Dangit, must we pull out <a href='http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html' target='_blank'>Godwin's Law</a>? (See also: "<a href='http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/' target='_blank'>Meaning of Godwin's Law</a>")
Anyway, maybe, for the sake of clarity, it would help if people answered the following question:
Do you feel that human beings are more valuble than animals?
I'm under the impression that the superiority of humans over animals has been called to question by some people, such as these PETA folks. I personally still subscribe to the "We're better than them" philosophy, and thus act as such. I eat cows and pigs and chickens, and I support deer hunting. I don't personally like the taste of fish, but certainly support those who do. Because these are animals. Animals should be protected when it is in our interests to do so, and not otherwise. What is in our interests may be debated, and certainly ecosystems should be considered, but before you can argue this point at all, you need to establish that both people are using the same kind of deck.
So, do you feel that human beings are more valuble than animals?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->h yea, I've shot a bear before. I was only 15. I'm grew up into such an evil person didn't I? Wait a tic, my girlfriend and her friend were in a van and a black bear was pounding on the window. My uncle did have a shotgun, but at the range he was at, it would have done more harm than good. So I picked up his 7 mag. It took 3 shots to kill that bear. That's what I get for living out in the sticks. True story.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Defense. Seriously, do you read what I say at all?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I find it almost hypocritical that most of the people that are animal rights activists that accuse hunters and anglers of being murders DO NOT live out in the rural, forested areas which the hunters and anglers do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why should that matter? Alot of the people accusing hitler of being evil didn't live in Germany in the mid 1900's (crap, did I step on Godwin's landmine again?). Or to put it another way, alot of the people accusing Sadam of being evil never set foot on Iraqui soil.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->@Skulkbait, My mother just finished a batch of cookies. Sugar or Chocolate chip? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chocalate chip. Definatly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Humans own this planet and thats all there is to it so if its not human its open for game.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since when do humans 'own' this planet? Because we say so? Because your imaginary God said so? Because you said so?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But the question is now, why specify animals? Are not insects alive? They certainly communicate and show fear and anger...two basic emotions. I have a friend who swears up and down his tarantula shows love. Now that we've gone that far what about plants? They react to touch, and there is no doubt about them being made up of living tissue.
Is it not a vision of cruelty to see a kid with a magnifying glass roasting ants and various other insects in the noon day sun? What about the same child tearing one wing off a once beautiful butterfly and throwing it into the air?
I think it's cruel. Do you? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, yes I do. And insects fall under the definition of animal: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bacteria don't count, because they aren't multicellular. Rotifera (microscopic animals) are generally killed by accident.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you feel that human beings are more valuble than animals?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but only just barely, and only because they are the same species as I am. In general I feel that they should be treated with equal respect for their lives as one would a human's. Though, there are plenty of instances when I would choose to save an animal's (especially dog's) life over a human's.
Skulkbait, your never going to win people over to your cause with those arguments. Taking a hard line stance, such as not killing the hugely over populated deer, makes every other argument look even worse. Do you know what would happen if we stopped killing the deer? Try to think about it from a rational view than an emotional one.
We won the evolutionary race. If those "cute" little foxes won, theyd show no mercy on us. Seriously though, wether you see humans as superior or not, if you agree with Petas practices, youve got some major issues.
Is this any shock? Peta is a desperate and extremist organization. Thier tactics alone shocked the liberal right out of me. They target children, visciously...I forget thier spokespersons name, but in an interview he actualy said that thier "goal" is to leave a deep psychological imprint by using extreme measures...IE approaching children with pitcures of mutilated animals out front of resturants screaming and even blaming the child for the animals slaughter. CHILDREN...not idealistic teenagers and college students...CHILDREN. Peta also gives funding to Elf...I aint gonna dig that **** up again, but the evidence I read convinced me. Peta doesnt argue the accusations, and publicly supports Elf anyway/
BTW, insects do not fall under Petas definition of animal iirc.
<!--QuoteBegin--EternalMonkey+Dec 20 2003, 02:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EternalMonkey @ Dec 20 2003, 02:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Skulkbait, your never going to win people over to your cause with those arguments. Taking a hard line stance, such as not killing the hugely over populated deer, makes every other argument look even worse. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I happen to believe that we shouldn't be meddling in natures affairs. Though there may be circumstances where it is nessesary to correct previous meddling. Why should that make my other arguments worse? Are they any less true because of it? Or is it just a matter of credibility.
But this thread really isn't about that is it? Its about PETA and their flyer so I'll try to get back on track.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->s this any shock? Peta is a desperate and extremist organization. Thier tactics alone shocked the liberal right out of me. They target children, visciously...I forget thier spokespersons name, but in an interview he actualy said that thier "goal" is to leave a deep psychological imprint by using extreme measures...IE approaching children with pitcures of mutilated animals out front of resturants screaming and even blaming the child for the animals slaughter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I have to say, that I don't really find it to be a nessesarilly wrong course of action. If the child goes vegetarian because of it, well, so much the better, they'll be healthier anyway. Why shouldn't that child have to contend with the psychological impact of knowing that they have helped commit that act? If you can't stand to know how your food suffered so you could eat, then why are you eating it? I was going to include a Nazi analogy here, but I figure I've **** off Godwin enough for one thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->CHILDREN...not idealistic teenagers and college students...CHILDREN.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have often said that I think parents protect their children too much, so your not getting anywhere with that argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Peta also gives funding to Elf...I aint gonna dig that **** up again, but the evidence I read convinced me. Peta doesnt argue the accusations, and publicly supports Elf anyway/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I don't know what Elf is, but I'm not nessesarily supporting PETA anyway. I'm just saying that I don't find what they're doing to be a particularly distasteful way of spreading their message.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, I happen to believe that we shouldn't be meddling in natures affairs<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But we're not. Humans are the dominant predator on the planet, and because we've replaced most of the other big predators with ourselves, we have to keep a natural balance. If we didn't kill any animals, their numbers would skyrocket and ecological systems across the planet would collapse entirely. I don't want millions of rabbits wiping out what is left of the Australian ecosystem, nor do I want US deer populations to devestate the remaining ecology on the North American continent. The ecological systems across the world need predators, and in many cases the main predator is us. We were produced by nature and we're still a part of it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the child goes vegetarian because of it, well, so much the better, they'll be healthier anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if they take a huge amount of vitamins, oh and eat protein supplements so their muscle doesn't degrade, oh and take iodine because they can't manufacture their own, oh and they'll need a readier supply of other mostly animal derived nutrients.
Not to mention the iron supplements because vegetables are poor in iron.
Hell, you shouldn't even bother calling vegetarians 'vegetarians' at all! You should call them 'supplementarians' because they need supplements more to live than they do actual food!
You really don't have a clue. I could go into a lot of biochemistry as to WHY your statement is daft on SO many levels, but I really won't bother. In the end, a Vegetarian is MUCH worse off in life than an omnivore, and the scientific literature backs that up 150%.
<!--QuoteBegin--Aegeri+Dec 20 2003, 04:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Dec 20 2003, 04:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the child goes vegetarian because of it, well, so much the better, they'll be healthier anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if they take a huge amount of vitamins, oh and eat protein supplements so their muscle doesn't degrade, oh and take iodine because they can't manufacture their own, oh and they'll need a readier supply of other mostly animal derived nutrients.
Not to mention the iron supplements because vegetables are poor in iron.
Hell, you shouldn't even bother calling vegetarians 'vegetarians' at all! You should call them 'supplementarians' because they need supplements more to live than they do actual food!
You really don't have a clue. I could go into a lot of biochemistry as to WHY your statement is daft on SO many levels, but I really won't bother. In the end, a Vegetarian is MUCH worse off in life than an omnivore, and the scientific literature backs that up 150%. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As I understand it, things like protien and other animal derived nutrients can be obtained from animal byproducts like milk and eggs. If I'm wrong, then feel free to correct me (again).
The fact that you beleive children should be the target of shock campaigns is appaling, and any argument is a lost cause on a person with such twisted logic. I suppose the NRA should resort to these kinds of disgusting tactics. Or the RIAA, the Navy, the Army, ATF and so on. Hell, think of the most hainus organization you can think of and apply your rhetoric. I'm sure your argument would by quite different.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have often said that I think parents protect their children too much, so your not getting anywhere with that argument.Why shouldn't that child have to contend with the psychological impact of knowing that they have helped commit that act? If you can't stand to know how your food suffered so you could eat, then why are you eating it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does your opinion matter? Its basic psychology and child development...bombarding children in this matter does far more damage than any good that comes from them becoming vegetarians. There is a stage in a child development when they should be introduced to such concepts. And some **** mind freaking them to further his own agenda is not going to lead to "healthy happy vegentarians" Its going to lead to stinted psychological growth. Children do not deal well with trauma, and Peta has already said, thier goal is to leave an emotional scar...not convert kids to vegetarians.
As far as vegans, Ive never met a healthy one. You can tell a vegan by the sunken eyes and pale skin...and the ones I do know spend more time fighting off the common cold than any normal meat eating person.
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Dec 20 2003, 10:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Dec 20 2003, 10:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As I understand it, things like protien and other animal derived nutrients can be obtained from animal byproducts like milk and eggs. If I'm wrong, then feel free to correct me (again). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Vegans do not use animal byproducts.
Vegans usually get their protiens and whatnot from legumes and soy.
It is possible to be a healthy vegan, but it's much harder. It actually takes dedication and planning, rather than just eating whatever's in front of you. Still, even the unhealthiest of the vegans I've met are still much healthier than anyone whose weight is over 400 lbs (180 kg).
<!--QuoteBegin--Parasite+Dec 20 2003, 08:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Parasite @ Dec 20 2003, 08:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Dec 20 2003, 10:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Dec 20 2003, 10:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As I understand it, things like protien and other animal derived nutrients can be obtained from animal byproducts like milk and eggs. If I'm wrong, then feel free to correct me (again). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Vegans do not use animal byproducts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whats all this talk of veganism? Did I mention veganism?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The fact that you beleive children should be the target of shock campaigns is appaling, and any argument is a lost cause on a person with such twisted logic. I suppose the NRA should resort to these kinds of disgusting tactics. Or the RIAA, the Navy, the Army, ATF and so on. Hell, think of the most hainus organization you can think of and apply your rhetoric. I'm sure your argument would by quite different.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats the big deal? From what I recall, the RIAA actually does target children. All corporations do, look at big tobbacco. My god man, the war on drugs! Children have been exposed to much worse things and come out of it just fine, and to be honest, I don't think the potential dammage outweighs the good in this case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What does your opinion matter? Its basic psychology and child development...bombarding children in this matter does far more damage than any good<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Got some proof? Besides, it depends entirely on how you weight the 'good'. You may think that saving the lives of animals is rather unimportant, but PETA sure doesn't, and I can't say that I disagree.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a stage in a child development when they should be introduced to such concepts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What age would that be? Many adaults I've met have trouble stomaching the idea that something was slaughtered so they could eat. Protecting children for too long does harm too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Peta has already said, thier goal is to leave an emotional scar...not convert kids to vegetarians.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh? What do you think the point of the emotional scaring is then?
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Dec 21 2003, 07:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Dec 21 2003, 07:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Peta has already said, thier goal is to leave an emotional scar...not convert kids to vegetarians.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh? What do you think the point of the emotional scaring is then? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It doesnt matter what the point is. You do NOT ever attempt to emotionally scar kids to further your message, you dont even risk that happening.
For a nice parallel to put things in perspective - I show up at a school your kids go to. And I give them a lovely pamphlet with "YOUR PARENTS WILL BURN IN HELL" emblazoned on the top. On the front is a very graphic picture of demons doing something unspeakable to "Mr and Mrs Brown". Inside is literature like "Your parents are going to burn because they are evil sinners, the helpers of Satan, so next time Mommy asks you if you love her, tell her you know she's damned to an eternity of hell."
Now just because I happen to agree that it is entirely possible in some situations that that childs mother IS going to hell, that doesnt change the fact that I've done the wrong thing. Anyone would be furious if their child was given literature deliberately attacking their parents, whether its for a good cause or not.
Now if you cant see anything wrong with my "pretend pamphlet" skulk, then I'm dropping this and walking away, because this has left the rational plane.
Add screaming at the children while handing out the pamphlets to that example Marine01, and you illustrate exactly the the extremist tactics they use. The RIAA (for as much as I hate them) do not target in such a grotesque fashion...noone does. I cant imagine you actually understand how agressive they are, if not, I cant see you using arguments like "parents shelter thier children too much". Attacking children as an end to selfish means has little to do with your opinions on raising children. And it certianly wouldnt give you the right to force your opinions onto my child.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Got some proof? Besides, it depends entirely on how you weight the 'good'. You may think that saving the lives of animals is rather unimportant, but PETA sure doesn't, and I can't say that I disagree.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Proof? You want me to provide you with proof while you spout of your opinion with little regard for fact? I'm sure someone could pull up any of the dozens if not hundreds of studies done on child trauma, But Im not gonna bother. It should be obvious that traumatizing a child will have a negative impact on thier life.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whats all this talk of veganism? Did I mention veganism?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The difference being what? that vegans actually have the balls to follow through with thier beleifs? Saying you are a vegatarian is like saying your a bus driver that only drives mini vans. You are still aiding in the exploitation and captive consumption of animals if you use thier by products...if you have a cause, at least have the guts to stand by it.
///BTW. Dont take anything to heart Skulk, I dont mean for anything to be directed towards you personally. Its just that Peta sickens me to no end. Im not hell bent on opposing thier ideas, only thier methods. there is a certian amount of tact that should be used to convey what <i>should</i> be a noble message. But as is always the case with extremists, thier message and ideologies are overshadowed by their methods and thus are rarely heard, and certianly never realized.
On the topic of PETA (not entirely about their pamphlet, but humorous still), here is what Maddox had to says about them. Needless to say - its Maddox, so expect some coarse language.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Dec 20 2003, 05:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Dec 20 2003, 05:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Dec 21 2003, 07:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Dec 21 2003, 07:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Peta has already said, thier goal is to leave an emotional scar...not convert kids to vegetarians.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh? What do you think the point of the emotional scaring is then? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It doesnt matter what the point is. You do NOT ever attempt to emotionally scar kids to further your message, you dont even risk that happening.
For a nice parallel to put things in perspective - I show up at a school your kids go to. And I give them a lovely pamphlet with "YOUR PARENTS WILL BURN IN HELL" emblazoned on the top. On the front is a very graphic picture of demons doing something unspeakable to "Mr and Mrs Brown". Inside is literature like "Your parents are going to burn because they are evil sinners, the helpers of Satan, so next time Mommy asks you if you love her, tell her you know she's damned to an eternity of hell."
Now just because I happen to agree that it is entirely possible in some situations that that childs mother IS going to hell, that doesnt change the fact that I've done the wrong thing. Anyone would be furious if their child was given literature deliberately attacking their parents, whether its for a good cause or not.
