|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
OP
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
This is too funny to ignore. Enjoy! quote:
Group Says Now’s the Time for Soy Wiener
For Immediate Release:
July 10, 2003
Contact:
Dan Shannon 757-622-7382
PETA has written to Milwaukee Brewers President Wendy Selig-Prieb, renewing its request that a fifth contestant be entered in Miller Park’s famous "Sausage Race" in light of the recent incident in which Pittsburgh Pirate Randall Simon attacked the "Italian Sausage" with a baseball bat. Traditionally, four participants dressed to represent various meat sausages race from the outfield to home plate, and last year, PETA requested that a vegetarian "soysage" be included in the race. Now, PETA recommends that, in order to set a nonviolent example to offset the recent brawls and "beanings" in MLB, the Brewers should field a Sausage Race participant that does not represent the violence inherent in meat production, which includes castration, debeaking, dehorning, and throat-slitting.
Why does PETA want to clobber Milwaukee’s meat mania? Besides being murder on animals, sausages made from pig and cow parts don’t exactly "do a body good." Meat consumption is linked to heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure, diabetes, and cancer as well as a loss of stamina. For men who want the staying power to go all nine innings in the game of romance, it’s also worth noting that cholesterol-laden animal products can cause impotence by blocking the arteries to all the body’s organs, not just the heart.
"Violence is violence, whether it’s toward ‘sausages’ or living animals," says PETA’s Sports Campaign coordinator, Dan Shannon. "Putting a veggie dog in the Sausage Race would help stop the violence and make animals ‘safe’ in the baseball world."
PETA’s letter to Brewers President Wendy Selig-Prieb follows.
July 10, 2003
Wendy Selig-Prieb, President
Milwaukee Brewers
Miller Park, 1 Brewers Way
Milwaukee, WI 53214
Dear Ms. Selig-Prieb:
I am writing with regard to the unfortunate events of July 9, when Pittsburgh Pirate Randall Simon viciously attacked the "Italian Sausage" participant in Miller Park’s famous "Sausage Race." We at PETA feel that now would be a perfect time for you to take us up on our suggestion from last year: You should include a vegan "soysage" in the big race.
Violence seems to be everywhere in baseball these days: Fans are attacking players and umpires in the field, Pedro Martinez "beaned" two Yankees in a row, the Reds are fighting everyone in sight, and now this. Something must be done. What better way is there to set a good example for the rest of the baseball community than by allowing a nonviolent "soysage" to participate in the Sausage Race? By rejecting the castration, dehorning, debeaking, wing-breaking, and throat-slitting that are part and parcel of the meat industry, you can send a powerful message that violence will not be tolerated in baseball—on the field or in the slaughterhouse.
Miller Park already offers veggie hot dogs in the stands—in fact, PETA named Miller Park one of the Top 10 Veg-Friendly Ballparks in our annual list this year. Why allow veggie dogs into the ballpark but then exclude them from the race? Perhaps Randall Simon was simply expressing his frustration at the fact that the vegetarian hot dog was not allowed to compete. By allowing the peaceful "soysage" in the race, you could possibly avoid future player-meat confrontations.
I hope to hear that you will be adding a vegan participant to the Sausage Race in the near future. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dan Shannon
Campaign Coordinator
-- taken from http://www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=2600
Not that I have ever taken PETA seriously, but this is funny without being sick like their 'Got Beer' and 'Holocaust on Your Plate' campains, which were just below the belt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
Perhaps Randall Simon was simply expressing his frustration at the fact that the vegetarian hot dog was not allowed to compete. By allowing the peaceful "soysage" in the race, you could possibly avoid future player-meat confrontations.
Further proof that PETA organizers don't live on this planet.
The only people who will see the "PETA message" are the PETA advocates themselves. No one else will give a damn about a vegan "soysage" on the field. When will they understand that none of their campaigns really help their causes?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
I agree with the basic, tip of the iceberg, outlining premise of what the PETA stand for....but stuff like this just kinda leaves me scratching my head, wondering what exactly these people have been smoking.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Hemp. ![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
In related news, PETA is also protesting Kobe Bryant's "violent sausage."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
Now that I have that joke out of the way, the cheerleaders for the Houston Rockets have PETA slogans on their T-Shirts. And it IS in a place that most male patrons look!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
I've got a poster of the Go-Go's nude behind a banner that says WE'D RATHER GO-GO NAKED THAN WEAR FUR...peta
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
I agree with the basic, tip of the iceberg, outlining premise of what the PETA stand for....but stuff like this just kinda leaves me scratching my head, wondering what exactly these people have been smoking.
Yeah, PETA can be over the top and kinda goofy at times, but as the largest animal rights advocacy group on the planet they have also accomplished a lot of great things over the years in raising awareness to the plight/suffering of animals in the US and abroad.
Soysausage is pretty tasty, too. (And it WOULD be pretty hilarious and cool to see a soy weiner running along with the other doggies in Milwaukie, imho. ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by thedoctor:
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
Perhaps Randall Simon was simply expressing his frustration at the fact that the vegetarian hot dog was not allowed to compete. By allowing the peaceful "soysage" in the race, you could possibly avoid future player-meat confrontations.
The only people who will see the "PETA message" are the PETA advocates themselves. No one else will give a damn about a vegan "soysage" on the field. When will they understand that none of their campaigns really help their causes?
That's actually not true, Doc. PETA gets national attention all the time with their public campaigns and protests. Think what you like about their methods (even I have to shake my head sometimes at some of their stunts--- and I'm a card-carrying member of PETA), but they definitely get their message out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
Hemp.
Hey, hemp is good--- and it does no permanent harm to your tender brain-meats according to modern science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
Now that I have that joke out of the way, the cheerleaders for the Houston Rockets have PETA slogans on their T-Shirts. And it IS in a place that most male patrons look!
Cool!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
I've got a poster of the Go-Go's nude behind a banner that says WE'D RATHER GO-GO NAKED THAN WEAR FUR...peta
Yeah, that's a cool poster.
Have you seen the PETA poster with that blonde actress from NYPD blue?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
Cowgirl: Just got through reading that letter PETA wrote to Selig's daugter for the 2nd time, and it IS funny. Cool thread, m'lady! :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
OP
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
Glad to post, K.
I lost my respect for PETA years ago. Frankly, I still wince at the years when I believed everything they said for gospel.
The thing about PETA is while they often make good points -- the means are often screwed. I totally agree that the diary industry, for example, could use a little reform (hence, myself and other pre-vet students at UF are considering joining the dairy industry to make these changes possible). But to go and distribute 'GOT BEER?' advertisments across collge campuses. Sure, that may swing with the college idiots, but those of us that got in for academic reasons can usually see through a shitty compaign like that.
The point is -- whose opinion do you value more? A fanatic group that has been accused of supporting a terrorist group (ALF), or a group of individuals knowledgable and experienced in the field that want the same goals but under different, more logical, means?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016 |
Sir Paul McCarthy says...
Save the bloody Chickens!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15 |
There is plenty of room for all god's creatures... Right next to the mashed potatos.
Sincerely,
Ultimate Jaburg53
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
I've got a poster of the Go-Go's nude behind a banner that says WE'D RATHER GO-GO NAKED THAN WEAR FUR...peta
Yeah, that's a cool poster.
Have you seen the PETA poster with that blonde actress from NYPD blue?
Nope I heard of alot of different actresses doing similar shots but havent seen many.... ![[sad]](images/icons/frown.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
PETA just put up an exhibit in a public park in downtown Cleveland comparing slaughtered animals in the meat industry to Holocaust victims. I have to drive past the damn thing to get to work every day. ![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif) The Jewish community is really pissed off, and pretty much everyone agrees it's extremely tasteless - even for PETA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
Glad to post, K.
I lost my respect for PETA years ago. Frankly, I still wince at the years when I believed everything they said for gospel.
The thing about PETA is while they often make good points -- the means are often screwed. I totally agree that the diary industry, for example, could use a little reform (hence, myself and other pre-vet students at UF are considering joining the dairy industry to make these changes possible). But to go and distribute 'GOT BEER?' advertisments across collge campuses. Sure, that may swing with the college idiots, but those of us that got in for academic reasons can usually see through a shitty compaign like that.
The point is -- whose opinion do you value more? A fanatic group that has been accused of supporting a terrorist group (ALF), or a group of individuals knowledgable and experienced in the field that want the same goals but under different, more logical, means?
The "Got Beer" ads were just a catchy, attention-grabbing ploy to spread their message about the dairy industry--- like it or not, it often takes a jolt to get your average person's attention. I don't always agree with PETA's methods, but they kind of operate their campaigns with the "any publicity is good publicity" school of thought. Sure, I would rather they tone it down a bit sometimes, but I have to tip my hat to an organization with such noble ultimate goals: raising awareness to the cruel and unnecessary suffering of animals throughout the world. And make no mistake about it--- PETA is and ALWAYS has been non-violent. People have been trying to smear PETA for years by claiming that they have ties to the activities of ALF (Animal Liberation Front), but that is simply not true. And if these lies could be proven you better believe it would happen, because PETA has made a shitload of enemies over the years. But just take a gander at the majority of PETA's enemies in the corporate world AND in the government: self-interested, bottomline cunts only concerned with the almighty buck (or in the case of the politicians, toadying to their big-business lobbyists in order to stay elected) who will never even consider animal welfare reform of ANY kind without a giant fuss being made by informed, concerned citizens/consumers. And when you boil it all down, that's all PETA (and many other animal rights groups througout the world) is: a collection of people concerned about the treatment of animals in this country and abroad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
Glad to post, K.
I lost my respect for PETA years ago. Frankly, I still wince at the years when I believed everything they said for gospel.
The thing about PETA is while they often make good points -- the means are often screwed. I totally agree that the diary industry, for example, could use a little reform (hence, myself and other pre-vet students at UF are considering joining the dairy industry to make these changes possible). But to go and distribute 'GOT BEER?' advertisments across collge campuses. Sure, that may swing with the college idiots, but those of us that got in for academic reasons can usually see through a shitty compaign like that.
The point is -- whose opinion do you value more? A fanatic group that has been accused of supporting a terrorist group (ALF), or a group of individuals knowledgable and experienced in the field that want the same goals but under different, more logical, means?
Logic and reason are of course vital to any moral/ethical stand that a person wants to make--- and in trying to convince someone of the merit of your argument. But passion (non-violent passion, of course) is also very important in delivering your message. Peter Singer (the author of "Animal Liberation", widely considered the "bible" of the modern animal rights movement) is without doubt one of the brightest and most reasonable philosophers on the planet, but he's also a tad stale and emotionless. Sometimes it takes an emotional nuke to wake people up from their apathetic slumber. Logic, reason, AND passion is the key, in my humble opinion. Sure, PETA is far from perfect, but they also have an abundance of all of these afore-mentioned qualities.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
PETA just put up an exhibit in a public park in downtown Cleveland comparing slaughtered animals in the meat industry to Holocaust victims. I have to drive past the damn thing to get to work every day. The Jewish community is really pissed off, and pretty much everyone agrees it's extremely tasteless - even for PETA.
Sure, that's overkill--- but when you really consider it, slaughterhouse animals and Holocaust victims DO/DID suffer similar fates (anyone who thinks otherwise should find out in detail what goes on in your average slaughterhouse, and you'll see that the analogy isn't very far off). It's just that most people refuse to even remotely consider the interests of non-human "food animals" in relation to humans.
From what I understand, this campaign is based in large part on an award-winning animal rights book called "Eternal Treblenka". I'm still on a waiting list to get this book at my local library, but I hear it's a fascinating read.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
OP
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
But the methods do not justify the means. Check this out (link is no good so I can only post the passage highlighted my appolgies): quote:
PETA Urges Hamburg, N.Y., to Change Name
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-PETA-Town.html
A national animal rights group has offered Hamburg officials $15,000 to change the town's name to Veggieburg.
"The town's name conjures up visions of unhealthy patties of ground-up dead cows," said Joe Haptas, spokesman of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, in a letter faxed Monday to Hamburg Supervisor Patrick Hoak.
Oh no! Dear me! Anyone else realize that the town's name predates the use of 'Hamburger' to describe a slab of beef between two buns? Note the use of 'unhealthy' stuck in the sentence. They don't give up, do they? Never mind some of are in great health and do consume meat daily.
Let do a run down on PETA's policies (taken from www.peta.org )
Animals in Entertainment
PETA stands against rodeos, greyhound races, zoos, circuses, horse racing, bull fighting, traveling animal acts, marine mammel parks, stationary exhibits, and cockfighting.
Now they make a good point about the animal fighting. I mean, who dicided attack roosters were cool to bet on? Whatever. That involves dragging out the killing of an animal, something that I don't like. Some circuses can pull it off, but it is hard work. All the same, if they can pull it off, more power to them.
I am reminded of when Lowry Park Zoo opened up years ago in Tampa. All of the animals were in solitary bar cages with not a lot of toys and shelter. This is an example of poor zoo management. However, that was over twenty years ago, and things change. The managers (as did many zoos across the nation) learned how animals need stimulation. Now you go to Lowry Park and the animals are kept in huge cages filled with native vegetation and toys.
The races still need reform. Reform, not abolishment. They can be done in such a way to not be at the expense of an animal. PETA does not understand the bond between horse and rider. There is a certian companionship, this immortal bond that's been around since man domestication the wild stallions eons ago. That bond is manifested in the rodeo and in the races. Do we need drugs? No way. Horses can become junkies just like humans. Do we need to make sure breeders weed-out bad conformation in horses (nothing is more disgusting to me than to see a horse than can run but has a parrot mouth -- who the hell missed that one?)? Absolutely. Castrate anyone that doesn't fit the requriments and give them to a private non-racer. Ditto for the greyhounds. Several people that visit the vet's office I work at own retired greyhounds. Its a great program that needs more support so it gets more attention. The trick is to get owners and managers that are interested in the integrety of the purebred horses and dog as well as the wellfare of the animal.
Clothing
PETA stands against all forms of the fur and leather industry.
Now again, I agree...to a degree. Any traping that lenghtens the killing is wrong. It has to be quick and painless. And frankly, isn't a bear trap counter-productive? I mean, what happens when it cuts the animal in half. Now instead of two square feet of fur, you have two one-square foot pieces. Oh yeah, real smart there.
What's really funny is the silk and honey stances. I'm sorry, but I am not worried about the welfare of insects.
I think it is possible to produce leather and fur with farm-raised animals. Granted, I'd like to see some reform -- there's a self-cleaning cage system we use with the pigs here at UF and I think a smaller version for rabbits and ferrets and other fur animals would keep things sanitary and smelling good. Mental stimulation is as simple as a cardboard box stuff with hay for rabbits (which also doubles as a food).
Wildlife
Do I really need to tell you PETA's stance on this? Take one lucky guess. They are also against fishing, predator control (as well as pigeon control), and horse round ups.
Now large-scale round ups are not a good idea. Granted, a cattle rancher should be able to remove wild horses from the grazing areas. Frankly, I've always been pissed at PETA's views on horses -- they don't give a shit about the horses being shipped to France. Older horses are being sold at less than a dollar per pound and shipped alive to France and no big outcries from PETA. Because if the French do it, its okay. I'm not surprised -- these are the same people that consider the poultry industry equal to the Holocaust.
Again, hunting can be reformed (I am so not opening that can of worms only to say what I've said already -- go check out the thread yourself). But fishing? Whoa...fish are down there at the bottom of the intellecual chain. They are only slightly above insects. Heck, octopi and squid are more intelligent. I hate fishing (my only catch being less than six inches) and prefer farm-raised fish anyways but no complaints from me about those that like the sport.
As far as 'Population Control' the key word is 'overkill'. The Passanger Pigeon use to be seen in huge swams in the sky. Now, less than a hundred years later, they are extinct (I wonder why no one has propsed cloning them). On the other hand, I will practive population control when rats infest Dakota's feed and it threatens his life. I had to kill several before I moved to college when my other rabbits were getting attacked. I'm sorry -- my animals have a priority before vermin (this is coming from someone that's owned rats as well...).
Companion Animals
In this respect, PETA is not the most extreme group. More extreme is to see companion animals as slaves and owners as slave masters. I do support the use of the words 'pet' and 'owner' because I see it as most fitting. Companions pay bills (like my roommate's boyfriend). Dakota, on the other hand, costs me an arm and leg monthly. So he will remain a 'pet' until he gets a job and pays for the extra-expensive pellets I buy.
PETA does support some extremly obvious things (in other words, you are missing a few screws if you think these are bad). They are things everyone can agree on. Spaying and neutering, enthanasia (though I wonder why they are against inhaled forms), and puppy mills are main examples. There are a lot here.
Now I do disagree on some points. First of all their idea of flea protection. I have had no problems with Frontline and Frontline plus. They do the job. PETA recomends ceder and thats damaging to rabbits'liver, so I have no clue what wacko suggested that.
I don't like the idea of wild-caught exotics or fish. However, breeders can produce captive-breed fish. So you can still have your clownfish.
Now their policy on breeding irks me. PETA always sees anyone that makes money off of animals as greedy bastards. Talk to any rabbit breeder and you learn pretty quickly two things: 1) they don't make shit its all out of love 2) they have more pictures of the rabbits in their wallet than of their husbands. Dakota himself lacks the markings for a show rabbit (he is not spotted enough) -- so I had him castrated and kept him as a pet. Truth is, the best breeders out there -- be it horse, dog, cat, or rabbit are out there to maintain the intergrety of the breed. What happens is inexperienced breeders don't know how to check for genetic mishaps. For example, when we bred our Labrodor, Tracy, my family was concerned about hip dysplasia, a common defect in larger breeds. So what did we do? We checked Tracy's records to make sure there was no case of hip problems. We then examine the male and his records (all are certified by the AKC). The result? Out of a total of eighteen puppies (two litters) NOT ONE had the condition. From other resources, we know that the two pups that were breed also produced dysplasia-free dogs.
The only advantage mixed dogs have is what's called a hybrid-vigor, which might make them more immune to certain diseases. I think any animal that does not fit the requriments for their breed, as well as an mixed animal, should be castrate or spayed -- no bones about it. I have worked at spay and nueter clincs and this can be done quickly and effiecently.
But of course, PETA would rather you adopt mutts. That's fine, but they MUST be fixed. Otherwise the cycle begins all over again. PETA does not mention any of the pluses to a purebred animal and is clearly biased. While I'll be the first to admit there are problems with purebreds, none have happened on my watch. It all boils down to responsiblity. I support responsible breeding.
Vegetarianism
PETA supports vegetarianism and condemns the meat industry in any form.
If you want to do it for health reasons, fine. If you don't have the willpower to moderate your meat intake, than you shouldn't. I can, so I will continue to eat meat.
There is no middle-ground here for PETA, and that's where I support the Humane Socity's stance.
I think the large-scale meat producers are in need of reform. Last election proved to me though how things can go wrong. There was a certain restraining device used on pregnant pigs (Florida doesn't even have a huge pig industry). Now I thought it was wrong to keep the pigs in this for the duration of their pregnancy, so I was all for voting for the amendment. However, I also knew that restaining device protects the vet administerins shots. So I didn't want to see it abolished. The end result? The device cannot be used and now it takes five grad students to administer one vaccine. Oh yeah, that's moving on up.
And PETA does not support the small time farmer. PETA's agurments against eating meat are only on the welfare of the animal and the health benefits to humans. My roommate raised her own cow and it is currently is in our freezer. The cow was free-range, recieved all vaccines, and was killed in a humane fashion. The result? Enough meat to last a sememster from an animal that did not suffer in a cage or a pen that is actually healthier than any beef from a store. Take that and shove it up your ass, PETA!
