P.E.T.A.

[soilman 0]

freeflybella writes

Quote

if PETA's actions outrage - and cause a discussion where you and I are able to say "We're vegan, although we don't agree with PETA here's why..." It's like saying "Mom, I burned down the house" - "OK, just kidding, I really just broke a door".

It seems to me that all that PETA's actions do is give PETA's "activists" a little rush. Makes them feel good about themselves for a short time. They have a little fun for themselves. It doesn't stimulate a beneficial dialog. I think their actions generally discourage a beneficial dialog. I didn't understand your analogy with the door and the house, by the way.

I think most PETAists are self-centered people who own pets and love their pets and who make a habit of being inconsiderate to other people -- as well as uncaring about other people.

They often believe they are "not speciesist" and that "humans and other animals are equal" just the way "people of different races are equal." I don't believe humans and other animals are equal.

For me, not harming animals is not what I do because I think animals are equal to people and therefore I should treat them just like I treat people. Not harming animals is what I do only because I know it is not necessary to harm animals, in order to live, and live well, too. Basicly: it is no skin off my back to give them a break. But humans come first. This is absolutely crucial and seems to be something that most PETAists don't get. When all the children in the world have good homes and loving care and always enough to eat, then I'll worry about animals. Until then, I won't kill them unnecessarily, if it is no skin off my back to eat a plant instead of an animal -- but neither will I go out of my way to protect them or help them. Let's get children taken care of first, huh? This includes population management of people as well as trying to grow enough food for all the existing people.

____________________________________
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Agreed. Check this out, Animal Rights Groups are being classified as domestic terrorists.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1196&wit_id=3460

[soilman 0]

Some animal rights groups may, technically speaking, be definable as terrorists, but i don't think there really are any animal rights groups that fall in the same class as the terrorists that destroyed the world trade center, or the federal building in Oklamhoma city, or who blow up targets in the middle east. It is like comparing grapes with grapefurits. Or comparing toothpicks with baseball bats. They are obnoxious enough to warrant law enforcement efforts to prevent their actions, but they don't warrant the same kind of manpower that the bigger nastier terrorists warrant. I think that pretending they do is just that -- pretension -- the same kind of pretension that the animal rights activists display.

____________________________________
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.

[Gravitymaster 0]

A terrorist is a terrorist just as a murderer is a murderer. I agree the degree of animal rights groups doesn't equal that of al Qaeda, but it doesn't change what they are.

If you call a dogs tail a leg, it doesn't mean the dog has 5 legs.

[billvon 3,111]

>Check this out, Animal Rights Groups are being classified as
>domestic terrorists.

Terrorist is the new scare word, like communist was in the 50's. People from political protesters to environmentalists to drug dealers ("narco-terrorism") to Yasser Arafat are labeled terrorists. India has labeled Pakistan a terrorist state. China is labeling christians terrorists (those crusades and all) just as many americans consider muslims terrorists. The Kurds in Turkey, the Tamils in Sri Lanka - all terrorists. No suprise that it's the chic new thing to call your enemies.

[Gravitymaster 0]

What would you call them?

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

...please...

Torturing animals is your philosophy? I'd throw paint on you - and according to many thread on this board (man axe-ing puppy to death while son watches), so would they.

The philosophy is humans are don't need meat or fur. The crime is what we subject animals to for our greed.

I'm not a member - and don't always agree with their methods, but I believe they are a live and let live bunch as long as you include animals in those who are allowed to live.

They are NOT a live-and-let-live bunch no matter how you try to twist and distort the definition. If you eat animals, they do NOT accept your choice, and they do NOT respect your position. Period. They've made that abundantly clear. They are a live-and-let-live organization as long as you EXCLUDE PEOPLE in order to INCLUDE ANIMALS.

And where did I say I torture animals?!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

The philosophy is humans are don't need meat or fur. The crime is what we subject animals to for our greed.

Humans need protein.
Meat is a good source of protein.
People have been wearing skins and fur for how long?

Besides, um, lots of other animals eat other animals in nature. Why is it, again, that humans should be the only animals not allowed to eat other animals? We ARE able to DIGEST them, you know; that's a fair indication that nature fully intends us to eat them!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Lindsey wrote:

Quote

B12 is not naturally in our diet, except for in non-vegetarian forms.

That doesn't appear to be true, if you include the soil clinging to root vegetables, and our own feces, as natural parts of our diet, and as being, loosely, "vegetarian."

Dude, WHAT are you SAYING?

If YOU want to go eating SOIL and your own FECES... um... knock yourself out.

But to go offering that up as an argument for the viability of a human vegan diet... I'm sorry, it is an argument that falls kinda flat.

Quote

True, strictly speaking, soil is not entirely made of vegetable matter, it has lots of mineral matter and lots of near-microscopic animals (soil nematodes). Also the small insects and insect eggs that cling to leafy greens, and get ingested unnoticed, may contain some B12. If you wash your leafy greens thoroughly, you won't get these in your diet. Such thorough washing is not necessary if you eat veganically grown greens, that, additionally, have been grown without pesticides.

This might explain why every so often I hear about people getting SALMONELLA from sprouts, green onions, and other vegetables. I don't know exactly what is meant by "veganically-grown" vegetables, though. I imagine that vegans forbid the use of animal manure for fertilizer? (Though god only knows the reason, if this is true. They think it exploits the animals to use their SHIT?)


My feeling is, why go so nuts about a diet that is so hard to figure, so hard to live by, so hard to configure properly and safely, when chances are it is NOT going to have any guarantee of improving your life, health, or extending your lifespan by a significant degree. I just don't believe it is something you can pin down to "He lived to be 106 because he ate all this brown rice." They talk about asians living a long time, and they eat a lot of FISH in addition to their rice!
I say that since our lifespans are so random and unpredictable anyway, just eat what tastes good and is enjoyable. No need to be a glutton: everything in moderation, and chances are you'll be alright.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[soilman 0]

peacefuljeffrey writes

Quote

I imagine that vegans forbid the use of animal manure for fertilizer?

The sensible people among the vegans (we may really be the "silent" majority) don't "forbid" anything. We educate and inform. You make your own choices; we treat you respectully if you make different choices than us -- no PETA-style harrassment.

I personally believe in non-participation in animal husbandry. So I don't acquire fecal matter from people who raise animals -- the source of most commercial fecal matter -- except perhaps bat guano.

Quote

every so often I hear about people getting SALMONELLA from sprouts, green onions, and other vegetables.

I'm not sure but I think the reason people get salmonella from sprouts is due to contamination by fecal matter, or decaying animal tissue. I think that carrots with soil clinging to them would be less likely to transmit salmonella, if no fecal matter was added to the soil.

Fecal matter is basicly compost where the compost bin was an animal. Compost from wooden bins is, like feces, a source of usable nitrogen. Of course industrially-produced (by the Haber process) ammonia is a more concentrated source of usable nitrogen than either. Also you might want to be aware that cattle, these days, are often fed straw used for chicken bedding, straw which is still filled with chicken urine and feces -- for the valuable protein in the chicken feces. They are also fed slaughterhouse waste of slaughtered cattle. And of course you ought to be aware that the (properly aged and prepared) feces of animals fed vegetable matter is considered a safe soil amendment by Cooperative Extension; the feces of carnivorous animals is not.

Vegetable matter composted in a wooden bin or plain pile, rather than inside an animal, is even safer.

It has also long been known that different kinds of feces differently affect the flavor of plants grown in them, and now we know this flavor comes from chemicals in the feces that are taken up by the plant, through its roots, and will still exist even if no traces of externally clinging feces are present.

Quote

why go so nuts about a diet that is so hard to figure, so hard to live by, so hard to configure properly and safely, when chances are it is NOT going to have any guarantee of improving your life, health, or extending your lifespan by a significant degree.

I believe you are correct, if you believe that one can have a long active life on an omnivorous diet, provided you eat animal matter in moderation. The reason I am nuts about avoiding it altogether is I hate participating in hunting and slaughter, and especially in factory farming, and I consider buying the products of these pursuits to be participation in the pursuits. I just feel better and happier about my place in the world, if I don't particpate in something that I consider rather ugly -- organized ugliness. It makes me happy, puts a smile on my face -- much the same way falling out of an airplane does (I say "falling" because I have only done one tandem "jump" so far; the other half of the tandem jumped; I just went along for the ride).

As Leo Tolstoy said about war, the way to end it is not to protest against it; the way to end it is to not participate in it.

I might add that the plant kingdom is a source of endless variety. A vegan diet never gets boring. Most of the "difficulty" in being vegan is not due to any physical, "technical configuration" difficulty, but is, rather, due to cultural factors. For example if want to rely on highly prepared commercially prepared food, "ready to eat" items from the supermarket, instead of preparing ones' food from scratch, there are fewer of these prepared foods available, and they are often higher priced. If more people were vegan, this situation would rectifiy itself, and I've noticed that gradually, over the last 35 years, the situation re prepared foods has improved. Personally, I would avoid such prepared foods even if I were a meat, dairy, and egg-eater. I solve the problem by, having a chest freezer, and when I have time, making fairly large batches of my own "frozen Stouffers." Then if I am in a hurry, I grab what I want and microwave it.

Configuration is pretty simple. You need proteins, carbohydrates, fats and micronutrients. It is usually obvious, by taste, which foods have which macronutrients. If you get the macronutrients, the micronutrients tend to take care of themselves, though you might want to make an effort to make sure you eat enough of the leafy greens, and the almonds or sesame seeds, that supply calcium. Contrary to popular belief, getting protein is not at all difficult. The only thing that needs special attention is b12, and this only needs special attention in the part of the "first world" that is obsessed with being clean, hygienic, and "germ-free." Not that there aren't advantages to "germ-obsession" as well as disadvantages.

Grains, root vegetables, legumes, nuts, other seeds (for example squash seeds, sunflower seeds) and an endless variety of fruits and an endless variety of vegetables, and an endless variety of herbal flavorings, and spices. Much of what people seem to think is the flavor of "meat" -- is really the flavor of herbs and spices that have been added to meat.

I might add that while supermarkets in the United States tend to carry only 1 cultivar of garbanzo bean, chik pea -- large ones that take about 2 horus to cook -- there are worldwide, many distinct varities, in different shapes, sizes and colors, including small ones that cook in 1/2 hour, ones that pop like popcorn, and purple ones.

____________________________________
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.

[wmw999 2,587]

I don't do as well as I'd like, but I'll admit I try for free range meat and eggs. Hunting meat definitely counts. Animals live as they should, then, well, people do what they do.

But tuna still comes from a can...

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[freeflybella 0]

You and I seem to be on the same page regarding non-participation.

If you believe, as I do, that all of life is a balance - then I have to accept the fact that that as long as there is one movement pulling radically to the right - there will always be one movement pulling to the left. Greed, so far, has won out - for obvious reasons. It's going to take alot of awareness - over a long period of time to create this particular paradigm shift.

I don't advocate hurting anyone or anything.

I do appreciate those who are out there creating awareness, spending their time and energy ACTING (when I mostly only eat veg and discuss my views). I know there are many ways to get a point across and many degrees of every argument.

PETA gives US the opportunity to 'bond' with their meat-eating/animal testing detractors because we, too, can say we don't agree with PETA. BUT - here's what I believe...

***
For Lindsey, I am sorry if what I said came out wrong or offended you. You and Soilman seem to know alot about nutrition (I'm still learning).

What I really meant to get across is that meat-eaters often use the 'nutrition' argument - protein, calcium, etc - when trying to discount a purely veg diet. My point was that often they'll look so hard at the veg diet for nutritional imbalances and yet have never given a moments thought to what they themselves are eating. Or where it comes from.

***
The TERROR-thing seems pure exploitation.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

I believe you are correct, if you believe that one can have a long active life on an omnivorous diet, provided you eat animal matter in moderation. The reason I am nuts about avoiding it altogether is I hate participating in hunting and slaughter, and especially in factory farming, and I consider buying the products of these pursuits to be participation in the pursuits. I just feel better and happier about my place in the world, if I don't particpate in something that I consider rather ugly -- organized ugliness.

......

As Leo Tolstoy said about war, the way to end it is not to protest against it; the way to end it is to not participate in it.

Nicely put.

(emphasis is mine)

Quote

The sensible people among the vegans (we may really be the "silent" majority) don't "forbid" anything. We educate and inform. You make your own choices; we treat you respectully if you make different choices than us -- no PETA-style harrassment.

I actually disagree here. You're holding your (our) brand of 'activism' as sensible thereby calling others' non-sensible. I'm not convinced of that.

If I was 100% totally sure that no change is going to happen and that we as a society will continue down the current path of insensitivity and consumption at all costs - then you better believe I'd be out chanting in the streets and begging people to open their eyes. It just so happens that I think the 'world' will come around - I have hope for that and have patience. That doesn't mean I'm more sensible - possibly just more optimistic. But someone who believes otherwise might call ME unsensible.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[billvon 3,111]

>What would you call them?

If they protest, they are protesters. If they try to make a lot of noise, they're activists. If they break stuff they are vandals. Pretty straightforward.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>What would you call them?

If they protest, they are protesters. If they try to make a lot of noise, they're activists. If they break stuff they are vandals. Pretty straightforward.

Quote

But even more disturbing is the recent employment of improvised explosive devices against consumer product testing companies, accompanied by threats of more, larger bombings and even potential assassinations of researchers, corporate officers and employees.

The escalation in violent rhetoric is best demonstrated by language that was included in the communiqués claiming responsibility for the detonation of improvised explosive devices in 2003 at two separate northern California companies, which were targeted as a result of their business links to HLS. Following two pipe bomb blasts at the Chiron Life Sciences Center in Emeryville, California on August 28, 2003, an anonymous claim of responsibility was issued which included the statement: “This is the endgame for the animal killers and if you choose to stand with them you will be dealt with accordingly. There will be no quarter given, no half measures taken. You might be able to protect your buildings, but can you protect the homes of every employee?”

Just four weeks later, following the explosion of another improvised explosive device wrapped in nails at the headquarters of Shaklee, Incorporated in Pleasanton, California on September 26, 2003, another sinister claim of responsibility was issued via anonymous communiqué by the previously unknown “Revolutionary Cells of the Animal Liberation Brigade.” This claim was even more explicit in its threats: “We gave all of the customers the chance, the choice, to withdraw their business from HLS (Huntingdon Life Sciences). Now you will all reap what you have sown. All customers and their families are considered legitimate targets… You never know when your house, your car even, might go boom… Or maybe it will be a shot in the dark… We will now be doubling the size of every device we make. Today it is 10 pounds, tomorrow 20… until your buildings are nothing more than rubble. It is time for this war to truly have two sides. No more will all the killing be done by the oppressors, now the oppressed will strike back.” It should be noted that the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in San Francisco has identified and charged known activist Daniel Andreas San Diego, who is currently a fugitive from justice, in connection with these bombings. While no deaths or injuries have resulted from this threat or the blasts at Chiron and Shaklee, it demonstrates a new willingness on the part of some in the movement to abandon the traditional and publicly stated code of nonviolence in favor of more confrontational and aggressive tactics designed to threaten and intimidate legitimate companies into abandoning entire projects or contracts.

Just a few excerpts from the article I posted. Please explain why this isn't terrorism as you claimed?

[billvon 3,111]

"Dr. Garson Romalis was shot in his Vancouver, B.C. home Nov. 8, 1994 and Dr. Hugh Short was shot November 10, 1995 in his Hamilton, Ont. home. While all three abortion doctors survived, pro-choice supporters fear the attacks are linked. Their concerns are heightened by the calculated terrorist attacks advocated in the "Army of God," the so-called underground bible of the extremist anti-abortion movement, which can be read on the Internet."

"The bomb which severely injured Emily Lyons and killed Birmingham police officer Robert Sanderson is yet another tragic example of domestic terrorism. The hatred and anger which fuels this terrorism is insprired by the anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-government rhetoric of the overlapping militia movements and the so-called "pro-life" movement."

Are pro-lifers terrorists?

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

You wanna know from where they first isolated & identified Vitamin B12???

From SEWAGE!!

I read this as I was about to take my multi vitamin. Made me look at it in an entirely different way.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

"Dr. Garson Romalis was shot in his Vancouver, B.C. home Nov. 8, 1994 and Dr. Hugh Short was shot November 10, 1995 in his Hamilton, Ont. home. While all three abortion doctors survived, pro-choice supporters fear the attacks are linked. Their concerns are heightened by the calculated terrorist attacks advocated in the "Army of God," the so-called underground bible of the extremist anti-abortion movement, which can be read on the Internet."

"The bomb which severely injured Emily Lyons and killed Birmingham police officer Robert Sanderson is yet another tragic example of domestic terrorism. The hatred and anger which fuels this terrorism is insprired by the anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-government rhetoric of the overlapping militia movements and the so-called "pro-life" movement."

Are pro-lifers terrorists?

ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


By definition, I would consider the people who commited these atrocities, terrorists and would hope the govt. would use all the powers of The Patriot Act to find and prosecute them.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Terrorist is the new scare word, like communist was in the 50's. ...

No suprise that it's the chic new thing to call your enemies.

It's not that new, Bill. Animal Enterprise Terrorism, for example, has been around since at least '92, as have other definitions for domestic terrorism.

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[airdweller 0]

"Dr. Garson Romalis was shot in his Vancouver, B.C. home Nov. 8, 1994 and Dr. Hugh Short was shot November 10, 1995 in his Hamilton, Ont. home. While all three abortion doctors survived, pro-choice supporters fear the attacks are linked. Their concerns are heightened by the calculated terrorist attacks advocated in the "Army of God," the so-called underground bible of the extremist anti-abortion movement, which can be read on the Internet."

"The bomb which severely injured Emily Lyons and killed Birmingham police officer Robert Sanderson is yet another tragic example of domestic terrorism. The hatred and anger which fuels this terrorism is insprired by the anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-government rhetoric of the overlapping militia movements and the so-called "pro-life" movement."

Are pro-lifers terrorists?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Not all of them, but the ones in which you are talking about are.

------------------------------------------------------
"From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant,
who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns

[livendive 8]

Quote

A terrorist is a terrorist

And what exactly is that?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

A terrorist is a terrorist

And what exactly is that?

Blues,
Dave

I posted the definition. Did you miss it?

[Jib 0]

Quote

Not really that long from an evolutionary point of view. We are pretty poorly adapted omnivores who came from a herbivore past.

We're not really adapted to eating plants either since we have an appendix where we would have another stomach -- like a cow.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

.

Sounds like Operation Just Cause.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[freeflybella 0]

Andre 3000 'World's Sexiest Vegetarian'

NEW YORK - The secret to Grammy-winning hip-hop? Maybe it's the veggies. Andre 3000 of OutKast has been voted the "World's Sexiest Vegetarian" in PETA's annual online poll. He shares the honor with actress Alicia Silverstone.

More than 12,000 votes were cast in the annual contest run by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Results were released last week.

Previous winners include Tobey Maguire, Lauren Bush and Shania Twain.

Silverstone and Andre 3000 beat out other contenders not known for their eating habits: John Cleese, Prince and "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Andre, 30, is the flashier side of the hip-hop duo OutKast.

OutKast's hip-hoppy jive won three trophies at the 2004 Grammy Awards: best urban-alternative performance for "Hey Ya!" and best rap album and overall album of the year for "Speakerboxxx/The Love Below." It was the first rap album to win most of the awards in top categories.

Silverstone, 27, has starred in films including "Clueless" and "Batman & Robin."

****

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi