Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
PETA At It Again

By the coose in Op-Ed
Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 10:23:43 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

According to this story, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is showing the Shroud of Turin in their latest ad which says Make a Lasting Impression - Go Vegetarian.


First, let me get a few things straight:

  • I am not a vegetarian and I have no problem with people being vegetarian.
  • I am more agnostic than anything else.
  • I am not trying to provoke a religious discussion whatsoever.
Having said that, let me say this to PETA:

STOP ANNOYING AND OFFENDING THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR CAUSE!

It started with an ad campaign on college campuses. Because they believe that raising cows to produce milk constitutes cruelty, they start their Got Beer campaign which asserted that you're better off drinking beer than milk. This notion just seems so ludicrous that I can hardly believe anyone took them seriously.

Next came their Got Milk campaign which asserts that milk can cause prostate cancer. Although I seem to recall some study that suggested that their may be a link, what really burns me is that they used NY Mayor Rudolph Giuliani as a sort of poster child in a sick way. The guy is fighting prostate cancer for chrissake!! And they put his face on a billboard with a milk mustache over his mouth. How heartless can a group of people be?

After bowing to criticisms and removing those ads, now they're insulting Christians by making the assumption that Jesus was a vegetarian, basing this on a belief that he was a member of Essenes, which is arguable in it's own right. You can bet that this will cause a backlash which is, after all, what they want anyway.

I call out to students and professionals alike - protest PETA! The next time they visit your town or university or whatever, show them that you DO NOT agree with their shock tactics and general disregard for human beings. Am I the only one that feels this way? Are they annoying to anybody else? Any PETA readers care to comment?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Do you eat...
o Fish 1%
o Chicken 0%
o Beef 1%
o Turkey 0%
o Pork 0%
o All of the above 61%
o Some of the above 22%
o None of the above 12%

Votes: 162
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o this
o People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
o Also by the coose


Display: Sort:
PETA At It Again | 92 comments (86 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden)
Sorry, (2.54 / 11) (#2)
by trhurler on Tue Oct 03, 2000 at 08:25:27 PM EST

but I don't try to muffle people. Yes, PETA is an annoying, ill-informed, lying sack of festering turds. However, this does not mean that it is appropriate to try to bully them.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Re: Sorry, (3.87 / 8) (#13)
by ajf on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 12:59:21 AM EST

but I don't try to muffle people.

Hmmmm....

protest PETA! The next time they visit your town or university or whatever, show them that you DO NOT agree with their shock tactics and general disregard for human beings.

Where does the coose suggest muffling them? Equally vocal criticism isn't muffling or bullying.



"I have no idea if it is true or not, but given what you read on the Web, it seems to be a valid concern." -jjayson
[ Parent ]
Re: Sorry, (3.00 / 1) (#48)
by trhurler on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 03:11:42 PM EST

So then the entire purpose of a big protest rally is to... what? Piss them off too? Gee, that's manly. Maybe he wants to show people how annoying they are, but if so, his chosen method is inferior, because he will only make himself as annoying as they are. I therefore assumed(admittedly on somewhat shaky grounds,) that he is actively opposed to PETA. Personally, I think PETA is pathetic, but they get my derision, rather than my anger.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Re: Sorry, (3.33 / 3) (#54)
by the coose on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 03:43:44 PM EST

Personally, I think PETA is pathetic ...

You're opposed to the ethical treatment of animals? I'm a dog lover myself; I've got to Rat Terriers (or Rat Terrorists as they are sometimes refered to). Nowhere in my rant did I say I opposed PETA's intentions. Only their tactics. I simply don't believe that using one person's potentially fatal illness or a religous groups sacred icon is good sarcasm. I could go into a lot of other things they do that I hate (throwing blood on fur coats, for example) but I stuck with the contents of the article link.

[ Parent ]
Re: Sorry, (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by trhurler on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 01:54:20 PM EST

If you think PETA is about "ethical" treatment of animals, you aren't looking closely enough. PETA dogma is that you shouldn't have any animals as pets, because it is condescending. Get real. These people are wack jobs. However, theirs is a tempest in a teapot.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Got Beer? (3.00 / 9) (#4)
by Asperity on Tue Oct 03, 2000 at 08:28:13 PM EST

What's so ludicrous about beer being better for you than milk? Seems pretty reasonable to me -- milk upsets my stomach much more than beer ever does. I only use milk in my cereal.

And I wholeheartedly approve of shock tactics. What better way to get people's attention, especially at universities like mine where the student body is absurdly complacent. They really -need- to be shaken up, whatever the viewpoint being presented is.

Who can I call to get PETA to come protest in my town?

Re: Got Beer? (2.37 / 8) (#5)
by 31: on Tue Oct 03, 2000 at 08:38:43 PM EST

wait... you don't use beer for your cereal? Hmmm... beer and fruit loops...

-Patrick
[ Parent ]
Re: Got Beer? (2.87 / 8) (#7)
by FlinkDelDinky on Tue Oct 03, 2000 at 09:07:38 PM EST

You might want to try out milk substitute products like Rice Dream (gues what it's made from) or one of the soy milks. Don't go for straight soymilk at first, you probably won't like it. Try the Vanilla.

They're not in the freezer section though. You'll have to mount an expedition to find where their at and they're around $2.50 and you get a lot less than if you'd bought milk.

PS. This Parrot Bay rum I'm drinking is really tasty. Like a sweet alcoholic coconut (just in case the milk substitute thing doesn't work out).

[ Parent ]

Rum! (none / 0) (#70)
by Asperity on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 07:32:33 PM EST

Milk generally doesn't bother me if it's in small quantities like in cereal, so I figure I'll stick with it. I may try some milk substitute thingy just to see if I like it better... I just have never liked the -taste- of milk, except with chocolate. (mmm.)

And all rum is good, and coconut rum is especially good, even if I hate coconut. I probably drink more of it than I do milk. (I don't especially like beer, but for the sake of argument I'd favor it over milk.)

I'm an old, bold mate of Henry Morgan.

[ Parent ]
Beer vs. Milk? You Decide! (3.66 / 3) (#31)
by Alarmist on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 12:21:34 PM EST

What's so ludicrous about beer being better for you than milk? Seems pretty reasonable to me -- milk upsets my stomach much more than beer ever does.

Assuming that you're not being sarcastic, milk doesn't kill brain cells, or turn your liver into a cinder block, or impair you such that you shouldn't drive or operate heavy machinery while you're under its influence.

Assuming that you are being sarcastic, then milk is better than beer because it doesn't taste like urine and it certainly doesn't look or smell like it. (smirk).

[ Parent ]

why sarcasm? (4.00 / 1) (#44)
by Anonymous 242 on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:40:54 PM EST

Assuming that you're not being sarcastic, milk doesn't kill brain cells, or turn your liver into a cinder block, or impair you such that you shouldn't drive or operate heavy machinery while you're under its influence.

<pedestal action="mount">

The effects of beer consumption that the Alarmist mentions are the effects of over-consumption of beer. Beer in moderate quantities has many health benefits.

The American Heart Association reccomends one serving of beer or wine each day to help keep one's heart healthy. The alcohol helps keep one's arteries clean.

Dark beers have all sorts of bioflavonoids, the same type of which occur in green tea that so many health food freaks are freaking out over.

<pedestal action="dismount">

milk is better than beer because it doesn't taste like urine

Obviously you have only experienced drinking American beer, which reminds me of my favorite Monty Python riddle: How is drinking American beer like making love in a canoe?

It's f*cking close to water!

have a day,

-l

[ Parent ]

Re: why sarcasm? (4.00 / 1) (#51)
by Alarmist on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 03:22:49 PM EST

The American Heart Association reccomends one serving of beer or wine each day to help keep one's heart healthy. The alcohol helps keep one's arteries clean.

Dark beers have all sorts of bioflavonoids, the same type of which occur in green tea that so many health food freaks are freaking out over.

True. Sadly for me, I can't stand the taste of beer or wine. The only way I can get my booze is in something like a weak screwdriver. Oh, well.

Re American beer: I'll admit that Guinness tastes less like urine than, say, Bud, but urine's urine and I'm not drinking it. I'll just keep my lack of taste to myself. (winning smile)

[ Parent ]

Re: Beer vs. Milk? You Decide! (none / 0) (#71)
by Asperity on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 07:38:07 PM EST

Well, I'm not being -entirely- sarcastic. I don't like milk except in tasty cereal. And even then, I put skim in it (I reason it's less milk. Probably faulty reasoning, but whatever.)

And certainly beer isn't my preferred method of imbibing alcohol. I would agree about the taste... but alcohol just doesn't have those kinds of effects on your health except in absurdly large quantities (except for the driving bit, duh.)

And even in absurdly large quantities, you can take quite a bit before really screwing up your health. See http://www.digiweb.com/igeldard/LA/political/alcohol.htm for some interesting arguments.

[ Parent ]

Much better (4.00 / 14) (#6)
by dead_radish on Tue Oct 03, 2000 at 08:49:36 PM EST

This is much better than the first one.

I'm not a vegetarian, though I do eat mostly veggies. They taste good. And noodles rock (you can get good noodles in Austin).

I am an eco-geek. I used to be hardcore, now I'm moderate. And while I respect what PETA is trying to do, I sometimes wonder if they aren't some sort of government plan designed to mock the ecological movement.

Protesting that "Rats Have Rights" after Survivor? Maybe they do. But so does everything else, and people are going to eat. I don't think rats are more or less deserving of not being eaten than, say, a cow (nice sentence structure that is). But they had to know that a protest like that would make the average person look down on the entire ecological movement. To dismiss everyone as flakes. I am all for radical environmental movements. But not ones that make people laugh at you.

That being said, I do love the PETA ads. Got Beer was great. I almost wonder if there aren't factions within PETA, some smart, some insane.

There is no conspiracy.
This message brought to you by the Illuminati.
I knew I shoulda brought a crossbow. -- Largo. www.megatokyo.com

Re: Much better (3.00 / 6) (#18)
by CodeWright on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 07:10:51 AM EST


That being said, I do love the PETA ads. Got Beer was great. I almost wonder if there aren't factions within PETA, some smart, some insane.

There may or may not be "smart" people in PETA, but they are ALL insane.



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
PETA has succeeded (4.13 / 15) (#8)
by ribone on Tue Oct 03, 2000 at 09:43:36 PM EST

They have gotten you pissed off enough so that you've written an article about them. Now, other people are thinking about them. That's what PETA wants. I don't think they care what kind of publicity they get, as long as they get it.

This same principle supposedly works for movie stars and politicians. I think the best thing you can do is ignore them and not waste your time ranting about them. Just find something more productive or relaxing to take your mind off of that crap, it's really just not worth your time.

Sure, they're annoying. Sure, their tactics get old after awhile; however, protesting them when they come to your town will do nothing, at least not in the way you'd like.

I have the unfortunate luck of being from the place where they have made their home (Norfolk, VA) so if you want to know where to go and spread some firebomb lovin', just go to Hampton Roads and let loose.... :-) (just kidding, don't do that)


a bit of history (3.66 / 9) (#10)
by mihalis on Tue Oct 03, 2000 at 10:33:22 PM EST

Everyone of course remembers the original owner of peta.org, People Eating Tasty Animals, right? If the real PETA annoyed me I would make a page with a link to the other one but mentioning PETA and state my annoyances, put it on my website and submit it to a few search engines.

I guess I still have that romantic belief in the democratisation of publishing...
-- Chris Morgan <see em at mihalis dot net>

Cry me a river. (4.05 / 19) (#11)
by TheLocust on Tue Oct 03, 2000 at 11:51:41 PM EST

STOP ANNOYING AND OFFENDING THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR CAUSE!

Yeah, it's terrible, but that is American, isn't it? I don't care for the Religious Right, but they tell me i'm going to hell because I'm agnostic. Sure, that offends me, but it is their right. I don't give them the time of day, and if PETA annoys you, do the same. The reason why PETA gets air time is because they KNOW that it annoys people. But it makes them look, just like you.
.......o- thelocust -o.........
ignorant people speak of people
average people speak of events
great people speak of ideas

My favorite... (2.63 / 11) (#12)
by pulsar on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 12:37:24 AM EST

...spin off "PETA" is "People Eating Tasty Animals." I just about died laughing when I first saw that! As for Jesus being a vegi, I don't think so! There are several places in the bible where Jesus was eating meat (I don't have any references, but I can look them up if needed) and he, at no time, said it was bad.

Re: My favorite... (3.33 / 3) (#27)
by Happy Monkey on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:29:44 AM EST

He ate fish, at least - even fed them to other people.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Re: My favorite... (none / 0) (#81)
by Dr Caleb on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 12:57:23 AM EST

And if you read the Bible backwards, it's about a guy who shows up at people's partys and eats all their food. ;-)


Vive Le Canada - For Canadians who give a shit about their country.

There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

Turin shroud? (2.81 / 11) (#15)
by Merekat on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 04:38:53 AM EST

Interesting they chose that. IIRC, radio carbon dating (C14) has shown it to be a medieval fake some time last year, making it lose a lot of it's symbolic and therefore shock value.
---
I've always had the greatest respect for other peoples crack-pot beliefs.
- Sam the Eagle, The Muppet Show
Re: Turin shroud? (3.66 / 3) (#32)
by snort on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 12:40:25 PM EST

Don't forget, though, that the shroud was in several chruches that caught fire. The carbon dating might be (and probably are) picking up on the residual carbon from the smoke. I'm not a rabid jesus freak or anything like that (ok so I'm basically an agnostic), I'm just trying to say that we dont REALLY know, and we never will.

[ Parent ]
It ain't over yet (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by cwong on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 12:02:15 AM EST

The shroud has been the subject of a lot of study and debate, but the questions are far from answered. For one thing, there is still quite a bit of debate over the C14 dating due to contamination. For another, non-C14 evidence still points towards its authenticity, such as the discovery of images of coins dating to the first century, and the imprints of pollen and flora from the appropriate geographical location. There is still the question of how the image got there. If we ever figured how the image was made, there is the question of how a medieval artist would know to buck the artistic traditions of his day and depict the nails going through the wrist (historically accurate) rather than the palm (how all medieval artists drew it). The debate goes on.

[ Parent ]
Carbon dating? (1.00 / 1) (#80)
by seventypercent on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 12:46:54 AM EST

You trust carbon dating? This is the same technology that "scientists" use to claim that the Earth is older than 6,000 years (an assertation that is obviously incompatible with Scripture.) Then these same "scientists" come forward and say that this same "carbon dating" technology has shown that the Turin Shroud is a fraud. Hello? Alarm bells should be going off in your head! Of course they want the Shroud to be a fraud, because they cannot allow it to be genuine!

