|
|
|
|
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 901 | |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/25/2009 6:04:46 AM | Obsessively striving for absolute dietary purity parallels with religious behavior.
It serves some of the same psychological needs.
There is typically guilt or at least anguish over this state of assumed sin.
All it takes is one slip-up to establish an ad-hoc fallen state, after which you must redeem yourself.
Guilt and redemption are strong motivators, because they go to the core of self-image.
If "toxemia is the basic cause of all disease" then redemption becomes a quasi-religious quest.
One's philosophy can begin to obscure whatever realities exist.
One paints themselves into a corner where because "no one is without sin"
(we all goof up from time to time), one can never be sure after they have sinned
if that sin is really forgiven or not (cleansed from the body by normal processes).
Thus to redeem oneself, one must always either fast or go on some sort of cleansing program.
To remain pure and undefiled and also to serve as proof one should go even further
and be able to live on the most restricted diet possible permanently.
If one is not able to do so, then it means one is not really purified, or evolved enough,
and thus the only recourse is to do further cleansing until one is really pure
and evolved enough to do so.
Self-restriction becomes its own virtue as absolute purity recedes.
After awhile, however, this easily becomes a habit divorced from any real reason.
The psychological dynamics which have become ingrained.
It can end up becoming a self-reinforcing vicious circle and one never reaches the "goal."
What ensues into this dynamic is they go through a cycle of cleansing and sinning, cleansing and sinning
-- Or if they do not sin, they continually feel they still must not have figured the "system" out completely
and so they go on searching here, and searching there.
Endgame: fundamentalist obsessive-compulsiveness.
Many of these individuals become so locked into this way of thinking they are never again able to see food and eating any other way.
This particular syndrome is a potential breeding ground for obsessive-compulsives,
and the individuals who fall into it often become the basket cases .
The words above are taken from --(The Psychology of Idealistic Diets)
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview3e.shtml | |
|
| |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/25/2009 11:58:06 AM | >>> i'm not emotional at all with regards to this topic.
I disagree. You pointed out that we were discussing ending a life, and that life is sacred- you asserted your emotional beliefs, and expected that I share it, while stating that if I disagreed, I would be belittling myself.
You are demanding your emotional response be the only possible answer, while condemning people if they dare to disagree.
>>>now me trying to force my own emotions onto all of society?
You are condemning any opinion that doesn't suit your own, yes. Your opinion is based on emotion- you FEEL life is sacred, and all life must be protected- and you claim anyone who does not share your emotional response is belittling their own existence.
I wonder why anyone would be offended by such a statement.
>>>#1. i didn't know jiperly = the world society.
Never made such a claim. I believe people should be free to choose their own lifestyle- you are the one who put others down for not sharing your beliefs.("your taking a life. when you belittle life like that, you also belittle your own life. ")
>>>#2 i'm only discussing this in a forum
If you feel the discussion isn't worth your effort, then don't let me twist your arm. I have no interest in discussing things with people who have no interest in discussion.
>>>#3 i don't need to prove i'm right.
Then don't go onto a forum stating that you are right if you have no interest in discussing why(again, see response to #2)- only ***holes go into forums, state they are right because they feel it, and that they don't need to explain any further than that.
>>>well you might as well throw in the army while your at it
Right you are- the army is a job that alot of people would not have the stomach for- and again, using the same logic, wouldn't that mean that if people are unwilling to fight in wars for their freedom, that they should not have freedom?
>>>I guess you say that's acceptable too, right?
In many situations, yes, defending your country from foreign invaders or defending your citizens rights is vital. I'd like to see you claim animals should have rights without an army defending those animals rights.
>>> killing all those Iraqis for the sake of oil is acceptable, because being a soldier is a killing job and that's acceptable, right?
I never said anything remotely close to that statement. Really, all you do is come on here to demonize anyone who disagrees with you, rather than expressing your own beliefs, don't you? After all, it seems you are implying that, since I see nothing wrong with slaughtering a cow, I must be okay with the murder of civilians to steal their oil. Perfectly logical conclusion, and no attempts to emotionally charge the situation at all....
>>> I for one would never ever stop anyone from choosing.
But you will demonize people who disagree with you? Classy. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/25/2009 6:11:12 PM | xzanthius on 5/25/2009 8 10 AM
RE:COMMENT 894.
It is on reading a sensible and well balanced comment such as this that makes me believe that there is still hope for the world.
Despite the radical and 'loose cannon' mentality that ravages around us, a small section of humans possess the wonderful sentiments as expressed in this comment.