Now if you cant see anything wrong with my "pretend pamphlet" skulk, then I'm dropping this and walking away, because this has left the rational plane. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ohhh, used religion, nice try. I never said PETA's methods weren't extreme, nor did I say that they were nessesarily right, mearly not nessesarily wrong. To PETA, and to people like me, animals deserve similar rights not to suffer. And sometimes extreme measures are nessesary open people's eyes to the problem.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Attacking children as an end to selfish means has little to do with your opinions on raising children.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, this is what I mean. Parasite apparently thinks of this cause as "selfish". PETA is trying to stop suffering of animals, to them that suffering is as legitimate as any human suffering.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Add screaming at the children while handing out the pamphlets to that example Marine01, and you illustrate exactly the the extremist tactics they use. The RIAA (for as much as I hate them) do not target in such a grotesque fashion...noone does.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm, remember the Maddonna (sp!?) MP3 that circulated that contained nothing but her saying "WTH do you think you're doing?". Don't kid youself into thinking that other, more 'ligitimate', organizations aren't using scare tactics to get children to think the way they wan't. The war on drugs is a great example of this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->he difference being what? that vegans actually have the balls to follow through with thier beleifs? Saying you are a vegatarian is like saying your a bus driver that only drives mini vans. You are still aiding in the exploitation and captive consumption of animals if you use thier by products...if you have a cause, at least have the guts to stand by it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but those animals no longer have to suffer and die. There is a world of difference between being held raised to BE food, and being raised to PRODUCE food.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Proof? You want me to provide you with proof while you spout of your opinion with little regard for fact? I'm sure someone could pull up any of the dozens if not hundreds of studies done on child trauma, But Im not gonna bother. It should be obvious that traumatizing a child will have a negative impact on thier life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I'm asking you to do, is prove that being exposed to how animals are raised and slaughtered to produce various goods consumed by the child is traumatizing. If so, then a whole lot of farmers are in alot of trouble.
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Dec 21 2003, 07:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Dec 21 2003, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ohhh, used religion, nice try. I never said PETA's methods weren't extreme, nor did I say that they were nessesarily right, mearly not nessesarily wrong. To PETA, and to people like me, animals deserve similar rights not to suffer. And sometimes extreme measures are nessesary open people's eyes to the problem.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Pick your side Skulkbait - either you condemn this pamphlet or you dont. Either you condemn their tactics or you dont. I work in the Veterinary industry, so I care about animals, a lot. A lot of things that PETA condemn, I support them in. But I wont ever support attempts to scar children by presenting their parents as bloodthirsty savages.
Not necessarily wrong? You can say that about just about anything. Pick a stance here and stick with it. If you stand against cruelty to animals, then I'm with you all the way. But if you wont condemn this pamphlet, then I'm proud to be on the other side.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ohhh, used religion, nice try. I never said PETA's methods weren't extreme, nor did I say that they were nessesarily right, mearly not nessesarily wrong. To PETA, and to people like me, animals deserve similar rights not to suffer. And sometimes extreme measures are nessesary open people's eyes to the problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Trouble is extreme measures can just as easily turn possible allies against you, which I believe is the case in this instance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> See, this is what I mean. Parasite apparently thinks of this cause as "selfish". PETA is trying to stop suffering of animals, to them that suffering is as legitimate as any human suffering.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The cause is not selfish, the advertisement program is. Do you not understand what the majority of us are targetting here?
There is no means of justifying intentionally inflicting mental trauma upon children. You do not end suffering by creating more on a whole 'nother level. It's cruelty, just the thing they should be fighting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hmmm, remember the Maddonna (sp!?) MP3 that circulated that contained nothing but her saying "WTH do you think you're doing?". Don't kid youself into thinking that other, more 'ligitimate', organizations aren't using scare tactics to get children to think the way they wan't. The war on drugs is a great example of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. No I don't remember that MP3, and wouldn't care anyway because I never thought that highly of her.
2. I've seen what drug addiction can do to family and friends.
However, I have not seen messages or paid advertisements showing the bloody aftermath of a struggle between brothers that ended with a gunshots because one brother was so addicted to crack that he tried to rob his mother's house at gunpoint. You want the truth, there it is. Unpackaged, unaltered, unappetising. But strangely enough, not on TV. There is very little relation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, but those animals no longer have to suffer and die. There is a world of difference between being held raised to BE food, and being raised to PRODUCE food. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mind if I let you in on something? You're a wee bit naive. The only difference between the way they are handled is how they die.
Egg producing chickens and milk producing cattle are in the same boat as those slaughtered for meat.....maybe even worse. It's called factory farming. In order to make the most product for the smallest overhead, some enterprizing fellows decided to keep livestock in tight-fitting mechanical cages on a regular feeding schedule. Once they discovered anti-biotics created a marginal increase in yield they added drugs and steroids to the food and water. Dairy cattle are kept in a state of permenant imitation pregnancy by use of drugs so they produce milk in the highest yields year-round, egg producing hens are subjected to close mechanical confinement and hosts of drugs as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What I'm asking you to do, is prove that being exposed to how animals are raised and slaughtered to produce various goods consumed by the child is traumatizing. If so, then a whole lot of farmers are in alot of trouble. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is traumatizing, but that's actually beside the point as there are many things that can be traumatizing to children that are perfectly normal. You know, like a hungry wolf killing your child's favorite cat. The wolf was just a hungry animal doing what came naturally, but the child is never going to view that creature with the same compassion.
The point is that PETA in their infinite wisdom has decided that it is perfectly alright to:
1. Slander mothers without actual knowlege of the mothers or thier individual activities.
2. Complete offense #1 with intention to market the idea to children and thus damage the children's perception of the mothers. In other words, they are attempting to paint all mothers as bloodthirsty killers of the children's favorite pets. This will no doubt have an adverse effect upon the children's behavior.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Dec 21 2003, 05:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Dec 21 2003, 05:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Dec 21 2003, 07:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Dec 21 2003, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ohhh, used religion, nice try. I never said PETA's methods weren't extreme, nor did I say that they were nessesarily right, mearly not nessesarily wrong. To PETA, and to people like me, animals deserve similar rights not to suffer. And sometimes extreme measures are nessesary open people's eyes to the problem.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Pick your side Skulkbait - either you condemn this pamphlet or you dont. Either you condemn their tactics or you dont. I work in the Veterinary industry, so I care about animals, a lot. A lot of things that PETA condemn, I support them in. But I wont ever support attempts to scar children by presenting their parents as bloodthirsty savages.
Not necessarily wrong? You can say that about just about anything. Pick a stance here and stick with it. If you stand against cruelty to animals, then I'm with you all the way. But if you wont condemn this pamphlet, then I'm proud to be on the other side.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe I'm just indecisive, or maybe I'm restling with internal conflict, but I just can't bring my self to pass judgement on this pamphlet. While I certainly applaud the cause, PETA's method of supporting it is decidedly distasteful (though, I still think most of you are exagerating the harm). I only defend this pamphlet here because nobody else is willing to.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Mind if I let you in on something? You're a wee bit naive. The only difference between the way they are handled is how they die.
Egg producing chickens and milk producing cattle are in the same boat as those slaughtered for meat.....maybe even worse. It's called factory farming. In order to make the most product for the smallest overhead, some enterprizing fellows decided to keep livestock in tight-fitting mechanical cages on a regular feeding schedule. Once they discovered anti-biotics created a marginal increase in yield they added drugs and steroids to the food and water. Dairy cattle are kept in a state of permenant imitation pregnancy by use of drugs so they produce milk in the highest yields year-round, egg producing hens are subjected to close mechanical confinement and hosts of drugs as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You think I don't know what goes on thanks to man's greed and incompassion towards fellow animals? Hell, you didn't even describe the worst of what goes on. Meat farms used to be alot worse, and that has only changed recently. The point is that it is not nessesary for these animals to be treated this way, but they are. Thats what the pamphlet addresses. How can I condemn such a nobel cause, even when handled so indelicately? I know what you're saying though, scarring a child so it won't eat meat doesn't mean it isn't going to consume products that animal didn't have to suffer to produce, but at least that child nolonger takes its food for granted. And if enough people did the same, things might change.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You think I don't know what goes on thanks to man's greed and incompassion towards fellow animals? Hell, you didn't even describe the worst of what goes on. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you did type this up. How was I supposed to know you knew that factory farms are not limited to raising meat-producing animals in crowded, unsanitary, and generally unsafe conditions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a world of difference between being held raised to BE food, and being raised to PRODUCE food. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The point is that it is not nessesary for these animals to be treated this way, but they are. Thats what the pamphlet addresses.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To children who don't have the mental development neccesary to put the allegations in the proper perspective and act on the information without resorting to the emotional alienation of their parents.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How can I condemn such a nobel cause, even when handled so indelicately?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You just said it yourself, condemn the pamphlet but praise the cause. Just because you dislike the way someone goes about doing something does not mean you have to disagree with the cause they are attempting to champion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know what you're saying though, scarring a child so it won't eat meat doesn't mean it isn't going to consume products that animal didn't have to suffer to produce, but at least that child nolonger takes its food for granted. And if enough people did the same, things might change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could care less if the children decide to become vegetarians or not if it's purely their choice, that is not what I'm trying to get across.
