Jump to content
Aveyond Studios Community
Sign in to follow this  
bacman136

Meet Your Meat

Recommended Posts

ohhh.....i didnt know there was a difference between vegan and vegitarian. i thought they were the same thing. and i heard some people say something about the PETA bombing a house or some thing can somebody tell me about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...

 

The thing you have to keep in mind with those videos, is not every farmer does it that way.

Yes, I agree, not everyone does it that way, and I never saw PETA claiming that everyone does. But the thing is that a lot of corporations/farms/dairies etc. are doing it that way and from a profit-making point of view I don't see why anyone who's running those corporations would sustain losses or bother to be ethical, if it is helping business and drawing in the customers. For example, if I am able to keep and sell 50 chickens unethically at the maintenance cost of 25 ethically kept chickens why in the world would I bother to maintain and sell 25 chickens at the same price? It's all about business and producing the maximum profit at the least expenditure. And as long as humans keep using animal products this sort of abuse would keep taking place, IMO. The best way to combat this is to reduce the demand and at least have customers demand ethically obtained animal products even if they do not wish to give up animal products altogether. This can only be done by creating awareness among the public, which is exactly what PETA is trying to do, I think. If you don't like it you don't have to watch/listen to it, nobody is forcing you to.

 

 

And I personally never take what PETA does seriously because they're usually wrong.

I'm not so sure about the 'usually wrong' part. It seems to me that you are stating your opinion as fact; do you have any reliable evidence of that?

 

 

PETA suggested to Ben & Jerry's that they use breast milk in their ice cream because milking machines (and milking in general) was cruel to the cows. I guess they think it would be more humane for the cows' udders to just explode.

I'm having a very hard time believing that too; do you have any reliable sources/proof etc. confirming that PETA suggested that Ben & Jerry's use breast milk in their ice-cream?

 

 

If you want to be a veggie eater, fine do that. But I would appreciate the same courtesy by not bothering me when I eat meat

Would you show me the same courtesy if I sat there eating human meat/bones/limbs/organs? I'm saying this just to make a point. :P

One of PETA's FAQ questions puts what I'm trying to say in a very straightforward manner:

“It’s fine for you to believe in animal rights, but why do you try to tell other people what to do?”

 

Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, but freedom of thought is not the same thing as freedom of action. You are free to believe whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt others. You may believe that animals should be killed, that black people should be enslaved, or that women should be beaten, but you don’t always have the right to put your beliefs into practice. The very nature of reform movements is to tell others what to do—don’t use humans as slaves, don’t sexually harass women, etc.—and all movements initially encounter opposition from people who want to continue to take part in the criticized behavior.

 

“Why do you try to force vegetarianism on others? Isn't it a personal choice?”

 

From a moral standpoint, actions that harm others are not matters of personal choice. For example, murder, child abuse, and cruelty to animals are immoral acts, not matters of choice. Today, our society encourages meat-eating and factory farming, but at one time, society also encouraged slavery, child labor, and many other practices that are now universally recognized as wrong.

 

I highly recommend reading the whole FAQ.

Personally I believe not much awareness can be created if the person you are trying to educate about the issues feels harassed or isn't really listening or isn't interested in listening but it does get hard to contain myself whenever I see someone doing what, I believe, is murder and at par with cannibalism. Yes, I am vegetarian, aiming to become vegan and one of those 'weird' Animal Rights activists as I'm sure you've figured by now. ;)

 

 

I believe that if humans *have* been by far the most advanced creatures, why don't use your power?

Using your logic anyone who is simply powerful and advanced enough is entitled to use that power and technology in any manner he/she sees fit on any lesser being. So the US which is one of the most technically advanced and powerful countries in the world is simply entitled to and should take over other countries which are not as advanced/powerful. Any person who is more powerful than another person is simply entitled to and should physically abuse/assault/turn the other person into a slave because she/he has power and she/he should make use of that. In fact, it looks to me as if this logic is suggesting that far from being advanced humans haven't even evolved from being primitive cave-dwellers when might was right and sheer brute strength ruled!

I believe that simply having power does not entitle you to use it without any thought of the consequences or of the manner in which it affects others. The greater power you have the greater your responsibility becomes to ensure that you or anyone else does not abuse it, otherwise you are not fit to have that power, IMO. Otherwise we'd have no order and structure in our society.

 

 

I bet they don't bother the biker gangs who wear leather.

Actually giving up on wearing animal products and using any other products obtained from animals in any way (not just in your diet) is a part of veganism. So if someone is asking you to become vegan he/she is automatically asking you to give up leather too. PETA's websites have a lot of stuff about the leather industry too.

 

http://www.petasearch.org/texis/search....=Go&query=leather

 

http://www.petasearch.org/texis/search...y=0&submit=Go

 

 

And they need to stop harassing people. A couple of so called animal activists firebombed one of the schools' professor's house, while there were still kids inside! Not cool man.

 

Seriously though, if they want to help animals they really need a different approach. Right now PETA and the other groups (sorry, only know PETA) are just harassing people.

 

But back onto the PETA discussion, they've taken it too far. If they want to "defend nature and animals" I don't think it would be such a great idea for them to harass people, and as KTC said, to go so far as to bomb a place full of people.

 

After all, humans are considered mammals, which is a group of animals. So if these so called "activists" want to save the animals, they should get their facts right and be more peaceful about it.

 

Animal activists should stop pestering people about whether or not they should eat meat. If people want to eat meat they should allowed to eat it without having to put up with these annoying people telling them about the cruelty involved in killing them to provide the meat.

I'm all for animals rights but I wouldn't go to the same lengths that PETA go to. I certainly wouldn't bomb someone's house.

These are extremely broad generalisations; you guys are simply blaming PETA and all animal rights activists for what only a couple of psychos did. Just because some Islamist fundamentalists bomb buildings doesn't mean that all Muslims are like that, or preach that or Islam preaches doing that. Just like Mopiece said that 'you need to keep in mind that not every farmer does it that way' you need to keep in mind that not all Animal Rights activists do that or advocate that. Just because some so-called feminists are man-haters you cannot hold the whole feminist movement responsible for their actions or consider the whole movement anti-men or man-hating. The same logic applies to the Animal Rights movement too: just because some people harass others or use extremist methods and happen to do that in the name of 'PETA' or 'Animal Rights' or are PETA members does not mean that PETA or the Animal Rights movement or activists are responsible for their actions or advocate/support them or use them. I am not ready to believe that PETA members bombed the building and/or PETA supported the act, without sufficient evidence. And for the record nowhere on PETA's websites have I seen that they advocate or engage in violent activities or harassment. Their activism guidelines clearly state that all demonstrations/protests etc. should be done legally. I suggest that you guys read their FAQ page to get a clearer view of where they stand on Animal Rights issues. Their FAQs also address a lot of questions frequently aimed at Animal Rights activists and I highly recommend reading all the sections.