More strength to the arm of these 'special' individuals that maintain balance and sanity when the rest in the world seem to be 'going mad'!
Bravo! | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/25/2009 7:21:56 PM | awwww.....post 894 came moments before I posted....I didn't even notice it....
This sucks....I want to object to the claim that PeTA is actually helping someone other than themselves, but I equally don't want to bring up an older post solely because some praised it.... | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/26/2009 6:43:23 PM | Jiperly on 5/26/2009 1 56 PM
This point of view is exactly what I intimated to;concerning so called
'fair and reasonable' comments that really expect the reader to actually
believe that PETA and other such organisations are acting without any
vestige of morality and good faith.As I understand it(from some very limited
knowledge of this organisation)they are acting with good intent although at
times over zealous but keen on highlighting and preventing animal cruelty.
They presumably have to comply with the laws of the land but attempt to
promote a voice for animals.
As for PETA themselves I assume that like any organisation
(with membership all over the world) they are properly audited
and their organisation is composed of good men and women who
are criminally liable for their actions (in respect to their elected
positions) on their board or committee.
I have not carefully read each and every one of the comments here
but I assume that PETA have not acted like environmental terrorists
in any proven activity which has rendered them criminally liable thus
bringing their organisation into disrepute.
Any personal views surely should surely take into account the
facts and then assume that their motives are pure.That is the basis
of our democratic system.The fourth estate acts to highlight
their actions and draws into sharp focus any abuses. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/26/2009 6:52:45 PM | Some vegans became vegans not because of animals right but because they chose to live a healthier lifestyle. However, this doesn't escape your question. I think that most vegans would indeed devour seal, fish, crab, and even human meat if the alternative were death.
You probably sat in front of a computer with a stomach full of food when you were creating this post. It's really easy to say that you will not cross the line of consuming human flesh when your stomach hasn't contracted yet. When ketosis has long passed and your body has begun to convert muscle into energy to keep your higher brain functions active and avoid cardiac arrest you'll feel differently. Have you ever gone more than two weeks without food? I mean NO food at all. Believe me, you will look at things differently after you've gone over a month without it.
Seal and fish would be a luxury if you ask me. I think the Vegans would eat it. Hell, They'd eat human meat too. That buddy of yours that just died yesterday is going to start looking might tasty, and I'm not even trying to be funny. You're survival mode will kick in and it's nothing to be ashamed of. Most people will begin to cannabalize our dead friends if it means survival. For the record, I would WANT my friends to eat me if it meant that they might survive another two weeks. We Homo Sapiens have survived some heavy shit over the last 150,000 to 200,000 years and it's not because we are picky about what we eatl rather, it's because we aren't. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/26/2009 7:41:23 PM | : xander54 on 5/27/2009 12 45 PM
You presume to anticipate the actions of other humans in a certain rarefied atmosphere where a certain set of specific circumstances are defined.
You then subjectively associate their behaviour akin to animals.
Big Call!
It may be that you connect all human behaviour by your standard set of assumptions
which are flawed.
An example which contradicts your assertion was evident by a man named KOLBE
in a nazi death camp in the 1940's.He chose death to save the life of a familied man.
Kolbe himself was single.
The human being IS different from OTHER ANIMALS and any assumptions about their behaviour in defined circumstances cannot be generalised.
| |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/26/2009 9:26:32 PM | >>>As I understand it(from some very limited knowledge of this organisation)they are acting with good intent although at times over zealous but keen on highlighting and preventing animal cruelty.
My real beef with them is they are hypocrites, really, and only serve as an advertising organsation, spending millions of dollars on ads instead of actually helping abused, mistreated, or tortured animals. I could tell you a huge, huge list of grievances with that organsation, like how they literally have given arsonists financial support after they set a Michagan State College on fire, or how they actually kill over two-thirds of the animals they put in their protection- but there seems to be a stimga to discussing it in these forums. It seems when you object against what PeTA says, people whine that you're generalizing their beliefs to the largest, loudest, most popular and best funded Vegan Advocacy Group, a group that literally exists solely to represent vegans, and that PeTA does not represent them, so any evil such a group represents does not apply to them.(despite the fact that, users like xan applaud them for their actions)
I find a grand hypocracy in that too, mind you, but I gave up on it about 20 pages ago.