Think about the relationship between those children (5-12yrs) and their parents. If you scar them emotionally by setting up their mother as an evil villain figure, there will be trouble in that household.
Emotional scars introduced during childhood run deep, they affect the way we see our world and the way we act as an adult. As an example, my best friend committing suicide just an hour and a half after talking with me (while I was 9) created one and for the longest time I had precious few people I'd allow myself close enough to call friends. I'd hate to hear about the results of a child literally hating his/her mother simply because she has a fur coat in the back of her closet. This possibly due to the ad campaign and the irrational anger and hatred that is so easily sparked in children once their minds are set against something. Whether it be the toy they want but Tommy won't give them, or being told mommy brutally murders overly romanticized animals.
Emotional scars can be eventually overcome, as I've overcome mine to a point, but it's just not worth it to spark animosity between child and mother like this.
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Dec 21 2003, 09:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Dec 21 2003, 09:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Maybe I'm just indecisive, or maybe I'm restling with internal conflict, but I just can't bring my self to pass judgement on this pamphlet. While I certainly applaud the cause, PETA's method of supporting it is decidedly distasteful (though, I still think most of you are exagerating the harm). I only defend this pamphlet here because nobody else is willing to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well plz - next time, let me know ur playing the devils advocate before I start my ranting <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Slightly off topic - but I think this is probably the best criticism I have heard of moral vegetarians. Its a rant for sure, but ignore the arrogance and he actually covers his bases pretty well:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was looking over a menu in a restaurant the other day when I saw a section for vegetarians; I thought to myself "boy, I sure am glad that I'm not a meat-hating fascist" and I skipped on to the steak section (because I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $15 for an alfalfa sandwich, slice of cucumber and a scoop of cold cottage cheese), but before I turned the page something caught my eye. The heading of the vegetarian section was titled "Guiltless Grill," not because there were menu items with fewer calories and cholesterol (since there were "healthy" chicken dishes discriminated against in this section), but because none of the items used animal products. Think about that phrase for a second. What exactly does "guiltless grill" imply? So I'm supposed to feel guilty now if I eat meat? Screw you.
What pisses me off so much about this phrase is the sheer narrow-mindedness of these stuck up vegetarian ****. You think you're saving the world by eating a tofu-burger and sticking to a diet of grains and berries? Well here's something that not many vegetarians know (or care to acknowledge): every year millions of animals are killed by wheat and soy bean combines during harvesting season (source). Oh yeah, go on and on for hours about how all of us meat eaters are going to hell for having a steak, but conveniently ignore the fact that each year millions of mice, rabbits, snakes, skunks, possums, squirrels, gophers and rats are ruthlessly murdered as a direct result of YOUR dieting habits. What's that? I'm sorry, I don't hear any more elitist banter from you pompous ****. Could it be because your **** has been RUINED?
That's right: the gloves have come off. The vegetarian response to this embarrassing fact is "well, at least we're not killing intentionally." So let me get this straight; not only are animals ruthlessly being murdered as a direct result of your diet, but you're not even using the meat of the animals YOU kill? At least we're eating the animals we kill (and although we also contribute to the slaughter of animals during grain harvesting, keep in mind that we're not the ones with a moral qualm about it), not just leaving them to rot in a field somewhere. That makes you just as morally repugnant than any meat-eater any day. Not only that, but you're killing free-roaming animals, not animals that were raised for feed. Their bodies get mangled in the combine's machinery, bones crushed, and you have the audacity to point fingers at the meat industry for humanely punching a spike through a cow's neck? If you think that tofu burgers come at no cost to animals or the environment, guess again.
To even suggest that your meal is some how "guiltless" is absurd. The defense "at least we're not killing intentionally" is **** anyway. How is it not intentional if you KNOW that millions of animals die every year in combines during harvest? You expect me to believe that you somehow unintentionally pay money to buy products that support farmers that use combines to harvest their fields? Even if it was somehow unintentional, so what? That suddenly makes you innocent? I guess we should let drunk drivers off the hook too since they don't kill intentionally either, right? There's no way out of this one. The only option left for you dipshits is to buy some land, plant and pick your own crops. Impractical? Yeah, well, so is your stupid diet.
Even if combines aren't used to harvest your food, you think that buying fruits and vegetables (organic or otherwise) is any better? How do you think they get rid of bugs that eat crops in large fields? You think they just put up signs and ask parasites to politely go somewhere else? Actually, I wouldn't put that suggestion past you hippies. One of the methods they use to get rid of pests is to introduce a high level of predators for each particular prey, which wreaks all sorts of havoc on the natural balance of predator/prey populations--causing who knows what kind of damage to the environment. Oops, did I just expose you moral-elitists for being frauds? Damndest thing.
A number of people have pointed out that the amount of grain grown to feed animals for slaughter every year is greater than the amount of grain grown for humans. So I guess the amount of grain grown for human consumption suddenly becomes negligible and we can conveniently ignore the fact that animals are still ruthlessly murdered either way because of your diet, right? Not to mention that the majority of grain grown for livestock is tough as rocks, coarse, and so low-grade that it's only fit for animal consumption in the first place. Spare me the "you could feed 500 people with the grain used to feed one cow" line of ****; it's not the same grain. Then there are the people who jump on the bandwagon with "you could plant billions of potatoes on the land used for cows"--good point, except for the fact that not every plot of land is equally fertile; you think farmers always have a choice on what they do with their land? Also, many vegetarians don't know (or care to acknowledge) that in many parts of the United States they have "control hunts" in which hunting permits are passed out whenever there is a pest problem (the pest here is deer, elk and antelope) that threatens wheat, soy, vegetable and other crops; this happens several times per year. Then some of you throw out claims that "we are trying to limit the suffering." How about you limit MY suffering and shut the hell up about your stupid diet for a change; nobody cares. Even if the number of animals that die in combine deaths every year isn't in the millions, even if it's just one, are you suggesting that the life of one baby rabbit isn't worth saving? Are you placing a value on life? Enjoy your tofu, murderers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Dec 20 2003, 07:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Dec 20 2003, 07:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Humans own this planet and thats all there is to it so if its not human its open for game.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since when do humans 'own' this planet? Because we say so? Because your imaginary God said so? Because you said so?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ok first of all I'm an athiest so god has nothing to do with this.
And yes, we do own this planet because we say so. If some animal would like to speak up and say otherwise I'm sure we would listen but since none of them can speak or do almost anything that makes humans so much better than anything else on this planet I guess we get total ownership.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well plz - next time, let me know ur playing the devils advocate before I start my ranting
Slightly off topic - but I think this is probably the best criticism I have heard of moral vegetarians. Its a rant for sure, but ignore the arrogance and he actually covers his bases pretty well:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, a friend of mine always used to play devil's advocate (very well I might add), so it sorta rubbed off.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was looking over a menu in a restaurant the other day when I saw a section for vegetarians; I thought to myself "boy, I sure am glad that I'm not a meat-hating fascist"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Man, he doesn't take any time revealing his bias does he? I'm afraid I didn't read much past that point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, we do own this planet because we say so. If some animal would like to speak up and say otherwise I'm sure we would listen but since none of them can speak or do almost anything that makes humans so much better than anything else on this planet I guess we get total ownership.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, but the animals do disagree all the time. Go on, ask a Grizly who he thinks is boss.
Say what you wan't people, because I'm not going to post in this thread again. Frankly im getting in way over myhead trying to defend this pamphlet, and I wasn't doing very well anyway (thanks to 5:00am postings).