FAQ

FAQ 2

Activism Website

Activism Guides 2

Demonstration Guidelines

 

 

Animal activist: It even got to the point where animal activists were defending FLIES since they are a good animal to do gene tests on. FLIES. (I'm not making this up. My professor told us about this.)

 

And what exactly is wrong with defending insects? If I defend one animal then it logically applies that I should defend others too without discriminating on the basis of species as long as their interests are the same. In this issue a dog's and a fly's interests are the same: the right to live. Just because they are small and not very furry and cute doesn't mean that the same principal of right to life doesn't apply to them.

 

Defending flies? Are you serious? Do they not realize how many flies there are and how short of a life span they have?

 

Just because humans have a very short life-span compared to some other species and have already over-populated the planet (to the breaking point, I might add) doesn't give any species that live longer than us the right to kill us. We have the right to defend ourselves and the right to life because we feel pain, we do not want to die, we resist it. In the same way any fly or insect doesn't want to die, it resists just like any dog or human. Its life-span is insignificant; just like a human who is destined to die the next day but killing him/her is still considered a crime and a violation of rights.

 

thats wierd to defend flies, they're insects, and do mostly more harm than good, and in the eyes of most people...*insignificant*...

 

Oh yeah so just because I and a lot of other people feel that you are insignificant and don't care about you I have the right to kill you? I think not. What other people think/don't think is insignificant, what matters is what the fly feels. And is the manner in which it struggles not to die not enough indication that it doesn't want to die, it is feeling?

Insects actually do a lot of good to the ecosystem and are necessary for the environment and human survival. There lives are quite fascinating and their various social structures and methods of work are very advanced, similar to humans on several levels and have been very important to scientists studying nature. For more info a rough guide can be found at Wikipedia.

 

It's highly unlikely they'll realize humans are animals too.

 

I guess animal activists really will defend everything but a human.

 

This is as absurd as saying to a Homosexual Rights activist that instead of focusing their activism on Homosexuality they should work against racism or that they do not consider heterosexual people as human beings. What difference does recognising humans as animals make? And which activist ever deny that humans are animals too? And who said that in order to promote Animal Rights you need to deny humans their rights? Who said that humans have to compromise their safety to promote animal rights? Who said that animal rights activists cannot be humanists too? Just because my work focuses on one aspect of society doesn't mean that I don't consider others just as important or that I need to work in other areas and promote human rights too in order to justify my work or have it considered just as important as other movements.

 

Edit: Sorry about the novel, I just had to say all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@chimera:

 

Human milk: That's actually true

Another link

One more link

This is hilarious btw. And some of the other stuff their doing is similarly funny.

 

Cannibalism: actually, I believe that under certain conditions I wouldn't actually care about it one way or another. It's all about culture and where did you grow up or the circumstances surrounding the cannibalism. If you were starving, trapped, and had no food and a person died: would you eat him/her? Some would.

 

But as it stands, cannibalism of someone who's still alive is a general no no for me. Cannibalism of a dead corpse is iffy territory for me because I would want to know the circumstances surrounding it. But than again, humans are always placed against another standard than animals and the rest of plant kind. Look at abortion arguments about the sanctity of life. If you cared about life that much, you wouldn't move, eat, breath, or do a dang thing because everything you do kills something. (Let's not forget the bacteria you're currently pounding away as you type.)

 

Power: US has actually done a similar type of thing, its called being a super police. Do other countries absolutely need our help? Often times, no, we just butt in anyway which is ruining our reputation (which was pretty bad anyway) with other countries. And why does one need to conquer/enslave if you can get the same effects with just withholding the power? The gap between poor and rich is constantly stretching while the middle class is screwed either way. We're not poor enough to get financial help but not rich to actually survive comfortably. You don't need to stick a gun to a person's head to control them (which is slavery). So yes, humans have been effectively controlling others in demeaning ways. You just have to recognize it.

 

Flies: If you want to save flies, would that extend to bacteria/viruses/plants/fungi? I'm curious to see how far this slippery slope goes. The way I see it, flies are not even close to being endangered [Don't even try it. They are not.], can reproduce like heck, have very short life spans, easy to take care of, cheap, and have a well mapped out genome. That fits all the criteria of a good organism to experiment with. What is the problem then?

 

Also, you do realize that many of the medicines and chemicals used were probably tested on animals right? If so, please refrain from using any sort of medicine when you are ill as that supports animal testing. Herbal remedies are also discouraged because you need to hack leaves off their still living limbs (nevermind that they're probably screaming silently in pain) and than you mix them with other organs. snap. crush. grind. From there, you most likely will boil said organs and than ingest them which will start a chain reaction within your body and will unfortunately kill bacteria who have feelings too. (I hate the 'feeling' card being pulled up all the time personally.)

 

Fly feeling: okay, now you're getting into anthropomorphizing animals which is wrong on so many levels. On the bare minimum, you are applying human emotions to a nonhuman thing which doesn't work. Non human things do not necessarily 'feel','think' like humans and to assume so is to assume the animal is human or human-like which is just ridiculous. Non human animals are not humans and should be treated as such. I find arguments that appeal to emotions (such as erroneous guilt tripping "animals have feelings too!" "what if it was a kid on the plate" ) very frustrating since there's often no logic to it.

 

Bombing: fine, I agree that's a generalization. Still, with the amount of stuff animal activists/vegans try to shove down my throats daily, I would very much like it if they left. me. alone. I'm going to eat that burger and enjoy it thank you very much. :P

 

PETA: seriously, with stunts like these, is it a wonder that most do not takes them seriously anymore?

 

Next they're gonna say no fishing or something, oh wait they already did. They even requested fish be called sea kittens. Sea. Kittens.

