Better dead than fed, PETA says

Well, at least she doesn’t want to reproduce!

WHEW!

(Are you mu mommy?!)
\
\`-”‘”-’/
} 6 6 {
=. Y ,=
/^^^ \
/ \ )
( )-( )/
“” “”

OK, let’s look at this slowly.

The message PETA conveys is an important one, period. Animals aren’t our property to do what we like with them. They’re not ours to amuse us in circuses, or to be recklessly abused in medical experiments, or to be bred on an industrial scale to feed us. We must treat animals as humanely as we can. And we definitely can – maybe it’s not cheap or easy, but it is our moral obligation.

If we must use them in medical experiments, all suffering, physical and psychological, must be eliminated – at all cost. It’s unrealistic at this point in time to totally eliminate animal experiments, but suffering CAN and MUST be eliminated.

By the same token, animals MUSTN’T be bred as some sort of industrial crop, living a short life with no resemblance to what would be their lives if they lived in nature. We are their predators, of course, and we are intelligent enough to breed them and exploit them for food. However we must do that in a HUMANE way. Animals must live in acceptable and healthy conditions, as naturally as realistically possible, not all cooped up thousands upon thousands, to then be led somewhere to see the others being killed and knowing you’re next. Sorry, guys, we can do this better.

Now, do the actions of a few members of PETA invalidate this message? I really don’t think so.

Do this sort of discovery reveal some sort of ‘hidden reality’ about PETA? Maybe, maybe not. It has to be properly investigated. If indeed it is a generalized way of conduct there, then it must be dealt with apropriately, and the message must be carried by someone else who is more ethical and has more integrity to its principles.

You see, we live in an industrialized and *overcrowded* world. It’s not easy to practice what you preach, regarding animals. Most people say they care about animals but then find it’s too much work, too much trouble, too much money, too little time… whatever. One must be realistic regarding defending animal’s rights. You must equate their rights to the present reality. You can’t go about freeing thousands of chicken from some farm and then finding out you don’t know what to do about them and let them starve to death or worse…

You have to somehow go to the source of the problem – our culture and population excess – and start doing it slowly… You can’t change our culture and our people’s minds in a couple of days, with a couple of publicity stunts, with a couple of slogans… Those are only important to wake people up to what’s being done wrong, nothing else, they’re not going to solve the problem.

Asking people to do impossible things won’t help either… I mean, I feel sory for the chickens that die to feed me… Am I going vegetarian just because of that? No way, but I have the right to demand better living conditions to those millions of animals, even if that means a somewhat costlier meal.

And you have to keep this work for the rest of your life and never let up.

And few people really have the patience to really work for animals all their lives. People like that DO exist, but you’ll notice that they tend to be a rather peaceful, absolutely non-radical, positive and productive bunch… Idealists, yes, but also conveying the same message, and probably leading us in the same path in a more constructive and realistic way.

Check out http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Animals are great. I have a herd of various beasts.
PETA sucks. They, and the other “animal rights” groups always have, they always will. You cannot give “rights” to something that doesn’t comprehend.
PETA appeals to 20-something women who need lives, and want something to make “their cause”. It appeals to people who want to anthropomorphise and project their frustrations…onto animals. It appeals to people who are too passive-agressive to really SHOW how much they hate. They all NEED THERAPY.
Animals are domesticated because they served a purpose. The purpose was to provide us with companionship and protection (in the case of dogs) and to give us a ready, easy source of flesh. We,as humans are OMNIVORES…means we eat anything we can catch or pick off the ground. It’s a lot easier to raise up some large cloven animal and then off it, when needed, than to go out and try and find one. Takes less energy. Humans are lazy.
It’s only cultural when we balk at any protein source. We have internal organs that NEED fast, easy B-12 and Iron, and that doesn’t come — at all — from vegetable sources. The whole vegetarian movement was a crock of crap that began with the spoiled, too rich groups…and the desire for some people to be “different” than the rest. Kellogg made a lot of money off rich people wanting to be forced to take cold showers and sleep without blankets, have enemas and eat weirdly processed grains and tasteless foods. It solved the feeling of lack of purpose….gave people something empty and stupid to focus on, instead of doing anything of importance.
The trend continues..with colonics, veganism, raw foods, and the like. It’s fads from the past. Make anything seem “exotic enough” and people will throw money your way.
I don’t mind wearing coats made of rodents. I think leather is better suited to be clothing than plastic. Personally, I opt to buy meats that are from humanely run farms and ranches (ever heard the term Pastured Poultry? Grass raised beef?) and opt to pay a little more for taste and quality, and avoid all fast foods and pre-processed anything.
I do my protesting with the pocketbook.