Animal Experimentaion
Again...overkill is bad. But no scientist sits there, twiddles his thumbs, and thinks 'Oh boy...how many rats will I kill today!' I'd much rather have animals be used instead of the 'Hitler Approach'. I mean, where are we going to find human test subjects? Homeless people? Poor people? Jeez, that is the stuff for Nazis. Now granted, some things can only be done by humans. While there is a feline form of Immunodeficiency Virus (called FIV, the human form is HIV, which causes AIDS) virus tend to resemble their host more than they resemeble other virus. So almost all viral work would have to be done with human cell cultures. Though no one would volunteer for AIDS research unless they already had the disease. PETA also is, at best, out of date on the original of AIDS -- it can be traced to a non-lethal form found in primates (evidence taken from molecular clocks shows around 1910-1950).
Basically, save the really important stuff for animals. Molecular technology is improving, but it would be naive to think we can go with no animal research whatsoever.
Now...dissection and endotracheal tubes...oh dear, where to begin? I am an Animal Science student -- and no vet's office would hire me if I didn't know how to put a tube down an animals throat. And for human health -- which sounds better to practice on -- a stray cat dying or a seventy-year old heart transplant patient?
So, to sum up the longest...post...ever...there are several lesser known groups that are not as extreme as PETA. Support needs to go to these people, not the looney bin.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
OP
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
Sure, that's overkill--- but when you really consider it, slaughterhouse animals and Holocaust victims DO/DID suffer similar fates (anyone who thinks otherwise should find out in detail what goes on in your average slaughterhouse, and you'll see that the analogy isn't very far off). It's just that most people refuse to even remotely consider the interests of non-human "food animals" in relation to humans.
Find out in detail what happen in the concentration camps. Ever been to one? I went to Dachau. And I've been in some poultry factories. What I saw in the poultry factories was nothing compare to a former concentration camp. My friend's grandparents survived that hell, thank you very much. They, along with my friend, were horrified to hear of this campaign. That's placing chickens at their level. That's placing Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and every victim of Hilter at the level of meat birds. What fucking gaul that took! There campagin is now having the reverse effect -- the majority of people do not like to see other innocent people compare to stock animals. Saying someone has the intelligence of a rabbit is one thing, placing Holocaust victims on the same plate as some birds is insane.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15 |
"Oh no! Dear me! Anyone else realize that the town's name predates the use of 'Hamburger' to describe a slab of beef between two buns?"
Also describes Kristogar and Nowhereman's "quality time": a slab of beef between two buns.
"Note the use of 'unhealthy' stuck in the sentence. They don't give up, do they? Never mind some of are in great health and do consume meat daily."
Nowhereman consumes Kristogar's meat daily, and Kristogar says he's in tip-top shape!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 38
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 38 |
PETA is the best and always right. Am vegetarian and have never eaten a bit of meat to do so would plunge deep within the bowels of hell and burn for all eternity. Also support fire bombing KFC and McDonalds with people in it to send a message to the meat devils. Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
placing Holocaust victims on the same plate as some birds is insane.
I don't think so. I think animals and humans are equal. Animals eat us, we eat them. It all evens out in the end.
I have seen slaughterhouses, and in terms of the methods of killing, they are worse than any concentration camp. The only difference between the two is that concentration camp victims were worked to near starvation before being executed.
Would you say that Maus is equally offensive, since it uses animals as a representation of the holocaust?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
OP
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
The use of animals as a methaphor device has been around for ages. Even one interpretation of 'Watership Down' -- granted, you can sit there and dig into that book all day, and I'll be frank and admit this is only one way of looking at it -- shows the rabbit warrens as representing different types of government institutions (the orginal warren was a monarchy, Cowslips's was a socialist, Woundwart's was a dictatorship, and Hazel-rah's was a democracy). So here the rabbits and their warrens are representing something human. And in literature this is quite commen. Look at the complex societies in Kipling's 'The Jungle Books'. There is a complex list of rules that Mowgli must learn to find in the jungle -- but as commentors are fond to point out, most of these laws are universal for every animal (like not to drink too deep -- most animals cannot run on a full stomach). Another example is Orwell's 'Animal Farm'. Here, Stalin is given the form of a pig, and the sheep represent the mob.
(continue...)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
OP
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
In all these cases, using animals simplifies the methaphor. We realize after reading 'Animal Farm' that Orwell was not talking about a small English farm, but that Animal Farm was a methaphor for communist Russia. After reading 'Watership Down', 'Plague Dogs', and to a lesser extent 'Shardik', the reader sees that humans and nature can coexist. Afterall, for all the suffering Hazel-rah's rabbit went through, he was saved from a cat by a girl. 'Watership Down' also has the benefit of the double-metaphor with the types of government.
(continue...)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
OP
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
Let's look at the animals 'Maus' used.
Mice -- Jews (nationality did not apparently matter)
Pigs -- Polish
Cats -- Germans
Frogs -- French
Dogs -- Americans (and the British?)
Again, these are just metaphors. Mice are vermin and pest animals no one is too bothered if they are killed. That's why the author used them to represent the Jews. Not because he or the reader thought that way about Jews, but because that's how they were seen by the Germans. The Germans are portrayed as cats. WHy? Because cats prey on mice. That's why the Allies were dogs -- a child could understand this because the mice <-- cat <-- dog relationship is common everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
OP
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
In these cases, humans are being degraded to animals. And from a literary standpoint, somewhere in the cycle of the protagonist's story he/she must degrade himself before a final confrontation. PETA raised the status of chickens and placed them with humans.
A less severe version of the 'Holocaust On Your Plate' would be an issult you say to someone you didn't like. 'You smell like a pig'. 'You've got the brains of a rabbit'. A majority of people do not like being put the the level of an animal.
A lot of this boils down to where you place animals and humans. While I love animals (heck I live with four of them) I think humans are superior. We are smarter, have a mental capacity for abstract thought (thank you Clooney), and can reason. Compassion is one of those abstract thoughts, and I have no objection showing it to animals. But all the same, I also have no problem consuming one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
Sure, that's overkill--- but when you really consider it, slaughterhouse animals and Holocaust victims DO/DID suffer similar fates (anyone who thinks otherwise should find out in detail what goes on in your average slaughterhouse, and you'll see that the analogy isn't very far off). It's just that most people refuse to even remotely consider the interests of non-human "food animals" in relation to humans.
Find out in detail what happen in the concentration camps. Ever been to one? I went to Dachau. And I've been in some poultry factories. What I saw in the poultry factories was nothing compare to a former concentration camp. My friend's grandparents survived that hell, thank you very much. They, along with my friend, were horrified to hear of this campaign. That's placing chickens at their level. That's placing Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and every victim of Hilter at the level of meat birds. What fucking gaul that took! There campagin is now having the reverse effect -- the majority of people do not like to see other innocent people compare to stock animals. Saying someone has the intelligence of a rabbit is one thing, placing Holocaust victims on the same plate as some birds is insane.
I know all about concentration camps (my late grandfather was married to a Holocaust survivor, and it's a subject that I've also read a great deal about over the years), Jacklyn. And I still find intensive, factory farming to be very similar to a Holocaust era concentration camp. You--- and so many others out there, unfortunately--- just have a problem with considering the interests of sentient beings that are non-human. Sure, humans have greater mental capacities than animals, but it's not a question of intelligence--- it's a question of suffering. Can animals suffer? The answer, quite obviously, is an emphatic yes. Humans can suffer and animals can suffer--- among many other things, we have that in common. The fact that animals have lesser mental abilities than us gives us no moral right to inflict pain, suffering, and death on them--- and if you think otherwise then I think you better stop to consider WHY you think so. Is it because you enjoy the taste of their flesh? Is it because that new pair of leather pumps look so bitchin' on ya? Is it because "people have always done it this way"? All of the above and then some, yes? These factory farms are fucking beyond barbaric. Every day millions of animals suffer and die to become our food and clothing, and their suffering was entirely unnecessary. People treat animals--- sensitive, feeling creatures--- as if they were inorganic, unfeeling raw materials to be used at our whim and fancy. Every day the most important interests of animals (the animal's interest in a life free of unnecessary suffering and death) are over-rided and denied in order for man to satisfy very trivial interests in comparison: hamburgers, steaks, leather coats, shoes, etc. It is undeniable that man can live healthy, satisfying lives without hamburgers and leather shoes, but animals don't do too well without their flesh attached to their bones. A vegan or vegetarian diet is perfectly healthy--- leading nutritionists have agreed upon this for decades--- AND it's plenty tasty (I know this for a fact as I'm a big "foodie" and always have been ), too. And we have an abundance of synthetic materials that are just as effective as leather and fur. So why subject animals to suffering and death when it is so completely unnecessary? I'm willing to cocede animals being used for testing new drugs (although huge reform is needed in this field), but what we are allowing to happen every day in these factory farms is just plain wrong--- not to mention environmentally unsound and horribly wasteful. The sheer waste of natural resources and completely edible crops that goes into "raising" just a pound of steak is staggering! The same time, effort, and resources that go into your average steak could usually produce up to 10 times as much vegetables or grains. Are you aware that the food (grains, oats, etc, etc.,etc.) used to feed factory farmed animals in this country alone could feed the entire world with quite a bit left over?!!? Imagine that: hunger and starvation could be eliminated if we all ate a vegan or vegetarian diet (provided we share/export leftover food from our crops to the less fortunate countries, of course). Something to consider when you take into account the fact that approximately 24,000 people per day die of malnutrition or other hunger-related causes throughout the world.
You are so outraged for these "lesser beasts" to be given even remotely the same consideration as humans. Those "meat-birds" you called them when referring to chickens--- your lack of compassion and concern for a feeling, breathing being is so evident in those words. And why? Why are animals given so little importance when compared to man? Because they will never be capable of doing Algebra or questioning the meaning of life? Bullshit. It's because might makes right--- it's because we HAVE to trivialize and lessen the importance of their lives in our minds in order to continue allowing them to suffer and die so that we can eat them and wear them and use them for "sport" and entertainment. It gets harder to look at yourself in the mirror once you start to question your relationship with these so-called lesser beasts, doesn't it? It's much easier to criticize and write PETA (and other groups dedicated to trying to end the unnecessary suffering and death of animals througout the world) off as a bunch of "loonies" than it is to stop and consider your own personal, moral/ethical responsibility in regard to those "meat-birds" and "food animals".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
OP
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
Here's Cowgirl's crash course on Behavioral Science (taken from Campbell's Biology Sixth Edition)
Behavior: What an animal does and how it does it, in a broad technical sense.
It results from both genes and environmental factors. They build onto each other.
Innate behavior is devolopmentaly fixed, meaning all individuals exhibit the same behavior despite environment differences. An example would be how male stickleback's attack anything red (the sign of another male).
Behavioral Ecology studies how behavior affects organisms from a biological standpoint. To sum it up, all behaviors animals display help the species continue. Female birds are attracted to males with a bigger repertoire of songs. Why? This is a sign that the male is older and is more experienced and has genetic factors favoring him.
The Optimial Foraging Theory states that there is a compromise between food-gathering and food-consuming. An animal won't eat something if it takes more energy to gather than do consume.
Learning is the modification of behavior resulting from specific experiences. Young monkeys learn predator cries (one cry for a land predator, one for an airborne one). This should not be confused with maturation, improvements in neuromuscular systems. Birds, for example, to not learn to fly. It is simply a matter of the proper muscle coordination. Habituation is the loss of a response to a stimuli (the 'boy who cried wolf' effect). Imprinting is learning during a certain time period (usually a young age) called the sensitive age.
Play involves movements closely associated with goal-directed behaviors. Lions play with each other tolearn valueable mating and hunting skills.
Cognition in the broadest sense, is the ability to percieve, store, process, and use information gathered by sensory receptors. Kinesis is the change in activity or turning rate in response to a stimulus (wood lice are more active in dry areas). Taxis is an automatic movement towards or away from a stimuli (fly larve move away from light). Landmarks are used as well as other mental maps.
I had to pay over two hundred dollars to learn this. You get it for free.
Again, these are all things designed by thousands and millions of years of evolution to perpetuate the survival of the species. Any sign of consciousness -- awareness -- there? No. Can you argue that the highest order of birds and mammals (I would argue a few species of dinosaurs and some extinct apes would be included in this, but being extinct, it doesn't really matter) might be in possesion of high intelligence? Certainly. Chimps and some birds are able to use tools. But again, these all built for basic survival. Humans are capable of producing socities. We don't think because we must we think because we can and most behavioral biologist argue that most animals are not 'aware'. And those that might have the capabilties have nothing compared to the human. It is like an ant looking at a mountain.
Now, you do mention animal suffering. Well, we are in agreement there. Most animals have some sort of a nervous system, and therefore can sense stimuli. So it is not unreasonable to say that an animal can suffer (to a lesser degree it is also being speculation that's plants suffer, but I'm waiting on more information before I have a stance on that).