>>> I assume that PETA have not acted like environmental terrorists
in any proven activity which has rendered them criminally liable
Well, In 2005, two PeTA members were found killing stray animals and abandoning them in dumpsters. Over 80 were killed in a month. It was part of an agreement with the local animal shelters- they told the shelters they would find them homes.
Thats just one example.
>>>The human being IS different from OTHER ANIMALS and any assumptions about their behaviour in defined circumstances cannot be generalised.
I should take this time to point out that, on the issue of PeTA's stances, this is clear cut- Their Senior Vice President actually suffers from Diabetes, and must use medical products gained from animal testing, and treat it with products harvested from animals. If it came down to either they die for their idealogy or not, they've clearly made precedent- they would contradict their idealogy if it came to their own life. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/27/2009 8:10:50 AM | ahhh yes the argument that the human being IS different from other animals.
what IS IT. that makes us human hmmm?
oh yea! compassion and love
traits that some humans? in this discussion are severely lacking: promoting death and destruction in the name of "freedom".. (you must think we are a bunch of idiots here.. ).. tisk tisk.
the same actions of death and killing that you active promote, (the complete opposite of compassion, love and, self-sacrifice), are the same things, that prove.. you aren't human... your an animal...
i wish all of you humans and animals well. and successful endeavors on this dating site. (me thinks some of you will be on here for a very long time...lol) may the rants continue... | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/27/2009 9:49:23 AM | Jiperly,
I wish you, and others would quit getting your information from websites like:
consumerfreedom.com,
activistcash.com,
cspiscam.com,
animal-scam.com,
fishscam.com,
obesitymyths.com,
physiciansscam.com
[and] PetaKillsAnimals.com.
These websistes are funded by the meat industry and exist to further the meat industry interests by spreading lies.
See this site for information on the sources of this misinformation.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
Once again, PETA is a grass roots organization that gets its funding by individual donations. (there is no such thing as a vegetable lobby) The meat industry on the other hand is a billion dollar multinational industry. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 912 | |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/27/2009 11:19:37 AM | So vegans play fair ---is that the argument ---do you really want to open that can of snakes ?
How about a truce-an armistice ??????????
It is not necessarily the end of a war, but may be just a cessation of hostilities
while an attempt is made to negotiate a lasting peace.
 | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/27/2009 11:37:12 AM | >>>that makes us human hmmm?
Intelligence. Adaptablity. Reason. Logic. The ablitity to understand our surrondings. And yes, Compassion.
>>>promoting death and destruction in the name of "freedom"..
Yes- I believe freedom is important. You have the freedom to determine your own morality and your own diet, but you want us to believe that you should be the only one granted that liberty?
Since when is the freedom to determine your own lifestyle is a freedom that must not be afforded?
>>>the same actions of death and killing that you active promote, (the complete opposite of compassion, love and, self-sacrifice),
Please, do go on- and while you're at it, explain to me again how you are not attempting to emotionally charage the situation when you demanding that people FEEL, that people must have COMPASSION
And Self-Sacrifice? You know that condemning people for not participating in self-sacrifice is a contradiction in terms, right, since then they aren't choosing SELF-sacrifice, they are being chastized for not giving themselves up outright. Not that such a claim matters- again, we turn to the issue of why you are here- why are you demanding we sacrifice for the good of society, good of nature, and good of the world, but you yourself refuse to sacrifice electricity, despite the far greater damage it does to society, nature, and the world?
Personally, I believe the creed of self-sacrifice to be one that is utterly and completely disgusting- and completely inhuman.
--Atlas Shrugged Excerpt--
“‘Sacrifice’ does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. ‘Sacrifice’ does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. ‘Sacrifice’ is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.
“If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and gave it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.
“If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.
“If you renounce all personal desire and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate-that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.
“A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward-if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.
“You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man-and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.
--------
>>>I wish you, and others would quit getting your information from websites like
I've explained in the past, I do not find anything wrong with ConsumerFreedom.com- they're a grass roots adovacy group that exists to represent consumer freedom, and fight to allow each person to assume control over their own ethics, and feel that no one should have their ethics dictated towards them by restricting the choices of the consumer.
As for the other websites, I am unfamilar with them, aside from PetakillsAnimals.com- but even then, if you feel what they are saying is untrue, don't whine that the website is wrong- prove that they are wrong.
Oh, and the example I presented for 2005? Yea, that came from Wikipedia, who got it from numerous news reports, including CNN asking the Co-Founder and President of PeTA Ingrid Newkirk, like, why their organsation is murdering stray animals. Again, if you have an issue with what I say, don't imply that its all lies because it came from a source you don't approve it- We all know you like to live in your own little bubble, but I refuse to allow other users to be ignorant because you feel informing them of the actions and beliefs of PeTA is unimportant.
>>>These websistes are funded by the meat industry
As well as being funded by members of the alchoal industry, the gambling industry, the cigar industry- this group has over 1000 donors, with 100 corportate sponsors, including Coca Cola, Anheuser-Busch , Wendy's, and Phillip Morris, to name a few. It is NOT a meat industry advocacy group- it is a consumer freedom advocacy group.
Also, oddly enough, they received nearly 1/10th the funding PeTA did- so it would seem that PeTA has stronger ecconmic backing anyways
>>>See this site for information on the sources of this misinformation.
Whats wrong with Wikipedia? You'd rather use a website that allows people to edit articles more quickly, and with less oversight?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivistCash
>>>(there is no such thing as a vegetable lobby)
BULLLLSHIT.
And how and why PeTA gets its money shouldn't really be the issue, anyways- I'm not arguing against their funding, I'm arguing against their practises. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/27/2009 8:10:58 PM | Last night Nicholas Stern was interviewed on a reputable television
(free to air) channel(ABC) in Melbourne and predicted that by the
end of this century global temperatures will increase by 5 degrees
centigrade.
The resultant effect being(in all probability) many areas
of (arable and farming) (sic) land will be subject to flooding
with storms and sea level rises whilst other areas of land will
become desert and thus unproductive so that the available
land (arable and grazing)for farming will be considerably
reduced with natural population increases occurring as we write.
This climate change necessitates action now to curb this
temperature increase and the successful removal(or reduction)
of large contributors of co2 to the atmosphere.
One such measure is the reduction in beef production because
of it's intense use of land,water,and other natural resources together
with methane gas controls.
Out of economic necessity the price of beef and other animal
carcasses used for consumption(transportation and packaging
costs which come at a 'carbon' cost )will rise dramatically in
relation to other food types and I believe that the question
of eating less animal carcasses will be a "non issue".
Humans are a very adaptable lot and will change eating
behaviours to suit their pocket and the choice will be for
the better in my opinion.
To extrapolate current statistics in Australia
(and probably USA AND CANADA) THE OBESITY
of it's citizens are the regular cry of health professionals.
The current seats occupied by primary children are being
replaced in some state schools in Victoria to accomodate
their posteriors because they are getting broader and by
implication fatter.The sizes of clothes produced are now
skewed because of obesity;a size 12 is now cut to a bigger
fit and still called size 12 to accomodate this increase
in body mass.In addition I can personally assure you
that obtaining a pair of 25 inch waist pants is almost a virtual
impossibility in Australia because the demand for smaller
sizes here has little currency.
While I do not implicate the excessive consumption of animal
carcasses as the sole cause of the obesity I suggest that on any
sane and rational examination of the evidence we need to reduce
our consumption of certain types of food and economic reality
will force us to do so to our ultimate benefit.
Each time we sink our teeth into unwholesome food we are digging our grave! | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 915 | |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/27/2009 9:01:47 PM | Misplaced romanticism.
Organic isn't just Farmer John; it's Big Ag.
Plenty of pesticide-free foods are produced by industrial-scale farms
and then shipped thousands of miles to their final destination.
The result: refrigerator trucks belching carbon dioxide.
Organic produce can be good for the climate, but not if it's grown in energy-dependent hothouses
and travels long distances to get to your fridge.
What matters is eating food that's locally grown and in season.
So skip the prewashed bag of organic greens trucked from two time zones away
— the real virtue may come from that conventionally farmed head of lettuce grown in the next county. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/27/2009 9:44:10 PM | >>>Last night Nicholas Stern was interviewed on a reputable television (free to air) channel(ABC) in Melbourne and predicted that by the end of this century global temperatures will increase by 5 degrees centigrade.
Well snap, if someone predicted it, its gotta be true!
Why is it okay for you to call for the sacrifice of something you don't care for, but other people enjoy or even love? Why are you unwilling to sacrifice something YOU value, but find nothing self-righteous about asking or demanding that others sacrifice something they do? If the survival of the planet is at stake, I think you ought to be your own revolution- abandon electricity, and cars, and boycott products that cause pollution. After all, we only have one planet, and you want us to change our entire society based on the predictions of on Nick Stern.
But nope- you'd rather expect others make sacrifices, so long as you can continue to have the things you value in life.