 

Okay okay, maybe they wouldn't go as far as to request music groups to change their names... except they did

 

rofl. PETA's always good for a laugh if nothing else.

 

though they seem to be quite the Hypocrites and maybe not all Anti Terrorist as they would like to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a novel idea: why don't we focus on the millions of starving and abused HUMAN CHILDREN before we focus on animals who wouldn't be able to avoid capture EVEN IN THE WILD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow...you wrote alott chimera .but about what i said about flies being insignificant...i wasnt saying that i was hating them or anything. and i also said "in the eyes of most people" theyyy think flies are just pests. i think that flies are just there to make things complicated, like having to open a window because one is buzzing to get out. i also said it was wierd because ive never seen one person defend a fly..

 

anyways, i sorta got to open-mindedly think about similarities between animals and plants. they both have a live and die, they both reproduce, they both take a set time to grow to its biggest, and they both get munched on by people. if you think about it, wouldnt all of they vegi's be eaten up if every body on earth started eating them? why try to make plants disapear?. if people started eating more plants then animals, maybe some people are gonna start a "plant activist" group or something.

 

oh, and i still never got an answer about the bombing. maybe chimera was right? maybe that was a conspiracy.

 

i just looked at the "sea kittens". i thought that was wierd. i understand how they care for fish, but how can they even compare them to cats? thats just plain wrong in my book. and that website looks silly, it reminds me of webkins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@chimera:

 

Cannibalism: actually, I believe that under certain conditions I wouldn't actually care about it one way or another. It's all about culture and where did you grow up or the circumstances surrounding the cannibalism. If you were starving, trapped, and had no food and a person died: would you eat him/her? Some would.

 

Response to your argument:

“If you were starving on a boat out at sea, would you eat an animal?”

 

I don’t know. Humans will go to extremes to save their own lives, even if it means hurting someone innocent. (People have even killed and eaten other people in such situations.) This example, however, isn’t relevant to our daily choices. For most of us, there is no emergency and no excuse to kill animals for food.

Source.

 

I wasn't talking about cannibalism surrounding extreme circumstances; I meant the Hannibal Lector kind of cannibalism, the way eating humans in normal conditions is illegal and taboo in most societies.

But than again, humans are always placed against another standard than animals

My point exactly! Why the double standards? My problem is that vegetarianism is looked upon as a personal choice while cannibalism is not. But what's the difference? Is it of looks? Then why not allow people to eat people of different races/those who are physically deformed. Is it of intelligence/brain/emotional/mental capacity? Then why not allow normal people/people with superior intelligence to eat mentally challenged/less intelligent/mentally unstable/institutionalised people? Is it of the fact that humans care about each other and that the people close to the person who is killed for consumption would go through extreme emotional trauma? Then why not allow those people who have no friends/relatives/have no relationship with anyone and nobody cares about to be consumed? Is it because animal meat is considered nutritious and healthy? Then why is human meat not an option? It could be very healthy or have a lot of nutritional value. Is it because of the 'one species consuming members of its own kind' argument? But this happens throughout the animal kingdom. Aren't humans animals and life is a jungle in which everything depends upon survival of the fittest? We don't have anything to distinguish ourselves from nonhuman species, no reasoning ability, no ability to think logically, no ability to distinguish and judge between right and wrong/ethics, no emotional capacity and empathy, no ability to distinguish between what we are eating, we are slaves of our bodies and instincts, our bodies are completely dependent upon eating others. I don't see how we can be any different from any 'animal' and the 'animal kingdom' is the greatest standard we can hold ourselves to and emulate blindly, after all we don't have any ability to think for ourselves and form our own opinions or rather have no ability to judge and think at all. Heck I don't even understand how we can be and became the ruling species on this planet, how we have 'advanced' so far, in fact this description makes it look to me that we are far less advanced and intelligent than a lot of 'animals'. Heck it looks to me that they should be ruling us not the other way around![/sarcasm] Is it because of the 'animals are going to suffer/die anyway' argument used by so many people? Then why not allow humans to eat those who are terminally ill/in a vegetable state/dying already/suffering anyway? It is going to happen after all, we can do nothing to combat the suffering, everybody has to die someday, and we might as well take what we can and enjoy ourselves, because what can one person achieve by denying himself/herself what millions of others are already having/doing.[/sarcasm] What a convenient way not to bother or trouble about the matters yourself, not to get your hands dirty and keep blaming the others!

 

Either allow cannibalism/human exploitation too or ban eating animals/animal exploitation too, IMO. But since this realistically isn't possible the best thing we can do is convert as many people as we can, which is what we are trying to do.

 

Look at abortion arguments about the sanctity of life.

Actually there are several opinions on abortion within the Animal Rights movement too. I'm pro-choice and believe in animal rights because my logic is that the fetus is inside your body, using it as a host. If an animal was using it the same way I certainly wouldn't object if you wished to remove it from your body, it is after all your body and you should have complete control over it. But when have you heard of an animal doing that? I can only think of lice and some parasites and in those cases some loss of life is inevitable but the vast majority of animals and insects do not do that and I see no reason to harm them unnecessarily.

 

If you cared about life that much, you wouldn't move, eat, breath, or do a dang thing because everything you do kills something. (Let's not forget the bacteria you're currently pounding away as you type.)

Flies: If you want to save flies, would that extend to bacteria/viruses/plants/fungi? I'm curious to see how far this slippery slope goes. The way I see it, flies are not even close to being endangered [Don't even try it. They are not.], can reproduce like heck, have very short life spans, easy to take care of, cheap, and have a well mapped out genome. That fits all the criteria of a good organism to experiment with. What is the problem then?

Also, you do realize that many of the medicines and chemicals used were probably tested on animals right? If so, please refrain from using any sort of medicine when you are ill as that supports animal testing. Herbal remedies are also discouraged because you need to hack leaves off their still living limbs (nevermind that they're probably screaming silently in pain) and than you mix them with other organs. snap. crush. grind. From there, you most likely will boil said organs and than ingest them which will start a chain reaction within your body and will unfortunately kill bacteria who have feelings too. (I hate the 'feeling' card being pulled up all the time personally.)

 

Most of your arguments above have been addressed in the PETA FAQ and this is precisely why I suggested reading it. You may not like/agree with their methods but that doesn't negate their logic on each and every issue. The points below should help you get some idea of how far the slope goes and what we are aiming for, exactly, I think. ;)

 

“What do you mean by ‘animal rights’?”

 

People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her). For more information on why animals should have rights, click here.

 

“What rights should animals have?”

 

Animals should have the right to equal consideration of their interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We are, therefore, obliged to take that interest into consideration and to respect the dog’s right not to have pain unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her. However, animals don’t always have the same rights as humans because their interests are not always the same as ours, and some rights would be irrelevant to animals. For instance, a dog doesn’t have an interest in voting and, therefore, doesn’t have the right to vote because that right would be as meaningless to a dog as it is to a child.

 

“Where do you draw the line?”

 

The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who accomplished so much for both humans and animals in his lifetime, would take time to stoop and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth. Aware of the problems and responsibilities that an expanded ethic brings, he said, “A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help … He does not ask how far this or that life deserves sympathy … nor how far it is capable of feeling.” We can’t stop all suffering, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t stop any. In today’s world of virtually unlimited choices, there are plenty of kind, gentle ways for us to feed, clothe, entertain, and educate ourselves that do not involve killing animals.

 

“What about plants?”

 

There is currently no reason to believe that plants experience pain because they are devoid of central nervous systems, nerve endings, and brains. It is theorized that animals are able to feel pain so that they can use it for self-protection purposes. For example, if you touch something hot and feel pain, you will learn from the pain that you should not touch that item in the future. Since plants cannot move from place to place and do not need to learn to avoid certain things, this sensation would be superfluous. From a physiological standpoint, plants are completely different from animals. Unlike animals’ body parts, many perennial plants, fruits, and vegetables can be harvested over and over again without dying.

 

If you are concerned about the impact of vegetable agriculture on the environment, you should know that a vegetarian diet is better for the environment than a meat-based one, since the vast majority of grains and legumes raised today are used as feed for cattle. Rather than eating animals, such as cows, who must consume 16 pounds of vegetation in order to convert them into 1 pound of flesh, you can save many more plants’ lives (and destroy less land) by eating vegetables directly.

 

“Animals don’t reason, don’t understand rights, and don’t always respect our rights, so why should we apply our ideas of morality to them?”

 

An animal’s inability to understand and adhere to our rules is as irrelevant as a child’s or as that of a person with a severe developmental disability. Animals are not always able to choose to change their behaviors, but adult human beings have the intelligence and ability to choose between behaviors that hurt others and behaviors that do not hurt others. When given the choice, it makes sense to choose compassion.

 

“Where does the animal rights movement stand on abortion?”

 

There are people on both sides of the abortion issue in the animal rights movement, just as there are people on both sides of animal rights issues in the pro-life movement. And just as the pro-life movement has no official position on animal rights, the animal rights movement has no official position on abortion.

 

“It’s almost impossible to avoid using all animal products; if you’re still causing animal suffering without realizing it, what's the point?”

 

It is impossible to live without causing some harm. We’ve all accidentally stepped on ants or breathed in gnats, but that doesn’t mean that we should intentionally cause unnecessary harm. You might accidentally hit someone with your car, but that is no reason to run someone over on purpose.

 

“Animals are not as intelligent or as advanced as humans, so why can't we use them?”

 

Possessing superior intelligence does not entitle one human to abuse another human, so why should it entitle humans to abuse nonhumans? There are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware, communicative, and able to use language than some humans, as is the case when a chimpanzee is compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental disability. Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be denied rights?

 

"Can fish feel pain?"

 

Research has shown that fish can feel pain. According to Dr. Donald Bloom, animal welfare advisor to the British government, “Anatomically, physiologically, and biologically, the pain system in fish is virtually the same as in birds and mammals.” Fish have fully developed brains and nervous systems and very sensitive mouths. Fish use their tongues and mouths like humans use their hands—to catch or gather food, build nests, and hide their offspring from danger. Fish also experience fear. An Australian study found that when fish are chased, confined, or otherwise threatened, they react with increased heart and breathing rates and a burst of adrenaline, just as humans do.

 

“Isn’t animal testing responsible for every major medical advance?”

 

Medical historians have shown that improved nutrition and sanitation standards and other behavioral and environmental factors—rather than knowledge gained from animal experiments—are responsible for the decreasing number of deaths from common infectious diseases since 1900 and that medicine has had little to do with increased life expectancy. Many of the most important advances in the field of health care can be attributed to human studies, which have led to major medical breakthroughs, such as the development of anesthesia, the stethoscope, morphine, radium, penicillin, artificial respiration, x-rays, antiseptics, and CAT, MRI, and PET scans; the study of bacteriology and germ theory; the discovery of the link between cholesterol and heart disease and the link between smoking and cancer; and the isolation of the virus that causes AIDS. Animal testing played no role in these or many other important medical developments.

 

Visit StopAnimalTests.com to learn more about animal testing and its alternatives.

 

“But weren’t animals used to develop many of the important treatments that we use today, such as the polio vaccine?”

 

In fact, two separate bodies of work were done on polio: the in vitro work, which was awarded the Nobel Prize and did not involve animals, and the animal tests, in which a staggering number of animals were killed. Nobel Laureate Arthur Kornberg noted that for 40 years, experiments on monkeys who had been infected with polio generated “limited progress” toward a cure. The breakthrough came when scientists learned how to grow the virus from human and monkey cells

 

Certainly, some medical developments were the result of cruel animal tests, but that does not mean that the developments would not have been possible without animal testing or that the primitive techniques used in the 1800s are still valid today. It’s impossible to say where we would be if we had declined to experiment on animals because throughout medical history, very few resources have been devoted to non-animal research methods. In fact, because animal experiments frequently give misleading results with regard to human health, we’d probably be better off if we hadn’t relied on animal testing for so long.

Read more about the humane alternatives to animal testing.

 

“Don't scientists have a responsibility to use animals in order to find cures for human diseases?”

 

Educating people and encouraging them to avoid fat and cholesterol, quit smoking, reduce alcohol and other drug consumption, exercise regularly, and clean up the environment will save more human lives and prevent more human suffering than all the animal tests in the world. Animal tests are primitive, and modern technology and human clinical tests are much more effective and reliable.

 

Even if we had no alternative to using animals, which is not the case, animal testing would still be ethically unacceptable. As George Bernard Shaw once said, “You do not settle whether an experiment is justified or not by merely showing that it is of some use. The distinction is not between useful and useless experiments, but between barbarous and civilized behaviour.” After all, there are probably some medical problems that can only be cured by testing on unwilling humans, but we don’t conduct such tests because we recognize that it would be wrong to do so.