What you need to do is stop putting such blind faith in the scientific establishment, with its crazy theories and ludicrous assertations that are not backed by a single shred of verifiable evidence. Trust the Bible instead.

[ Parent ]
Shock Value (3.84 / 13) (#19)
by trust_no_one on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 08:47:06 AM EST

Whenever I hear about PETA I'm reminded of the saying "If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?"

While not in favor of unnecessary cruelty to animals, I make no apologies for using them when it suits my purposes. Lions don't apologize for eating zebras; I'm not going to apologize to the next cow I see.

There seems to me to be a correlation between how unpopular a position is, and just how far the supporters of that position will go to make their case heard. A popular position doesn't need these kinds of attention getting stunts. I'm wary of fanatics of all stripes, but those who want to elevate animals to equal status with humans probably rank somewhere near the top of my list of people to avoid.

-------------
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused

Re: Shock Value (3.40 / 5) (#20)
by Holloway on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 09:33:21 AM EST

I completely agree, sort of, and I am a vegetarian (my beliefs would be doing nothing that supports the further killing of animals unless entirely necessary; desert island and you're starving and a cow wanders by? eat it; at a party and a pizza with meat on it is going to be thrown out? eat it; a dead pig is found to have died of natural causes? eat it). PETA are a silly organisation and friends of mine who are vegetarians all agree. The PETA.org "fiasco" was a final straw for their misguided crusade, especially having the gall to call it cybersquating. A PETA group went about town spray painting windows and throwing red paint here (Hamilton, New Zealand). I'm really quite sick of these groups and their reaction to criticism with righteous babble -- justifying their actions. Animals should have many more rights, and I believe that everything that's going to be killed should be entitled to a humane (read:instant) death. Live crayfish thrown into boiling water is disgusting, many cow processing plants still use archaic mechanical hammers to kill cows and many don't instantly die (something in the region of 1/200 in my experience). Does anyone know of animal-rights groups that aren't dumbass -- or do they unfortunately go hand-in-hand? ;) It seems humans only give rights to cute things, and throwing


== Human's wear pants, if they don't wear pants they stand out in a crowd. But if a monkey didn't wear pants it would be anonymous

[ Parent ]
Re: Shock Value (3.60 / 5) (#30)
by spiralx on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:51:26 AM EST

Lions don't apologize for eating zebras; I'm not going to apologize to the next cow I see.

ROTFL! Now *that* conjures up all kind of images of crazed geeks attacking cows with nothing more than their teeth :)


You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

Re: Shock Value (4.50 / 2) (#38)
by cpt kangarooski on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:36:07 PM EST

Well, humans don't have claws, or particularly sharp teeth. And if humans got into a brawl with any particularly large animal, I'd be likely to put my money on the animal, except...

We have _really_ good brains. And opposable thumbs. And the binocular color vision and erect stance don't hurt either.

What's unnatural about a human using his natural advantage (thinking about and solving the problem, likely learning from the process and constructing tools to help) against the animal's natural advantages.

Of course, it looks like brains and toolmaking abilities tend to win in the long run. And I should be upset about this?

--
All my posts including this one are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
[ Parent ]
Re: Shock Value (4.00 / 1) (#59)
by gas on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 05:11:12 PM EST

Why care about if it's "natural" (whatever that means) or not? Can't we think about if it's nice? If I use my brain and toolmaking capabilities to hit you a lot with an axe and rob you without thinking about what you feel about it, yes, that should upset you. :)

Do you really think that brain is very good? It really sucks on doing logic. I'ts very annoying when I try to think and get confused at just a few logic steps. :-( Not to mention it's amazing capability of keeping inconsistent and stupid prejudices around for way to long times.

[ Parent ]
Re: Shock Value (3.00 / 3) (#40)
by may1937 on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:13:00 PM EST

The difference between a lion eating a zebra and you eating a cow is that the lion killed the zebra in its natural environment. You are eating a cow that was slaughtered a couple weeks ago after having lived a horrible life in some factory farm in a space smaller than an airplane's bathroom and bought in your local supermarket. Don't tell me there's no difference between the two.

[ Parent ]
Re: Shock Value (3.50 / 2) (#56)
by Mendax Veritas on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 04:45:45 PM EST

You're conflating two distinct issues. One is whether people should eat meat or not; the other is how animals should be kept. One can support eating meat while also protesting the treatment of farm animals.

[ Parent ]
Re: Shock Value (1.00 / 2) (#61)
by may1937 on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 05:18:48 PM EST

And eating how does eating meat have nothing to do with how farm animals are kept? You are eating meat that came from a farm on which the animal was grown. The issue is the same: animal cruelty.

[ Parent ]
Re: Shock Value (2.00 / 2) (#63)
by may1937 on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 05:22:37 PM EST

Oops, not really animal cruelty. I mean, cats can be awefully cruel and all... The real issue is cruelty towards animals.

[ Parent ]
Re: Shock Value (4.50 / 2) (#67)
by Mendax Veritas on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 06:19:10 PM EST

Would you feel better about people eating meat if farm animals were treated better during their lives? For example, is it morally better, in your view, to eat free-range chicken than other chicken? Is it acceptable?

If you think it's okay to eat meat that does not come from farms where the animals live in misery, then you aren't really objecting to meat-eating in itself, but rather to mistreatment of farm animals (tiny pens, etc.) by the companies that run the farms.

But if you would still object to meat-eating no matter how well the animals were treated, then you would seem to have a fundamental issue with meat-eating, and therefore it would be deceptive of you to cloud the issue with considerations of how the animals were treated on the farms.

Whether it is proper to eat meat at all, under any circumstances, is logically distinct from the question of how farm animals should be treated during their lives.

[ Parent ]

Re: Shock Value (4.00 / 2) (#83)
by Dr Caleb on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 01:07:25 AM EST

What if the animal came from my farm, where i raised it. I treated it well, it roamed free, it grazed.

I helped birth it, I protected it, I never mistreated it, I fed it and provided for it's needs.

And it's entire lot in life was to feed my family.

And before you think I posted this as an allegory just to prove a point, several of those animals hides now cover a chair in my living room. It still serves me and my family.


Vive Le Canada - For Canadians who give a shit about their country.

There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

Re: Shock Value (4.00 / 2) (#58)
by trust_no_one on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 04:57:33 PM EST

I'm not sure it makes any difference to the cow, or the zebra at that point. If I went out and shot and butchered the cow myself would that make a moral difference? I don't think it does. I'm sure I could go around hunting cows (anyone know where to find wild cows?) but that would cut into the time I spend writing code and posting comments to K5.

We have some common ground here, don't get me wrong. We can probably agree that the cow's living conditions were deplorable. That efforts should be made to make that both their living conditions and their slaughter should be as humane as possible. But as long as humans need to eat to live, and as long as animals provide a convenient (and tasty) source of nutrition, I see no reason not to avail ourselves of it.
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused
[ Parent ]

Re: Shock Value (2.50 / 4) (#60)
by may1937 on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 05:13:32 PM EST

Yes, it would make a huge moral difference in terms of pain and cruelty. And as far as animals providing a convenient and tasty source of nutrition, I disagree. It is in no way convenient to raise animals for food. Massive quantities of land and resources go into putting that hamburger on your plate. The environment is going to waste, in a large part due to people's consumption of animals. Hundreds of gallons of water and a significant quantity of land and food go into every pound of beef you are buying. World hunger? Not a problem if no one ate meat (I know there is more involved, but the simple fact is there would be enough to go around right now). The worst thing you can do for the environment (on a personal level) is drive a car. The next worst thing is to use animal products. Back to nutrition: meat is bad for you. Many people refuse to admit this. It is high in protein and fat. Animal products are the only source of cholesterol. Ok I am horrible at the fact game, if any of that interested you, go learn more. If not, get on with your life.