>>>(transportation and packaging costs which come at a 'carbon' cost )
On a complete side note, 'carbon credits' very well may be the single stupidest thing I've ever heard of- you pay into a system as a means of "forgiveness for sins committed", and the website or Al Gore(who has one of the most profitable carbon credit website) or whoever- these powerful beings granted with the uncanny ability to forgive you, take their money, with absolutely no oversight, and claim it goes to help the environment.
In the 1700's, the Catholic Church went around taxing people for "indulgences"- controlling the fate of your soul if you do not pay up for committing sins. They took this money, and got plump, and rich off it, until one day, one Martin Luther protested against it, creating the Protestant religion in the process. It seems we have a modern version of this phenomenon appearing on our streets....
>>>Humans are a very adaptable lot and will change eating behaviours to suit their pocket and the choice will be for the better in my opinion.
Thats a real enlightened way to view the world; "Soon, one day, people will not be able to afford the most basic of necessities- and when we're all starving and in poverty, we will finally reach a higher level of morality!"
>>>I suggest that on any sane and rational examination of the evidence we need to reduce our consumption of certain types of food
Yes. Reducing the amount of junk food we eat and exercising regularly should bring the desired result- we don't need to abandon eating meat, because eating meat wasn't the cause- it was unhealthy living without moderation. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/28/2009 1:21:14 AM | Jiperly,
I wish you, and others would quit getting your information from websites like:
consumerfreedom.com,
activistcash.com,
cspiscam.com,
animal-scam.com,
fishscam.com,
obesitymyths.com,
physiciansscam.com
[and] PetaKillsAnimals.com.
These websistes are funded by the meat industry and exist to further the meat industry interests by spreading lies.
See this site for information on the sources of this misinformation.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
Once again, PETA is a grass roots organization that gets its funding by individual donations. (there is no such thing as a vegetable lobby) The meat industry on the other hand is a billion dollar multinational industry.
The FBI has nifty files available on PETA that any citizen can access if they supply the proper forms.
PETA has proven itself to be an organization that supports terrorist activity, time and time again.
If you REALLY want to help the animal world, donate to the ASPCA, or other Legitimate Animal organizations, like the Humane Society.
Giving money to PETA is like giving it to Osama Bin Ladin. Same difference. A scumbag is a scumbag. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/28/2009 2:13:02 AM | Jiperly on 5/28/2009 3 10 PM
The increase in temperature is a majority concensus in
the scientific world BUT you may be right that in fact
the world will not have any greenhouse gas to worry about.
In fact it may lack carbon in the atmosphere in the future
and we may be asked to burn more carbon.There is always
that probability.
I also admit that the population may in fact drop in world
terms and and there will be in fact more arable land for beef
production.That is a probability and that more people will be
fully fed and clothed and eating more and more animal carcasses
to their heart's content.
I simply stated one reasonable scenario that may occur and never
intended to dictate to anybody anything.These choices that will be
made out of economic necessity and nothing else; everybody
is free to do as they wish.
The issues I espoused are not intended to be personal but general
in nature.Reality bites.
Morality is not an issue.Carbon costs appear to be a fait accompli.
Your right to express your views and the stance you take is respected.
| |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/28/2009 6:56:35 AM |
If you REALLY want to help the animal world, donate to the ASPCA, or other Legitimate Animal organizations, like the Humane Society.
Giving money to PETA is like giving it to Osama Bin Ladin. Same difference. A scumbag is a scumbag.
I don't belong to PETA, not do I support them, however it is obvious that their tactics are effective in getting attention. If they quietly existed in the background, no one would have heard of them.
The ASPCA, and Humane Society are organizations that protect pets. They ensure that pets are never treated like livestock in factory farms. The only national organization that protects all animals equally seems to be PETA. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/28/2009 10:19:25 AM | >>>The only national organization that protects all animals equally seems to be PETA.
No, the only LEGAL organization that has a vested interest in animal rights is PeTA. There are plenty of militant terrorist organizations that are attempting to achieve the same goals, only violently- and PeTA has no issue funding these violent organizations.
And, as I've said before, PeTA has no interest in any animals welfare- they put to death more animals than they save. Like it or not, their sole purpose is to represent Vegans- not to help animals. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/28/2009 3:05:01 PM | PETA's response to this allegation
Recently, some groups have made misleading claims about PETA’s euthanasia rate compared to the rates of various animal shelters. One such group is the deceitfully named Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF)—a front group for Philip Morris, Outback Steakhouse, KFC, cattle ranchers, and other animal exploiters that kill millions of animals every year—which is acting not out of compassion but out of greed. These companies are worried about the strides that PETA is making that are changing their industries and compelling them to take animal welfare concerns seriously; they hope to scare people away from supporting PETA by misrepresenting the vital work that we do for animals. To learn more about CCF—which USA Today recently opined should rename its Web site FatforProfit.com—please see the following Web sites:
•http://www.ConsumerDeception.com
•http://www.CitizensForEthics.org/node/19131
•http://www.Prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8984
Although PETA does not run an adoption facility (we refer most adoptable animals to well-known shelters with a high rate of public traffic), we have managed to place hundreds of animals in excellent lifelong homes. For many of the animals we do accept—such as those who are severely injured, aggressive, or otherwise unadoptable—we are often a “shelter of last resort,” offering a humane death to animals who would otherwise suffer a slow and painful end.
While some of the animals we take in are lost companion animals or adoptable strays, many of the animals we receive are broken beings for whom euthanasia is, without a doubt, the most humane option. To cite a local instance, our caseworkers were able to gain custody of a dog who was tied to a 15-pound chain and who was starved until she was severely emaciated. We had to carry her into the emergency clinic because she could barely walk. A vet recommended that the most humane option for her was a peaceful and dignified release from her suffering. We pursued criminal charges against those responsible for her condition, leading to their convictions for cruelty to animals. To learn more, please see http://www.HelpingAnimals.com/f-asiasstory.asp. On another occasion, when a power-line transformer explosion burned a flock of starlings, PETA was the only agency to come to the birds’ aid, offering the animals a painless escape from their suffering.
PETA receives calls every week from people who do not have the inclination or money to provide veterinary care. Many of these people request that we euthanize their animals because they cannot afford to have them euthanized by a vet or because the animals would suffer excessive stress and pain if they were transported. PETA will not turn its back on these animals simply because they might make our “numbers” look bad.
Unlike “no-kill” shelters, PETA does not refuse animals simply because euthanasia is the only humane option for them. Many of the animals we take in are given to us because they have been rejected by other facilities. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/28/2009 4:34:53 PM | >>>a front group
Ironic- an organization thats a front for terrorists is crying out that other groups are a front for legal businesses.
>>> they hope to scare people away from supporting PETA
Unlike, again, the groups that PeTA supports financially, who firebomb private property and send death threats- or even the actions of PeTA itself, giving pamphlets to ten year olds showing a picture of a mommy hacking a rabbit to gory bits on the cover.
>>>(we refer most adoptable animals to well-known shelters with a high rate of public traffic)
Again, see the event that happened in 2005, where they helped adoption agencies kill animals and leave their bodies in dumpsters
I think its an important question to ask- why DOESN'T PeTA offer an adoption agency? They earned nearly 30 million in 2004, tax free- but they'd rather buy billboard space than actually save tortured or abused animals. Like it or not, it really is time you get your head out of the sand and accept the truth- PeTA is not an animal welfare organization- they are a Vegan Advocacy Group. They exist to represent vegans- not to save animals. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/28/2009 6:12:16 PM | Aren't most of the people in peta and vegans upset about animal cruelty? Sure there are some people that believe we shouldn't eat meat but the fact is our bodies are built to digest that food if we so choose to.
I'm all against animal cruelty, but not a vegan, and if I was stranded on an island I would be eating the animals. There is nothing cruel about eating animals for survival.
It's cruel when you throw them into a match to fight to the death for amusement, it's cruel when you put a cigarette butt out on an eye, it's cruel when you play catch with it and so on. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 5/31/2009 8:43:39 PM | Ideoform on 1/16/2009 11 19 AM[Perhaps if we all gave up (a nutritionally unnecessary, but more expensive serving) of meat on a few Thursday's, we could afford to prevent the blindness of 250,000 to500,000 children each year.]
This is such a sensible statement but having encountered attitudes
and value systems extolled by two anarchic lunatics on this thread
who clearly believe in nothing but self gratification and climate change
denial despite overwhelming scientific opinion I suggest you will be
'pi**ing in the wind' if you try to introduce any sanity and rational
thought into this thread.
Despite ANYthing,Voltaire did say that we must defend unto the
death other's right to express their opinions and so it will be;suffice
to say that they have no view of the future but simply to condemn
everything and anything that is written that does not promote the
ANCIENT ROMAN CULTURE OF "EAT,DRINK AND BE MERRY
FOR TOMORROW WE DIE" SO THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO PARTY
ENDLESSLY,GO OUTSIDE,VOMIT,HAVE YOUR FILL OF SEX,FOOD
AND COME BACK AND GO ON WITH THE PARTY!!!
THE 'WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT
TOMORROW OR ANYBODY ELSE'
TODAY MENTALITY ;JUST DO NOT
TRY TO HAVE COMPASSION,CONCERN
FOR ENVIRONMNT,OR ANYTHING
DECENT!JUST SHOOT UP WITH ANY
'FIX' AVAILABLE FOR SHORT TERM
GAIN,CONDEMN EVERYTHING AND
BE A TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE BOOR!!!!
SELF GRATIFICATION IS THE ESSENCE!
Though the world for this commend thee -
Though it smile upon the blow,
Even its praise must offend thee,
Founded on another's woe:
These are words of deeper sorrow
Than the wail above the dead;
Both shall live, but every morrow
Wake us from a widowed bed.
Fare thee well! thus disunited,
Torn from every nearer tie.
Seared in heart, and lone, and blighted,
More than this I scarce can die.
(BYRON) | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 6/1/2009 12:35:07 PM | Morals vs. moralizing.
It's almost impossible to state a moral or value without making someone else feel guilty or wrong. Any social pressure that is not law, is a choice people make. If I set my personal standard to only obeying the law, I might still do some harmful (or stupid) things, but the government leaves that up to me. That doesn't make it better to do--my behavior just won't put me in jail or have me paying a fine. Using seatbelts and child car seats used to be voluntary...but they were always a good idea. I know, I used to be in the Children's Hospital a lot, and saw the end results.
So if I set myself a standard--any standard--that is more work, more sacrifice, more costly, than that required by law, I set myself up for the social consequence of making other people uncomfortable around me sometimes...and sometimes uncomfortable enough that they ridicule me to feel better about what they aren't doing, that I am doing.
It is so interesting to see such a bland topic as this: "What some people aren't eating."
getting so much attention. Its not enough to make the news, generally, what people aren't doing. People are smoking less. Not that great a news story compared to so many others. That doesn't make it any less of an accomplishment for human health. Some people lost their jobs in the tobacco industry because of less consumption. Perhaps that will make the news someday....
If you have a value, and follow it, that isn't news either. Until you start to tell other people your value-- that is considered preaching. (Unless you are a parent, then it is considered acceptable to tell a person a value as long as they are underage.) So no matter what the value is; protecting the environment, minimising the suffering of food animals, treating minorities as equals, going to war, loosing weight, running a marathon for a charity, hunting game, dying your hair, sending thank you notes.... if you have to explain what you are doing to others--instead of just doing it--it can be preachy sounding.
For example. Your friend has lost 30 pounds and looks great, you start to talk, and he/she says to you:
"I went on a 'cleanse' because my Doctor recommended it for my heart."
"I am loosing weight because I am on a fast for peace."
"I decided to become a vegetarian because I don't digest meat very well."
"I joined Peta and they are all vegetarians, so I became a vegan."
"I have cancer, and the chemo drugs make me nauseous."
"I have aids."
"I became a Buddist and am following a 10 day fast."
"I qualified for America's Biggest Looser and just got back from three weeks at the studio."
"My husband died six months ago, and I can't seem to cook anything just for myself without missing him so much."
The answer makes all the difference. Some of the answers might make you wish you hadn't asked. But the end result is the same...your friend lost some weight. The significance of it can be so varied...and this is the difference between morals and moralizing. The person who chose to become a Buddist, or a Peta activist, or a hunger-striker is going to make a very different impression on you with their answer even if they do nothing else but to answer your question--no preaching, no moralizing, no other explanation.
The only way to get this issue this much attention on this dating forum was to set it to an extreme--where what is not being eaten is a matter of life or death. (However, in almost no real-life circumstance is not eating something going to be life or death unless you are giving up all food entirely, and permanently, and that would be suicide or mental illness on the level of anorexia. Hmmm, well, I guess diabetes and sugar would fit this, as well as Celiac and gluten, and peanut allergies and peanuts.) The question would have to be on the order of: "What political issue would make you go on a hunger strike?" or something like that.
But the alternative question might sound wacky, like; "Would you eat meat if you were deathly allergic to it, if you were in a banquet honoring a famous cattle rancher?" No meat eater is going to be risking their lives immediately by eating normal meat, so you can't reverse the question. Can anyone come up with the logical opposite question from the one being asked? For one thing, people don't usually eat meat primarily for moral/ethical/religious reasons.