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Dec 22 2003, 07:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Dec 22 2003, 07:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was looking over a menu in a restaurant the other day when I saw a section for vegetarians; I thought to myself "boy, I sure am glad that I'm not a meat-hating fascist"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Man, he doesn't take any time revealing his bias does he? I'm afraid I didn't read much past that point. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ehehehe I know you're not replying anymore skulkbait, but I kinda consider this article the flipside of the PETA pamphalet - incredibly biased, with a savage undertone.
I find that I read articles regardless of bias, because often overbearing morons still have decent points. If not, then they should be easy to pick apart.
<!--QuoteBegin--The Finch+Dec 18 2003, 09:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Dec 18 2003, 09:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have this great hat that has a ton of rabbit fur in it. It's warm as hell and <i>chicks totally dig it.</i> It's all part of the circle of life, baby. A knife wielding soccer mom hacks up a rabbit with a comical expression on its face, the rabbit becomes a garment, person wearing the garment gets laid and the species goes on.
Isn't nature's plan great? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ROFL
I haven't a problem with people voice their opinions. Go right ahead. But when try and interfere with what I am doing, that is crossing the line.... l I was out Ice fishing earlier today, and some granola comes riding out to my ice shack. Out of the HUNDREDS, yes HUNDREDS on the lake, he picks mine. He comes out and starts trying to impede his beliefs on me.
"You are aware that hooking them is very painful?"
I was feeling like a smartalek so I replied
"Well, I doubt it feels good."
"That's torture. I don't want you to do that. Neither does the [Insert name of some Minnesotan Animal Rights Cult]."
"Since when did I care about some organization I have never heard before."
He said he was going to go dump the fish I had caught back into my hole in the ice.
I told him to "Let's see you try."
He tries to force his way into my family's shack, which i had just locked. I shouted over to a buddy, so he and 3 other guys came over to watch.
The fellow decided to pick up my ice scoop I had left outside and was going to break the window on the door to unlock the door.
"No. No. No. Now that would be breakin and entering. Do you think your little organization can afford a lawsuit?"
"You couldn't do anything, your word against mine."
"And these 4 gentlemen."
He meekly got back on his golf cart and zipped off and said "This isn't over." I am shaking in my boots.
He didn't even bother to ask the reason why I had been catching a lot of fish. My GF is only staying for Christmas, so we decided to have some fish one night.
(For any sportsmen wondering, I caught 15 bluegill, 17 perch, 12 crappie, and 1 good sized Pike)
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Dec 18 2003, 10:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Dec 18 2003, 10:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do the same people crying out at this injustice look at a wolf tearing into a deer's living guts as it bleats in pain and say "ahh... the beauty of nature"? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats different, the wolf needs to eat the dear to live. Some rich white **** does not need a fur coat to live.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And there are no rich black **** who want to wear fur?
Comments
Anyway, maybe, for the sake of clarity, it would help if people answered the following question:
Do you feel that human beings are more valuble than animals?
I'm under the impression that the superiority of humans over animals has been called to question by some people, such as these PETA folks. I personally still subscribe to the "We're better than them" philosophy, and thus act as such. I eat cows and pigs and chickens, and I support deer hunting. I don't personally like the taste of fish, but certainly support those who do. Because these are animals. Animals should be protected when it is in our interests to do so, and not otherwise. What is in our interests may be debated, and certainly ecosystems should be considered, but before you can argue this point at all, you need to establish that both people are using the same kind of deck.
So, do you feel that human beings are more valuble than animals?
Defense. Seriously, do you read what I say at all?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I find it almost hypocritical that most of the people that are animal rights activists that accuse hunters and anglers of being murders DO NOT live out in the rural, forested areas which the hunters and anglers do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why should that matter? Alot of the people accusing hitler of being evil didn't live in Germany in the mid 1900's (crap, did I step on Godwin's landmine again?). Or to put it another way, alot of the people accusing Sadam of being evil never set foot on Iraqui soil.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->@Skulkbait, My mother just finished a batch of cookies. Sugar or Chocolate chip? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chocalate chip. Definatly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Humans own this planet and thats all there is to it so if its not human its open for game.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since when do humans 'own' this planet? Because we say so? Because your imaginary God said so? Because you said so?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But the question is now, why specify animals? Are not insects alive? They certainly communicate and show fear and anger...two basic emotions. I have a friend who swears up and down his tarantula shows love. Now that we've gone that far what about plants? They react to touch, and there is no doubt about them being made up of living tissue.
Is it not a vision of cruelty to see a kid with a magnifying glass roasting ants and various other insects in the noon day sun? What about the same child tearing one wing off a once beautiful butterfly and throwing it into the air?
I think it's cruel. Do you?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, yes I do. And insects fall under the definition of animal:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bacteria don't count, because they aren't multicellular. Rotifera (microscopic animals) are generally killed by accident.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you feel that human beings are more valuble than animals?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but only just barely, and only because they are the same species as I am. In general I feel that they should be treated with equal respect for their lives as one would a human's. Though, there are plenty of instances when I would choose to save an animal's (especially dog's) life over a human's.
Taking a hard line stance, such as not killing the hugely over populated deer, makes every other argument look even worse.
Do you know what would happen if we stopped killing the deer?
Try to think about it from a rational view than an emotional one.
Seriously though, wether you see humans as superior or not, if you agree with Petas practices, youve got some major issues.
Is this any shock? Peta is a desperate and extremist organization. Thier tactics alone shocked the liberal right out of me. They target children, visciously...I forget thier spokespersons name, but in an interview he actualy said that thier "goal" is to leave a deep psychological imprint by using extreme measures...IE approaching children with pitcures of mutilated animals out front of resturants screaming and even blaming the child for the animals slaughter. CHILDREN...not idealistic teenagers and college students...CHILDREN. Peta also gives funding to Elf...I aint gonna dig that **** up again, but the evidence I read convinced me. Peta doesnt argue the accusations, and publicly supports Elf anyway/
BTW, insects do not fall under Petas definition of animal iirc.
Taking a hard line stance, such as not killing the hugely over populated deer, makes every other argument look even worse. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I happen to believe that we shouldn't be meddling in natures affairs. Though there may be circumstances where it is nessesary to correct previous meddling. Why should that make my other arguments worse? Are they any less true because of it? Or is it just a matter of credibility.
But this thread really isn't about that is it? Its about PETA and their flyer so I'll try to get back on track.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->s this any shock? Peta is a desperate and extremist organization. Thier tactics alone shocked the liberal right out of me. They target children, visciously...I forget thier spokespersons name, but in an interview he actualy said that thier "goal" is to leave a deep psychological imprint by using extreme measures...IE approaching children with pitcures of mutilated animals out front of resturants screaming and even blaming the child for the animals slaughter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I have to say, that I don't really find it to be a nessesarilly wrong course of action. If the child goes vegetarian because of it, well, so much the better, they'll be healthier anyway. Why shouldn't that child have to contend with the psychological impact of knowing that they have helped commit that act? If you can't stand to know how your food suffered so you could eat, then why are you eating it? I was going to include a Nazi analogy here, but I figure I've **** off Godwin enough for one thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->CHILDREN...not idealistic teenagers and college students...CHILDREN.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have often said that I think parents protect their children too much, so your not getting anywhere with that argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Peta also gives funding to Elf...I aint gonna dig that **** up again, but the evidence I read convinced me. Peta doesnt argue the accusations, and publicly supports Elf anyway/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I don't know what Elf is, but I'm not nessesarily supporting PETA anyway. I'm just saying that I don't find what they're doing to be a particularly distasteful way of spreading their message.
But we're not. Humans are the dominant predator on the planet, and because we've replaced most of the other big predators with ourselves, we have to keep a natural balance. If we didn't kill any animals, their numbers would skyrocket and ecological systems across the planet would collapse entirely. I don't want millions of rabbits wiping out what is left of the Australian ecosystem, nor do I want US deer populations to devestate the remaining ecology on the North American continent. The ecological systems across the world need predators, and in many cases the main predator is us. We were produced by nature and we're still a part of it.
Only if they take a huge amount of vitamins, oh and eat protein supplements so their muscle doesn't degrade, oh and take iodine because they can't manufacture their own, oh and they'll need a readier supply of other mostly animal derived nutrients.
Not to mention the iron supplements because vegetables are poor in iron.
Hell, you shouldn't even bother calling vegetarians 'vegetarians' at all! You should call them 'supplementarians' because they need supplements more to live than they do actual food!
You really don't have a clue. I could go into a lot of biochemistry as to WHY your statement is daft on SO many levels, but I really won't bother. In the end, a Vegetarian is MUCH worse off in life than an omnivore, and the scientific literature backs that up 150%.
Only if they take a huge amount of vitamins, oh and eat protein supplements so their muscle doesn't degrade, oh and take iodine because they can't manufacture their own, oh and they'll need a readier supply of other mostly animal derived nutrients.
Not to mention the iron supplements because vegetables are poor in iron.
Hell, you shouldn't even bother calling vegetarians 'vegetarians' at all! You should call them 'supplementarians' because they need supplements more to live than they do actual food!
You really don't have a clue. I could go into a lot of biochemistry as to WHY your statement is daft on SO many levels, but I really won't bother. In the end, a Vegetarian is MUCH worse off in life than an omnivore, and the scientific literature backs that up 150%. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I understand it, things like protien and other animal derived nutrients can be obtained from animal byproducts like milk and eggs. If I'm wrong, then feel free to correct me (again).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have often said that I think parents protect their children too much, so your not getting anywhere with that argument.Why shouldn't that child have to contend with the psychological impact of knowing that they have helped commit that act? If you can't stand to know how your food suffered so you could eat, then why are you eating it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does your opinion matter? Its basic psychology and child development...bombarding children in this matter does far more damage than any good that comes from them becoming vegetarians. There is a stage in a child development when they should be introduced to such concepts. And some **** mind freaking them to further his own agenda is not going to lead to "healthy happy vegentarians" Its going to lead to stinted psychological growth. Children do not deal well with trauma, and Peta has already said, thier goal is to leave an emotional scar...not convert kids to vegetarians.
As far as vegans, Ive never met a healthy one. You can tell a vegan by the sunken eyes and pale skin...and the ones I do know spend more time fighting off the common cold than any normal meat eating person.
Btw, Elf is a terrorist organization.
Vegans do not use animal byproducts.
It is possible to be a healthy vegan, but it's much harder. It actually takes dedication and planning, rather than just eating whatever's in front of you. Still, even the unhealthiest of the vegans I've met are still much healthier than anyone whose weight is over 400 lbs (180 kg).
Vegans do not use animal byproducts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats all this talk of veganism? Did I mention veganism?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The fact that you beleive children should be the target of shock campaigns is appaling, and any argument is a lost cause on a person with such twisted logic. I suppose the NRA should resort to these kinds of disgusting tactics. Or the RIAA, the Navy, the Army, ATF and so on. Hell, think of the most hainus organization you can think of and apply your rhetoric. I'm sure your argument would by quite different.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats the big deal? From what I recall, the RIAA actually does target children. All corporations do, look at big tobbacco. My god man, the war on drugs! Children have been exposed to much worse things and come out of it just fine, and to be honest, I don't think the potential dammage outweighs the good in this case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What does your opinion matter? Its basic psychology and child development...bombarding children in this matter does far more damage than any good<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Got some proof? Besides, it depends entirely on how you weight the 'good'. You may think that saving the lives of animals is rather unimportant, but PETA sure doesn't, and I can't say that I disagree.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a stage in a child development when they should be introduced to such concepts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What age would that be? Many adaults I've met have trouble stomaching the idea that something was slaughtered so they could eat. Protecting children for too long does harm too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Peta has already said, thier goal is to leave an emotional scar...not convert kids to vegetarians.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh? What do you think the point of the emotional scaring is then?
Oh? What do you think the point of the emotional scaring is then? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesnt matter what the point is. You do NOT ever attempt to emotionally scar kids to further your message, you dont even risk that happening.
For a nice parallel to put things in perspective - I show up at a school your kids go to. And I give them a lovely pamphlet with "YOUR PARENTS WILL BURN IN HELL" emblazoned on the top. On the front is a very graphic picture of demons doing something unspeakable to "Mr and Mrs Brown". Inside is literature like "Your parents are going to burn because they are evil sinners, the helpers of Satan, so next time Mommy asks you if you love her, tell her you know she's damned to an eternity of hell."
Now just because I happen to agree that it is entirely possible in some situations that that childs mother IS going to hell, that doesnt change the fact that I've done the wrong thing. Anyone would be furious if their child was given literature deliberately attacking their parents, whether its for a good cause or not.
Now if you cant see anything wrong with my "pretend pamphlet" skulk, then I'm dropping this and walking away, because this has left the rational plane.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Got some proof? Besides, it depends entirely on how you weight the 'good'. You may think that saving the lives of animals is rather unimportant, but PETA sure doesn't, and I can't say that I disagree.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Proof? You want me to provide you with proof while you spout of your opinion with little regard for fact? I'm sure someone could pull up any of the dozens if not hundreds of studies done on child trauma, But Im not gonna bother. It should be obvious that traumatizing a child will have a negative impact on thier life.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whats all this talk of veganism? Did I mention veganism?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The difference being what? that vegans actually have the balls to follow through with thier beleifs?
Saying you are a vegatarian is like saying your a bus driver that only drives mini vans. You are still aiding in the exploitation and captive consumption of animals if you use thier by products...if you have a cause, at least have the guts to stand by it.
///BTW. Dont take anything to heart Skulk, I dont mean for anything to be directed towards you personally. Its just that Peta sickens me to no end. Im not hell bent on opposing thier ideas, only thier methods. there is a certian amount of tact that should be used to convey what <i>should</i> be a noble message. But as is always the case with extremists, thier message and ideologies are overshadowed by their methods and thus are rarely heard, and certianly never realized.
"Oh thats so nice...turning kids against their parents at christmas time..."
PETA, ph34r teh 90ve|2Nm3n7 f0|2 th3y wi11 0wn j00.
<a href='http://www.maddox.xmission.com/grill.html' target='_blank'>Guiltless Grill</a>
<a href='http://www.maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi#PETA' target='_blank'>PETA mail</a>
Oh? What do you think the point of the emotional scaring is then? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesnt matter what the point is. You do NOT ever attempt to emotionally scar kids to further your message, you dont even risk that happening.
For a nice parallel to put things in perspective - I show up at a school your kids go to. And I give them a lovely pamphlet with "YOUR PARENTS WILL BURN IN HELL" emblazoned on the top. On the front is a very graphic picture of demons doing something unspeakable to "Mr and Mrs Brown". Inside is literature like "Your parents are going to burn because they are evil sinners, the helpers of Satan, so next time Mommy asks you if you love her, tell her you know she's damned to an eternity of hell."
Now just because I happen to agree that it is entirely possible in some situations that that childs mother IS going to hell, that doesnt change the fact that I've done the wrong thing. Anyone would be furious if their child was given literature deliberately attacking their parents, whether its for a good cause or not.
Now if you cant see anything wrong with my "pretend pamphlet" skulk, then I'm dropping this and walking away, because this has left the rational plane. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ohhh, used religion, nice try. I never said PETA's methods weren't extreme, nor did I say that they were nessesarily right, mearly not nessesarily wrong. To PETA, and to people like me, animals deserve similar rights not to suffer. And sometimes extreme measures are nessesary open people's eyes to the problem.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Attacking children as an end to selfish means has little to do with your opinions on raising children.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, this is what I mean. Parasite apparently thinks of this cause as "selfish". PETA is trying to stop suffering of animals, to them that suffering is as legitimate as any human suffering.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Add screaming at the children while handing out the pamphlets to that example Marine01, and you illustrate exactly the the extremist tactics they use. The RIAA (for as much as I hate them) do not target in such a grotesque fashion...noone does.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm, remember the Maddonna (sp!?) MP3 that circulated that contained nothing but her saying "WTH do you think you're doing?". Don't kid youself into thinking that other, more 'ligitimate', organizations aren't using scare tactics to get children to think the way they wan't. The war on drugs is a great example of this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->he difference being what? that vegans actually have the balls to follow through with thier beleifs?