 

Watch footage from PETA’s groundbreaking investigation of a primate lab in Maryland.

 

“If we didn’t use animals, wouldn’t we have to test new drugs on people?”

 

The choice isn’t between animals and people. There is no guarantee that drugs are safe—even if they have been tested on animals—because the physiological differences between humans and other animals prevent the results of animal tests from being accurately extrapolated to humans. Some drugs that have been approved through animal tests can cause serious and unexpected side effects for humans. A 2002 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that in the last 25 years, more than 50 FDA-approved drugs had to be taken off the market or relabeled because they caused “adverse reactions.” In 2000 alone, the prescription drugs removed from the market were the popular heartburn drug Propulsid (removed because it caused “fatal heart rhythm abnormalities”), the diabetes drug Rezulin (“removed after causing liver failure”), and the irritable-bowel-syndrome treatment Lotronex (“removed for causing fatal constipation and colitis”). According to the study’s lead author, “Millions of patients are exposed to potentially unsafe drugs each year.”

 

If the pharmaceutical industry switched from animal experiments to quantum pharmacology and in vitro tests, we would be better protected from harmful drugs, not less protected.

 

Read about how animal tests have hurt our progress in the fight against cancer.

 

“If we didn’t test on animals, how would we conduct medical research?”

 

Human clinical and epidemiological studies, studies on cadavers, and computer simulations are faster, more reliable, less expensive, and more humane than animal tests. Ingenious scientists have used human brain cells to develop a model “microbrain” that can be used to study tumors and have also come up with artificial skin and bone marrow. Instead of killing animals, we can now test irritancy on egg membranes, produce vaccines from cell cultures, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples. As Gordon Baxter, cofounder of Pharmagene Laboratories—a company that uses only human tissue and computers to develop and test its drugs—says, “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?”

Take a virtual tour of a real research lab.

 

“Should we throw out all the drugs that were developed and tested on animals? Would you refuse to take them?”

 

Unfortunately, a number of things in our society came about through the exploitation of others. For instance, many of the roads that we drive on were built by slaves. We can’t change the past; those who have already suffered and died are lost. But what we can do is change the future by using non-animal research methods from now on.

 

Read about the powerful institutions that perpetuate animal experiments.

 

“Would you support an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?”

 

No. Look at it another way: Suppose that the only way to save 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn’t that be worth it? Most people would agree that it would be wrong to sacrifice one human for the “greater good” of others because it would violate that individual’s rights, but when it comes to sacrificing animals, the assumption is that human beings have rights and animals do not. Yet there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good.

 

I wouldn't say that everything they claim is authentic but I agree with their logic. There are more questions in their FAQ and I still suggest that you read them.

 

Fly feeling: okay, now you're getting into anthropomorphizing animals which is wrong on so many levels. On the bare minimum, you are applying human emotions to a nonhuman thing which doesn't work. Non human things do not necessarily 'feel','think' like humans and to assume so is to assume the animal is human or human-like which is just ridiculous. Non human animals are not humans and should be treated as such. I find arguments that appeal to emotions (such as erroneous guilt tripping "animals have feelings too!" "what if it was a kid on the plate" ) very frustrating since there's often no logic to it.

 

I wasn't using personification in my argument nor was I applying so-called 'human' emotions to animals, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. First of all, emotions and feelings aren't exclusively human traits, a lot of animals and most mammals experience them in various ways, on various levels and to various extents. A lot of these are in response to their environment and what is happening around them. A lot of external as well as internal behaviour and actions can be instinctive response to situations channelled by emotions. For example, fear can be the brain's way of sensing and warning of danger and initiating the flight or flight reaction which can present itself in various ways: the quickening of the heartbeat when the heart starts pumping more blood etc. So it can be argued that all animals that are fighting for their lives instinctively are experiencing some degree of emotion, which is what I meant when saying that a fly struggles not to die. It can be argued that why would a fly struggle to live, to survive, if it did not have the will to, if it did not know what was happening, if did not experience discomfort (which can be called an emotion similar to pain), if it was not experiencing emotion to some extent? Even if it is called an 'instinctive response' and that all animals are machines engineered that way and that it is a defence mechanism activated by the body then aren't emotions some form of instinct too (don't people instinctively feel sad or happy?) and aren't all emotions activated by the body in response to the surroundings and events and that they are a part of the body mechanism of any living being that struggles or shows resistance in the above manner. Which can be counted as an unwillingness to die and since something doesn't wish to die doesn't it have the right to live? Isn't that one of the primary reasons life and the right to live is valued so much? There are situations when some loss of life is inevitable but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to prevent as much loss as we can and as far as possible.

 

Re: Human milk: With this article I get the feeling that they did that more to make a point than to actually expect Ben & Jerry's to listen.

 

Re: Clooney: Okay, that really was funny!

 

Re: Fishes: I don't support fishing either; if I'm going to apply the animal rights logic to one species then shouldn't that logic be applied to all species whenever their interests are the same? As for PETA calling fishes 'sea kittens' I suppose they are doing that to apply the same feeling humans have been conditioned to apply to cute, furry animals to not so cute animals too, specially by trying to appeal to kids (which also explains the sea kittens website).

 

Re: Music bands: I guess they are trying to influence popular culture through any means they can.

 

Re: Hypocrisy: I can't really defend those killings and don't want to, they are indeed hypocritical and horrific.

 

Re: Terrorism: I can't defend its affiliation with terrorist groups either but here's what they had to say about it and the ALF in their FAQ:

 

“Don’t animal rights activists commit ‘terrorist’ acts?”

 

The animal rights movement is nonviolent. One of the central beliefs shared by most animal rights activists is the belief that we should not harm any animal—human or otherwise. However, all large movements have factions that believe in the use of force.

 

“How can you justify the millions of dollars of property damage caused by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?”

 

Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are examples of movements in which people broke the law in order to answer to a higher morality. The ALF, which is simply the name adopted by people who act illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. ALF members burn empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF “raids” have given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have otherwise been discovered or believed and have resulted in criminal charges’ being filed against laboratories for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. Often, ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs, and some abusive laboratories have been permanently shut down as a result.