But this is a developed country, and most people who are truly starving are on the desert island of public opinion...they are invisible to us.
We can focus on the extreme case of a well-nourished vegetarian person falling onto a desert island in a plane wreck, or we can focus on how to talk about real starvation, and how food choices in developed countries affect the rest of the world and what actions might be able to solve the problems created by the vagaries of the food industy and distribution issues.
If being vegetarian helps anyone or anything, then isn't that a good thing? And then, if it is, does it have to be moralized about? Or can it just be something good, like wearing seat-belts?
I think people reject having to explain wanting to live....
There is nothing wrong with wanting to live in a survival situation...and also nothing wrong with being required to bend one's values in order to survive if necessary. And also nothing wrong with not bending at all...and not surviving. (As long as that isn't against the law, its their choice, right?)
Some people seem to think they can't live comfortably without meat, and others see meat eating as a luxury they can easily give up for a variety of reasons.
But asking for an explanation means you have to accept the answer being written here, and not reject that the explanation is even being given. After all, this is a free website forum, nobody is loosing any money, and nobody has to read all the postings, or any postings at all. As long as people follow the forum posting rules, you can give your opinion. Moralizing has its own forum, in the form of the hidden Religion forum.
I say, lets find a real problem...not a plane wreck, or some other statistically insignificant problem that is mainly by chance or accident. And lets find some real solutions. And maybe a part of the solution will include changing the way we eat in this country. And that might be something almost all of us are already trying to do anyway.
I say, lets talk about some of the ideas people have come up with about food production, distribution and consumption that seem to be designed to solve some issue that concerns people. Like:
* Fair Trade,
* Buying food locally grown,
* Organic food production,
* Non-genetically modified food,
* Buying heirloom varieties to protect biodiversity,
* Supporting local farmers by going to farmer's markets.
I have one. I like what the Kosher designation tries to do. It's a bit out of date, and specific to mainly one culture/religion, but a good idea nonetheless. It is like an independent evaluation of food, like when an inspector comes to a restaraunt and looks for cleanliness back in the kitchen where you as a customer don't get to see.
Only I think we could get or create a group (probably not Peta--they obviously are good at rabble-rousing, not inspection) that could go in and inspect various aspects of food production/distribution/consumption with regard to ethical issues like the food blog The Ethicurian points out. The group could be non-sectarian, or multi-sectarian, or have a collaborative approach with scientific methodologies, and health specialists.
There is a guy on Oprah who specializes in health coaching, who developed some standards for food and has been allowed to put a symbol on packaged foods saying that they meet his health standards for weight loss reasons, such as low-sodium and low-fat.
The advantage of his label is like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Quality used to be. Another pair of eyes on the industry, so you can find foods you trust to be of a certain quality based on certain pre-set standards. Now we have a similar symbol for "Fair Trade," and for "Organic," although these standards sometimes are variable. We also have the "No Animal Testing" label for cosmetics.
The problem is agreeing on a standard, any standard that might make sense. But if the health coach on Oprah can do it, anybody can. You don't need a federal law to do this. You can just start one. Say, the standard is the least suffering for a food animal during its slaughter. Someone trained to do this could visit slaughterhouses, and rate them on a scale of one to ten, and simply publish the results somewhere. This makes the invisible, visible. We can't see how an animal died on the package when we buy the meat. Not that anyone needs a photo...but having someone else you trust, visit the place and give it a rating makes the unknown variable now something you can base your purchase on.
Its the stuff that hides in the shadows that can rot...the things nobody sees because they don't care to look...the places nobody wants to go...like in the sewers. The sewers are necessary to all of us, but why should any of us have to go down there just to make sure things are running smoothly and up to code? That's what inspectors are for. And independent inspectors might be nice, if there was something going on that corrupted the original inspectors. I'm not saying slaughterhouses have corruption. But they do have a bias...toward the efficient slaughter at the least cost of our food. There is no incentive for them to consider suffering when they are already causing the animals to die anyway.
But if we can have such nuances about our food as to: how many trans-fats, how many calories, how many omega 3 fats, how much sugar, what types of allergens it contains, how it looks, cartoon characters on the box, etc., etc., and these matter to somebody then if this matters to people, it could be done and marketed to benefit the business. Just like Starkist markets its tuna as dolphin-safe. | |
|
|
| Page 37 of 42
|
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 |
|
Home
login 