Saying you are a vegatarian is like saying your a bus driver that only drives mini vans. You are still aiding in the exploitation and captive consumption of animals if you use thier by products...if you have a cause, at least have the guts to stand by it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but those animals no longer have to suffer and die. There is a world of difference between being held raised to BE food, and being raised to PRODUCE food.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Proof? You want me to provide you with proof while you spout of your opinion with little regard for fact? I'm sure someone could pull up any of the dozens if not hundreds of studies done on child trauma, But Im not gonna bother. It should be obvious that traumatizing a child will have a negative impact on thier life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I'm asking you to do, is prove that being exposed to how animals are raised and slaughtered to produce various goods consumed by the child is traumatizing. If so, then a whole lot of farmers are in alot of trouble.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pick your side Skulkbait - either you condemn this pamphlet or you dont. Either you condemn their tactics or you dont. I work in the Veterinary industry, so I care about animals, a lot. A lot of things that PETA condemn, I support them in. But I wont ever support attempts to scar children by presenting their parents as bloodthirsty savages.
Not necessarily wrong? You can say that about just about anything. Pick a stance here and stick with it. If you stand against cruelty to animals, then I'm with you all the way. But if you wont condemn this pamphlet, then I'm proud to be on the other side.
Trouble is extreme measures can just as easily turn possible allies against you, which I believe is the case in this instance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> See, this is what I mean. Parasite apparently thinks of this cause as "selfish". PETA is trying to stop suffering of animals, to them that suffering is as legitimate as any human suffering.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The cause is not selfish, the advertisement program is. Do you not understand what the majority of us are targetting here?
There is no means of justifying intentionally inflicting mental trauma upon children. You do not end suffering by creating more on a whole 'nother level. It's cruelty, just the thing they should be fighting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hmmm, remember the Maddonna (sp!?) MP3 that circulated that contained nothing but her saying "WTH do you think you're doing?". Don't kid youself into thinking that other, more 'ligitimate', organizations aren't using scare tactics to get children to think the way they wan't. The war on drugs is a great example of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. No I don't remember that MP3, and wouldn't care anyway because I never thought that highly of her.
2. I've seen what drug addiction can do to family and friends.
However, I have not seen messages or paid advertisements showing the bloody aftermath of a struggle between brothers that ended with a gunshots because one brother was so addicted to crack that he tried to rob his mother's house at gunpoint. You want the truth, there it is. Unpackaged, unaltered, unappetising. But strangely enough, not on TV. There is very little relation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, but those animals no longer have to suffer and die. There is a world of difference between being held raised to BE food, and being raised to PRODUCE food. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mind if I let you in on something? You're a wee bit naive. The only difference between the way they are handled is how they die.
Egg producing chickens and milk producing cattle are in the same boat as those slaughtered for meat.....maybe even worse. It's called factory farming. In order to make the most product for the smallest overhead, some enterprizing fellows decided to keep livestock in tight-fitting mechanical cages on a regular feeding schedule. Once they discovered anti-biotics created a marginal increase in yield they added drugs and steroids to the food and water. Dairy cattle are kept in a state of permenant imitation pregnancy by use of drugs so they produce milk in the highest yields year-round, egg producing hens are subjected to close mechanical confinement and hosts of drugs as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What I'm asking you to do, is prove that being exposed to how animals are raised and slaughtered to produce various goods consumed by the child is traumatizing. If so, then a whole lot of farmers are in alot of trouble. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is traumatizing, but that's actually beside the point as there are many things that can be traumatizing to children that are perfectly normal. You know, like a hungry wolf killing your child's favorite cat. The wolf was just a hungry animal doing what came naturally, but the child is never going to view that creature with the same compassion.
The point is that PETA in their infinite wisdom has decided that it is perfectly alright to:
1. Slander mothers without actual knowlege of the mothers or thier individual activities.
2. Complete offense #1 with intention to market the idea to children and thus damage the children's perception of the mothers. In other words, they are attempting to paint all mothers as bloodthirsty killers of the children's favorite pets. This will no doubt have an adverse effect upon the children's behavior.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pick your side Skulkbait - either you condemn this pamphlet or you dont. Either you condemn their tactics or you dont. I work in the Veterinary industry, so I care about animals, a lot. A lot of things that PETA condemn, I support them in. But I wont ever support attempts to scar children by presenting their parents as bloodthirsty savages.
Not necessarily wrong? You can say that about just about anything. Pick a stance here and stick with it. If you stand against cruelty to animals, then I'm with you all the way. But if you wont condemn this pamphlet, then I'm proud to be on the other side.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe I'm just indecisive, or maybe I'm restling with internal conflict, but I just can't bring my self to pass judgement on this pamphlet. While I certainly applaud the cause, PETA's method of supporting it is decidedly distasteful (though, I still think most of you are exagerating the harm). I only defend this pamphlet here because nobody else is willing to.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Mind if I let you in on something? You're a wee bit naive. The only difference between the way they are handled is how they die.
Egg producing chickens and milk producing cattle are in the same boat as those slaughtered for meat.....maybe even worse. It's called factory farming. In order to make the most product for the smallest overhead, some enterprizing fellows decided to keep livestock in tight-fitting mechanical cages on a regular feeding schedule. Once they discovered anti-biotics created a marginal increase in yield they added drugs and steroids to the food and water. Dairy cattle are kept in a state of permenant imitation pregnancy by use of drugs so they produce milk in the highest yields year-round, egg producing hens are subjected to close mechanical confinement and hosts of drugs as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You think I don't know what goes on thanks to man's greed and incompassion towards fellow animals? Hell, you didn't even describe the worst of what goes on. Meat farms used to be alot worse, and that has only changed recently. The point is that it is not nessesary for these animals to be treated this way, but they are. Thats what the pamphlet addresses. How can I condemn such a nobel cause, even when handled so indelicately? I know what you're saying though, scarring a child so it won't eat meat doesn't mean it isn't going to consume products that animal didn't have to suffer to produce, but at least that child nolonger takes its food for granted. And if enough people did the same, things might change.
Well, you did type this up. How was I supposed to know you knew that factory farms are not limited to raising meat-producing animals in crowded, unsanitary, and generally unsafe conditions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a world of difference between being held raised to BE food, and being raised to PRODUCE food. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The point is that it is not nessesary for these animals to be treated this way, but they are. Thats what the pamphlet addresses.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To children who don't have the mental development neccesary to put the allegations in the proper perspective and act on the information without resorting to the emotional alienation of their parents.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How can I condemn such a nobel cause, even when handled so indelicately?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You just said it yourself, condemn the pamphlet but praise the cause. Just because you dislike the way someone goes about doing something does not mean you have to disagree with the cause they are attempting to champion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know what you're saying though, scarring a child so it won't eat meat doesn't mean it isn't going to consume products that animal didn't have to suffer to produce, but at least that child nolonger takes its food for granted. And if enough people did the same, things might change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could care less if the children decide to become vegetarians or not if it's purely their choice, that is not what I'm trying to get across.
Think about the relationship between those children (5-12yrs) and their parents. If you scar them emotionally by setting up their mother as an evil villain figure, there will be trouble in that household.
Emotional scars introduced during childhood run deep, they affect the way we see our world and the way we act as an adult. As an example, my best friend committing suicide just an hour and a half after talking with me (while I was 9) created one and for the longest time I had precious few people I'd allow myself close enough to call friends. I'd hate to hear about the results of a child literally hating his/her mother simply because she has a fur coat in the back of her closet. This possibly due to the ad campaign and the irrational anger and hatred that is so easily sparked in children once their minds are set against something.
Whether it be the toy they want but Tommy won't give them, or being told mommy brutally murders overly romanticized animals.