[ Parent ]
Re: Shock Value (3.40 / 5) (#65)
by magney on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 05:54:24 PM EST

In fact, there's more than enough food to go round now - it's just not going round. Though I might accept the possibility that this state of affairs would last much longer if meat production were seriously curtailed.

The way I see the meat issue is this: The human physiology is set up for the lifestyle of pre-technological humans - that means a diet of fruits, nuts, and insects, with the occasional bit of animal flesh from a kill left behind by predators. We aren't fast enough to catch small animals, or tough enough to catch big ones.

Meat was part of our natural diet, but only in tiny amounts. It's a food with enormous nutritive density, which is why we have such a craving for it, just as our love of sugars arises from the importance of fruits in the primate diet. But until the invention of the club, we could only get a few bits of meat here and there, so our physiology isn't set up for significant amounts of it.

On another note: the lion doesn't give a damn about the zebra's suffering either. The lion only makes a quick kill of it because it's liable to get a hoof through its skull if it doesn't.

Do I look like I speak for my employer?
[ Parent ]

Re: Shock Value (2.20 / 5) (#57)
by gas on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 04:54:05 PM EST

"If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?"

I have seen this a couple of times and I just don't get it. Is their some hidden sarcasm or something I don't understand? Or some USAian thing? You do realise humans (which also are animals) are made out of meat too don't you?

[ Parent ]
Re: Shock Value (3.50 / 2) (#64)
by magney on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 05:41:52 PM EST

It is intended as a smartass response. The speaker of said remark sees meat as food - interpret the statement as "If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of food?"

Do I look like I speak for my employer?
[ Parent ]

Re: Shock Value (none / 0) (#87)
by Biff Cool on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 10:18:34 AM EST

mmmmm... human...

Actually while talking to a friend of mine about this article, we got to talking about the movie Ravenous (3.5 stars for what it's worth).  We justify eating animals because they aren't as smart as us (simplified for brevity).  Isn't it hypocritical of us not to eat human's of the same basic intelligence level.  If I met a cow who I could have a decent conversation with, I wouldn't eat him, in fact if I did it would seem cannabalistic.  So when I meet someone who's wearing a big Nike symbol like some kind of cattle brand why shouldn't I think of them as my next burger?

I really wish, this was more than half-hearted sarcasm


My ass. It's code, with pictures of fish attached. Get over it. --trhurler


[ Parent ]
anti-PETA (4.30 / 13) (#21)
by vinay on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 09:50:42 AM EST

Sometimes, I'm all for what PETA is doing (in thought at least). I think it's an admirable cause they're championing. That said, I don't actually agree with a lot of it.

What really turned me off PETA was a story on That Other Site. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and owner of peta.com) sued and got the rights to peta.org(home of the People for the Eating of Tasty Animals). To me, that's just them silencing opposition and criticism. This lone action is perhaps the main reason that I protest PETA. I'm all for the ethical treatment of animals, but what about ethical treatment of your fellow human beings? They think nothing of infringing on first amendment rights, and that's something I cannot abide.

btw, the URL for the People for the Eating of Tasty Animals is mtd.com/tasty/

-\/

-\/


Re: anti-PETA (3.00 / 5) (#25)
by mattc on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:08:48 AM EST

You'll feel differently when some domain squatter steals the domain name of your business or charitable organisation. Even CmdrTaco came out against domain theft when someone registered a "typo" version of slashdot.org and put banner ads on it.

If someone registers anti-peta.org or something, then I don't have a problem with it, but when someone deliberately tries to mislead people or make money by "squatting" on domains it is just disgusting.

Another example.. if I search for "George W. Bush" I want to see the real George W. Bush site, not a dozen fake domains registered by his opponents... it just angers me and makes me less likely to vote for someone whose supporters use such underhanded tactics.

The PETA organisation was well within it's rights when they demanded that the fradulent owners of peta.org give it up.

- A Meat Eater

[ Parent ]

Re: anti-PETA (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by vinay on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:27:01 AM EST

Good point, but incorrect.

The owner of peta.org put up a satire of peta.com. In no way was he "squatting." In fact, his page spelled out in very big letters that it was not affiliated with the actual PETA.

Here's the disclaimer on the site (at the very top, right under the title):

People Eating Tasty Animals is in no way connected with, or endorsed by, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Individuals and organizations whose names appear here do not necessarily endorse the contents of this page.

He is in no way trying to "mislead people or make money by 'squatting' on domains."

-\/

-\/


[ Parent ]
Re: anti-PETA (4.50 / 2) (#35)
by Mitheral on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:24:37 PM EST

It's the internet, deal with it. Use a search engine for searching not the address bar. Parody should be strongly protected on the net. CmdrTaco has stated he is indifferent to typo sites. What he objected to is when the typo site FRAMES slashdot to add banner ads. And most of his objection is because people email him complaining about the "new format".

As a high profile example even the white house has gotten this right.

Domain registration does need some reform as it is not scaling very well. Check out Brad Templeton's rant and suggestions on reform. Well thought out and I pretty much agree. In it he suggests ways to do away with the .com domain and to open the TLD playing field right up.

[ Parent ]

What? (3.07 / 13) (#22)
by ksandstr on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 10:23:15 AM EST

PETA? Isn't that shorthand for People Eating Tasty Animals?



Fin.
Apparently... (2.40 / 5) (#23)
by blixco on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 10:43:29 AM EST

...it worked. You are now aware of their agenda and are spreading the word.

Thanks!

People for the Ethical Treatment of A......s
-------------------------------------------
The root of the problem has been isolated.
I live in Beaverton, OR Home of... (3.00 / 5) (#24)
by reverend_greg on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:05:55 AM EST


The Primate Research Center. Protesters from PETA and other various causes are always out there every month or so.
I love driving by and throwing containers of Ben and Jerry's "Chunky Monkey" at 'em ;)
When experimenting on animals or not means the difference between my living or dying, I have one thing to say:
"Red is Positive, Black is Negative."
Don't get me wrong, I am against using animals for testing of shit like shampoo and perfume and other things that humans can easily say, "That shit BURNS!", but how many humans are willing to be injected wiht the AIDS virus or Cancer or any other killing disease to further scientific research?
I abhor those sick fsckers that mutilate little kitties and puppies.
I just spent $200 on medical care for my cat of 5 years. I'm not heartless. If there was an experimental surgery that would cure my impending complete blindness, but there was a risk of my going blind anyway, I'd volunteer for it anyway.

Re: I live in Beaverton, OR Home of... (none / 0) (#68)
by A. Nut on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 06:28:30 PM EST

I love driving by and throwing containers of Ben and Jerry's "Chunky Monkey" at 'em ;)

Blasphemer! How dare you waste perfectly good Ben and Jerry's in this manner!

