peacefuljeffrey 0 #76 July 20, 2004 What happens if one of these people is spied in a fancy restaurant diggin' into Lobster Tails or a nice thick Prime Rib? Does PETA firebomb their house and blow up their family's cars? That'll teach those dirty turncoat carnivores! --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #77 July 20, 2004 QuoteAndre 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." I'll bet it's really easy to eat a balanced, varied, flavorful and interesting vegetarian diet when you're rich enough to hire a nutritionist, a personal trainer and a chef to do your cooking. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #78 July 20, 2004 QuoteI'll bet it's really easy to eat a balanced, varied, flavorful and interesting vegetarian diet when you're rich enough to hire a nutritionist, a personal trainer and a chef to do your cooking. Well, GODDAMN! You just saw the light, my friend. Isn't it disgusting that eating good, healthy food is more expensive than eating processed, crap? But, I suspect that wasn't your point. 1. What does a personal trainer have to do with what you eat? 2. Ditto with the chef? 3. The fact that you think you need a nutritionist to tell you what to eat says you're too lazy to learn - and would rather swing by your local burger joint or take something out of a box and pop it into the microwave. It's unfortunate that there is the perception that it takes so much effort to eat healthfully. Honestly, all it takes is the desire. And regarding your comment about what if? Do you honestly think being vegetarian is such a badge of honor that folks will lie about it? Then, thank you. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #79 July 21, 2004 No, I'm saying, if PETA gives this "honor" *chokechuckle* then what do they do if the celebrity is then found to also eat meat, or to otherwise go off his/her proclaimed vegetarian diet? Do they revoke the reward, or do they use their standard tactic of destroying life and property? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #80 July 21, 2004 I don't know. I'm not a member of PETA. peacefuljeffrey, there are radicals on both sides of any devisive issue. To exclusively speak to/refer to them is basically to have a closed mind. Even amongst PETA members, there are (mostly) those who advocate non-violent protesting/campaigning and there are those who take their beliefs further. You're holding a very small group of people as representatives of a very large organization - and an even bigger issue. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #81 July 21, 2004 QuoteI don't know. I'm not a member of PETA. peacefuljeffrey, there are radicals on both sides of any devisive issue. To exclusively speak to/refer to them is basically to have a closed mind. Even amongst PETA members, there are (mostly) those who advocate non-violent protesting/campaigning and there are those who take their beliefs further. You're holding a very small group of people as representatives of a very large organization - and an even bigger issue. I have read enough of PETA's moronic exploits in many mainstream news sources to know that I am not rejecting them because my mind is closed, but because they are guided by a bunch of extremist assholes who are as irrational as they are terrorist. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #82 July 21, 2004 Quotein many mainstream news sources There's your problem. Their moronic exploits are what get them into mainstream news sources. Surely you know that's part of their goal. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #83 July 21, 2004 QuoteQuotein many mainstream news sources There's your problem. Their moronic exploits are what get them into mainstream news sources. Surely you know that's part of their goal. Well, it seems that they are all about moronic exploits, from start to finish. That, and I personally feel that their philosophy is as absurd as it gets. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #84 July 21, 2004 July 9, 2003: "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an international animal rights groups, has filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles against KFC Corp. and parent company Yum Brands Inc. (NYSE: YUM), accusing the companies of making misleading statements about how chickens used by its fast-food restaurants are treated, according to PETA's Web site... ... Bonnie Warschauer, a spokeswoman for KFC, said in a statement that the suit is a publicity stunt "designed to mislead the public." "Our information is accurate and we're proud to be the industry leader for poultry welfare guidelines," she said. " Then today: "Yum Brands Inc.'s Louisville-based KFC division issued a statement Tuesday that called the actions of workers at one of its chicken suppliers "appalling." The statement was in response to a video released earlier in the day by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that showed workers at a West Virginia chicken plant abusing chickens. According to a statement release by PETA, an undercover investigator who filmed the workers witnessed abuses such as employees "ripping birds' beaks off, spray painting their faces, twisting their heads off, spitting tobacco into their mouths and eyes, and breaking them in half -- all while the birds are still alive." Moronic? This was the recipient of KFC's 2004 "Supplier of the Year" Award. Many of their stunts are purely to keep the issue in the media. But they do much more than media stunts for their cause. I also do not agree with some of their views. But to single-handedly dismiss what they've done for the cause of humane treatment for animals is short-sighted. Source Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #85 July 21, 2004 Here's what I do believe. NSF Anyone NSF or Anything (Second video is, in my opinion, 'over the top' on the music/lyrics for emotional appeal but non-the-less vile.) Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #86 July 21, 2004 I only eat free-range marmoset. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #87 July 21, 2004 QuoteHere's what I do believe. NSF Anyone NSF or Anything (Second video is, in my opinion, 'over the top' on the music/lyrics for emotional appeal but non-the-less vile.) Okay, I watched both videos -- watched the second one first, actually. The second one did affect me, and I did sympathize with the animals and feel bad for the way they were abused. There were some really grotesque things done to them and you could tell they were suffering. The speakers in the first video, though, were so incredibly condescending, pompous and high-handed in their delivery of the "reasons" to be a vegetarian, that I just couldn't stand it. And they gave bullshit reasons that I don't credit with being true. Things like "Eating meat can cause impotence." What a load of horseshit. What study has ever backed that up? And does the claim stand exist alongside the idea that being a vegetarian is a guarantee to not become impotent? I think there are an awful lot of meat-eaters out there fuckin' up a storm and makin' lots of babies who give lie to this outrageous claim. My dad eats meat, and always has, and he had four kids. Yeah, a meat-eater might become impotent in his late 70s or something, but saying it's due to eating meat is preposterous. Even a person who eats a pound of carrots a day might lose eyesight when he's 78 years old. Show causation, people! So even though the video is sympathy-inducing, the arrogance and condescension of the PETA people is even more stomach-turning than the depictions of violence against animals. And by the way, I can easily believe that the cruelty shown in the videos is more aptly dealt with by punishing the human offenders than by forgoing eating meat as a society. Surely we could get people to work those jobs who do NOT revel in the opportunity to be cruel to animals. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflybella 0 #88 July 21, 2004 Everything doesn't have to be black and white. Just because someone's argument isn't pure, or because they don't have an answer to to your questions doesn't mean their cause is invalid. Wouldn't you agree? These are ads you're critiquing - not the cause. They're meant to raise awareness. Re: the impotence thing. I don't know about that claim. Obviously they aren't saying everyone who eats meat will become impotent - just like everyone who smokes will not get cancer. But again, it's one point among many that might cause you to question your food supply. Research their claim on your own. Re: the slaughterhouse workers. Why would you think anyone would want that job? It's extremely messy and dangerous, full of killing, low-pay. Can you imagine having an assembly-line of killing animals - something like 10 cows per minute? All day long, seven days a week? For practically minimum wage? That isn't counting the 'farm' workers - which honestly, factory farms make it their goal to have to employ as few people as possible. It's mechanized. Ever wonder why agribusiness doesn't release it's own video's countering PETA's claims of suffering by these animals? Because the truth - while it may not have monsters beating defenseless animals for pleasure or quota - is just as ugly. It's grey and concrete. It's machines and hooks. It's injections and stun guns. It's crying and loneliness. It's truly lifeless. I'd bet that video wouldn't make a single person happier about where their food is coming from. Quoteyou could tell they were suffering. That's what hurts. And, you can thank PETA for exposing these atrocities. They aren't all about shocking ad campaigns and pithy remarks. Just like they aren't all radical activists. While they are always aiming for complete and total non-use of animals - they are making great strides in creating a more humane environment for them and raising awareness of the issue across the board. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #89 July 21, 2004 >And by the way, I can easily believe that the cruelty shown in the videos is >more aptly dealt with by punishing the human offenders than by forgoing >eating meat as a society. Right. After all, punishing drug dealers stopped drug related crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflybella 0 #90 July 21, 2004 OK, for anyone still reading/interested: Regarding the Meat Causes Impotence claim: Researchers have established that though erections can be inspired by everything under the sun, ultimately they depend on blood flow. And, just as blockages in the arteries to the heart can cause a heart attack and choked-off blood to the brain can lead to a stroke, when the arteries to the genitals are clogged, that part of the body will not work so well either. When the arteries are impeded only slightly, it takes longer to get an erection. As the obstruction worsens, complete impotence occurs. By age 60, this affects one in four American men. The bad news is that artery blockages, a major cause of erectile dysfunction, are strongly linked to one of America's most popular food categories — meat. The good news is that such blockages can be prevented, and even reversed, by changes in diet and lifestyle. QuoteShow causation, people! And regarding the argument: The differences between correlation and causation. In almost every issue, there is not a single cause that leads to a single effect. Rather, there is a multitude of factors to differing degrees that lead to a certain effect. That's why most issues are considered multifactorial issues. The easiest way to disprove a claim for causation is by finding one single exception. If the claim truly stood up that "eating meat causes impotence", then everyone who consumed meat would be impotent. Clearly that is not the case, therefore this is not a causally related issue. Rather, it's a correlationally related one. There are many other factors outside of diet involved in becoming impotent. ***** Either way, PETA is making the claim unchallenged by the meat industry. Why do you think that is? Again, not standing behind this point - rather doing research for the sake of discussion. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflybella 0 #91 July 21, 2004 Banned Super Bowl ad Funny, not scary. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Casurf1978 0 #92 July 21, 2004 In one study of impotence JAMA reported that a group of impotent men 50yo+ and found that over 50% of those had arteriosclerosis of arteries in the penis (main cause of their problem). One of many factors the found was many of these men had diets high in sat fats, mainly red meat. I'm not saying that it is the sole cause, but a diet high in sat fat is bad for your health and has several documented adverse effects. Although PETA might strectching their claim, to say it is BS is well BS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,121 #93 July 21, 2004 QuoteWhen the arteries are impeded only slightly, it takes longer to get an erection. As the obstruction worsens, complete impotence occurs. By age 60, this affects one in four American men. But the other three of us have more horny women to service.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflybella 0 #94 July 21, 2004 Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #95 July 22, 2004 QuoteAnd, you can thank PETA for exposing these atrocities. They aren't all about shocking ad campaigns and pithy remarks. Just like they aren't all radical activists. While they are always aiming for complete and total non-use of animals - they are making great strides in creating a more humane environment for them and raising awareness of the issue across the board. Then they should abandon the asshole-ish parts of what they do and say, if they want to be taken seriously. If they stopped with this idiotic pretense that animals should matter more to people than people do, they'd attract more support. If they stopped with the terror tactics, stopped supporting terrorists who kill humans and destroy property, stopped with the abhorrent in-your-face-insulting ad campaigns (ridiculing Mayor Giuliani for his prostate cancer comes to mind, those heartless FUCKS), then maybe they'd get some respect. As it stands, they may be right about mistreatment of farm animals, but they are a far cry from warranting any respect. And a prerequisite I have for supporting someone is I must have reason to respect them first. Since you admit that they are aiming for the eventual total NON-USE OF ANIMALS, which I totally disagree with, why would you think I should support them? That's like saying that I should support a gun control group whose eventual goal is total banning of gun ownership, just because this week they're only trying to pass a gun lock proposal. It'd be an idiot to give help "only up to this point" to a group that plans to go well beyond that point once they reach it using my help. Don't you see that? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #96 July 22, 2004 Quote>And by the way, I can easily believe that the cruelty shown in the videos is >more aptly dealt with by punishing the human offenders than by forgoing >eating meat as a society. Right. After all, punishing drug dealers stopped drug related crime. We have far too many liberal activist judges letting these criminals off with ridiculously low sentences to be able to say this was an untainted experiment at best. What's your argument: do nothing to the psychotic torturers, but take away the farm industry so there are no farm animals for them to torture? Where will the torturers end up? Will their tendency to be psychotic just go away then? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #97 July 22, 2004 >What's your argument: do nothing to the psychotic torturers, but take > away the farm industry so there are no farm animals for them to torture? No. Buy only free-range organic meat; that way you don't need new laws and new jails. > Where will the torturers end up? ?? Meat farms are not run by psychotic torturers any more than gun stores are run by pro-murder nutcases. The abuse of animals comes about because businessmen want the best possible return on investment. They don't cut off chicken's beaks because it pleases them to mutilate chickens; they do it so they can't attack each other and reduce the yield when crowded together. They don't give them antibiotics because they like the diarrhea that results; they get more meat that way. Want to solve the problem? Make it clear that they WON'T make money doing business that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #98 July 22, 2004 Quote>What's your argument: do nothing to the psychotic torturers, but take > away the farm industry so there are no farm animals for them to torture? No. Buy only free-range organic meat; that way you don't need new laws and new jails. > Where will the torturers end up? ?? Meat farms are not run by psychotic torturers any more than gun stores are run by pro-murder nutcases. The abuse of animals comes about because businessmen want the best possible return on investment. They don't cut off chicken's beaks because it pleases them to mutilate chickens; they do it so they can't attack each other and reduce the yield when crowded together. They don't give them antibiotics because they like the diarrhea that results; they get more meat that way. Want to solve the problem? Make it clear that they WON'T make money doing business that way. Did you watch those videos?! Don't pretend to me that those people were bashing chickens with sticks, or throwing cinderblocks at the heads of pigs, because "business" requires them to do so. Those are sick individuals who glory in torture and hurting and killing. So I put to you AGAIN: why would closing factory farms eliminate the problem they pose to society? You might as well claim that demolishing a crack house will solve the crack addict problem. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Casurf1978 0 #99 July 22, 2004 Read a book called "Fast Food Nation" and the part on slaughter houses. It boils down to saving money, yeah they werent required to do those things, but the owners dont give a shit nor does the supervisor, its all about saving money. It's all about processing so many animals per hour, if they dont meet that quota heads roll. Yeah I eat meat, but only buy from organic farmers and pref kosher too. I refuse to buy foster farms or regular brands from chain supermarkets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #100 July 22, 2004 >Did you watch those videos?! Don't pretend to me that those people > were bashing chickens with sticks, or throwing cinderblocks at the > heads of pigs, because "business" requires them to do so. Agreed. There are sick people out there, and there are laws against inhumane treatment of animals. We need only enforce the laws already in place to deal with these people. However, most of the torture of animals comes about not from people who want to hurt animals, but people who want to make money. There's not much money in braining a pig with a brick, but lots of money in confining an animal to a body-sized stall in the dark for its entire life, or cutting its beak off, or feeding it feed that both fattens and sickens it. >So I put to you AGAIN: why would closing factory farms eliminate the > problem they pose to society? They would solve the problems of disease, antibiotic resistance, pollution and food contamination that these factories cause. A more ephemeral benefit is that they would result in more humane treatment of food animals. >You might as well claim that demolishing a crack house will solve the > crack addict problem. You're the one who has taken the position that stopping a few people will end a much larger abuse problem. It is my position that crack houses will end only when people stop buying (and using) crack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
peacefuljeffrey 0 #87 July 21, 2004 QuoteHere's what I do believe. NSF Anyone NSF or Anything (Second video is, in my opinion, 'over the top' on the music/lyrics for emotional appeal but non-the-less vile.) Okay, I watched both videos -- watched the second one first, actually. The second one did affect me, and I did sympathize with the animals and feel bad for the way they were abused. There were some really grotesque things done to them and you could tell they were suffering. The speakers in the first video, though, were so incredibly condescending, pompous and high-handed in their delivery of the "reasons" to be a vegetarian, that I just couldn't stand it. And they gave bullshit reasons that I don't credit with being true. Things like "Eating meat can cause impotence." What a load of horseshit. What study has ever backed that up? And does the claim stand exist alongside the idea that being a vegetarian is a guarantee to not become impotent? I think there are an awful lot of meat-eaters out there fuckin' up a storm and makin' lots of babies who give lie to this outrageous claim. My dad eats meat, and always has, and he had four kids. Yeah, a meat-eater might become impotent in his late 70s or something, but saying it's due to eating meat is preposterous. Even a person who eats a pound of carrots a day might lose eyesight when he's 78 years old. Show causation, people! So even though the video is sympathy-inducing, the arrogance and condescension of the PETA people is even more stomach-turning than the depictions of violence against animals. And by the way, I can easily believe that the cruelty shown in the videos is more aptly dealt with by punishing the human offenders than by forgoing eating meat as a society. Surely we could get people to work those jobs who do NOT revel in the opportunity to be cruel to animals. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #88 July 21, 2004 Everything doesn't have to be black and white. Just because someone's argument isn't pure, or because they don't have an answer to to your questions doesn't mean their cause is invalid. Wouldn't you agree? These are ads you're critiquing - not the cause. They're meant to raise awareness. Re: the impotence thing. I don't know about that claim. Obviously they aren't saying everyone who eats meat will become impotent - just like everyone who smokes will not get cancer. But again, it's one point among many that might cause you to question your food supply. Research their claim on your own. Re: the slaughterhouse workers. Why would you think anyone would want that job? It's extremely messy and dangerous, full of killing, low-pay. Can you imagine having an assembly-line of killing animals - something like 10 cows per minute? All day long, seven days a week? For practically minimum wage? That isn't counting the 'farm' workers - which honestly, factory farms make it their goal to have to employ as few people as possible. It's mechanized. Ever wonder why agribusiness doesn't release it's own video's countering PETA's claims of suffering by these animals? Because the truth - while it may not have monsters beating defenseless animals for pleasure or quota - is just as ugly. It's grey and concrete. It's machines and hooks. It's injections and stun guns. It's crying and loneliness. It's truly lifeless. I'd bet that video wouldn't make a single person happier about where their food is coming from. Quoteyou could tell they were suffering. That's what hurts. And, you can thank PETA for exposing these atrocities. They aren't all about shocking ad campaigns and pithy remarks. Just like they aren't all radical activists. While they are always aiming for complete and total non-use of animals - they are making great strides in creating a more humane environment for them and raising awareness of the issue across the board. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #89 July 21, 2004 >And by the way, I can easily believe that the cruelty shown in the videos is >more aptly dealt with by punishing the human offenders than by forgoing >eating meat as a society. Right. After all, punishing drug dealers stopped drug related crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #90 July 21, 2004 OK, for anyone still reading/interested: Regarding the Meat Causes Impotence claim: Researchers have established that though erections can be inspired by everything under the sun, ultimately they depend on blood flow. And, just as blockages in the arteries to the heart can cause a heart attack and choked-off blood to the brain can lead to a stroke, when the arteries to the genitals are clogged, that part of the body will not work so well either. When the arteries are impeded only slightly, it takes longer to get an erection. As the obstruction worsens, complete impotence occurs. By age 60, this affects one in four American men. The bad news is that artery blockages, a major cause of erectile dysfunction, are strongly linked to one of America's most popular food categories — meat. The good news is that such blockages can be prevented, and even reversed, by changes in diet and lifestyle. QuoteShow causation, people! And regarding the argument: The differences between correlation and causation. In almost every issue, there is not a single cause that leads to a single effect. Rather, there is a multitude of factors to differing degrees that lead to a certain effect. That's why most issues are considered multifactorial issues. The easiest way to disprove a claim for causation is by finding one single exception. If the claim truly stood up that "eating meat causes impotence", then everyone who consumed meat would be impotent. Clearly that is not the case, therefore this is not a causally related issue. Rather, it's a correlationally related one. There are many other factors outside of diet involved in becoming impotent. ***** Either way, PETA is making the claim unchallenged by the meat industry. Why do you think that is? Again, not standing behind this point - rather doing research for the sake of discussion. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #91 July 21, 2004 Banned Super Bowl ad Funny, not scary. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #92 July 21, 2004 In one study of impotence JAMA reported that a group of impotent men 50yo+ and found that over 50% of those had arteriosclerosis of arteries in the penis (main cause of their problem). One of many factors the found was many of these men had diets high in sat fats, mainly red meat. I'm not saying that it is the sole cause, but a diet high in sat fat is bad for your health and has several documented adverse effects. Although PETA might strectching their claim, to say it is BS is well BS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,121 #93 July 21, 2004 QuoteWhen the arteries are impeded only slightly, it takes longer to get an erection. As the obstruction worsens, complete impotence occurs. By age 60, this affects one in four American men. But the other three of us have more horny women to service.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #94 July 21, 2004 Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #95 July 22, 2004 QuoteAnd, you can thank PETA for exposing these atrocities. They aren't all about shocking ad campaigns and pithy remarks. Just like they aren't all radical activists. While they are always aiming for complete and total non-use of animals - they are making great strides in creating a more humane environment for them and raising awareness of the issue across the board. Then they should abandon the asshole-ish parts of what they do and say, if they want to be taken seriously. If they stopped with this idiotic pretense that animals should matter more to people than people do, they'd attract more support. If they stopped with the terror tactics, stopped supporting terrorists who kill humans and destroy property, stopped with the abhorrent in-your-face-insulting ad campaigns (ridiculing Mayor Giuliani for his prostate cancer comes to mind, those heartless FUCKS), then maybe they'd get some respect. As it stands, they may be right about mistreatment of farm animals, but they are a far cry from warranting any respect. And a prerequisite I have for supporting someone is I must have reason to respect them first. Since you admit that they are aiming for the eventual total NON-USE OF ANIMALS, which I totally disagree with, why would you think I should support them? That's like saying that I should support a gun control group whose eventual goal is total banning of gun ownership, just because this week they're only trying to pass a gun lock proposal. It'd be an idiot to give help "only up to this point" to a group that plans to go well beyond that point once they reach it using my help. Don't you see that? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #96 July 22, 2004 Quote>And by the way, I can easily believe that the cruelty shown in the videos is >more aptly dealt with by punishing the human offenders than by forgoing >eating meat as a society. Right. After all, punishing drug dealers stopped drug related crime. We have far too many liberal activist judges letting these criminals off with ridiculously low sentences to be able to say this was an untainted experiment at best. What's your argument: do nothing to the psychotic torturers, but take away the farm industry so there are no farm animals for them to torture? Where will the torturers end up? Will their tendency to be psychotic just go away then? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #97 July 22, 2004 >What's your argument: do nothing to the psychotic torturers, but take > away the farm industry so there are no farm animals for them to torture? No. Buy only free-range organic meat; that way you don't need new laws and new jails. > Where will the torturers end up? ?? Meat farms are not run by psychotic torturers any more than gun stores are run by pro-murder nutcases. The abuse of animals comes about because businessmen want the best possible return on investment. They don't cut off chicken's beaks because it pleases them to mutilate chickens; they do it so they can't attack each other and reduce the yield when crowded together. They don't give them antibiotics because they like the diarrhea that results; they get more meat that way. Want to solve the problem? Make it clear that they WON'T make money doing business that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #98 July 22, 2004 Quote>What's your argument: do nothing to the psychotic torturers, but take > away the farm industry so there are no farm animals for them to torture? No. Buy only free-range organic meat; that way you don't need new laws and new jails. > Where will the torturers end up? ?? Meat farms are not run by psychotic torturers any more than gun stores are run by pro-murder nutcases. The abuse of animals comes about because businessmen want the best possible return on investment. They don't cut off chicken's beaks because it pleases them to mutilate chickens; they do it so they can't attack each other and reduce the yield when crowded together. They don't give them antibiotics because they like the diarrhea that results; they get more meat that way. Want to solve the problem? Make it clear that they WON'T make money doing business that way. Did you watch those videos?! Don't pretend to me that those people were bashing chickens with sticks, or throwing cinderblocks at the heads of pigs, because "business" requires them to do so. Those are sick individuals who glory in torture and hurting and killing. So I put to you AGAIN: why would closing factory farms eliminate the problem they pose to society? You might as well claim that demolishing a crack house will solve the crack addict problem. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #99 July 22, 2004 Read a book called "Fast Food Nation" and the part on slaughter houses. It boils down to saving money, yeah they werent required to do those things, but the owners dont give a shit nor does the supervisor, its all about saving money. It's all about processing so many animals per hour, if they dont meet that quota heads roll. Yeah I eat meat, but only buy from organic farmers and pref kosher too. I refuse to buy foster farms or regular brands from chain supermarkets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #100 July 22, 2004 >Did you watch those videos?! Don't pretend to me that those people > were bashing chickens with sticks, or throwing cinderblocks at the > heads of pigs, because "business" requires them to do so. Agreed. There are sick people out there, and there are laws against inhumane treatment of animals. We need only enforce the laws already in place to deal with these people. However, most of the torture of animals comes about not from people who want to hurt animals, but people who want to make money. There's not much money in braining a pig with a brick, but lots of money in confining an animal to a body-sized stall in the dark for its entire life, or cutting its beak off, or feeding it feed that both fattens and sickens it. >So I put to you AGAIN: why would closing factory farms eliminate the > problem they pose to society? They would solve the problems of disease, antibiotic resistance, pollution and food contamination that these factories cause. A more ephemeral benefit is that they would result in more humane treatment of food animals. >You might as well claim that demolishing a crack house will solve the > crack addict problem. You're the one who has taken the position that stopping a few people will end a much larger abuse problem. It is my position that crack houses will end only when people stop buying (and using) crack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
