Oh come on Danny boy, you know better than that. Peta didn't send her a letter saying "Sorry we you got attacked by a bear, we're glad you're alive and hopefully you get one next time" They said "Sorry you got attacked by a bear, but hey, that's what bears do!". What would have happened if a gay person was attacked in a dark alley and ol' Phil sent him a letter saying "Sorry you got attacked by a bunch of people who don't like gays. But hey, that's what people who don't like gays do! Maybe you should think about them next time you're out for a walk alone at night."? Their letter was proactive and sent with malicious intent, stated or not. Phil was simply responding to a question he was asked, not out marching against gay rights. My only point in this entire thing is to illustrate how our media shapes and forms stories, and thus opinions, based on their own bias and agenda.
Obviously they shape and form stories, and pick what they want to cover.......but do you think it's because of bias and agenda, or do you think in reality they are just reporting what people really want to hear about so that they can turn it into $$$?
They all have an agenda that they follow and a certain viewer base that follows that agenda the bigger the viewer base the more money they make. It's a win win for them, they push their agenda and get paid for it.
Take the blinders off, folks. I thought the letter sounded professional and well written, tbh. And to an extent they have a point. As a hunter, outdoorsman, and overall decent human being, I would never wish an attack on any of my fellow outdoorsman, but essentially the animal is doing to the hunter what the hunter was attempting to do to the animal.
Fine, if you want to call it malicious, so be it. And my only point in this conversation is basically the same thing, except you shaped the title to fit your (our) agenda. At first, I was like "holy ****! PETA stepped to a new low telling a teenage girl that she got what she deserved." But then I dug deeper and found out that wasn't the truth. I like the truth, no matter what side I stand on. If we twist words just to fit our agenda, we're no better than them.
And you're so cheesy. "owned" Are we back in grade school again? Do you have any actual thoughts on the matter or are you going to sit on the sidelines and be a gay cheerleader?
Lol...45 here today....the next few days will be warmer....i did pop on the tractor to reclaim my entire driveway
I do believe this letter had a malicious intent. They have the right to express there opinions but this was neither the time or place to do it. That is why everyone is so upset with them sending the letter to the girl. Anyone who will say they wouldn't be upset with PETA sending a letter to there daughter just after a incident like this is flat out lying. They may be against hunting but have no right sending a letter to a girl who almost lost her life just because she is a hunter. They can protest all they want but this took things way to far.
Its funny how the hunter was pointing out that mandatory bear hunting thing and all the PETA lady said was "thats not true." D!@# they suck at arguing.
Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt PETA kill strays if they find them. So its alright to kill an snimal thats been abandoned, but its horrible to kill a wild animal. Come on PETA, think
The minute they start referring to animals as "individuals" it's going to be an uphill climb. I respect the views of others on the site, but this was not a professional, well written letter, by any stretch of the imagination. This letter came with an agenda. If they wanted to offer an olive branch, they would've simply written a nice letter and maybe sent her some vegan chocolate, with a Get Well Soon card. That would've been the classy thing to do. The even classier thing to do is to leave her and her family alone altogether, because nobody asked them their opinion in the first place. But PETA is shake down artists. This girl never asked them for a letter, their opinion on the matter, or any statistics about bow hunting recovery rates. But they made certain she got all 3. On the other hand, someone did ask Phil Robertson what his opinion was....and he gave it. Here's my problem with it, GQ knew exactly what they were doing. (all you have to do is read Happy, Happy, Happy Phil Robertson's book) and you'll know that's how he feels. To take it a step farther, I'd bet dollars to donuts that his interviewer did read the book, because that's what professional writers do, they research their subject pre-interview. The interviewer saw a SENSATIONAL area that he could exploit for the good of his career and to sell his magazine. In reality, most Christians today would've avoided the subject because of the backlash that would surely follow. But Phil isn't going to back down and sugar coat his beliefs. His beliefs are his beliefs, and from reading his book, they're the only reason his sons have a father right now. However, the news and media went on a tirade about his bigoted, vitriolic, idiotic, hate-filled comments. I only heard one person yesterday mention that he's only quoting THE BIBLE. The very thing that saved his marriage and his life. In the end, it looks like A&E may have bit off more than they can chew. Turns out, there aren't a lot of gay and lesbian duck hunters...Also turns out, that the vast majority of Phil Robertson's audience believes exactly what he believes. Phil Robertson has been preaching from the pulpit long before DD ever came on the air. Surely, A&E knew his feelings on homosexuality. When A&E tried to remove the family praying at the end of the episodes, they were told that there wouldn't be anymore episodes unless they left the praying in. DD is the #1 show in America. Not on cable, not reality, everywhere. The only thing that beats it is football. That's gotta tell you something. But the Gay Lesbian community (2% of the population) got what they wanted. They screamed, A&E caved, and instead of a discussion of tolerance between the two groups, they're polarized even more. Personally, I don't care if you're gay. Knock yourself out. But if you don't want to hear my opinion on the subject, you'd better not ask me. That doesn't mean we can't get along or at least tolerate each other. Personally, I'm tired of it. Everyone complains about the PC world...but when somebody says something that isn't PC, then they can't wait to pick up the first stone. And before PETA starts telling me what to do, they're going to have to figure out a way to re-write this. Until then they're out of luck. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. /Rant over
I must say I agree with everything you have just said. I am not good at putting my thoughts into words, but this is exactly how I would put them if I was. PETA has the right to voice their opinion, same as me, you, and every other person in America. In my opinion they had no right doing what they did. I say that not because I am a hunter, but because I am a person and I have respect for other people even if I don't agree with there beliefs.
this is kind of a bad example Justin. for one, even the left wing idiots think PETA is a joke. Second, the girl attacked isn't on the biggest television show being recorded today. Is there a double standard. Of course, but in life there are very few things that are not. Think about sexual harrassment, which takes place in nearly every office everyday. When it's guy on girl the whole world comes down and the dude likely looses his job. When it's girl on guy nobody cares and the guy is usually just flattered. A double standard.
To be fair he didn't just "simply" say he doesn't agree with someone's lifestyle. The reason the PETA thing wasn't reported on was because nobody cares about peta besides other peta nut jobs.
