Un clinical observation or Ingrid Newkirk

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by opaww, Jul 2, 2009.

  1. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    One may ask what she has to do with guns? Well quite frankly she heads peta and they do not believe in hunting or gun ownership. With a following of some place around 1 million hypocrites that are another fanatical anti-gun, anti-hunting, and Anti-rights group. Not to mention this observation pisses them off when they read it and many have.

    Un clinical observation or Ingrid Newkirk Case # 001


    This is a look at the said person Ingrid Newkirk, president of the group calling its self PETA, (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Through reading many statements she has made in the past, a brief bio of her life and viewing videos of her speeches, I am able to make some self-evident conclusions into the type of person Ingrid Newkirk is.

    One observation of said person indicates she is a habitual liar, this is evident in public statements she has made that are recorded and the denials she has articulated when confronted with said issues.

    This type of behavior is indicative of a person who has had some great turmoil in their life that would cause a self-defiance/defense mechanism of lying in order to protect her self.

    Habitual liars are not made over night, but are a product of a long road of Lying and expecting to be believed without question as to the validity of the lie that was told.

    Most times the Habitual liar starts out with a single lie, either to accomplish something that other wise would not be achieved through honest means or to make others believe and feel that the liar is important and or knowledgeable beyond other people. Some times it is used to make a person feel they belong or are accepted in circles that other wise would not give a second thought to their existence.

    Most Habitual liars at first have feelings of guilt but stick to the lie in order to achieve a result they could not get otherwise. With time they even believe their own lies as to being the truth and cannot be swayed.

    Another observation of Ingrid Newkirk, shows a possible profound hatred for all man kind, to a very dangerous extent of being willing to destroy all humans from the face of the earth with the exception of her own self. This alone indicates that something happened in her past that was tumultuous in her life that could possibly cause her to feel this way.

    The use of animals in place of humans is largely due to animals not being able to bring her to task on the things she says. She views animals as people who cannot argue against her views. As with most people we are able to think and reason for ourselves, there fore a threat to the statements she makes. Animals cannot reason nor think for there self’s so they can never question what she wants everyone to believe, making the perfect subjects.

    Another disturbing trait of Ingrid Newkirk may very well be that she views animals as human beings, and that they should be set free to live in there natural habitat. This is a sign that she is detached from animals in a way as to allow her to feel comforted knowing that they exist but alleviates her responsibility to them in anyway. She can view at her whim the animals from affair, not having to interact with them in any way, shape, or form.

    It is shown in her case that if an animal is aggressive toward her with malice, she feels threatened and there for that bread of animal should be eliminated from the face of the earth. Such is the case with the bulldog she feels threatened by, due largely to her being attacked at one time by this bread of dog.

    She also exhibits a very dangerous trait of a dictator, most dictators demand to be believed without question and followed to the letter of the law, (there law). A dictator such as Ingrid Newkirk wishes to be, cannot reason out the right or wrong of a given issue when confronted with evidence against or for if. The issue simply is wrong according to her beliefs, some times with no rationality to it. If a given issue confronts her and she believes it to be wrong, but has no scientific evidence to support her views, she will incur rage a deceptive campaign of miss-information in order to gain support for her views. Sometimes even going so far as to gaining the opinions and followers of semi-important people to side with her.

    Often times her rhetoric is not supported by true scientific research, but rather queasy, unqualified people. (Example: she uses Psychologists as medical experts, to lend validity to her unqualified opinions.) Due largely to them having the title of Doctor in front of their name, she feels lends credibility to her views. This is the same as if I asked a person who had a degree in sociology to do research and give a report in nuclear physics.

    opaww
     
  2. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    People are parasites on this planet. All should be eradicated. This Biotch should take the lead and self terminate in the woods so she can decompose and feed the precious forest critters.
     

  3. zhuk

    zhuk New Member

    2,031
    0
    0

    Great points, opaww. PETA particularly annoys me due to their relentless campaign to destroy the livelihood of Australian woolgrowers, by way of demanding boycotts from clothing manufacturers & various countries etc. Because of the practice of mulesing, whereby skin is removed from the sheep's hindflanks to prevent flystrike. I dunno, I would have thought being slowly eaten alive by septic maggots might be worse than that, since Australia has about a trillion flies :rolleyes:

    Flyblown sheep pic: WARNING pretty damn graphic!


    And then there's the SEA KITTENS:

    PETA // Save the Sea Kittens


    [​IMG]
     
  4. RL357Mag

    RL357Mag New Member

    3,250
    0
    0
    People Eating Tasty Animals