ecofriendly as it can be) methods... Besides, if we let all our pets go and the current stocks for cows and pigs go feral, then all our natural species are going to be in a world of effin hurt.
First time I have ever seen you lax in your research. Because I very much doubt their commitment to animal welfare.Robert Rath said:
Actually, other than the minor differences referenced, which are most likely mutations due to whatever makes their blubber so energetic(probably the Outsider's influence), they look identical to real whales, if a bit bulkier. See attached video for an example.Callate said:
OT: Excellent article, but I think you give Ubisoft way, way too much credit.
Normally my recommended approach towards groups like PETA is to not dignify them with a response, or even pay any attention to them in the first place if it can be helped, but I can make exceptions when it produces material like this article, which was very informative. Normally the hunting of animals to near-extinction is portrayed as wasteful ? after all, how else could we have burned through so many so fast, right? ? but it sounds like whalers were pretty efficient with their prey (not unlike the Native Americans using "every part" of the buffalo); it was just a matter of too much demand.
I find it worrisome that PETA is so involved in video game culture, that they have their own article tag in the Escapist.
As a side note, when did video games begin to hate you for, I don't know, playing them?
As a side note, when did video games begin to hate you for, I don't know, playing them?
On the one hand, I would be quick to agree that PETA is wrong, and that Ubisoft would have some sensitivity for serious issues, for instance they decided not to include scalping after considering it in AC3.
On the other, it seems to me that if it's included as an actual mechanic (as in it's a thing you ca do on the side on a regular basis as opposed to a one time story event or something) then the closest analogue would be obviously be the hunting activity you do in AC3. With that in mind then it'd basically a thing that you do to collect resources.
On the other, it seems to me that if it's included as an actual mechanic (as in it's a thing you ca do on the side on a regular basis as opposed to a one time story event or something) then the closest analogue would be obviously be the hunting activity you do in AC3. With that in mind then it'd basically a thing that you do to collect resources.
This is because PETA was never about saving animals, except in the minds of the poor saps who signed up at the low levels. PETA is about making money. It's owner set themselves up as a non-profit organization so that she could get tax write-offs and uses the money to buy shit for herself, including a huge-ass home that she also gets as a tax write-off by declaring it a "headquarters." They euthanize 90% of the animals they save at minimum because actually finding good homes would cost them money. Their huge campaigns of late ARE purely about getting attention so that they can sucker more people into giving them money.
PETA is an evil organization.
PETA is an evil organization.
"While I don't doubt its commitment to the cause of animal welfare,"
PETA makes me so mad, that I had to Finally register for the site, just to reply to this article, and more specifically the above quote.
PETA would rather kill your companion animals then put any effort into adopting them or saving them. They are a fanatical Cult, that kills healthy adoptable animals by the truckload. That by itself would be enough to dislike them, but it gets worse. They actively oppose shelter reform legislation that would introduce proven lifesaving alternatives to killing. But thats ok, because PETA, in the words of there own founder "Do not advocate "Right to Life" for animals" You can read all about there despicable practices and behaviors here: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=11862
As to the rest of the article, I agree one hundred percent.
PETA makes me so mad, that I had to Finally register for the site, just to reply to this article, and more specifically the above quote.
PETA would rather kill your companion animals then put any effort into adopting them or saving them. They are a fanatical Cult, that kills healthy adoptable animals by the truckload. That by itself would be enough to dislike them, but it gets worse. They actively oppose shelter reform legislation that would introduce proven lifesaving alternatives to killing. But thats ok, because PETA, in the words of there own founder "Do not advocate "Right to Life" for animals" You can read all about there despicable practices and behaviors here: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=11862
As to the rest of the article, I agree one hundred percent.
Those aren't actually very useful uses. The cosmetics industry is one of the biggest scams in history. Do you really want your date to be covered in whale byproducts, or in the modern era, petrochemical products? Perfumes, lipstick, deodorant, etc.: All of these substances are disgusting and should not go anywhere near a human body. Humans are already beautiful, and slathering on this crap only reduces their natural beauty. The phrase "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind. If you need to "cover up" with such products, you're probably disguising a fundamental health issue (such as diet) that should be treated rather than ignored.Robert Rath said:
Your history is also rather tilted. A young lady in the 19th Century might do such things, but only if she was a member of the upper class or aristocracy. The majority of women would have had limited or no access to such products.
For anyone who still gives an ounce of credibility to the domestic terrorists that are PETA, here, have an episode of Penn & Teller: Bulls***! to fix that. Enjoy your viewing. (NSFW: Swearing and some disturbing images)
You know, PETA does more harm to their cause than the people they boycott.
How many other people have noticed that PETA will say completely false, or mostly false, statements to make them seem like a big organization, but because they desensitize us to the actual problems that they are trying to champion.
How many other people have noticed that PETA will say completely false, or mostly false, statements to make them seem like a big organization, but because they desensitize us to the actual problems that they are trying to champion.
They would be ordered to surrender etc, sinking would be if they tried to run. By entering our waters and refusing to surrender, the ship would under international law be a legit target. Same way the US sinks drug boats coming from south America.MrMan999 said: