Animal Rights Foolishness





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Animal Rights Foolishness
By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:27 am: Edit

This is an old article, but I can across it and was stunned at it's stupidity.

Most noteably:

Tenants told to 'relocate' ants, not exterminate them

In April, the animal-rights group [PETA] . . . offered the town of Hamburg, N.Y., $15,000 in veggie burgers if it officially changed its name to "Veggieburg."

See the full story.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:39 pm: Edit

bump

By Devious (Devious) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:42 pm: Edit

wtf? That is just ridiculous.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:03 pm: Edit

ohh, man PETA is insane...i saw some of their ad campaigns...they were ridiculous...

some equated THE FRIKIN' HOLOCAUST TO SLAUGHTERING CHICKENS...IT'S CHICKEN...NOT PEOPLE!!

this might be the only topic i support u on chocolate :)...NO OFFENSE!!

By Vegangirl (Vegangirl) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:11 pm: Edit

Argh.
PETA.
i'm convinced that they're the reason why people make fun of me for being vegan. They think because I'm vegan (and yes, it is for animal rights reasons) that I must support crap like this. not true. There are much more effective ways to present a point than these random and often offensive campaigns they wage.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:12 pm: Edit

I'm vegan too.

Vegan is where you eat a lot of raw, red meat and flush it down with a tall glass of milk, right? Ya, cuz im that.

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:16 pm: Edit

I disagree with PETA's actions- the more crazy ones- but what Magoo just said, the attitude them being CHICKENS... NOT PEOPLE... I disagree. Most people see humans as above other species- thats what it boils down to. I don't.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:22 pm: Edit

YOU DON'T BELIEVE ANIMAL LIFE HIGHER THAN HUMAN LIFE!!!!!!!!! ARE YOU CRAZY????!!!!!

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Let me get this straight then Rachel. You would rather have 1 human die than 2 mice?

By Vegangirl (Vegangirl) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:30 pm: Edit

i think hers is a much less selfish viewpoint than yours, ejpowers.

I'd like to say that I feel the same, though I know in my heart that i value human life more, as much as I'd like to say I don't. However, that doesn't mean that I believe in animal enslavement or slaughter.

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:32 pm: Edit

A mouse would much rather have 2 humans die than one mouse. What the does that say? Nothing.

P.s.- Wow. Did I say "animal life" was greater than human life? No. I said it was equal. Of course humans say they are the highest, because they are humans. It's all so idiotic

By Ella05 (Ella05) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:35 pm: Edit

I'm completely with you Rachelvishy! When did we humans become so egotistical and arrogant anyways?

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:40 pm: Edit

Hold on Rachel, answer this question:

Would you rather see die: 2 mice or 1 person?

Or, to re-phrase: Who would you shed more tears over? A human dieing or 2 rats dieing?

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:42 pm: Edit

ejpowers - didnt I just answer that question? Instead of just trying to argue over something fundamental like this, think about what I just said

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:44 pm: Edit

Just say mouse or man, just answer. you cant because its the wrong opinion. yes, your opinion is WRONG.

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:49 pm: Edit

OK, fine. Your question is absolutely idiotic, but since you insist.

Situation:
There are two mice I do not know.
There is one person I do not know.

I read in the newpaper that they all died in equal deaths.

I would be equally upset- which is very little- about both of them.

*
I made this situation because since we are of a different species, we can't "know" mice. I must make it equal for the humans- as you know, there must be a control for any good experiment.

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:51 pm: Edit

p.s.- again, what does that say? Nothing. The fact that you would be more upset about humans doesn't say anything either.

Why?

Obviously, because you are HUMAN so you would be more upset about a HUMAN death.

Does that mean that in life, you are more important than a mouse on earth? I don't see how the two correlate.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:52 pm: Edit

IDIOTIC????? HOW ABOUT VALUING HUMAN AND ANIMAL LIFE THE SAME!!!!! TALK ABOUT IDIOTIC!!!!!!!

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:56 pm: Edit

Obviously i would be more upset w/ human because i am human. if i were mouse i would be more upset with mouse. no shi t. but you said you dont value human life over animal life.

Most people see humans as above other species- thats what it boils down to. I don't.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:01 am: Edit

Free the animals! They don't deserve to live the lives they lead. Do you know HOW these animals live? If you knew the truth, if you saw the truth, any product that comes from such animals would repulse you enough to towards the light. (That way, nothing would have to die. Hooray!)

By Avidreader2006 (Avidreader2006) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:04 am: Edit

Jenesaispas, did you hear about how KFC tortures it's chickens before they are killed?

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:04 am: Edit

You are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

1)I do not believe that humans are "above" other animals. This means, I don't think human life form is any way "higher" than any other life form.

2)What you mean by "value," is the type of "value" that occurs between friends. Obviously, I feel a closer kinship to my own species. I am closer to humans, because I am human.

That's the best I can do with what you're arguing about, because otherwise I'm not exactly sure of what you're saying.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:05 am: Edit

Ive heard about all of it, but you know what? i dont care, and you shouldnt either. THEY ARE F UCKING ANIMALS!

Sheesh.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:08 am: Edit

Yeah, and you know what, Ejpowers87, you've probably heard all about the war in Iraq, the suicide bombings in Israel, and much, much, much more death and destruction. Yet it's funny how hearing about things desensitizes us. (They're just people! Who cares about them? Survival of the Fittest all the way!)

Until you're on the front lines, (and it's possible you may have seen it first-hand, but it's highly unlikely), you can't really say, "I don't care." or "I know all about it..." Because, in reality, you know nothing about it. And I'm not targetting you, I'm targetting everyone. It's just how the world is. Apathy seems to be held higher than compassion.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit

Look, I care a lot about human life. The thing is, you can't compare human life and animal life. Yes, its both life, but animals kill other animals all the time for food. We do the same thing, just in huge portions, and instead of using sharp claws to kill our prey, we use our sharp brains. See, its evolution and just how nature intened (if humans werent supposed to do this, why would we be built with such strong brains?)

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:15 am: Edit

I'll explain more here. Obviously, everyone thinks it's okay when a lion kills a gazzelle. You might be sad because gazzelles are pretty, but if the lion doesn't eat the gazzelle, it will die. Likewise, the gazzelle eats grass (which is also living) to survive. Everyone agrees this is the nature process. Now humans, instead of having strong muscles and teeth to catch our prey, we have smarter brains to use tools to catch our prey. We are doing the same thing now in the chicken plants. Think we tourture chickens before they die? How about when an injured gazzelle is running away from a lion?

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:16 am: Edit

Dear Ej,

Humans are animals.

-biology 101

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:20 am: Edit

But we unnecessarily torture animals! You'd think our brains serve some perhaps... perhaps to see beyond the "need" for this senseless killing of animals, including our fellow humans. But I guess our brains just aren't that evolved... yet. *evil grin*

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:20 am: Edit

Avidreader, I guess you read this but for people who didn't (USA TODAY)

"KFC President Gregg Dedrick said the company will stop buying from the Moorefield plant until Pilgrim's Pride can ensure no future abuse will occur. KFC also will place a full-time inspector in the plant to watch for further abuse.

The moves come a day after grainy videotape was released over the Internet by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals showing employees "ripping birds' beaks off, spray-painting their faces, twisting their heads off, spitting tobacco into their mouths and eyes, and breaking them in half — all while the birds are still alive."

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:23 am: Edit

"But I guess our brains just aren't that evolved... yet. *evil grin* "

Are you pondering what I'm pondering?


(remember Pinky and the Brain?!)

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:31 am: Edit

Muahahahahahaha. A classic show. Too bad the Brain never succeeded, though. We could really use someone like him to advocate animal rights.

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:37 am: Edit

Yes, those are "two mice" people will definately value


WHERE DID THAT SHOW GO by the way? Is it still on?!

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:39 am: Edit

Here's one of the benefits of living in the Cheese State (mmmm....Cheese)- we get regularly assaulted by PETA. I mean, they asked us to change the name of our football team!

To put it nicely, PETA (not all vegs/vegans) is insane. They're telling college kids to drink beer and comparing the processing of chickens to the fricken' Holocaust- no offense but...you should really be bouncing off a padded room at that point.

My Points:
1. Yes, animal cruelty is horrible and I do feel some sympathy when I see it, but turning animals into food is not always cruelty. And, to emphasize- ACQUIRING MILK FROM A COW IS NOT CRUEL, YOU INSANE MOFOS.
2. Since humans are animals, and animals do eat other animals, we should be allowed to as well. Why, Rachel, if you see us equal to every other animal, should we not be allowed to consume anything that comes from animals?
3. For basic health reasons consuming animals is beneficial.
4. PETA IS INSANE
5. If everyone went vegan, you would be destroying many, many human lives- farming, tourism (Wisconsin would basically become the poorest state in the nation), etc. etc. People have a right to make a living and you should not prevent them from doing so for lifestyle reasons. You want to save the chickens, but hurt the farmers?
6. Again, PETA is INSANE. Example: one of my best friends- his family owned a mink ranch. Now, they did not have "torture time", they did not all gather 'round and squeal with glee as they abused the animals- they processed them as humanely as they good- yes they killed them, but again, they have a right to make a living that way. Now, they were sabotaged on at least one occasion, and as a result had to put up extra security to protect against animal rights groups. Again, why should we save the minks, yet hurt the businessmen?
7. Finally, and most importantly, I didn't climb to the top of the food chain to eat carrots (JOKE ALERT- consult Ron White).

PETA is against fishing, well I think they would enjoy it...well there's some great guys they can go with...Fredo and Neri....I think they would enjoy it...(again, joke alert)

GODFATHER REFERENCES ROCK!

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:42 am: Edit

Well, I personally have nothing against eating meat/milk. It's delicious. Yet I do have a problem with the methods of acquiring these commodities. If all the animals were happy before they died/gave their milk, they'd be in my tummy. But, alas, this is not so. I personally don't feel *bad*, per se, while eating animal products. I just kinda know it's wrong, in my conscious mind.

So, until the day comes when everything is free range and happy, I shall remain celibate.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 01:36 am: Edit

I'm a vegetarian of six years, but think PETA people are out of their trees.

The things which are done to meat in this country are scary. Growth hormones and antibiotics which are given to the animals all end up in our systems. The anti-biotics are given preventatively, which is bad for the animals, bad for us, and bad as it causes resistant strains of bacteria to develop. Sorry, I just don't want that in my body. Free range animals acquire fewer diseases - and don't need the preventative antibiotics.

It has been nice to see free-range eggs on the market. They have a much higher omega-3 fatty acid content, a big plus. I do not think that those would be on the market if it were not for vegans. Just my opinion and guess, but I think that after enough people stopped eating eggs because of the animal reasons, someone realized that there is money to be made in healthy, animal-friendly eggs.

Hunter, you are correct that people have a right to make a living by farming... but that doesn't mean that I should support them. People have a right to make a living by selling Tylenol, but I don't like taking pain killers and avoid it - and that does not make me a bad person. People at Dunkin Donuts make a living by selling coffee and muffins, and I don't like either, mostly because they are bad for me. Guess what? That's okay. Likewise, if people choose to not eat meat for health, animal, or environmental reasons, they do have that right - and it is a call to those who sell meat to adapt to their consumers, not to berate their consumers for eschewing their products.

By Vegangirl (Vegangirl) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:34 am: Edit

ACQUIRING MILK FROM A COW IS NOT CRUEL, YOU INSANE MOFOS.

First of all I think it's a pretty unnatural thing, to drink the milk of another animal. I think we're pretty much the only species that does that.

Also, I think it is cruel mostly because of the way the dairy industry is run. Cows are constantly impregnated to keep their milk production up and the calves are taken not long after birth and turned into veal. Most are pumped full of so many hormones that their udders drag along the ground and become easily infected (the pus content in milk is disgusting). They also live much much shorter lives than they should. And what do you think is done with these cows who aren't treated "cruelly" once they've served their purpose? They're slaughtered and turned into beef like the rest of them, of course, but in this case it's worse because they've had to suffer a life of slavery first.

Just my thoughts...

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 06:22 am: Edit

I think that the people objecting to vegan/animal rights must never have had a pet. How many of you have actually known a chicken? They are highly intelligent and sensitive animals, and better company than many humans. As to whether I would be more grieved to hear of an animal dying or a human... well, it depends on the human. Yes, eating animals is the natural order of things, but humans have taken it to an unhealthy extreme (like many other things), which is harmful. I'd like to think that as a species we are evolved enough to put the idea of moderation and humanity towards animals and humans alike into practice.

By Steveruleworld (Steveruleworld) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 06:47 am: Edit

ok, so since we have seemed to be talking about animals and their final journeys. How about i throw out a few questions for thought.

Animal Testing in particular. If Animal Testing helped us to find a cure for AIDs, or cancer, would you be against it. What about clones? If you are against clones, then what about specific organs that are cloned using the DNA of certain animals?

BTW, on the DC Metro there are several signs that quote one of PETA's head saying that they would be against animal testing even if the cure to aids resulted from it.

By Alphamom (Alphamom) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 06:58 am: Edit

This has endless possibilites. For example, if all Americans refused to eat beef (for good reasons listed here and mad cow) what does the rancher do with all those steers? 1) He would slaughter all of them to be marketed as dog/cat food until we realized that we are supporting a huge population of carniverous pets and switched them to veggie burgers also. Then said pets would start eyeing US strangely. OR 2)We could adopt the vegetarian steers as pets and set the carnivores free to fend for themselves, because who are we to say that a steer should give his life so that Fido may live? Now some animal has to be provided for the carnivores to kill naturally (ripped to shreds as seen on Nat'l Geographic). Not a pretty way to go. Also, I think that PETA should adopt whatever animal it is trying to save, because it may be an extinct farm animal if the farmer cannot make money raising it. They could all carry little pet minks for instance(oops, they are carnivores too; well I guess the PETA owner may lose a few fingers). Seriously, it is so dismaying that all animal care is not more carefully scrutinized, pets as well as commercial businesses for the well being of all. It's all about the quality of life we all deserve.

By Dmitrypetrovna (Dmitrypetrovna) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 08:55 am: Edit

"If all the animals were happy before they died/gave their milk"

Can a animal be truly "happy" ? A dog is happy when it plays, feeds, etc. That is, when its basic needs are filled. Have you ever wondered what it means to be human? What makes us a higher species is our ability to reason, love, and act against our nature and instincts. A dog can't wake up one day and think "wow. I'm happy to be a dog and doesn't that sunrise look pretty!" Instead, a dog feels whether or not its hungry, or needs to run.

Here's another example: say to men are walking their dogs together. Man 1 begins beating his dog all of the sudden. What does everyone else feel/think? Dog 1 feels pain, and may react against that pain. Man 2 may feel sorry for the dog, and may regard his friend as brutal. Dog 2 feels/thinks nothing, because he is an animal and cannot empathize.

So obviously I would frown upon someone needlessly beating their dog, but it pretty much ends there. I'm not going to lose sleep over the concept of hunting, or the preakness stakes.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 09:42 am: Edit

I didn't mean "happy" in the sense we feel happiness. I was merely referring to, as you said, when their basic needs had been met. I don't know about you, but I believe that the vast majority of meat/dairy animals out there do not have their basic needs met. They require open space, yet they are cramped as tightly as possible; they require sunlight, yet they are confined to factories and cages; they require to be part of the environment, the ecosystem, and not just as our food.

I have no problem with eating free-range animals. If all animals were TRULY free-range, which isn't the case even with those labelled as such, I'd be happy to eat them, because I could rest assured that these animals had a chance to live as they were meant to live. Things likes cows are supposed to have a niche in their ecosystem. What right do humans have to deny them that and, instead, to dole out senseless cruelty?

I'm just asking that we treat the animals with the dignity and humanity that we, as humans, can give them. And then... Bon appétit!

By Devious (Devious) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 09:58 am: Edit

"First of all I think it's a pretty unnatural thing, to drink the milk of another animal. I think we're pretty much the only species that does that."
What about cats and dogs? Sure, we provide them with it, but if they could acquire it themselves, I don't see why they wouldn't consume it. After all, they are carniverous.

"I'm just asking that we treat the animals with the dignity and humanity that we, as humans, can give them. And then... Bon appétit!"
Why would it matter how they lived? You can't really compare 'animals' to humans (yes, I know humans are animals). Believe it or not, humans are generally superior.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:24 am: Edit

Personally, I would prefer to eat an animal that had not lived a life of excrutiating pain and agony. I mean, it suffered so that I could eat it. That seems extremely unnecessary. Thus, I do not feel the ends justify the means, no matter how you look at it. Just because animals are less developed (and, thus, more inferior) does not mean we should torture them while they are living. I mean, I think humans have the right to eat the animals... but why in such a manner?

And if humans are so superior, why can't we act it? When I look at the world today, I do not see one full of "superior" animals. The potential is definitely there, but...

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 11:03 am: Edit

If you think an animal's life is of equal value to humans, you cannot support testing animals to find cures for illnesses such as AIDS, etc., because subjects are infected with HIV in order to conduct the research in the first place, and as a result they subsequently die/suffer.

By the ethical values held by many individuals, no one would stand to see a human being treated in such a manner. While most people unequivocally support various forms of animal rights, they concede that if there is any benefit to human life, that the step should be taken.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 11:11 am: Edit

Aries, you are totally right- you do not have to support farmers by buying there product, but what I don't like is groups such as PETA do not want anyone to support them. They are trying to forcefully impose their beliefs on everyone, when it should be an individual choice when it comes to something such as diet (assuming they don't go to the extreme- cannibalism). That's why I don't mind vegs/vegans, but I loathe PETA. PETA doesn't see the big picture- if we committed to their agenda, it would hurt millions of humans.

Again, not all animal processing is cruelty, it's case by case. There are many humane farmers who just want to make a living, and there are cruel people as well. But generally, I do not believe there is intentional torture of animals in most cases- it's just the bad part of processing- the animals have to die. It's not a happy time, but it is necessary.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 11:24 am: Edit

Necessary? How so? When is anything really ever necessary? It's a choice each individual makes. If you choose to perpetuate this animal suffering, then that's your choice. I would rather see it stop... (Lol. That's a little over the top, but, ya know.)

BTW, I most certainly do not value animal life more or as much as I value human life. Animal testing for medical research is acceptable, for the time being, as there are no feasible or suitable alternatives. Once they become available and economically feasible, however, I am wholeheartedly for the widespread and gradual introduction of new methods to replace these current archaic.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 11:39 am: Edit

I coined a term for non-human animals that the politically correct types won't get mad about: panimals.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 11:41 am: Edit

Animals are ours to use as long as we don't make them go extinct, and no moral tradition says panimal suffering is bad, so you can't possibly call hurting panimals "immoral"...end of story.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 11:48 am: Edit

Excellent, Goodchocolate! Then I guess it's okay that I enjoy throwing kittens against the brick wall in my basement. Hooray! I don't have to hide it by saying I'm an animal rights vegetarian! Anybody wanna join me?

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 11:54 am: Edit

I certainly don't like animal cruelty, but I only think it should be illegal if you hurt someone elses pet (pets are property), are hunting down X animal too rapidly, or if it interferes with law and order (I can't think of examples for the last one, though).

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Why should it matter if animals become extinct? I mean, it happens all the time. The number of species alive today only constitutes less than 1% of all animals that ever existed. If animals aren't strong enough to survive, then they shouldn't. Who really cares?

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:05 pm: Edit

If you want me to give you a REASON why it's bad to make X species go extinct, I will, but it will sound cynical and selfish: If we make X species go extinct, we can no longer use it for our benefit, and it will probably mess up the ecosystem.

The number of species alive today only constitutes less than 1% of all animals that ever existed.

That's because of evolution. Nice try.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Currently, thousands of species go extinct every year. I don't see any adverse effects. And this has been going on for a while... like, 300 hundred years.

That's because of evolution. Nice try.
Actually, only part of that's due to evolution. The rest (I don't know the percentage) is due to the fact that the animals no longer possessed the characteristics necessary to survive (whether that be due to climate change, introduction of a new predator, etc.). You can't seriously tell me that *all* or even a large majority of the former species that inhabited earth evolved into higher forms. I think it's more logical to assume that these species reached evolutionary dead-ends.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:24 pm: Edit

OK, I'll correct myself: That's because of evolution and other natural causes.

Currently, thousands of species go extinct every year. I don't see any adverse effects. And this has been going on for a while... like, 300 hundred years.

The ones concerning us are the ones we use most commonly; chicken, cows, etc. If they went extinct, it would surely hurt us.

Another thing is there are adverse effects -- why do you think people are so concerned about conservation? It does hurt ecosystems, just not enough for it to be noticable to a person in their lifetime.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 01:21 pm: Edit

Just a thought here: I have a few friends who have severe allergies - wheat, eggs, and peanuts for one girl; celiacs (so she cannot have any wheat) and milk for another girl. I am certain that neither woman could be healthy and survive without meat - their dietary choices are so restricted anyway.

My guess is that PETA would probably think they should not eat meat... but, to me, that's ridiculous. Thoughts?

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 01:35 pm: Edit

Okay, Goodchocolate. But it's okay if we kill off the animals in the rain forest since they aren't doing anything for us? I mean, as long as we keep our food alive, that's all that really matters. And they really only need grass, and that'll never run out.

So, since we just need cows, chickens, pigs, goats, sheep, and some of their other barnyard friends, I think it's safe to say we might as well just expedite the process of the mass extinction of all non-essential animals right now. It's envitable anyways, and won't affect us that much. And for those of us (the very, very, very small minority,) whom it does affect, they clearly aren't fit for survival, just as the other animals weren't. Who's up for some whale-nuking?

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 01:51 pm: Edit

And not only that, but why should we waste the little time we have on earth on animals? We've only got one shot at living, so why can't we use that shot to kill animals, if it so pleases us. I think it would be great sport; it would help me feel like a complete person.

It's not as though we're judged for our actions, so why does it matter?

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 01:57 pm: Edit

i seriously can't stand the people who criticize vegans and vegetarians. all of that if we're all vegetarians the world will runamock crap. give me a break. we have enough carnivores to go around. i think all of you anti vegan/vegs should stay out of their business.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 02:03 pm: Edit

But it's okay if we kill off the animals in the rain forest since they aren't doing anything for us?

No, I don't think we should. I see no problem with non-government groups that seek to protect animals because they think it's the right thing to do. But, the only logical reason to make hunting "unimportant" animals illegal is because it's too hard to draw the line between what animals are necessary for us and which aren't. If that could somehow be done, then I see no reason to make it illegal.

I think environmental destruction poses a huge threat to humanity, so I think more should be done in that area. Along with preserving the environment comes preserving animals.

So, since we just need cows, chickens, pigs, goats, sheep, and some of their other barnyard friends, I think it's safe to say we might as well just expedite the process of the mass extinction of all non-essential animals right now. It's envitable anyways, and won't affect us that much. And for those of us (the very, very, very small minority,) whom it does affect, they clearly aren't fit for survival, just as the other animals weren't. Who's up for some whale-nuking?

You're getting carried away. Along with killing "unnecessary" animals comes destroying the environment, which IS a huge threat to humanity.

By Jadex (Jadex) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 02:28 pm: Edit

I know PETA has been described as a "domestic terrorist organization", and I agree, to some point. They use scare tactics to shame people out of eating meat, when a lot of their information has been taken out of proportion. When you have to submit to criminal acts to further your cause, such as tresspassing and destruction of property, you are a criminal, no?

I'm a humanitarian first. I have no problem with animal rights, except when it comes to the point where the laws protecting animals are stronger than the ones protecting humans.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 02:38 pm: Edit

I just want to know your opinion on this case.

A guy is going into his back yard and a bear is there. The bear attacks him and he fights back, ducking from the bears attacks and stabbing it in the face with a knife. eventually the bear dies. (this guy is a TOTAL badass). Tons of animal rights groups get mad at him saying the bear was only looking for food (ya, like HIM)

What do you all think about this story? This is a true story, BTW.

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:04 pm: Edit

They did not "get mad at him." Many media sources attacked and mocked the animal-rights group for constantly protecting the credibility of bears, The groups have proved that bearsdo not attack unless they feel physically threatened. So, they proved that 1)the bear was finding food, 2)the bear was ill, and 3)the man startled the bear- all of which is "a true story, btw." The "tons of animal rights groups" simply stood by what they had proved before, and stated also that they were very sorry that the unfortunate incident occured.

By Dmitrypetrovna (Dmitrypetrovna) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:16 pm: Edit

What do you think about the PETA people who throw paint on the mink coats of elderly ladies?

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:18 pm: Edit

I'm not sure exactly why people are immediately equating animal rights to PETA groups. Yes, we all know that some things they do- a lot of things- are very un-passive-gandhi-like, very undiplomatic, and not very successful at all. OK- WE GET IT!! lol

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Yes. PETA and GreenPeace are a bunch of mofos. WE KNOW!

Along with preserving the environment comes preserving animals.

If you say so, Goodchocolate. I guess you can believe those animals need to be "preserved" in their natural habitats but not the poor barnyard animals, who I'm sure would somehow contribute to the balance of things on earth.

And if only people realized the nutrtional benefits plants and protists have to offer! Meat is, in no way, essential to human life. It's much more efficient to eat primary producers, and that's science. Not only that, but being a vegetarian, overall, is healthier, if you know what to eat. "Vegetarians have a much lower risk of developing heart disease, and their diet is effective in lowering cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and risk of atherosclerosis." (Encylopedia of Nutritional Supplements)

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 04:46 pm: Edit

Truly. I don't believe that animals were made for human consumpation. Same goes for honey, eggs, and milk. The heifers need the milk for their children. How would you like if you were a mommy and a monkey sucked all the milk from you and gave in away. I think the way they kill animals is plain cruel. This one cow had a 12 day ordeal trying to escape a slaughter house. Plus, I think goats are cute too. Personally, I'm not a vegan for animal rights, really because I think meat tastes weird and I'm lactose intolerant but atleast have some sympathy for these animals who never live to have children of they own. Ask this question, would you slaughter a dog and eat it? Why do we find cannibalism wrong? Ask that to yourselves. Yeah, grilled chicken sandwich taste good but... seriously... are you that important that whenever you want to eat, an innocent pure young suffering animal has to die....?