 

 

I agree that sometimes Peta do go overboard but I suppose they do that to try and reach as many people as they can in any way they can and influence popular culture as much as they can and I think that if it helps convert even one person then it is worth it. Whatever it takes man. (Not that I'm advocating the use of violence, force or harrassment). Anyway PETA isn't the only organisation working for animals and doesn't have to be the standard for activists to align themselves with or for anyone judge the whole movement.

 

Power: US has actually done a similar type of thing, its called being a super police. Do other countries absolutely need our help? Often times, no, we just butt in anyway which is ruining our reputation (which was pretty bad anyway) with other countries. And why does one need to conquer/enslave if you can get the same effects with just withholding the power? The gap between poor and rich is constantly stretching while the middle class is screwed either way. We're not poor enough to get financial help but not rich to actually survive comfortably. You don't need to stick a gun to a person's head to control them (which is slavery). So yes, humans have been effectively controlling others in demeaning ways. You just have to recognize it.

I don't really get your point; I never said that what you mentioned above isn't happening; I was just discussing the power question ideologically. After all the whole point of Animal Rights is humans abusing power and 'effectively controlling others'. I agree that human society and the power equation is far from perfect but it is better in a lot of places than what it was throughout history, and at least people are considered equal on paper in a lot of respects even if not in practice, which wasn't the case before and which IMO is a good sign.

 

 

Here's a novel idea: why don't we focus on the millions of starving and abused HUMAN CHILDREN before we focus on animals who wouldn't be able to avoid capture EVEN IN THE WILD.

 

Regarding the animals will still die in the wild part: The difference is that when animals hunt/kill each other it is usually necessary for their survival/their bodies are built in a way that requires doing that and they cannot think rationally/distinguish/ and/or choose between vegetarian/non-vegetarian, right or wrong, whereas humans have none of those problems and their ability to reason and choose is one of the defining characteristics that sets humans apart from nonhuman animals. Just because it happens in the wild/and or they would die anyway doesn't mean we should do that too. Are you saying that humans are no more intelligent than nonhuman animals? Everyone has to die someday but saying that wouldn't justify my killing you. This is like saying that just because a murdered child was going to die anyway we should focus on something else that someone else considers more important than addressing murder/child abuse.

 

Regarding the why don't we focus on humans part:

I've already addressed this in my post above:

This is as absurd as saying to a Homosexual Rights activist that instead of focusing their activism on Homosexuality they should work against racism or that they do not consider heterosexual people as human beings. What difference does recognising humans as animals make? And which activist ever deny that humans are animals too? And who said that in order to promote Animal Rights you need to deny humans their rights? Who said that humans have to compromise their safety to promote animal rights? Who said that animal rights activists cannot be humanists too? Just because my work focuses on one aspect of society doesn't mean that I don't consider others just as important or that I need to work in other areas and promote human rights too in order to justify my work or have it considered just as important as other movements.

 

One of PETA's FAQs addresses this question too:

 

“How can you justify spending your time helping animals when there are so many people who need help?”

 

There are very serious problems in the world that deserve our attention, and cruelty to animals is one of them. We should try to alleviate suffering wherever we can. Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important. Animal suffering and human suffering are interconnected.

 

There is another website which focuses on feminism but they've addressed this point there and I think it applies to Animal Rights too, just put 'animal rights' in place of 'feminism':

Why are you concentrating on X when Y is so much more important?

 

People talk about subjects that interest them and that they are passionate about because these tend to be the areas in which they have the most experience. Choosing to concentrate on one thing does not mean that the person thinks that it is the most important subject, or that it’s the only subject that they ever focus on. Not every discussion can, or should, include disclaimers that list all the “more important” topics that the author deals with elsewhere, because persuading others and planning productively means that there are times when it’s necessary to concentrate selectively on a certain subject.

 

The relationship between X and Y

 

A common argument that is used on people who are talking about special interests — such as feminism — is to say that, instead of talking about Special Interest X the person should instead talk about Important Issue Y. This proposed correlation between X and Y is problematic on a few levels:

 

1. It assumes that X and Y are mutually exclusive

2. It assumes that there is an objective determinant for what is “important” and what is not

3. It creates a hierarchy of issues, which in turn creates a supposed “correct” order/path that must be followed

 

It also should be noted that what is important to one person isn’t necessarily important to another person, so trying to determine which subjects other people should be discussing ends up being a losing proposition because there is no objective way to determine what is, and is not, important.

 

Ugh another huge post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bacman: Click for bombing

 

@chimera:

 

Double standards: What's the problem with double standards? Is it wrong to value a human more than a dog? Or an amoeba? I still don't see what the issue is here with double standards. After all double standards is what makes the world go round. For example, women generally make less than men. Colored people generally are less advantageous than whites. Middle class are screwed. When a black person is killed, often its considered a statistic. When a white person is killed, often its considered a tragedy. Policemen getting killed makes the front page of every major city in the country while the rising murders in that same city doesn't even make it to page 6. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry. You might not like it, but double standards fill society. One more isn't exactly killing anyone, especially such a minor one as this. As a human, I am under no obligation to any non human species. none. As a social human creature, I am encouraged to help my fellow social human creatures because working cooperatively enables me to succeed. Helping animals though? Not so

much obviously.

 

Abortion: you missed my point, this is directly a double standard example. Pro lifers throw this term sanctity of life to say that human embryos are more important than the woman. You can throw this argument right out because one simply has to point at an egg embryo. What does it end up being? an omelet.

 

As for cannibalism: Again, this is a cultural issue. I already said that I see it as a no no. But than again, I was grown to see it as bad anyway. If I was grown in an area that was more hospitable to the idea of it, I wouldn't be against it. Also, there are health risks to eating humans. Mad cow for example can be transferred if you eat human flesh. Human feces should not be used as fertilizer (as oppose to cow or other feces) because the bacteria in the human feces would 'infect' the plants and back to you. So for health reasons, humans should not be eaten since we're too similar and anything that killed the human before hand would probably kill you too.

 

Plants: double standards much? Just because its mostly green and doesn't have any visible feeling centers it obviously doesn't count. Also, it didn't mention bacteria.

 

Let's pick at the quote: “A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help … He does not ask how far this or that life deserves sympathy … nor how far it is capable of feeling.”