Sorry, PETA IS bullshit that includes hypocrits and in some cases, terrorists. One of the top gals for PETA is on dialysis. A procedure created with the help of animal testing. There are numerous examples of this type of hypocracy.

Notice that PETA never talks about saving mosquitoes or other insects? Apparently, only furry animals should be saved.

Did you know that PETA euthanizes animals? Yes, that’s right. The people for the ethical treatment of animals regularly and in alarming numbers euthanizes animals. We are not talking about sick or animals in Shaivo shape.

Then there are the real wackos that bomb buildings and commit arson in the name (or payroll) of PETA.

A humorous take on PETA was done by Penn & Teller on their show Bullshit (first or second season, I forget which.) There are *many* sites that expose the utter bullshit (no pun intended) that is PETA.

ABCD…Iron can be in green veges, but it’s not as easy for us to assimilate as blood/animal iron. As well, vegetarianism….in India. That’s funny. Years ago some UK docs wanted to see how someone in India could survive on the diet. So, they brought them to the UK, where they fed them the same diet. Only the Indians started to develop all kinds of malnutrition. Turns out….their “vegetarian” diet included a fair amount of bugs, larva, and dirt, etc. This “enhanced” diet is what was providing the protein/minerals that were lacking from the hygenic UK diet components.
Go to http://www.westonaprice.org ..for some interesting reading on the subjects of diet, vegetarians, soy, canola…etc.

Animals aren’t our property to do what we like with them.
> They’re not ours to amuse us in circuses, or to be
> recklessly abused in medical experiments, or to be bred on
> an industrial scale to feed us. We must treat animals as
> humanely as we can.

On what exactly do you base this presumption? I’d agree that animals should killed arbitrarily or in an purely sadistic manner. But let’s be very clear, animals are not humans. That we do not experiment on humans does not mean we should not experiment on animals. Furthermore, why draw the line at animals? Why not plants as they are as alive as animals? Does this include insects? Bacteria? This is a naive statement made from someone that wants to protect furry animals.

> By the same token, animals MUSTN’T be bred as some sort of
> industrial crop, living a short life with no resemblance to
> what would be their lives if they lived in nature.

Why? This is called domestication. Humans domesticated animals for food and utility thousands of years ago. On what do you base your logic besides your own twisted sense of morality?

> However we must do that in a HUMANE way. Animals must live
> in acceptable and healthy conditions, as naturally as
> realistically possible, not all cooped up thousands upon
> thousands, to then be led somewhere to see the others being
> killed and knowing you’re next. Sorry, guys, we can do this
> better.

Again, why? You throw this statement out there as if everyone should accept it on fact value. What is the justification for this? If there are tangible reasons for providing spacious and comfortable conditions such as decreased instances of disease, better taste, quicker reproduction etc. then certainly the logic is justified. However, if there are no tangible benefits to this additional cost, then by what logic do you provide these benefits to a narrow type of living being and not all others including plants, insects and bacteria? You don’t seem to worry about the “pain” caused to the bacteria when you use an anti-bacterial soap. (Yes, I’m obviously aware that bacteria cannot experience pain).

> One must be realistic regarding defending animal’s rights.
> You must equate their rights to the present reality.

What animal rights?! Last I checked, nothing in the Constitution applied to animal rights. When people get so screwed up in the head that they put animal rights at or above human rights, there is a serious problem.

> You have to somehow go to the source of the problem – our
> culture and population excess

Oooooh…So it’s only *our* culture. Everyone else is vegetarian? Give me a break. Humans are omnivores. Tell me about “sparing animal pain” when an animal gets eaten alive in the wild. Somehow this is ok, but humans decapitating chickens is bad.