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 06:15 pm: Edit

animals weren't made for human consumption? that's like saying antelopes weren't made for lion consumption. it's natural that we eat them.

the ONE cow had a 12 day ordeal. why don't you mention the 999,999 cows that were treated humanely and then slaughtered?

wow, i think this is the first time good chocolate and i have agreed on something.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 06:41 pm: Edit

I hardly believe the 999,999 other cows were treated "humanely" by our standards. Well, unless you mean kept in horribly close conditions with little access to sunlight and an overall miserable existence, well, then, I guess they are treated "humanely." I have a different idea of what humane is, however.

Oh yeah, and, ultimatley, I see a vegetarian world, primarily because not only are protists and plants more nutritious, but you get more energy per bite! This, in itself, could cure some of the rampant obesity. Well, it wouldn't be a majority of obesity cases, but it'd be a sizable amount.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 06:49 pm: Edit

ok, then how would you suggest we treat the cows? let's buy them individual pens with plenty of sunlight, lots of food, plenty of room to move around. heck, throw in electricity and running water. it doesn't matter that there are millions of humans that have "little access to sunlight and an overall miserable existence" the cows come first!

By Legendofmax (Legendofmax) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 06:55 pm: Edit

I'd always like to know what would happen if a group of PETA members were walking along, and suddenly a ravenous bear leaps out and begins to chew away at the guy walking at the front of the group. Do the rest of the PETA members help their fellow man or let the bear eat him? :P

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 06:58 pm: Edit

WE GET THE PETA THING!!


sorry.

haha

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 07:25 pm: Edit

Actually, Lisasimpson, I'm not talking about individual pens. I'm talking about free-ranging the cows. Cows don't need much. It's not as though each cow needs acres of pasture... and I bet the beef would taste better, too!

And I'm doing my best to end people misery, too! I'm a member of an online organization so that I can volunteer via the Internet and help out with some community initiatives. (http://www.netaid.org/volunteer) By no means should we neglect the poverty-stricken people. That's a more major concern to me than animals. However, this thread is to discuss animal treatment, NOT the plight of people, deplorable though it is. Should you like to discuss the other subject, I would be more than happy to indulge your wish in another thread.

It's more like a double crusade. End the mistreatment of ALL animals. Who's with me?!

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Amen! Merci beaucoup Jenesaispais. Finally. I mean exactly what JeNeSaisPas means. Cows don't need much. All they want is to be happy and be able to say "moooo" with their friends.

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 07:34 pm: Edit

I am very supportive of animal rights and people think I am crzy for caring about animals so much.. for example, I always feel very sorry for lobsters that are boiled alive just to make it taste better. Don't you •••••••• know that is very painful? Its selfish to inflict such pain on the animal just for good taste. Why can't you just knock it out instead and THEN cook it. And don't tell me it doesn't feel pain because I am not a lobster, because we know all animals feel pain and you can see it by their responses to pain.

However, I am not a vegetarian because I feel that it is unnatural. Nature intended humans to eat meat, which is why our bodies are designed this way. The ways our teeth are formed, and our disgestive system, suggest that we are omnivours.

But I love animals a lot. Why? They are one of the few things in this world that are innocent, and I can't imagine a world without them.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 07:39 pm: Edit

And I feel bad looking at all the lobsters in the tanks.

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 07:39 pm: Edit

And one more point. Although some of PETA's actions are foolish, its main point must be taken seriously. Its mission is to protect animals and make sure that people's selfishness won't go overboard and take advantages of animals.

And I Hate people who abuses animals because they are pussies and have to vent their anger. I don't care how old they are. I know this 4yr old girl stabbed her hamsters(3 of them) with a pencil. Do you think this is right? You could say she doesn't know better, but when blood is coming out of an animal which is trying to get away, it takes a lot of "innocence" to avoid killing it. Its obvious that the girl wanted to kill the hamsters on purpose. Its people like this that angers me, and yes I would like to kill her. :)

By Legendofmax (Legendofmax) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 07:57 pm: Edit

That is horrible

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 08:07 pm: Edit

People like that have a psycho path in them. She obivously killed those hamsters because she enjoyed it. No four year old likes people except a deranged one. I'm worried for her.