 

^you do not ask this/that life deserves sympathy or capacity for feeling. Therefore plants and bacteria and fungi and any other non animal SHOULD be 'protected' ie not eaten or used. This was a really bad quote to use by PETA since it covers all life imo.

 

Animal testing for meds:

"Cats are used as a model to develop immunodeficiency virus vaccines and to study leukemia because their natural predisposition to FIV and Feline leukemia virus."

 

"* Armadillos and humans are among only a few animal species that naturally suffer from leprosy; as the bacteria responsible for this disease cannot yet be grown in culture, armadillos are the primary source of bacilli used in leprosy vaccines.[118]"

 

"Transgenic animals have specific genes inserted, modified or removed, to mimic specific conditions such as single gene disorders, such as Huntington's disease.[113] Other models mimic complex, multifactorial diseases with genetic components, such as diabetes,[114] or even transgenic mice that carry the same mutations that occur during the development of cancer.[115] These models allow investigations on how and why the disease develops, as well as providing ways to develop and test new treatments.[116] The vast majority of these transgenic models of human disease are lines of mice, the mammalian species in which genetic modification is most efficient.[56] Smaller numbers of other animals are also used, including rats, pigs, sheep, fish, birds, and amphibians.[79]"

 

Congratulations if you do not have any genetic disorders. However, there are a bunch of people who would highly benefit any advances made here.

 

Feelings: You're humanizing them again. If something flinch, this doesn't necessarily mean its in pain. Emotions is a human concept that doesn't necessarily apply to animals. I don't see why it is used here. 'Sad, happy, loving, mad,' all these terms are so vague you can write a 12 volume encyclopedia about them and still get no where. I feel this is guilt tripping more than anything else. To make someone more sympathetic, you give them human characteristics such as supposed 'emotions'. A frustrating argument. And even if YOU don't think you're not doing it, PETA obviously doesn't have that type of standards. *points to sea kittens*

 

Power: "Using your logic anyone who is simply powerful and advanced enough is entitled to use that power and technology in any manner he/she sees fit on any lesser being. So the US which is one of the most technically advanced and powerful countries in the world is simply entitled to and should take over other countries which are not as advanced/powerful. Any person who is more powerful than another person is simply entitled to and should physically abuse/assault/turn the other person into a slave because she/he has power and she/he should make use of that. In fact, it looks to me as if this logic is suggesting that far from being advanced humans haven't even evolved from being primitive cave-dwellers when might was right and sheer brute strength ruled!

I believe that simply having power does not entitle you to use it without any thought of the consequences or of the manner in which it affects others. The greater power you have the greater your responsibility becomes to ensure that you or anyone else does not abuse it, otherwise you are not fit to have that power, IMO. Otherwise we'd have no order and structure in our society."

 

^ you made it sound like it doesn't happen. I'm just saying it does. You're rebuttal doesn't make sense as it is happening and thriving quite nicely.

 

Peta supposed research/videos: Propaganda stinks worse than skunk. As I said, I don't take anything they say seriously, not after all their publicity stunts. And seeing where those supposed footage comes from, why should I? This is similar to the scare tactics some abortion websites resort to: scary footage and pictures. Add the hypocrisy PETA's involved in, how can one trust 'their' word?

 

And even if they were real, isn't this a generalization? *nods*

 

Some disturbing news of PETA for thought:

hmmm

"I think it would be a great thing if all of these fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow"

- Bruce Friedrich- Vice prez of PETA

The heck? THIS is non violent? Seriously, I know you're an animal activist but come on: PETA isn't as 'good' as you make it out to be. I like honest debate, but PETA is just leaving a bad taste in my mouth the more I learn about them. Especially learning that EcoTerrorism is the number 1 domestic threat according to the FBI.

 

I also agree with esturia. Rather than worrying about flies, frogs, or other non human organisms, I rather worry about humans more in general and their problems. Instead of pumping millions of dollars for the betterment of chickens on the farm where they're going to die anyway, I rather see homosexual marriages come back to CA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. CloFu? Are you kidding me? And sea kittens I'm a vegetarian, but PETA's just taking this a little too far. We're humans, omnivores. We were made to eat both plants and animals. Are you going to shoot a lion because it kills animals? No, because that's how it survives. I may not like eating animals myself, but I'm a big believer in a little thing I like to call th food chain. As one of the top creatures on the food chain, humans do have the right to eat meat.

 

Even so, there is another point. I'm fine with people sticking to animals that are plenty and numbers and in no danger of nearing extinction. It's those people in the world who hunt exotic animals that are about to disappear forever just because "it's yummy" or "it makes a really pretty fur coat". That bothers me.

 

And I do believe that animals have feelings. Does that mean I'll run in front of a fly? Nope. Sorry, but if I'm really doing a bad thing by not defending a common insect, then I'll make up for it later when I'm involved in the ASPCA.

 

EcoTerrorism? It just goes to show how some people don't have their facts right. I think that if everyone just had an open mind and learned to accept that some people will continue to eat animals to matter what, we'd have less harassment and bombings in the word.

 

And chimera, you make great points, but my opinion is that we should be focusing on things one at a time. Tell me, would you rather save one animal that millions are already running to save, or try and help out in finding a cure for cancer? I'd choose cancer without a doubt. My great-grandmother died of it, and I know what it does to you. It makes people feel miserable. I'm sure all those animals feel pretty lousy too, but at least they have some hope since not all of us are scrambling to get some meat, but what do the starving children, those people being killed daily from wars, and those with incurable diseases have? They don't have all that much, honestly. If we tackle a problem at a time, it'll seem like forever. But really, don't you think those people would be ecstatic knowing that their mom's going to get a cure for her disease? And all the abused children when they get to have good homes with people who love them and care about them? What about those families, those children who get to see their dad come home from a deadly war?

 

Note: I was not trying to add wood to the fire here, I just wanted to state my opinion on things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KTC: "Cannibalism: actually, I believe that under certain conditions I wouldn't actually care about it one way or another. It's all about culture and where did you grow up or the circumstances surrounding the cannibalism. If you were starving, trapped, and had no food and a person died: would you eat him/her?"