Lets put suffering into two camps. 'Mental' and 'physical'. And let's look at mental first. The more intelliegent an animal, the more mental stimulation it needs. The lack of mental stimulation causes mental suffering (for an example, check out Plague Dogs by Richard Addams where the monkey is placed in solitary confinement). So, all that is needed for birds and mammals (and possibly some reptiles but anything lower on the evolutionary ladder doesn't really need any of this -- that might be an overload for them) is some form of a 'toy' in the cage. One plus to owning a rabbit is that I can kill two birds with one stone -- the hay is shaped as a little toy so it is a challenge to get the hay to eat it. Birds need something they can move about like a rattle (a bonus since it makes noise). Mirrors, rattles, pulls, and even mineral blocks can provided hours of entertainment for animals in need of mental stimulation.
Now on to physical suffering. This is an eaiser concept to comprehend. It is easier to see physical abuse than mental abuse. An animal requires a certain amount of food, water, and space. Its simply a matter of giving it to them. On days Dakota is keep in his cage, he has enough room to stand, stretch, jump, lie down, and all without touching or bumping into his toys, hayrack, waterbottle, or litterbox. And that...giving an eyeball measurement about 2 x 2 x 3? Maybe bigger (now granted he is a mini Rex so something a little bigger for average breeds but they actually are more space-conservative). Slap a self-cleaning system (which I've seen in action and its not too bad) and you have there a nice little assemble. The actual killing method can always be improved (again, nothing that prolongs suffering -- it is possible to kill quickly and painlessly).
What I suppose I'm asking for is the modernization of the meat industry. Make it less mechanical. Which, ironically, requires it goes back to the days of small-time farmers that woke up at four in the morning to check to see if there was a fox in the henhouse. Will it cost more? Yes. But the trade off is better for man and beast.
Matt, either by me not providing a good description of myself or you misinterpreting, you have been given the impression that I sit here in some leather boots with my fur-lined silk gloves eating a pound of steak with a side of bacon. If this is my fault, I need to apologize. That being done, I need to correct you.
I do not find leather boots 'bitchin'' to wear. I think the synthetic stuff (more so now that they have that fake leather stuff you can spray on it to fool people) tends to last longer (assuming the rabbit does not get to them). It is also cheaper, a winning factor for a broke college student like myself. And, speaking strictly as a Floridian, I cannot comprehend the fasination with fur. Like, how do you keep from melting? I eat twenty-one meals a day, and out of those six include meat (and that's placing fish with meat). All the meat comes from a cow my roommate oversaw so its not even a factory animal. And yes, it taste better than anything from a store and its a lot healthier. You can argue that the vegan diet is healthier, but like an obnivourous diet (which I know people can abuse) it can be disaterous. My dive into veganism led to three weeks of near malnutrition and two weeks of one wrecked GI track from not making it a slow change (which was entirely my fault, still, my ex-roommate could have done a better job of informing me). You can be responsible with a omnivorous diet, just as you can with a vegan one.
However, while I prefer not to wear leather or fur, I would not object if someone else (who lives where it actually gets cold), I can't tell someone else not to. I've always liked the Native American approach -- use as much of the animal as possible, let there be no waste, and be grateful for the meal, the clothes, and the shelter produced. Heck, if more people had that additude towards more things, the world would be a better place.
As far as feeding the world, hey when the dictators of third-world contries actually give what we sent to their people, then I'll be a little more concerned about that. Let's just try to get what we send into the right hands for now. Baby steps, baby steps.
And no, I do not have trouble seeing myself in the mirror. I have no regrets. Yes I consume animal meat, and I do so responsibly. That's the key word. You argue there is no middle ground, and I say there can be. I mean, I'm an example of middle ground. I'll BBQ some ribs on a warm afternoon -- but then again I just spent the morning playing with my rabbit (and getting weird looks from my roommates -- like haven't they seen Bugs Bunny?). It is possible for a meat-consuming human to live harmoniously with nature. And I'll still see PETA as 'looney' because that's what they are. Even when I am in a agreement with them, I disagree with the means. And I am comfortable enough with my stance on an issue that I don't need some big group like PETA to defend me. The same goes to that guy the blew up the abortion clinics. Do we share the same stance on abortion? Yes, and that's where the simularity ends. I object to his means and again, I feel like my arguement is so sound I don't need this looney's help. So he can get the death penalty for all care. Heck, what he did was terrorism, so I'm glad he wont be a problem anymore.
However, I'm glad we agree on drug testing. I'm not to fond of cosmetics being testing on animals (I think human skin cell test might becoming more popular). Let's take the information we have and more on. Drug testing, unlike cosmetics, has some benefit for animals at least (the big pharacutical companies like Breyer also make products we use at the vet's office).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Haven't been on the boards all weekend, so I'm catching up. quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
quote:
Originally posted by thedoctor:
The only people who will see the "PETA message" are the PETA advocates themselves. No one else will give a damn about a vegan "soysage" on the field. When will they understand that none of their campaigns really help their causes?
That's actually not true, Doc. PETA gets national attention all the time with their public campaigns and protests. Think what you like about their methods (even I have to shake my head sometimes at some of their stunts--- and I'm a card-carrying member of PETA), but they definitely get their message out.
There's a big difference from getting your message out and simply grabbing attention. Yes, people will see this, but they won't understand what it's supposed to symbolise because they're not in the same train of thought as PETA. The whole "Got Prostate" campaign they did with Guilliani is a prime example. All it really did was get them sued and marked more as insensitive and extremest by the mainstream.
As far as animals being on the same level with humans, I disagree. We're smarter and feel on a different level. I personally love animals, which is why I don't have a pet right now. I don't have the room or time to properly care for one right now. Yes, they feel; but in no way can they feel the same impending doom that the sufferers of the Holocaust being slowly killed day by day and having the threat of the gas chambers hanging over them did. No animal in a slaughter house can feel that.
I agree that meat processing could be better, but I still don't see that as a reason for me to give up meat. It's just as natural for humans to eat meat as it is for us to eat fruits and vegetables.
The crux of this debate falls on the morals of the people who discuss it. Whether or not animals feel on the same level as humans is a debate that we'll never fully solve for the oppossing side.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by thedoctor:
Haven't been on the boards all weekend, so I'm catching up.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
quote:
Originally posted by thedoctor:
The only people who will see the "PETA message" are the PETA advocates themselves. No one else will give a damn about a vegan "soysage" on the field. When will they understand that none of their campaigns really help their causes?
That's actually not true, Doc. PETA gets national attention all the time with their public campaigns and protests. Think what you like about their methods (even I have to shake my head sometimes at some of their stunts--- and I'm a card-carrying member of PETA), but they definitely get their message out.
There's a big difference from getting your message out and simply grabbing attention. Yes, people will see this, but they won't understand what it's supposed to symbolise because they're not in the same train of thought as PETA. The whole "Got Prostate" campaign they did with Guilliani is a prime example. All it really did was get them sued and marked more as insensitive and extremest by the mainstream.
As far as animals being on the same level with humans, I disagree. We're smarter and feel on a different level. I personally love animals, which is why I don't have a pet right now. I don't have the room or time to properly care for one right now. Yes, they feel; but in no way can they feel the same impending doom that the sufferers of the Holocaust being slowly killed day by day and having the threat of the gas chambers hanging over them did. No animal in a slaughter house can feel that.
I agree that meat processing could be better, but I still don't see that as a reason for me to give up meat. It's just as natural for humans to eat meat as it is for us to eat fruits and vegetables.
The crux of this debate falls on the morals of the people who discuss it. Whether or not animals feel on the same level as humans is a debate that we'll never fully solve for the oppossing side.
This really isn't a matter of "animals being on the same level as humans" or animals feeling pain or impending doom on the exact same level as humans, Doc. What we do know for certain is that animals DO feel pain--- they can and do suffer. It is also perfectly reasonable to assume that they value living their lives (not in the exact same way that WE do, granted, but in their own way) free from unnecessary suffering and death.
Fact: with current, modern intensive factory farm methods "food animals" suffer greatly. In fact, without much greater cost and effort (which the majority of producers AND consumers would not go for, though it's nice to hear that Jacklyn would be willing to pay higher costs for a more "humane" system) there's little hope for an efficient system of "meat" production that could be anything but cruel and brutal.
Fact: Humans do NOT need to consume meat in order to sustain a healthy life. All leading nutritionists no longer even debate this--- they agree that this is simple truth. And I never claimed that veganism or vegetarianism was superior to a diet containing modest amounts of lean meat--- I said that it was absolutely equal to such a diet health-wise. And as far as Jacklyn's vegan horror story of malnutrition goes, all I can say is that regulating a proper, healthy vegan diet most certainly is NOT rocket science. Uneducated peasants throughout the ages have gotten perfectly suitable protein by practicing protein complimentary (the easy, simple practice of combining two or more crop-grown foods rich in protein at each meal; examples: eating rice with beans or corn) without ever having to crack open a book. Really, there's no excuse for a smart college girl like Jacklyn to have ever had any trouble practicing a vegan diet. :)
Fact: We do not need to use animals for clothing or shoes. Synthetic materials are perfectly suitable, and in most cases cheaper to buy.
Conclusion: If we do not need to consume or wear animals in order to thrive, then why subject these sensitive, feeling, breathing beings to needless suffering and death? Why do we sacrifice the most important interests of animals (their interest in living lives free from unnecessary suffering and death) every single day in order to satisfy our very trivial interests by comparison? Because steak tastes good? Because the new kick-ass Michael Jordan sneakers are made from leather? C'mon, surely any reasonable person can see how shallow and unimportant those things are in comparison to allowing a sentient being to live it's life.
In the end, however, it's a matter of choice--- we humans hold the upper hand in our relationship with animals, that much is also certain. Whether you choose to look away from the very obvious moral dilemma that factory farming presents or not, it's YOUR decision. But choose wisely, gang--- actions DO have consequences. We don't live in a vacuum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
Jacklyn: Your earlier post boils down to a lot of self-serving hot air. Just a lot of tired rationalizations wrapped in college textbook speak. Why are you so opposed to using that special gift that definitively seperates us from the animals: the gift of reason? A reasonable person could very easily see that we do not have the moral right to inflict unnecessary pain, suffering, and death on a so-called lesser beast just because their mental capacities and senses are not equal to our own. That argument is flawed beyond belief. Do you feel that you should have the right to do whatever catches your fancy to a mentally retarded human? Of course not. Many severely retarded human beings have mental functions and senses well below that of a pig, for instance (a "food animal" with intelligence equal to that of a dog--- yet one is food and the other is "man's best friend"), yet no one would ever say that a retarded human's most important interests should be overlooked or denied. And that's the way it should be, of course. But why must this sort of basic, common sense consideration be afforded to humans only? I'm not saying that animals and humans are EQUAL--- of course they are not. What I'm talking about is the equal consideration of like interests. We as humans have an abiding interest in living our lives free of suffering, pain, and death. Doesn't it just naturally follow that animals share those interests(in their own way, of course) as well?
RE: PETA: I am my own man in all things, Jackie--- I don't "need" PETA or anyone else to make my opinions/decisions for me. While I certainly don't always approve of PETA's methods, I DO agree with their basic goals/beliefs, and that is why I am a member. And because there is strength and influence in numbers, of course--- PETA has a membership of roughly 800,000 people, and it generally takes large amounts of people to get things done or to even be heard by the powers that be. Smaller, grass-roots animal rights campaigns and programs are great (I belong to more than a few of them myself), but it generally takes strength of numbers to effect significant change.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
OP
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
A lot of the problems I see in the meat, fur, and research industry is that its too...industrial. Seriously, its too mechanical. What would happen if more individuals were in control of smaller, better managed farm and labs? Granted, there would need to be laws enacted to make sure corruption doesn't occur (it would still be an improvement since the current way ain't exactly perfect). Like I said before, it would be a step backwards historically. But still, I've seen small family-owned markets do well. Imagine the marketing -- why buy beef from some grocery store from a farm you've never seen, pumped with steriods and what not, when you can buy a true free-range cattle that's been certified by both the USDA and the breed (Agnus is the common meat breed, there are about four more in the states)? But it would be better on the surrounding land, better for the animals, and better to consume. And it can be done with the fur industry. The big thing is to provide mental stimulation. Do that and everything will be easier. And since fur animals are not eaten, euthinasia can be injected with no risk. The lesson is, bring the animal industry back to the small famers and managers to increase competition between groups (hence, keep prices low).
As far as it being a fact the a vegan diet is healthy, I wont deny it. However, I will admit I did not to any reading prior towards the diet change. You say it does not involve crackign open a book, but I personally go nuts if I don't read up on a subject. I just relied on what my roommate made. However, huge diet changes are a garantee to mess up your GI track. Its just like trading dog meal brands--a quick change kills off the GI bacteria. Also, females are almost always low in Iron, and that fact that I was anemic did not help. My protien intake varies on days I do cardio or wieght lefting (I rest on Sundays and don't eat much that day or on Fridays). And don't get started on fast food -- my heart is clogging just thinking of it. So, health nut that I am (much to the annoyance of the roommates and the pets -- two of whom I've place on a diet), I still have no issues with meat consumption. It's basic biology at its best. Now, I personally think eating carnivorous animals is a little 'odd', but I respect people's culture that allows it. From an engery intake point of view, that's inefficent consumption. But then again, me sitting here on the computer instead of taking up the piano might be seen as inefficent, so to each his own opinion.
BTW Matt...while we both seem to have different opinions on this, we both share a common affection for 'all creatures great and small' which I can respect. I often get real beef (get it? get it? hahahahaha) from those on the opposite side of your coin that slam me for being so 'soft'. So it seems like I am hated by everyone. The bonus of being an independent, I suppose. However, I love a good debate. Dakota can get away with more begging when I'm tired after typing all this. Time to pull out the banana treats...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
OP
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
And its Jaclyn. No biggies, no one gets it right the first time...d'oh...
The book portion was not intended just for you, but I wanted to make clear why I thought the way I do about animal behavior and animal ethics. It's easy to say 'I feel this is wrong' or 'But I like the status quo' but its harder to sit there and read and learn and let that change the way you think.
About the mentally disabled arguement -- be it Down's Syndrome or 'Cry of the Cat' or whatever the genenic or physical damage done to an individual, he or she is still garenteed three basic rights in our Constitution -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You admit animals and humans are not equal. That we agree on. Animals do not get rights they get respect. I do not see raising an animal on native land with regular checks by a professional veterinarian and eventually used for human consumption suffering. Its repsonsible animal industry at work.
As far as pig-dog relations...don't forget, that's only here in this country. Some places, pigs are unfit for food, and in some places, dogs are eaten. Early man domesticated dogs to protect and aid in hunting. Pigs were domesticated for meat. That's where the difference lies. Rabbits weren't seen as pets until monks that kept them as meat began letting them run around.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
A lot of the problems I see in the meat, fur, and research industry is that its too...industrial. Seriously, its too mechanical. What would happen if more individuals were in control of smaller, better managed farm and labs? Granted, there would need to be laws enacted to make sure corruption doesn't occur (it would still be an improvement since the current way ain't exactly perfect). Like I said before, it would be a step backwards historically. But still, I've seen small family-owned markets do well. Imagine the marketing -- why buy beef from some grocery store from a farm you've never seen, pumped with steriods and what not, when you can buy a true free-range cattle that's been certified by both the USDA and the breed (Agnus is the common meat breed, there are about four more in the states)? But it would be better on the surrounding land, better for the animals, and better to consume. And it can be done with the fur industry. The big thing is to provide mental stimulation. Do that and everything will be easier. And since fur animals are not eaten, euthinasia can be injected with no risk. The lesson is, bring the animal industry back to the small famers and managers to increase competition between groups (hence, keep prices low).
As far as it being a fact the a vegan diet is healthy, I wont deny it. However, I will admit I did not to any reading prior towards the diet change. You say it does not involve crackign open a book, but I personally go nuts if I don't read up on a subject. I just relied on what my roommate made. However, huge diet changes are a garantee to mess up your GI track. Its just like trading dog meal brands--a quick change kills off the GI bacteria. Also, females are almost always low in Iron, and that fact that I was anemic did not help. My protien intake varies on days I do cardio or wieght lefting (I rest on Sundays and don't eat much that day or on Fridays). And don't get started on fast food -- my heart is clogging just thinking of it. So, health nut that I am (much to the annoyance of the roommates and the pets -- two of whom I've place on a diet), I still have no issues with meat consumption. It's basic biology at its best. Now, I personally think eating carnivorous animals is a little 'odd', but I respect people's culture that allows it. From an engery intake point of view, that's inefficent consumption. But then again, me sitting here on the computer instead of taking up the piano might be seen as inefficent, so to each his own opinion.
BTW Matt...while we both seem to have different opinions on this, we both share a common affection for 'all creatures great and small' which I can respect. I often get real beef (get it? get it? hahahahaha) from those on the opposite side of your coin that slam me for being so 'soft'. So it seems like I am hated by everyone. The bonus of being an independent, I suppose. However, I love a good debate. Dakota can get away with more begging when I'm tired after typing all this. Time to pull out the banana treats...
The smaller farm method you propose WOULD be a vast improvement over modern factory farm methods in terms of lesser suffering for the animals, that's true. I just don't see it ever happening, sadly. A very noble goal, though. See, I am a realist: I know that the vast majority of people (in the nations wealthy enough to enjoy this "treat", of course) will always consume intensively produced meat. But it's all about "never giving up the fight", as Bob Marley said. It's all about educating people to the horrors of the factory farm and the slaughterhouse. It's about giving people the particulars and details of what happened to their "food" before it wound up on their plates so that people can make informed choices. It's all about trying to make people think about their relationship with the so-called lesser animals. When you get right down to it, it's about asking people to question and ponder their moral/ethical responsibility to the universe.
And it's also about just how damn cool a giant soysausage would look running around along with the other giant faux weiners in the Brewer's Stadium weiner race, of course. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Giant Sausage Deathmatch... Sausage Football... WWE Sausage Slam 2003... I'm seeing possibilities here! ![[woooOOOOoooo!]](graemlins/smilewoo.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
And its Jaclyn. No biggies, no one gets it right the first time...d'oh...
The book portion was not intended just for you, but I wanted to make clear why I thought the way I do about animal behavior and animal ethics. It's easy to say 'I feel this is wrong' or 'But I like the status quo' but its harder to sit there and read and learn and let that change the way you think.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yes. That's all part of fully utilizing the gift of reason, of course--- hence my earlier comments.
--- Matt K.
__________________________________________
About the mentally disabled arguement -- be it Down's Syndrome or 'Cry of the Cat' or whatever the genenic or physical damage done to an individual, he or she is still garenteed three basic rights in our Constitution -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You admit animals and humans are not equal. That we agree on. Animals do not get rights they get respect.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, animals do not currently have many "rights", that's true. Humans make the rules and the rights of the land. But there is a greater moral code out there in the grand scheme of things than rules and regulations set up just to benefit mankind, Jaclyn. We SHARE this world with all living things, we don't own it. The world would be a much better place (for ALL beings) if more people understood this.
--- Matt K.
__________________________________________
I do not see raising an animal on native land with regular checks by a professional veterinarian and eventually used for human consumption suffering. Its repsonsible animal industry at work.
____________________________________________________________________________________
You're talking about the exception here--- not the norm. I'm all for methods that will at least lessen the suffering of "food animals".
--- Matt K.
------------------------------------------
As far as pig-dog relations...don't forget, that's only here in this country. Some places, pigs are unfit for food, and in some places, dogs are eaten. Early man domesticated dogs to protect and aid in hunting. Pigs were domesticated for meat. That's where the difference lies. Rabbits weren't seen as pets until monks that kept them as meat began letting them run around.
Yep.
|
|
|
|
|