Please, next time, I urge you to drive that pint of ice cream to my place instead!
You should reverse the fish in my e-mail address
[ Parent ]

Re: I live in Beaverton, OR Home of... (1.00 / 1) (#69)
by reverend_greg on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 06:44:31 PM EST

Ah, but notice I didnt say FULL containers... Of course, I and my wife have thoroughly emptied said containers before they are thrown :)
If you want, I can deliver those empty containers to you... :^P

[ Parent ]
Multiplication of the loaves and tofu... (3.71 / 7) (#28)
by zapman on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:31:13 AM EST

As someone said on the radio yesterday when this first came to light...

Q.E.D. --Jason
-- The request of a friend in need, is done by a friend in deed.
Fish isn't Meat (2.00 / 2) (#42)
by Skeevy on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:34:40 PM EST

Any good Catholic should be able to tell you: fish isn't meat.

If you're Catholic, you're not supposed to eat meat on Fridays. Why? I forget. Some penance thing I suppose.

In Catholic school (I attended for a couple of years), guess what they serve in the cafeteria on Friday? Fish. Q.E.D.

(This is also an argument for keeping fish in an apartment where pets are not allowed. See the movie Spanking the Monkey for details. Yes, the title is referring to that.)

[ Parent ]

No, it is not :-) (none / 0) (#78)
by cwong on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 12:15:46 AM EST

From my American Heritage dictionary: "meat 1. The edible flesh of animals, esp. that of mammals as opposed to that of fish or poultry. ..." The definition is not that straightforward, especially when you hop between culinary and biological definitions. Think of that old question of whether tomato is a fruit or vegetable.

The Catholic discipline is more precisely described than that, but it is easier to say "no meat" than "no meat nor poultry but other animal products OK etc". I'll skip the theological explanations and go on to say that this discipline is no longer mandatory in the US outside of Lent.

[ Parent ]

Re: Fish isn't Meat (none / 0) (#92)
by afc on Fri Oct 06, 2000 at 03:57:17 PM EST

Not eating meat on Fridays is not doctrinary, but rather a custom that is observed in reverence of Holy Friday. Most Catholics I know (myself included) follow it just during Lent, anyways.
--

Information wants to be beer, or something.
[ Parent ]

Cooked fish is a vegetable (none / 0) (#79)
by cwong on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 12:23:17 AM EST

Apparently fish becomes vegetable when grilled (John 21) or broiled (Luke 24:42).

[ Parent ]
Meat is quite tastey... (3.55 / 9) (#29)
by Bloodwine on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:40:01 AM EST

On the one hand I agree that that some forms of research on animals is downright cruel and should not be tolerated. I also think the sport of hunting (for sport, not food) isn't much of a sport. It'd be more interesting if it was a combination of hand-to-hand combat with perhaps some melee weapons (to give the animal a chance and it would ultimatley make you respect your foes/prey more).

On the other hand I do like to devour meat. Face it, as a species we are omnivores. Our teeth are designed for both shredding meat and mashing veggies. I do enjoy several types of fruits and vegetables, but I also enjoy steaks, ground-chuck beef, chicken and other forms of meat.

Eating meat is primal... it will be impossible to turn everyone into pure-veggies.



Re: Meat is quite tastey... (2.25 / 4) (#41)
by may1937 on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:19:42 PM EST

"Eating meat is primal... " Put a baby in a room with an apple and a rabbit. If it plays with the apple and eats the rabbit, I'll buy you a new car (assuming the baby can eat that kind of stuff in the first place).

[ Parent ]
Re: Meat is quite tastey... (3.50 / 4) (#46)
by AndyL on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:53:40 PM EST

Ok, Now put an adolesent male in the room with a bunny a club.

Make sure he thinks no one is watching.

[ Parent ]
Re: Meat is quite tastey... (2.00 / 1) (#75)
by AndyL on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:08:36 PM EST

That should read "And a club".

Never post when you're in a hurry.

[ Parent ]
As a member of PETV, I must object. (3.28 / 7) (#33)
by marlowe on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 12:41:44 PM EST

People for the Ethical Treatment of Vegetables.

-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
This is not a black and white issue (3.66 / 9) (#34)
by broody on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:22:47 PM EST

Granted PETA is loud, at times obnoxious, and in your face.

Granted PETA does not tolerate satire being aimed right back at them.

There is still a real, valid reason behind their madness.

The Got Beer? campaign started largely as a reaction to the dairy industry’s " Got Milk?" campaign claiming a daily glass of milk was good for you.

The claim is that one glass a day of beer is better for you then one glass of milk.

  • Beer has no fat, Milk is loaded with it.
  • Beer has no cholesterol, milk has approximately 20 milligrams.
  • Beer does not contain hormones or antibiotics.

It is not as absurd of a claim as many people make it out to be when they see it.

There are a lot of reasons to be a vegetarian. I am a vegetarian.

  • Environmentally special "exceptions" are made for the "food animals" and many of the environmental consequences are overlooked.
  • Health considerations are for the most part ignored while the government chases people around for seat belt violations under the guise that this "raises our insurance rates".

There are a wide variety of people who do not eat meat; some for health reasons, some for religious reasons, some to prevent cruelty. For the most part this dietary preference is ignored and ridiculed. Most of the PETA activists that I know are frustrated that it can be difficult to find vegan alternatives or even accurate labels in restaurants and that most of society does not acknowledge the tremendous cost of the consumption of animal flesh.

I believe that anyone who attempted to stop eating meat in the United States understands how difficult a place it can be to be a vegetarian. If you have not tried it, ask someone who has what it is like.

Do what you will but understand that some people want alternatives, do not wish to pay for government support of such an industry, and believe that there should not be special treatment for "food animals".




~~ Whatever it takes
The best way to treat them (3.16 / 6) (#36)
by Nickus on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:28:09 PM EST

IMHO the best way to treat them is to take away everything that mankind has been given through research on animals. Send them away to an deserted island and let them grow their own food. I guess they wouldn't last long. Another thing they could do is to sign up as medical testsubjects so the researchers didn't have to use animals.

Generally (IMHO) people who work for radical organisations like PETA is young people who haven't given the whole concept thorough thought.



Due to budget cuts, light at end of tunnel will be out. --Unknown
Don't you see the beauty of humour in this? (3.20 / 5) (#37)
by jabber on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:31:01 PM EST

We must use this to our advantage, and work on it's repeatability.

Has no one noticed that, by getting two groups of fanatics (PETA and the Religious Right Sheep Coalition), we manage to get both of them out of our hair?

I doubt that PETA intended on this. I suspect that their collective wetware was hacked by some brilliant individual who is, even now, kicking back with a fat steak and a Playboy. We need to see this for what it is - inspired.

Now, if we could only manage to scale this up so that the Legal industry consumes itself, or at least so that the RIAA and MPAA to commit their resources to annihilating one another, we could get some useful work done.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

Why do you care? (2.50 / 2) (#39)
by may1937 on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:07:25 PM EST

Why is everyone getting so upset about this? People and industries make absurd comments just about every day (especially with advertising and marketing), yet I don't see submissions about how drinking Gatorade doesn't really help you play basketball or how driving that new Toyata on your blind date isn't really going to impress whoever is with you. Taking that idea a step further (and for most of you: prepare to get pissed off), why don't more people get upset about the advertising from the meat and dairy industries? The notion that drinking milk helps strengthen your bones, etc. is absurd, yet no one seems to call for a protest of the dairy industry's "general disregard for human beings". The bottom line is to believe what you want. If some advertising or marketing scheme gets your attention, maybe you should do some serious research before making a final decision. If some campaign angers you or upsets you in some way, go ahead, slash out against it. But by all means, be consistent. Don't single out one group who is really just doing the same thing as everyone else.