 

I saw on TV a Finnish guy eating placenta of his (female heehee naturally) relative. The whole thing looks totally amusing :lol:

 

Here's the recipe in Finnish, enjoy translating it :D

 

http://www.madventures.tv/fi/madcook_s3_ep08.php

 

I couldn't find the video but it really was freaking crazy and funny :laughing:

 

These two guys have traveled around the world now three times (Madventures is the name of their show) and this third season (in English I recall, most of it at least) gave them this opportunity to try cannibalism but they couldn't do it in Papua New Guinea ... so they "borrowed" other guy's niece's placenta :lol: Just had to say :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@leelah: lol that's interesting. Past the conditioned 'eww' reaction about eating human parts, I'd actually like a translation of that recipe hehe.

 

@poke: CloFu= I did leave links ;P

I agree about killing exotic animals, though my reasoning is more of an aesthetic selfish one: I like to be able to look at live exotic animals. There's only so much you can draw from a stuffed version and video.

 

But if killing exotic animals is a livelihood of a village and such, the question becomes far more complicated. One of the issues I have with many environmentalists/animal activists is that many say "STOP KILLING/DESTROYING" without providing any real long term alternative for the people in that area. In this way, activists are obviously saying that the animals warrants more value and attention than the humans there. I don't have any examples off the top of my head, but I'm sure they're around somewhere.

 

and Me thinks PETA is bullocks. (oo, i always wanted to use that word :3)

 

"I do support getting animals out in the same way I would have supported getting human slaves out, child labor, sex slaves, the whole lot. But I don’t support burning. I don’t support arson. I would rather that these buildings weren’t standing, so on some level I understand. I just don’t like the idea of that. Maybe that is wishy-washy of me, because I don’t want those buildings standing if they are going to hurt anyone. And the ALF has never hurt mice nor mare." - Newkirk - Peta Prez

 

"I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match." - Newkirk - Peta Prez

 

" “Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective, We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works." - Newkirk - Peta Prez

 

Yeah, theses people are seriously trustworthy. Look at their leaders, they're all pro violence! /sarcasm

 

ASPCA: I haven't found any PETA like antics/hypocrisy from this group yet, so I'm incline to like this group way more than PETA since they frankly seem more honest, like actually trying to save animals as oppose to just making a loud ruckus. (Yeah, dumping paint on ppl or posing nude in cages is really helping animals. Oh, and killing animals in shelters= woot. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little off topic now, but I had to translate the recipe for you KTC :D

 

"But if killing exotic animals is a livelihood of a village and such, the question becomes far more complicated. One of the issues I have with many environmentalists/animal activists is that many say "STOP KILLING/DESTROYING" without providing any real long term alternative for the people in that area. In this way, activists are obviously saying that the animals warrants more value and attention than the humans there. I don't have any examples off the top of my head, but I'm sure they're around somewhere."

 

But this is again like

"white man comes, white man wants, white man kills, white man gets money

-> animals are nearly die out

-> white man regrets

-> white man orders the original ppl to give up their hunting etc. habits yaddayaddayadda..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KTC: The whole reason I mentioned the ASPCA is because I'm an aspiring animal cop. ;) I cry whenever I see the commercials. XD I love ASPCA because they don't put the animals to sleep within 24 hours, and they don't charge you if you want to give up your animal(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the video present is a perfect example of a scare video focusing on the worst of the worst.

There is no perspective in it and one should definitely be vary of generalization based on the video.

 

From a capitalistic point of view there is incentive for keeping the animals healthy other than bad PR since sickness spreed much easier and faster when many sick animals are present.

Sick animals are costly and the fear of epidemics can cause large populations to be destroyed by the government or some other authority.

 

The video is presented as if it's a reason to become a vegetarian, but the contents are more directed against stop animal cruelty. I am all in for proper treatment the animals.

 

I know animals must be anesthetized before being slaughter in my jurisdiction. I guess that is why the video doesn't affect me much. It's distant and the implied 'This is de facto standard' does not hold in my area.

 

*hugs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched it and share the same sentiment as Zeriab.

 

The linking milk to pus thing stuck with me though, since I like to visualize things. I'm still going to drink milk of course, but it's going to be less pleasant until I can manage to forget about that. *sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a christian, and in the bible it says that God gave us stewardship over the whole earth. The methods portrayed in 'Meet your Meat' are simply examples of bad stewardship.

 

vegetarianism is not the answer. If you really want to make a difference, then actively seek out the cruel farmers and slaughterers and call them out on their treatment of animals.

 

Don't take your righteous anger out on the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

 

vegetarianism is not the answer.

 

Does that mean people will stop being vegetarians? No. Sorry, but I'm still not going to eat meat. That's just not me. Trust me, I'm a big christian, but I'm not going to change who I am.

 

I do, however, believe that those "activists" need to find a different method of getting their opinion out. As you said, talking to the cruel farmers would be a good, peaceful start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry. I did not mean to demean your way of living. I merely meant to say that God gave us everything to use, and that I would think it wasteful if everyone in the world converted to vegetarianism and did not utilize everything he gave us.

 

I actually really like the theory of vegetarianism. It's a great way to eat healthily, because you have to make sure you get all your protein, and that requires eating things I don't normally try. I'd probably be a vegetarian myself if I didn't like meat as much as I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i eat meat, because like everybody else said, it tastes good, and the protein is healthy. however, i try to only buy meat from places that are organic and are more humane towards the animals.

 

i didn't watch the video, because i don't want to be grossed out by whatever it shows, but i usually do agree with PETA. sometimes they go to far, but the shock tactics keep them in the media and the public eye, and they need that to get their cause out, gain support, and spread the knowledge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

esturia: Sorry, I kinda freaked too. :) I'm kind of the opposite, I don't like the taste. My parents tried to give me a hot dog when I was little, and I spit it at their face. XD And what I lack in protein, I make up in calcium. Milk, cheese, milk, chocolate milk, macaroni, cottage cheese. That's the food I ate today. No joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I considered turning vegeterian once... But I just love the taste of meat too much. >_< I support the notion of everyone being able to eat what they love and want to eat. No one group should start converting the other. Eating is a choice after all.

 

I'm kind of the opposite of Pokegal... I'm lactose intolerant so I have alot more meat than dairy in my diet. XD Sometimes I suspect I might be Ca deficient. -_- I should start drinking more soy, or something.

 

About PETA... They're extremists going in too deep for a good cause, IMO... Their methods are wrong. Anyone heard of the lettuce ladies? Eugh. And there was this campaign that went like "Drink beer, not milk." Need I say more? Ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...