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 08:28 pm: Edit

She is one of my good friend's cousins. Apparently she seems very nice when around others and looks normal.

But the good thing is that her parents won't let her have pets anymore. However, what made me angry was that nobody punished her, and it seems like the adults forgave her for it as an "accident." How can you kill animals in such a deliberate way and call it an accident?! The poor hamsters were trapped in thei cages/tanks and it takes a lot of effort to take them down. I don't want to think about it anymore... it really saddens me.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 08:30 pm: Edit

i don't think anybody is innately "deranged." i would say there's probably problems in the home, maybe a violent mother or father or something. if not, i say we blame it on the media. way to much violence on there. maybe she saw a cartoon featuring something like that, and decided to try it. either way, she definitely needs to be punished or at least taught that it's wrong.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 08:31 pm: Edit

At least they're no longer in cages. :)

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 08:45 pm: Edit

PETA=People Eating Tasty Animals

let's face it: Chickens coated in a thick batter and deep fried in a tub of lard taste awesome.

Other things that are awesome:

Cow that sacrifices itself so we can eat delicious 30oz. medium cooked steaks slathered in A1 and tobasco sauce.

Pigs that give their meaty hides so we can cook them into deliciously thin and oily slabs of bacon.

Turkeys who go "gobble-gobble-gobble" and then basted in a deliciously zesty herbal sauce and then roasted until golden brown on the outside, hot and juicy on the inside.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 08:50 pm: Edit

ugh.. tub of lard? plus, medium cooked or rare is animal blood. oily slabs?

yuck but you crack me up.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 09:12 pm: Edit

YOu know you want it. Sick of your veggie shakes and 100% natural granola and oat bars yet?

By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 09:12 pm: Edit

I won't comment for now on the ethical views expressed, but I will say now that fried chicken is disgusting. The actual meat under all that nasty breading crap tastes good, the battery stuff is just not good, to me.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 09:14 pm: Edit

Haha. And I'd expect someone living in Kentucky to be eatin all da fried chicken up.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 09:22 pm: Edit

Dude! That breading stuff, batter part is the best part!!! Yum!

Sometimes I truly wonder why I became veg. WHY, WHY?

Actually, I love my smoothie maker. Fresh fruit, all natural with Splenda (sugar has the effects of coke). I could live off of those.

By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 09:57 pm: Edit

I have two chickens as pets and I must say that they are very intelligent, sensitive, and fun animals. Comparing the treatment of chickens to the Holocaust does not seem insensitive to me because our treatment of chickens is beyond deplorable.

I am totally fine with the consumption of animal products. Humans are meant to eat meat. But the animals we eat shouldn't be forced to live lives of misery until we eat them. Let them enjoy life until they are slaughtered. That seems like the natural way of things.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Amen! I <3 Stanfordman99.

By Priglet (Priglet) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit

PETA may be nuts, but it is effective. Often the more radical organizations get the more moderate reforms enacted (not that I advocate blowing up Procter and Gamble). I am not a vegetarian, but I think animals deserve humane treatment and room to move, sky to see. it's healthier, too. enough grain is produced in the world to feed every person 3500 calories a day. instead, much of it is fed to stalled cattle, who should be eating grass (lower down on the energy pyramid--much more efficient). final note: an animal's whole experience is physical; as far as anyone knows, animals have no concept of a higher power--so anything other than a quick clean death is arguably worse for them than for humans (just a thought--and i do disagree with the holocaust comparison, too).

By Dwerbowy (Dwerbowy) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 07:53 pm: Edit

If PETA wasn't so nutty and did things in ways that are viewed by soceity as 'appropriate', they wouldn't get anything done. and they don't do it because these animals looks cute, they care about the treatment of all animals, ugly or not. and the lion, gizele camparsion is flawed because humans are quite capable of living on a non meat diet and having good health while a lion is a carnivore and therefore eating grains wouldn't do much for him. i'm not asking anyone to become a vegan or vegitarian but i jsut find so many people are so polarized on this issue and many just reject PETAish beliefs instantly, but seriosuly before you go back to your bucket of force fed chicken rolled in lard just be a little bit more open minded to this issue


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page