Offtopic: Calcium unrelated to bones? (none / 0) (#43)
by DesiredUsername on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:35:51 PM EST

"The notion that drinking milk helps strengthen your bones, etc. is absurd..."</ii>

OK, I'll bite: Huh?

Play 囲碁
[ Parent ]
Re: Offtopic: Calcium unrelated to bones? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by yub on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 03:15:05 PM EST

"Osteoporosis occurs relatively infrequently in China, even though they consume very little milk or other dairy products. The reason is that people on meat- and dairy- based diets are getting far too much protein, generally 2 to 3 times the amount required, and when the excess protein is excreted, calcium and other minerals are drained from the body. A recent study showed that people getting 1400 milligrams per day of calcium along with about 150 grams of protein had a negative calcium balance of 65 units while people getting only 400 milligrams of calcium per day with only 50 grams of protein had a positive calcium balance of 31 units. "
Here's the full article.

[ Parent ]
Re: Offtopic: Calcium unrelated to bones? (4.50 / 2) (#52)
by may1937 on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 03:25:48 PM EST

The main cause of Osteoporosis is the amount of protein you consume (especially animal based protein), not calcium. Most of the dairy industry's bone strengthening campaigns have been centered around the lie that calcium reduces the risk of Osteoporosis. This is just not true. Basically, the more protein you eat (the body has very low protein requirements; the 60g or whatever the USRDA recommends is a blantant lie stemming from their relationship (money) with the meat and dairy industries. 20g is a better number) the more calcium (and magnesium) blood draws from bones the reduce the acidity of the blood. Ok, I don't want to bore you more but people with a relatively low calcium intake tend to have the strongest skeletons (mostly because the protein rich foods have been combined with lots of protein) . It all comes down to one thing: cows milk is the perfect food for growing cows (surprise). When people ask me why I don't consume dairy products, I usually answer with, "I am not a cow. Why would I drink it's milk?" There are much better resources about this subject than me. If you are interested just search for "calcium myth".

[ Parent ]
Re: Why do you care? (none / 0) (#50)
by the coose on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 03:20:32 PM EST

People and industries make absurd comments just about every day ...

Sure they do. I have no problem with that. But there's a difference between being absurd and being un-ethical and downright rude. If a company were to use a person's name in the way PETA used Giuliani's, they would get slapped with a lawsuit very quickly.

I don't have a problem with what PETA's intensions are, it just their method of getting attention that bothers me. They're just looking for attention and they'll do anything to get it. Fine...have rallies, stage protests, send out spam, mail flyers, take out TV ads, and the like. But don't use someone's potentially fatal illness or the sacred icon of a religous group to get that attention. (Ok, the Got Beer thing was humourous, especially for a college campus - I would rather see them continue those tactics.)

Don't single out one group who is really just doing the same thing as everyone else.

Sorry, I don't think they are doing the same thing as everyone else. Their ads are trying to be sarcastic, but the last two were very poor attempts at sarcasm.

(BTW, I only eat fish ;)

[ Parent ]
Re: Why do you care? (none / 0) (#53)
by may1937 on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 03:36:29 PM EST

I agree with you completely. The Giuliani ads were pretty bad. But I don't think this campaign is absurd in any way. They are using a possible sacred icon (how do we know what this piece of cloth really is?) of a religious figure that probably existed, and saying that he was a vegetarian. I'm sorry, I just can't see why so many people are getting upset over this. I am not sure if there is any evidence one way or the other (not that I am an expert). All they are doing is making a few suggestions based on some sketchy history.

[ Parent ]
pro-peta non-vegetarian (2.33 / 3) (#45)
by Rainy on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:41:22 PM EST

I'm not a vegetarian but I agree with everything peta says (well 'cept the prostate cancer connection, I dunno about that). I simply like the taste of meat too much. I will perhaps try to become a vegetarian when I have some time to devote to this, I think it might take quite a while to find all possible vegetarian dishes that would be an acceptable replacement for me. I have respect for those people who do become vegetarians for anti-cruelty reasons. Anyway, here's what I want to point out: don't knock them cause they did something you don't have will power or kindness to do, and if you think it's just not a big deal, you have to see the cows and pigs being killed at least once.. Although it might be a problem - meat companies probably don't make promo movies out of the butchery process :-).

As for annoying other people by reminding them it's crule - well, if it's not true, it's not worth noticing, and if it is true, you shouldn't be annoyed at the truth. On the other hand, I just had eggs&ham, so I'm probably not in a position to preach.. But the kind of hostility people have toward them shows, imho, that's something they don't like to accept to themselves and don't like to be reminded. Flame away, you crazy diamonds!
--
Rainy "Collect all zero" Day

Re: pro-peta non-vegetarian (none / 0) (#86)
by Biff Cool on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 09:56:57 AM EST

I don't get annoyed by people telling me it's cruel, I get annoyed at the apparent self-righteousness in the way they tell me it's cruel.  I have the same feelings towards people who have bumper stickers saying "I'm pro-whatever and I vote", it just makes my annoyed at the amount of ego these people allow themselves.

On the butchery aspect, I once followed a link to an expose PETA did on Pig Farms, it was just disgusting, I really do think I'd be okay with the butchering process, the way the animals are treated before they die is the tragedy, I can't find the link now if someone know it could you post it, I can't possibly explain all the sick crap that went on at that pig farm.


My ass. It's code, with pictures of fish attached. Get over it. --trhurler


[ Parent ]
PETA is right but their message is too lame (1.33 / 3) (#47)
by santeri on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:58:47 PM EST

Bollocks. Everything said above just tells so much about people's capability to understand what goes around them (or read into sarcasm that PETA uses). I'm not telling that PETA's got all its facts right or anything, just that their message is generally right. Actually, it's pretty lame when compared to some other organizations which got it even more to the point.

Like The Church of Euthanasia or The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

Don't be too easily lead by the mumbo-jumbo of false comfort. Act actively to change the ongoing bullshit called general opinion.


____________
OTTERS RULE.

Racism, speciesism and their likes (3.42 / 7) (#55)
by gas on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 04:40:09 PM EST

No matter how bad advertising campaigns PETA does: The issue is real. And really really big. Try to find a way to completely argue against racism and other sorts of group discrimination among humans and at the same time defend speciesism. It can't be done. Try! (some get a feeeling for the problem when thinking about what to do if someone cloned or created homo habilis or one of the great number of mixes between chimps, humans and gorillas that's just waiting to be done)

The reason is that you can try to find some criteria (like IQ higher than X or something) that someone should have that should make their interests (like avoiding pain and suffering) worth more or less consideration than others equally big or greater interest and you will undoubtedly find some group of humans that don't have it and some other kind of animal that does. And you still have to explain just why that should be relevant for anyones pain. Or you can admit that if we care about suffering because we think suffering is bad, then what matters is the suffering and not the colour of the skin, the sex, the number of legs or anything else. And the pain and suffering involved in todays animal industries is HUGE. And concerns tens of billions of individuals all the time.

