# PETA's Angels



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

https://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/peta-crashes-biker-gathering-not-to-be-missed/27275


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Outstanding.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

What a wonderful country. The land of the free indeed......


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Free to create satire .


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Hitch said:


> Free to create satire .


Quite. And wasn't it funny.....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

We are not amused.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Now I'm really confused. In the "Miley Cyrus" thread on the Interchange, some were arguing that criticism of things as immoral, undignified, et al. wasn't valid, and any appeal to standards of decency was simply prudish, priggish, chauvinistic, and downright puritanical. They averred that many things were subjective and relative, and we should not be judgmental. In fact, some argued this while using that very same "judgmentalism" against others!

Ah, but now that someone else's political ox has been gored, the disapproval, judgment, and criticism flows freely and hypocritically! Can't wait for some to even call the article's subject "undignified" and "immoral"...:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

We are amused.


----------



## Haberbalderdashery (Feb 9, 2013)

We can be amused, particularly because it never occurred:
https://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/leatherprotest.asp


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Haberbalderdashery said:


> We can be amused, particularly because it never occurred:
> https://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/leatherprotest.asp


Yes, which should have been obvious. It certainly was to Hitch per #4.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

I'll admit it, I was fooled, probably because satire usually focuses on the actions of one group, not two. Both PETA's purported actions and the biker's purported actions seem extreme...who exactly is being satirized?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> I'll admit it, I was fooled, probably because satire usually focuses on the actions of one group, not two. Both PETA's purported actions and the biker's purported actions seem extreme...who exactly is being satirized?


I'd say both, but clearly PETA is the butt of the joke.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

One of my favourite Onion videos. :tongue2:





Totally off topic but here's another Onion classic. This makes me laugh out loud:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> One of my favourite Onion videos. :tongue2:
> 
> Totally off topic but here's another Onion classic. This makes me laugh out loud:


Hilarious, but no doubt some forum members will not be amused.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

thank you sir! I needed a good laugh...



Shaver said:


> One of my favourite Onion videos. :tongue2:
> 
> Totally off topic but here's another Onion classic. This makes me laugh out loud:


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

The biker gag was delightfully subtle. That I and others were taken in by it added to its amusement value.

Perhaps the Miley Cyrus performance was parody, possibly a send-up of vulgar pop-culture, or self-parody by the performer, or both. One presumes that it was intentionally provocative and intended to be offensive. 

The remarks of some who were offended by the performance might lend themselves to parody as well as derision. 

Cheers,
Gurdon


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> Perhaps the Miley Cyrus performance was parody, possibly a send-up of vulgar pop-culture, or self-parody by the performer, or both. One presumes that it was intentionally provocative and intended to be offensive. The remarks of some who were offended by the performance might lend themselves to parody as well as derision.


To point out utter tastelessness and the level of American cultural degradation is not the same as being offended, Gurdon. Additionally, concern for such things should be far less a topic for "parody as well as derision" as compared to the blatant hypocrisy and nihilism displayed by the Cyrus apologists...or for the people incapable of making distinctions.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Tiger said:


> To point out utter tastelessness and the level of American cultural degradation is not the same as being offended, Gurdon. Additionally, concern for such things should be far less a topic for "parody as well as derision" as compared to the blatant hypocrisy and nihilism displayed by the Cyrus apologists...or for the people incapable of making distinctions.


Given all that is genuinely awful in the world, to seriously object to the trivial vulgarity of an entertainer seems silly to me. Moreover, to try to tie such childish nonesense into some theory of cultural decline is a bit of a reach.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> Given all that is genuinely awful in the world, to seriously object to the trivial vulgarity of an entertainer seems silly to me. Moreover, to try to tie such childishness nonesense into some theory of cultural decline is a bit of a reach.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Odd, in that case I would think that to seriously object to a trivial objection raised on an Internet forum would seem silly to you, given all that is genuinely awful in the world and all.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I quite agree with you. I was actually trying not to be overly serious in my reply. I appear to have been unsuccessful in that attempt. 

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> Given all that is genuinely awful in the world, to seriously object to the trivial vulgarity of an entertainer seems silly to me. Moreover, to try to tie such childish nonesense into some theory of cultural decline is a bit of a reach.


Again, the topic was Miley Cyrus, not "all that is genuinely awful in the world." Had that been the topic, I would certainly have commented about _that_. Besides, as also noted earlier, if we must withhold comment about Topic A because something - anything! - else is worse, then we'll never comment at all, because one can always find something worse than whatever one is about to comment on!

Speaking of what "seems silly": Gurdon, if you don't think that the United States is in cultural decline, then you are even more insular than your other comments suggest.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Tiger,

Our country is evolving and changing. Some things I like, mostly the progressive ones that you probably do not like. Some things I dislike, mostly political and economic, and I imagine we would disagree about them. Many things are interesting. 

I think the present inability of the two political parties to collaborate and compromise in order to govern effectively is damaging the nation. I think the present state of nasty class warfare by the 1% against the rest of us is destructive. I think the injection of religion into politics is a bad thing. (I was in grade school when the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance. I stopped repeating it after a few weeks.) Are these things a decline? No, but they reflect a regrettable trajectory, away from a republican democracy to an authoritarian oligarchy.

I picked examples about which I imagine you to have strong feelings. I don't want to argue about them with you, but rather to illustrate my view that one can not like how things are going but not call it a decline.

I am insular by choosing to not watch TV, nor consume popular culture. But I think you were implying that because I did not draw the same conclusions you do about the subject of the thread I must not understand that it means the nation is in decline. I hope this response clarifies what I meant. 

I hope it was cool enough on this Fall Equinox for you to have been able to wear wool today. 

Best regards, and thank you for writing,
Gurdon


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Violence, or as a joke making other people think that violence has been done to an innocent is never funny.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> Tiger,
> 
> Our country is evolving and changing. Some things I like, mostly the progressive ones that you probably do not like. Some things I dislike, mostly political and economic, and I imagine we would disagree about them. Many things are interesting.
> 
> ...


A 43% out-of-wedlock birth rate and a similar divorce rate are fundamental indicia of cultural decline. We are creating a caste system whereunder married couples and their children do fine statistically, but everyone else struggles mightily. As the latter group is growing, the former group is shrinking, and our coping strategy seems to be to ask the ever diminishing smaller group to assist the ever increasing larger group. In the end the myriad of government and private charity programs paid for by a shrinking number of taxpayers and donors are essentially a poor (albeit necessary) substitute for the nuclear and extended family, which is now in a serious state of atrophy. Our culture of sexual license carries enormous social costs, mostly borne by single mothers and especially children. This is not to say that there are no social improvements. Overall society is less tolerant of unjust discrimination, more sensitive to environmental stewardship, and increasingly sensitive to animal cruelty. Nonetheless, in my view these improvements are overwhelmed by the social havoc caused by the decline of sexual mores. Our commitment to sexual liberty is so unconstrained that even the brutal killing of our unborn is commonplace -- something that would have been unthinkable just a few short generations ago. On balance, I fear that the case for cultural decline is easier to make than not.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I'll take PETA over people who live off organized crime any day, but who am I to judge. 

I'm just assuming it'd be one of "those" motorcycle gangs. Talking about cultural decline, that's one rather popular negative export. Seems half the people we arrest in Sweden these days for extortion, illegal possession of firearms and drug running etc. are wearing a leather vest and driving a Harley.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> A 43% out-of-wedlock birth rate and a similar divorce rate are fundamental indicia of cultural decline. We are creating a caste system whereunder married couples and their children do fine statistically, but everyone else struggles mightily. As the latter group is growing, the former group is shrinking, and our coping strategy seems to be to ask the ever diminishing smaller group to assist the ever increasing larger group. In the end the myriad of government and private charity programs paid for by a shrinking number of taxpayers and donors are essentially a poor (albeit necessary) substitute for the nuclear and extended family, which is now in a serious state of atrophy. Our culture of sexual license carries enormous social costs, mostly borne by single mothers and especially children. This is not to say that there are no social improvements. Overall society is less tolerant of unjust discrimination, more sensitive to environmental stewardship, and increasingly sensitive to animal cruelty. Nonetheless, in my view these improvements are overwhelmed by the social havoc caused by the decline of sexual mores. Our commitment to sexual liberty is so unconstrained that even the killing of our unborn is commonplace -- something that would have been unthinkable just a few short generations ago. On balance, I fear that the case for cultural decline is easier to make than not.


Ah. I think you may be going over the deep end here. 

You should visit some other countries even more committed to sexual liberty (the Nordic countries for example) and maybe you will see the case for there being other problems on your end than the decline of sexual mores.

You could easily substitute the nuclear and extended family by way of social security (as conservative a notion as any, from Bismarck and onwards), if you wanted to.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Bjorn said:


> Ah. I think you may be going over the deep end here.
> 
> You should visit some other countries even more committed to sexual liberty (the Nordic countries for example) and maybe you will see the case for there being other problems on your end than the decline of sexual mores.
> 
> You could easily substitute the nuclear and extended family by way of social security (as conservative a notion as any, from Bismarck and onwards), if you wanted to.


Bjorn, you may well be right on all counts. While I hope I'm not going off any deep end, it is possible that I exaggerate or misdiagnose the problems. That said, my assessment is based on longstanding first hand experiences in serving as a trustee for several large charities, and I think anthropologists and sociologists would very much disagree that any form for government social security can truly substitute for family.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Bjorn beat me to it and with more detailed information based on first hand observation.

The French system was started by Napoleon. The rational behind the German and French systems was to meet the need for a healthy and educated populace to work in factories and serve in the military. Apparently this need was not being met by the societies in question with the values adumbrated by Mike Petrik.

I would also call attention the the child care and early education program provided for American military families. It provides home visits, health care and early education for the children of service families. This is one military budget item I support.

There is a review in the New York Review of Books, 26 September issue, of a biography of Josephene Baker the founder of modern infant care programs throughout the world. She began as a public health doctor in New York City. I recommend the review, and the history, to those interested in public health and welfare programs.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> Tiger,
> 
> Our country is evolving and changing. Some things I like, mostly the progressive ones that you probably do not like. Some things I dislike, mostly political and economic, and I imagine we would disagree about them. Many things are interesting.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your clarification, Gurdon.

No need to assume my political positions, though - I've specified aspects of it previously, but in the interest of being concise, I am a traditional constitutionalist, with a libertarian streak. If you are familiar with the politics of the Honorable Ron Paul, then you're familiar with mine!

I see so much around me that epitomizes the decline/decay of modern America. I won't provide a list of social, cultural, economic, or political ills - that list would be legion (Mike Petrik pointed out one of the many vexing problems afflicting us) - but rather one point to ponder: It has become nearly impossible to have an intelligent discussion with the average person about U.S. or world history, politics, economics, theology, literature, et al. The level of ignorance is astounding, and we dutifully eviscerate our own culture. Except when discussing television, modern music, and sports, of course - then the average American perks up, and can discuss such topics with expertise! Many of the Founding Fathers wrote about the importance of wisdom and virtue in a republic; my fear is that we are in very short supply of both.

At risk of belaboring it, my chief objection to some of the posts here and in other threads centered on an apparent hypocrisy - the very same people who accused me and others of intolerance, judgmentalism, and a host of other sins flagellated me with that very same whip. It seems that only certain people get to have an opinion; others with different views post at their own risk. A related point is the penchant to label those who disagree with the modern zeitgeist as being puritanical or some other such formulation ("priggish"; "censorious"; "prudish"). I've addressed that elsewhere, so I won't do so here, but it is irksome to be labeled by people who don't know me, and who base their judgment of me on _their _(often inaccurate) interpretation of something I wrote.

It is my hope that all of us can post opinions and exchange ideas, and eschew the personal insults that seem to emanate freely from some of us. Heck, we may ultimately find that progressives from California, Sweden, England, and elsewhere may actually have much in common with traditionalists from Atlanta, Indiana, and even New York!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> Our country is evolving and changing. Some things I like, mostly the progressive ones that you probably do not like. Some things I dislike, mostly political and economic, and I imagine we would disagree about them. Many things are interesting.
> 
> I think the present inability of the two political parties to collaborate and compromise in order to govern effectively is damaging the nation. I think the present state of nasty class warfare by the 1% against the rest of us is destructive. I think the injection of religion into politics is a bad thing. (I was in grade school when the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance. I stopped repeating it after a few weeks.) Are these things a decline? No, but they reflect a regrettable trajectory, away from a republican democracy to an authoritarian oligarchy.
> 
> I picked examples about which I imagine you to have strong feelings. I don't want to argue about them with you, but rather to illustrate my view that one can not like how things are going but not call it a decline.


One other thing - the issues you chose to list aren't examples of decline, but rather political differences that you may have with others of a different political mindset. When I (and others) point to the decline/decay of the United States, we're not thinking of solely political differences (for we have always had them, and always will), but rather substantive evidence of economic, social, cultural, and moral disintegration that portends the implosion of the Republic...


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Anarchist*

Tiger,

Thank you for your clarification.

As I have posted previously in the interchange my political views are anarchist. The short version is libertarian with health care and public utilities.

The writer who immeiately comes to mind is Peter Kropotkin, a Russian prince, military officer and geographer. His book Fields, Factories and Workshops was reprinted some years ago. It could well be an outline for the small is beautiful, eat locally sentiments currently prevalent. If you are interested in the subject I'll be happy to provide more citations once we have a house and I can unpack my books.

Because anarchism emphasizes the sovereignity of the individual it was particularly annoying to Marx who got the Anarchists kicked out of the International. A basic principle of anarchistic governance is to organize things from the bottom up. This is in opposition to Marxist and republican principles. The IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, "Wobblies") were an anarchist union and significant part of the pre WW I American labor movement. They, along with socialist and communist unionists and politicians, were decimated by the Palmer raids in the anti-Bolshevik hysteria following that war.

We have an obligation to tolerate everyone's views, and an absolute right to contest them. This goes beyond the nostrum of "freedom of speech." Freedom of expression is meaningless, unless the person possessed of it has employment, food, and shelter, as much education as s/he can handle and healthcare. As Bjorn pointed out, the provision of these social goods in the European democracies got its start under Bismark and Napoleon, hardly progressive, let alone socialistic rulers.

I hope this is enough to at least hint at the bases for the views which emerged in my previous posts.

As to religion, I have been an atheist since my father pointed out to me when I was four that "there is no such thing as God, dammit!" He majored in Comp Lit and would have capitalized the first letter in the name for the diety.

If you are interested in art theory check out my website. Just google my name (gurdonmiller) and add .com

Regards, and once again thank you for writing,
Gurdon,


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> Bjorn, you may well be right on all counts. While I hope I'm not going off any deep end, it is possible that I exaggerate or misdiagnose the problems. That said, my assessment is based on longstanding first hand experiences in serving as a trustee for several large charities, and I think anthropologists and sociologists would very much disagree that any form for government social security can truly substitute for family.


It's a matter of perspective I guess, though I sometimes feel that family is a more benign concept when it is not made to bear all economic or social risks of all individual members. Those things are better insured away, though the rather lavish scheme we have in Sweden seemingly sometimes benefit those who do not need it and would be better off in gainful employment. But that I suppose is what all net taxpayers think, everywhere


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

This thread has it all: anarchists, socialists, the bemoaning of social decline, anti-abortionists, the celebration of tiny Nordic countries -- there's something for everyone!

All started by a funny, satiric article.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Pentheos said:


> This thread has it all: anarchists, socialists, the bemoaning of social decline, anti-abortionists, the celebration of tiny Nordic countries -- there's something for everyone!


Maybe someone should mention something about spear fishing...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

After reading Gurdon's post, I feel like I need to brush up on Bakunin and Rothbard. However, my Hazlitt-style free market economic philosophy would never allow me to like anything about the Wobblies and "Big Bill" Haywood!


----------