Emotional scars can be eventually overcome, as I've overcome mine to a point, but it's just not worth it to spark animosity between child and mother like this.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well plz - next time, let me know ur playing the devils advocate before I start my ranting <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Slightly off topic - but I think this is probably the best criticism I have heard of moral vegetarians. Its a rant for sure, but ignore the arrogance and he actually covers his bases pretty well:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was looking over a menu in a restaurant the other day when I saw a section for vegetarians; I thought to myself "boy, I sure am glad that I'm not a meat-hating fascist" and I skipped on to the steak section (because I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $15 for an alfalfa sandwich, slice of cucumber and a scoop of cold cottage cheese), but before I turned the page something caught my eye. The heading of the vegetarian section was titled "Guiltless Grill," not because there were menu items with fewer calories and cholesterol (since there were "healthy" chicken dishes discriminated against in this section), but because none of the items used animal products. Think about that phrase for a second. What exactly does "guiltless grill" imply? So I'm supposed to feel guilty now if I eat meat? Screw you.
What pisses me off so much about this phrase is the sheer narrow-mindedness of these stuck up vegetarian ****. You think you're saving the world by eating a tofu-burger and sticking to a diet of grains and berries? Well here's something that not many vegetarians know (or care to acknowledge): every year millions of animals are killed by wheat and soy bean combines during harvesting season (source). Oh yeah, go on and on for hours about how all of us meat eaters are going to hell for having a steak, but conveniently ignore the fact that each year millions of mice, rabbits, snakes, skunks, possums, squirrels, gophers and rats are ruthlessly murdered as a direct result of YOUR dieting habits. What's that? I'm sorry, I don't hear any more elitist banter from you pompous ****. Could it be because your **** has been RUINED?
That's right: the gloves have come off. The vegetarian response to this embarrassing fact is "well, at least we're not killing intentionally." So let me get this straight; not only are animals ruthlessly being murdered as a direct result of your diet, but you're not even using the meat of the animals YOU kill? At least we're eating the animals we kill (and although we also contribute to the slaughter of animals during grain harvesting, keep in mind that we're not the ones with a moral qualm about it), not just leaving them to rot in a field somewhere. That makes you just as morally repugnant than any meat-eater any day. Not only that, but you're killing free-roaming animals, not animals that were raised for feed. Their bodies get mangled in the combine's machinery, bones crushed, and you have the audacity to point fingers at the meat industry for humanely punching a spike through a cow's neck? If you think that tofu burgers come at no cost to animals or the environment, guess again.
To even suggest that your meal is some how "guiltless" is absurd. The defense "at least we're not killing intentionally" is **** anyway. How is it not intentional if you KNOW that millions of animals die every year in combines during harvest? You expect me to believe that you somehow unintentionally pay money to buy products that support farmers that use combines to harvest their fields? Even if it was somehow unintentional, so what? That suddenly makes you innocent? I guess we should let drunk drivers off the hook too since they don't kill intentionally either, right? There's no way out of this one. The only option left for you dipshits is to buy some land, plant and pick your own crops. Impractical? Yeah, well, so is your stupid diet.
Even if combines aren't used to harvest your food, you think that buying fruits and vegetables (organic or otherwise) is any better? How do you think they get rid of bugs that eat crops in large fields? You think they just put up signs and ask parasites to politely go somewhere else? Actually, I wouldn't put that suggestion past you hippies. One of the methods they use to get rid of pests is to introduce a high level of predators for each particular prey, which wreaks all sorts of havoc on the natural balance of predator/prey populations--causing who knows what kind of damage to the environment. Oops, did I just expose you moral-elitists for being frauds? Damndest thing.
A number of people have pointed out that the amount of grain grown to feed animals for slaughter every year is greater than the amount of grain grown for humans. So I guess the amount of grain grown for human consumption suddenly becomes negligible and we can conveniently ignore the fact that animals are still ruthlessly murdered either way because of your diet, right? Not to mention that the majority of grain grown for livestock is tough as rocks, coarse, and so low-grade that it's only fit for animal consumption in the first place. Spare me the "you could feed 500 people with the grain used to feed one cow" line of ****; it's not the same grain. Then there are the people who jump on the bandwagon with "you could plant billions of potatoes on the land used for cows"--good point, except for the fact that not every plot of land is equally fertile; you think farmers always have a choice on what they do with their land? Also, many vegetarians don't know (or care to acknowledge) that in many parts of the United States they have "control hunts" in which hunting permits are passed out whenever there is a pest problem (the pest here is deer, elk and antelope) that threatens wheat, soy, vegetable and other crops; this happens several times per year. Then some of you throw out claims that "we are trying to limit the suffering." How about you limit MY suffering and shut the hell up about your stupid diet for a change; nobody cares. Even if the number of animals that die in combine deaths every year isn't in the millions, even if it's just one, are you suggesting that the life of one baby rabbit isn't worth saving? Are you placing a value on life? Enjoy your tofu, murderers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since when do humans 'own' this planet? Because we say so? Because your imaginary God said so? Because you said so?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
ok first of all I'm an athiest so god has nothing to do with this.
And yes, we do own this planet because we say so. If some animal would like to speak up and say otherwise I'm sure we would listen but since none of them can speak or do almost anything that makes humans so much better than anything else on this planet I guess we get total ownership.
Slightly off topic - but I think this is probably the best criticism I have heard of moral vegetarians. Its a rant for sure, but ignore the arrogance and he actually covers his bases pretty well:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, a friend of mine always used to play devil's advocate (very well I might add), so it sorta rubbed off.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was looking over a menu in a restaurant the other day when I saw a section for vegetarians; I thought to myself "boy, I sure am glad that I'm not a meat-hating fascist"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Man, he doesn't take any time revealing his bias does he? I'm afraid I didn't read much past that point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, we do own this planet because we say so. If some animal would like to speak up and say otherwise I'm sure we would listen but since none of them can speak or do almost anything that makes humans so much better than anything else on this planet I guess we get total ownership.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, but the animals do disagree all the time. Go on, ask a Grizly who he thinks is boss.
Say what you wan't people, because I'm not going to post in this thread again. Frankly im getting in way over myhead trying to defend this pamphlet, and I wasn't doing very well anyway (thanks to 5:00am postings).
Man, he doesn't take any time revealing his bias does he? I'm afraid I didn't read much past that point.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ehehehe I know you're not replying anymore skulkbait, but I kinda consider this article the flipside of the PETA pamphalet - incredibly biased, with a savage undertone.
I find that I read articles regardless of bias, because often overbearing morons still have decent points. If not, then they should be easy to pick apart.
Isn't nature's plan great? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL
l
I was out Ice fishing earlier today, and some granola comes riding out to my ice shack. Out of the HUNDREDS, yes HUNDREDS on the lake, he picks mine. He comes out and starts trying to impede his beliefs on me.
"You are aware that hooking them is very painful?"
I was feeling like a smartalek so I replied
"Well, I doubt it feels good."
"That's torture. I don't want you to do that. Neither does the [Insert name of some Minnesotan Animal Rights Cult]."
"Since when did I care about some organization I have never heard before."
He said he was going to go dump the fish I had caught back into my hole in the ice.
I told him to "Let's see you try."
He tries to force his way into my family's shack, which i had just locked. I shouted over to a buddy, so he and 3 other guys came over to watch.
The fellow decided to pick up my ice scoop I had left outside and was going to break the window on the door to unlock the door.
"No. No. No. Now that would be breakin and entering. Do you think your little organization can afford a lawsuit?"
"You couldn't do anything, your word against mine."
"And these 4 gentlemen."
He meekly got back on his golf cart and zipped off and said "This isn't over." I am shaking in my boots.
He didn't even bother to ask the reason why I had been catching a lot of fish. My GF is only staying for Christmas, so we decided to have some fish one night.
(For any sportsmen wondering, I caught 15 bluegill, 17 perch, 12 crappie, and 1 good sized Pike)
it bleats in pain and say "ahh... the beauty of nature"? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats different, the wolf needs to eat the dear to live. Some rich white **** does not need a fur coat to live.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And there are no rich black **** who want to wear fur?
Suggest we both change our statements, eh?