We basically live in thoroughly racist societies. Except now it's not races but (still) species. At first we only cared about the family (if that) later the clan, bigger local societies up to the nation, then our whole race, now our whole species. The next step hopefully is to give equal consideration to everyones interests, no matter if they belong to 'our' group or not. Advocating that now can sometimes make you ridiculed in the same way that those advocating a right for women to vote some hundred years ago (and no, pigs can't vote, nor can small children but thats hardly a reason to torture them) but the logic still is what it is.

If you want to read about this in more detail i strongly recommend at least the first chapter in Peter Singers book Animal Liberation.

Re: Racism, speciesism and their likes (none / 0) (#66)
by luethke on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 06:18:44 PM EST

If giving everyone(your broad definition of inter-species) the same rights (taking the hisgest common demoninator) we would simply have to kill ourselfs. In order to survive we MUST kill something. At the very least plants to eat and many of the single cell organisms that would otherwise kill us. No more car (ever squish a bug/animal while driving, bet so), be carefull walking, step on a bug and go to jail, and a myriad other things we do. Prove to me plants don't feel. Just because we can't here them scream and they don't have the smae type of nervous system we do doesn't mean they can't feel. Many types of trees emit phermones when a bug or something atatcks them and other trees in the vicinity begin producing toxins if they are capabler, sounds like communication to me. One of my favorite lines is from a paleontologist Robert Bakker "An oak tree does not have a sense of cosmic fulfillness when a moose munches on it's leaves, it fights back". Not giving a plant rights would be the equivalent of "kindomism", dicriminating based on which kindom you are from, If we give "everyone", then lets give "everyone" thos rights. Also assuming everyone has the same rights as a human then shouldn't lions be taken to court for killing a zebra? A person may say "But that is thier natural tendancy." Well, It's the same for humans. Lets look at our body structure and see what we can conclude. digestion: plant eaters are ruminants, they have large multi-stage stomachs to effeciently process plant matter, last time I checked we do not posses this. They have large intenstines to help - we have this. Teeth: wide flat teeth for griding plants - we have this partially. digestion Carnivores: single stage stomachs capable of digesting meat - we have this. Typically shorter digestive tracks - not us. teeth: canines and incisors for ripping and tearing meat (not neccassarily for killing, many meat eaters have other ways) we have theses. digestion omnivores: typically a combination of the above criteria - sound familiar? teeth: have carnivore type teeth in front (can't rip meat off from the back of the mouth) and wide flater teeth in the back (can process plants anywhere) again sound familiar? I know there is more to consider but in almost every single instance we play the part of an omnivore. Humans are made to eat both plants and animals. So the question of "in our nature" would say we eat meat. Our nature is also to use tools, not our hands. Other primates use sticks to raid termite nests, should we make them quit that since otherwise they would have a problem digging them up with thier hands? we are apllying these rules without inference to intelligence and species right?

the other category for giving everyone the same rights is the lowest commong demonitor. a lion is allowed to kill and eat a zebra so everyone else Is allowed to also. If you do not do this then you are back to being "speciest", having a different set of rules for each specie (what we do now).

As for justifing eating other animals thats easy - humans have a responsibility to member of thier own species. As in any proof there is some point in which you have to say "this is true". Even in mathematics, there are just things that are true by definition, why is 2+2=4, because it just is. Our responisibility is the base, It just is. Looking at carniverous species in the wild we can see that is true in some species, not true in others. Polar bears does not see another polar bear as prey, but many snakes would see another snake as prey, the base thruth above is not a given to the snakes but is to the polar bear. Unfortunatly nature is harsh, we just have to live with this fact: in order to survive we must kill.

[ Parent ]
Re: Racism, speciesism and their likes (2.50 / 2) (#82)
by henbjork on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 01:01:05 AM EST

> In order to survive we MUST kill something.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to kill as little as possible
if avoiding unnecessary killing minimizes suffering.

> Prove to me plants don't feel.

Actually, being a vegetarian/vegan means that fewer plants die than
if you are a non-veg* since the animals in the meat and dairy industries
eat a *lot* of plants.

> Also assuming everyone has the same rights as a human then shouldn't
> lions be taken to court for killing a zebra? A person may say "But that is
> thier natural tendancy." Well, It's the same for humans. Lets look at our
> body structure and see what we can conclude. digestion: plant eaters are
> ruminants, they have large multi-stage stomachs to effeciently process
> plant matter, last time I checked we do not posses this.

First, humans can survive on a fortified vegan diet. The most important
thing to add is vitamin B12 since it can basically only be found in animalia
and algae. Second, we humans have the intellectual capacity to do reason
about the question if we should exploit other living beings. This means that
we can make a intellectual decision not to, for example, eat meat. It isn't
sure that other species have this capability in the same extent we humans
have.

> Humans are made to eat both plants and animals. So the question of "in
> our nature" would say we eat meat.

Just because we are equipped to do something doesn't imply that we
should do that. All women are technically equipped to be prostitutues,
but this doesn't mean that all women should be prostitutes, at least not
as I see it. Also remember that humans are equipped to kill other humans,
does that mean that we should do it if we think we will benefit from it?

> humans have a responsibility to member of thier own species.

How would you counter a nationalsocialist who says that aryans only
have a responsibility to members of the arayan race, and that killing
people of other races is more or less ok? As I see it, he uses the same
kind of argument as you do.

> Unfortunatly nature is harsh, we just have to live with this fact: in order
> to survive we must kill.

So, if my survival depends on me killing you, would you think it was ok of
me to try to kill you? What if killing you would increase my breeding
capabilities, would that justify the killing?

-- Fredrik Henbjork
[ Parent ]
Re: Racism, speciesism and their likes (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by Biff Cool on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 09:35:30 AM EST

Actually, being a vegetarian/vegan means that fewer plants die than if you are a non-veg* since the animals in the meat and dairy industries eat a *lot* of plants.
That's a very simple justification: If I killed 100 people and you killed a 1000, there's not much moral difference between us, we've both still killed.
I've heard of people who take this to the extreme, only eating fruit that's fallen from trees, discarding the seeds.  I think they could justify this position, but an average vegetarian/vegan has still killed a living collection of cells because of a belief about it's consciousness.

Second, we humans have the intellectual capacity to do reason about the question if we should exploit other living beings.
We plant seeds and grow gardens just like we raise cows and chickens and goats

All women are technically equipped to be prostitutues, but this doesn't mean that all women should be prostitutes, at least not as I see it.
WHAT??? I'm apparently not that experienced with women because I never noticed that they naturally had a change purse growing off of them to accept money for sex.  That would be what it takes to be "equipped to be prostitutes".  What I'm hoping you meant was all women are technically equipped to be promiscuous (as are all men).

How would you counter a nationalsocialist who says that aryans only have a responsibility to members of the arayan race, and that killing people of other races is more or less ok? As I see it, he uses the same kind of argument as you do.
Okay so if we now hold ALL ANIMALS to this level of worth and reason as us then every animal that kills another animal goes to jail... right?  When a squirrel steals bird seed from my feeder even after I've chased him off I should call the cops and have them arrest the squirrel.  When I see a stray cat on the side of the street I should toss a quarter and say "Get A Job, ya bum"? Oh and by the way You Lose

So, if my survival depends on me killing you, would you think it was ok of me to try to kill you?
Yes.