PETA are the same bozos that wanted Dreamworks to use a different logo because “fishing is bad.” Never mind that the kid never catches anything and is presumably “fishing for dreams.” The entire organization is made of people that have no concept of biology.

BTW, Teyecoon, many of the animal right extremists are financially supported by PETA. That goes beyond the claim of a few bad apples. That means the organization, as a whole, supports their efforts and tactics.

For those that are still watching this thread here’s some more PETA hypocracy:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/0605/24peta.html

> Thomas, you have a very delusional problem of grand
> nobility that is usually a result of the mindset gained
> from many of the pathetic religions.

Really. That’s a neat trick considering I’m an atheist.

> As a result, your
> opinion on this topic would be as difficult for you to
> change as your religion but the obvious difference between
> our opinions is that you believe humans are superior
> because they are human but I believe humans CAN ONLY BE
> superior when they use their gifts of compassion, concern
> and logic.

Well, since you are already shooting 180 degrees from the target, I suppose you can continue your twisted logic.

Actually, I believe humans are superior because we are currently at the top of the food chain (Just to explain that slower so you can understand, the word superior also means “top”). By your logic, animals that are “superior” to species lower to them should be showing compassion. Of course this does not happen; but then you would need to know something about zoology and biology in order to understand this concept.

>Without these, we are nothing more than animals.

As opposed to….? You do realize that humans are part of the animal kingdom do you not?

> It wasn’t so long ago that being a black or female human
> meant being less worthy of a decent quality of life and
> with a little more progress, we can strive to provide or
> allow all living things to have an acceptable quality of
> life or at least one without unnecessary suffering and
> torture.

Ah, I knew you’d have to take a left turn somewhere in order to continue this type of logic and here it is. You are assuming that the way we treat other humans and the way we treat animals should be the same. As Penn Gillette put it, I would kill every endangered species on the planet to save a fellow human even if they were a crack junkie with AIDS. You need to get your priorities straight. Compassion to humans does not mean the same thing as compassion to non-human animals.

Furthermore, you talk about “all living things.” Ok, Mr./Ms. hypocrite, what about insects, planets and bacteria? All three are considered living. Should we abstain from killing any of these? (I’m sure we can find volunteers to help you abstain from killing bacteria.) This leads to next logical question of, “How do we define “unnecessary” and “suffering” in the context of living creatures? Clearly we can agree that sadistic torture with no appreciable end benefit whatsoever is unacceptable, but how about food and medical testing? Is animal food actually “necessary” in your book? What about plant food? After all, we can hook you up to IVs that pump the necessary nutrients into your body.

> Religion
> preaches “do unto others…”

You mean *A* religion (or group of religions depending on one’s definition) preaches this.

> but unfortunately doesn’t
> consider other living and feeling creatures as others.

Nope. Again, you are applying human characteristics to animals which is just plain ignorant.

> How
> sorry would you be if you or your family got reincarnated
> as an animal today?
> You had no choice in being human so
> what makes you think you would have any choice in
> experiencing life as an animal?

Depends on the animal. ;-> I could pose the same sort of sophist argument to you. How sorry would you be if you discovered that by not eating animals you would be reincarnated as an animal?

In short, it would require that I consider reincarnation as a plausible consequence. Since I have no evidence that reincarnation happens, I find no reason to consider this possibility. Just as I don’t consider the possibility that the Easter bunny will set fire to my house if I eat a rabbit.

> You need to understand that
> the only thing that keeps people acting in a humane manner
> towards each other is a belief system that it is the proper
> and civilized thing to do!

Sorry, I don’t buy that statement. There are numerous factors that cause people to act or not act with kindness and mercy that have nothing to do with their “belief system.” Just as there are religious people that are carnivorous; there are atheists that are vegetarian. I would bet that a number of people in PETA are atheists. Associating religion with kindness and compassion is an incongruous conclusion.

We both agree that people should act in a humane manner. Where we differ is in our definition and application of “humane.”

HOLY!

I thoughtn thwey were stupid. THEY RAE STUPID!!!!!!!!!!