What if killing you would increase my breeding capabilities, would that justify the killing?
Probably not, which may be why no other animals do it just for that.


My ass. It's code, with pictures of fish attached. Get over it. --trhurler


[ Parent ]
Re: Racism, speciesism and their likes (1.00 / 1) (#88)
by henbjork on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 12:22:59 PM EST

> If I killed 100 people and you killed a 1000, there's not much moral
> difference between us, we've both still killed.

Is there a moral difference between killing one person or one million persons? If so, exactly where do you draw your line?

>> Second, we humans have the intellectual capacity to do reason about
>> the question if we should exploit other living beings.
> We plant seeds and grow gardens just like we raise cows and chickens
> and goats

I don't understand what you are trying to say with that statement.

> ...That would be what it takes to be "equipped to be prostitutes".

I disagree. Are you saying that the women who are forced to work as
prostitutes are not "real prostitutes"? All it takes is the sexual organs,
at least for normal sex...

> Okay so if we now hold ALL ANIMALS to this level of worth and reason
> as us then every animal that kills another animal goes to jail... right?

Your seem to view the question in black and white. I have never said that
veg*nism solves all the problems. What it does it that is solves *some*
problems to *some* degree. A comparisson would be that most people
think it is more "evil" to kill hundred persons than one persons, everything
else being equal.

By being vegan, I am at least doing more to minimize the suffering in the
world, than I would do if I ate meat and other animal products. The thing
is that we in the western world have the choice not use animal products.
In a survival situation I would not hesitate to kill animals and eat their flesh,
but that is a completly different situation than mine, and other westerners,
daily life.

>> What if killing you would increase my breeding capabilities, would that
>> justify the killing?
>Probably not, which may be why no other animals do it just for that.

Starving to death doesn't exactly do wonders for ones breeding capabilities.

And by the way, I didn't compare you to the nazis, and Goodwin's Law
is crap anyway. :-)

-- Fredrik Henbjork
[ Parent ]
Re: Racism, speciesism and their likes (none / 0) (#91)
by luethke on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 06:09:48 PM EST

>> In order to survive we MUST kill something.
>This doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to kill as
>little as possible if avoiding unnecessary killing
>minimizes suffering.
never said otherwise, just that we must kill in order to survive.

>First, humans can survive on a fortified vegan diet.
>Just because we are equipped to do something doesn't
>imply that we should do that.
you just invalidated your own point.

>All women are technically equipped to be prostitutues,
>but this doesn't mean that all women should be prostitutes
read what I said again, not that it is just possible but we are SUPPOSED to eat meat, that has a very different connotation than can eat meat.

>How would you counter a nationalsocialist who says that
>aryans only have a responsibility to members of the
>arayan race, and that killing people of other races
>is more or less ok? As I see it, he uses the same
>kind of argument as you do.
I would attack the base of his argument, I can't show that he is wrong, I can only say I don't agree with that. Not agreeing with the state is valid. again 2+2=4 because we all agree to the symbols and thier meaning.

>So, if my survival depends on me killing you, would you
>think it was ok of me to try to kill you? What if
>killing you would increase my breeding capabilities,
>would that justify the killing?
apparently you didn't read my post or your short term memory needs some work, see the statement about responisibility to your own species.

[ Parent ]
Two types (3.00 / 3) (#62)
by Smiling Dragon on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 05:19:23 PM EST

This one has always been interesting to me, I'm probably closer to a carnivore than omnivore with my love of meat :) But last night I finally managed to have a rational discussion with a vegitarian that sort of explained the _reasoning_ of restricting your diet based on beliefs...
The way he put it is that someone may become so disgusted with the thought of eating something that once was alive and leading a real life that has been killed just for them. So they find that they no longer enjoy eating the meat, tastes good but it makes them feel bad about themselves. This is the type of vegitarian that does not rub your nose in your own choice of diet. Then we have the more militant type that want the entire human race to stop preying on other animals.

I would have to agree that outfits like PETA have their valid points but to see them pull a stunt like this shroud ad, can you imagine if some other company did it? Say a tobaco company, "Jesus smoked Camel cigarrettes, look at the impression he made on the world!" I can't see the discussions over that one having two sides :)

But one group's actions really reinforces my already low opinion of _all_ these groups - bit of a shame really.

-- Sometimes understanding is the booby prize - Neal Stephenson
Milk = cruelty? (3.00 / 1) (#72)
by Pseudonym on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 08:46:27 PM EST

My wife, who is currently breastfeeding our ten-month-old daughter, is of the firm opinion that milking cows is definitely not cruel. She feels some affinity for said cows at the moment because she knows what a relief it is.

Just throwing another issue into the melting pot (or is that the crock pot?)...


sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re: Milk = cruelty? (3.50 / 2) (#74)
by goosedaemon on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 09:33:14 PM EST

We have a milk goat (Ethel ). Her possible daughter suckled her, but that didn't last forever--she had to be weaned. Ethel still produced milk, and her daughter didn't suckle all that time even before weaning. Ethel had to be milked, or she'd get mastitis. Taking my mother's word for it, it's not nice. She tried to not suckle me when I was a baby because I kind of bit her, and the milk remained in her breast. I guess it festered or something.

Sooo... we have to milk Ethel (well, we don't right now since she's not nursing ) or she gets mastitis, and it seems kind of dumb to just toss it when it has nutritional value.

I guess in theory this isn't natural--presumably in the wild they didn't make as much milk ... but they do now.

[ Parent ]
So who can express an opinion, then? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by itsbruce on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 08:54:14 PM EST

STOP ANNOYING AND OFFENDING THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR CAUSE!
I'm a meat eater myself but this one sentence sums up why I object to the entire tone of the article. How can anyone express any strong opinion without offending those who disagree with them?

The author claims to object to their tone but I get the strong impression that he wouldn't mind their tone at all if they were campaigning for something he agreed with.

--

It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
It's not the opinion that is offensive (none / 0) (#76)
by cwong on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:27:39 PM EST

The problem is not that people can disagree, nor even that they can disagree strongly. A rational mind should be able to distinguish when an attack is directed towards a person and when it is directed towards a position. For the latter, rational discussion can still take place. The object of the rant, rather, seems to be the gratuitous offensiveness of PETA. What does ridiculing a religion or a dying man have to do with kindness to animals? Surely, people here know the difference between strong disagreements and deliberate, mean-spirited offensiveness? Consider the difference between constructive debate and trolling.

[ Parent ]
Why not take the PCU approach? (2.50 / 2) (#84)
by sr105 on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 03:29:24 AM EST

Show your disdain by hurling meat at them. ;)

Seriously, I find PETA ads annoying and mildly offensive, but I go on knowing that I'll die a much happier carnivore.

Oh, and I'm a big believer in the 1st admendment, so I suppose that means I have to support their right to annoy and offend me.

R.


Re: Why not take the PCU approach? (3.00 / 1) (#89)
by cando on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 12:49:39 PM EST

I agree completely. I don't agree with a lot of activist organizations. I listen, however, and form an opinion. PETA has every right to speak. Let people decide whether they think what PETA says is good or not. You should NEVER quiet a individual/group just because they disagree.

I had to teach my sister-in-law that, and she in turn taught me not to force my opinion on somebody who didn't want to listen. Both very important lessons in life. Both lessons that too few people learn. What a shame.

[ Parent ]
PETA At It Again | 92 comments (86 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!