Peta, Where Do We Draw The Line?

[Rayneuki]

Sadly the KKK did not have any scientifically viable research that proved Black Men were dangerous to white women, they just felt threatened and happened to know that we have larger penises than do all other people, on average and got frightened.

That's an extremely ignorant statement. With how much you throw around 'fact' and 'do research before you post' you'd think you would keep something like this out of it. I actually researched this for a period of time (Curiosity kills the cat I guess...) Black and white men are the same size, average penis size is 6inches ACROSS THE BOARD. In other words, no race is different in size. Now, men of African decent are different in one respect, they are the same size flaccid as hard (most of the time). One theory to why they look bigger is because they have an extra ligament in their penis.

Also, you can't tell how long your penis is as a man. When you look down at it, you see it from such an angle that it looks smaller/larger than it really is.


Back to the heart of this argument:

You may be Buddhist and all of that such... But how did we, as the human race, evolve to become the dominant species? By crushing everything in our way, it's not nice, it's not pretty, but that's life. I reiterate that I'm not saying that PETA is bad, but that they have crossed the line.

Evolution, natural selection, even if you're a strong intelligent design believer, you cannot tell me that we as a species would have been as successful as we were without being as cruel as we are. I know, it sucks, but it's life. Look at nature, do you see animals being nice to other animals? Do you think a leopard would choose to let a gazelle live free, or to keep it trapped for easier food? Once you give a brutal animal the intelligence to overcome the others, bad things happen.

But we can change this right? Possibly, but going around and showing horrible images isn't going to help. You'll get the bleeding hearts, yes, but you won't get the people who want a REASON to save the chickens. Why should they care? They're getting food and their family is happy. Give them a valid reason. Not "There's puss in your milk", "Hurt chickens are bad for you", ect... You know, once everyone sees a 'mascot' for an animal (such as the pandas here in Memphis) they begin to care. Not some nameless drawn chicken, some chicken that got freed from some horrible treatment. The general public would help, not just sit there and think the films of animal violence were faked.

My question is aimed at 'Where does abuse end and ethical treatment begin?" If you look on the front page of peta.org you see this:
Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way

Not ours to eat? Alright, whatever, lifestyle choice. I'd rather die of heart disease from eating meat (which I enjoy) than go completely veg. Also, we are creatures that evolved eating meat, vegetables, and fruits. I'm pretty sure cutting all meat out could be detrimental to one's health. But I'm no doctor, so I can't be quoted on that.

Not ours to wear? I can understand that... sort-of. When I mentioned the fur coat of my mothers... She MADE SURE that it came from natural death animals, animals that died of other causes than being skinned. It was beaver fur, and the beavers which were used were killed in extermination. Not a great way to die, but at least their bodies were being USED FOR SOMETHING. Giving at least SOME respect to the food chain.

Not Ours to Experiment On? I agree with this. This is one thing I do agree with PETA on. Testing medicine on rats is NOT equal to testing it for humans. Meanwhile, putting children in clinical trials is horrible to me also.

Not ours to Use for Entertainment? So... I shouldn't go to the zoo and watch the animals run around, have fun, and outright enjoy themselves? I shouldn't have a fish-tank so that I can help these fish (which would have died in a pet-store anyhow) or possibly help conserve species that could die out at some point or another? We shouldn't try and protect the Cheetah, which is having issues in the wild, by keeping them and breeding them in zoo environments? I can understand the "No circus animals" to a point, as carnies aren't the most reliable people in the world, but still...

Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way? I agree with this. Well duh, what gives us the right to beat a dog just because he ate your favorite plant (Which by the way might kill him)?

Like I said, they assume too much. Everyone does, and everyone knows the phrase: Assuming just makes an Ass out of you and me.

By the way, a radical group isn't just a group which is against the norm... A Radical group is a group against the norm and uses against the norm ways to push their ideas. That is, my opinion on the difference between a group for change and a Radical Group. Edited December 6, 2008 by Rayneuki

[ColibriDon]

An1m,

I didn't mean to insinuate that your statistics were any less valuable because they were copy/pasted, just that I wasn't going to go through the trouble of finding my own. Sorry if it seemed that way.

Also, radicals do seek change through any means necessary, that is what makes them different from liberals. They seek extreme change and are willing to do whatever it takes to get that change. Their counterpart are reactionaries who seek a past state of government through any means necessary. This isn't opinion based, this is fact based. Liberals seek change through non-violent, extremist ways...this is how we (me) work. Look up the definitions of radical/liberal/conservative/reactionary and tell me what you find.

Now, does "any means necessary" always equal violence, absolutely not. It means, "Any means necessary".

My statement about, "Radicals don't fight for equality, they fight for their way" is far from wrong. Radicals fight for their way and only their way. You said ( I don't want to search through the posts to find it), that radicals fight for equality, progress, and change (I'm paraphrasing but it's in here somewhere). What would radicals be if they didn't fight for their way? They would be...nobody. They exist to prove their point, it doesn't matter if it is right, just that it is proved. I will, once again, reference the White Supremacist movement. They are a radical group that fights for what THEY believe is correct. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them wrong.

However, their methods are wrong. Their propaganda about white's being the "supreme race" is the same as spreading propaganda about animals having souls. There is absolutely no way to prove either of those. The "scientific" proof you reference is nothing more than extreme cases blown out of proportion for the advancement of their cause. Can you prove that all the banks are run by jews? No. Can you prove that all slaughterhouses are inhumane? No. But there are some banks controlled by jews and some slaughterhouses that are inhumane.

Now, once again, just to be clear. Peta does NOT equal White Supremacists!! They just use similar tactics to prove their points. According to your own words, they use shock to get people to think.

I maintain that PETA is nothing more than a shock and awe organization that has no real chance of changing anything in their present state. We have a government system in place to get issues taken care of. Don't belittle people who make petitions to start initiatives for change, they work! We have a government in place to be used. PETA has been around for, what, 30 years? What have they done? The Dolphin Safe Act (I'm pretty sure that was an initiative, anyway)? That's one thing! If they are so adamant about this change, they need to take themselves more seriously and reach out to better outlets to really get their message across. Showing people shocking pictures and ridiculous statistics is a great way to get people to think you're a joke.

That being said, I do applaud your dedication to this belief. I definitely know I couldn't give up meat (What with the Cuban background and all, hehe) but I can imagine that that takes a lot of dedication.

Sorry for jumping all over you for the M.L.K thing. Comparing animal issues to human trauma is a real hot-button issue with me.

I think on this issue, we will simply have to agree to disagree. Edited December 6, 2008 by ColibriDon

[Bulldog_916]

PETA is a radical group which should be on a terrorist watch list. They assault people. They try to strike fear in people. They try to have people's livelihoods taken away because they SUSPECT animal cruelty is happening. It's just like fucking Green Peace. Everyone thinks Green Peace is fucked up because they use fucked up methods to achieve their goals like bombings, assault and snuff films.

The Civil Rights Movement was achieved using sit-ins, peaceful protest, and real appeals to reason. Had blacks gone around and started assaulting people and burning down houses and putting out lynching films, no one would have taken them seriously. Did that happen? Yes it did. But it didnt define their methods. Those were the RADICAL wings like the Black Panthers.

Look, I'm as caring as the next guy about animals. I wanted to see Michael Vick strung up for what he did to those dogs. But we have to appeal to REASON when we think about these issues. Saying "Dont eat meat ever" is being unreasonable. Saying "Dont wear fur ever" is unreasonable. Saying never experiment on animals ever is unreasonable. You have to want to REDUCE the incidents of this type happening. Not totally eliminate it. Appeal to people's real reasoning as opposed to their disgust emotion or their sadness emotion. Try talking to them like they are smart and reasonable people.

See how far you get.

[An1m]

Sadly the KKK did not have any scientifically viable research that proved Black Men were dangerous to white women, they just felt threatened and happened to know that we have larger penises than do all other people, on average and got frightened.

That's an extremely ignorant statement. With how much you throw around 'fact' and 'do research before you post' you'd think you would keep something like this out of it. I actually researched this for a period of time (Curiosity kills the cat I guess...) Black and white men are the same size, average penis size is 6inches ACROSS THE BOARD. In other words, no race is different in size. Now, men of African decent are different in one respect, they are the same size flaccid as hard (most of the time). One theory to why they look bigger is because they have an extra ligament in their penis.

Also, you can't tell how long your penis is as a man. When you look down at it, you see it from such an angle that it looks smaller/larger than it really is.


Back to the heart of this argument:

You may be Buddhist and all of that such... But how did we, as the human race, evolve to become the dominant species? By crushing everything in our way, it's not nice, it's not pretty, but that's life. I reiterate that I'm not saying that PETA is bad, but that they have crossed the line.

Evolution, natural selection, even if you're a strong intelligent design believer, you cannot tell me that we as a species would have been as successful as we were without being as cruel as we are. I know, it sucks, but it's life. Look at nature, do you see animals being nice to other animals? Do you think a leopard would choose to let a gazelle live free, or to keep it trapped for easier food? Once you give a brutal animal the intelligence to overcome the others, bad things happen.

But we can change this right? Possibly, but going around and showing horrible images isn't going to help. You'll get the bleeding hearts, yes, but you won't get the people who want a REASON to save the chickens. Why should they care? They're getting food and their family is happy. Give them a valid reason. Not "There's puss in your milk", "Hurt chickens are bad for you", ect... You know, once everyone sees a 'mascot' for an animal (such as the pandas here in Memphis) they begin to care. Not some nameless drawn chicken, some chicken that got freed from some horrible treatment. The general public would help, not just sit there and think the films of animal violence were faked.

My question is aimed at 'Where does abuse end and ethical treatment begin?" If you look on the front page of peta.org you see this:
Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way

Not ours to eat? Alright, whatever, lifestyle choice. I'd rather die of heart disease from eating meat (which I enjoy) than go completely veg. Also, we are creatures that evolved eating meat, vegetables, and fruits. I'm pretty sure cutting all meat out could be detrimental to one's health. But I'm no doctor, so I can't be quoted on that.

Not ours to wear? I can understand that... sort-of. When I mentioned the fur coat of my mothers... She MADE SURE that it came from natural death animals, animals that died of other causes than being skinned. It was beaver fur, and the beavers which were used were killed in extermination. Not a great way to die, but at least their bodies were being USED FOR SOMETHING. Giving at least SOME respect to the food chain.

Not Ours to Experiment On? I agree with this. This is one thing I do agree with PETA on. Testing medicine on rats is NOT equal to testing it for humans. Meanwhile, putting children in clinical trials is horrible to me also.

Not ours to Use for Entertainment? So... I shouldn't go to the zoo and watch the animals run around, have fun, and outright enjoy themselves? I shouldn't have a fish-tank so that I can help these fish (which would have died in a pet-store anyhow) or possibly help conserve species that could die out at some point or another? We shouldn't try and protect the Cheetah, which is having issues in the wild, by keeping them and breeding them in zoo environments? I can understand the "No circus animals" to a point, as carnies aren't the most reliable people in the world, but still...

Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way? I agree with this. Well duh, what gives us the right to beat a dog just because he ate your favorite plant (Which by the way might kill him)?

Like I said, they assume too much. Everyone does, and everyone knows the phrase: Assuming just makes an Ass out of you and me.

By the way, a radical group isn't just a group which is against the norm... A Radical group is a group against the norm and uses against the norm ways to push their ideas. That is, my opinion on the difference between a group for change and a Radical Group.

1)  I was making a tongue-in-cheek joke about penis size, however men of African descent have an average penis size of over 6.5 inches I believe. You are probably looking at a study done of college aged, white males and using that as an all encompassing figure. I could find the study I'm referring to, but either way i can tell you how long my penis is because I have measured it.


2) "should" you go to the zoo? I don't know. Do you enjoy having animals abused for entertainment? That's a personal choice, animal rights activists seek to inform people.

3) What do you mean PETA assumes too much? What did they assume? 

4) A radical group acts outside the social normn whenever they deem it necessary, which is precisely what makes them radical to the average observer. If radicals acted within the norms they'd not be radical at all.

However, their methods are wrong. Their propaganda about white's being the "supreme race" is the same as spreading propaganda about animals having souls. There is absolutely no way to prove either of those. The "scientific" proof you reference is nothing more than extreme cases blown out of proportion for the advancement of their cause. Can you prove that all the banks are run by jews? No. Can you prove that all slaughterhouses are inhumane? No. But there are some banks controlled by jews and some slaughterhouses that are inhumane.

Now, once again, just to be clear. Peta does NOT equal White Supremacists!! They just use similar tactics to prove their points. According to your own words, they use shock to get people to think.

I maintain that PETA is nothing more than a shock and awe organization that has no real chance of changing anything in their present state. We have a government system in place to get issues taken care of. Don't belittle people who make petitions to start initiatives for change, they work! We have a government in place to be used. PETA has been around for, what, 30 years? What have they done? The Dolphin Safe Act (I'm pretty sure that was an initiative, anyway)? That's one thing! If they are so adamant about this change, they need to take themselves more seriously and reach out to better outlets to really get their message across. Showing people shocking pictures and ridiculous statistics is a great way to get people to think you're a joke.

That being said, I do applaud your dedication to this belief. I definitely know I couldn't give up meat (What with the Cuban background and all, hehe) but I can imagine that that takes a lot of dedication.

Sorry for jumping all over you for the M.L.K thing. Comparing animal issues to human trauma is a real hot-button issue with me.

I think on this issue, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

1) animal issues are human issues. Humans are animals but they like to pretend they aren't.

2) My "scientific" evidence comes straight from the USDA, not "extreme" cases blown out of proportion. I don't think you read my post or the sources they came from. They are cold hard facts, from the corporate owned, factory farm protecting, United States Federal government. If they are biased, then they are certainly helping out corporate farms, not "[blowing things] out of proportion"


3) Do you doubt the efficacy of showing people shcoking pictures? Do you remember the saturation coverage of the twin towers falling? Do you remember that Sadaam Hussein worked with Al-Qaeda to attack America and kill 3,000 Americans? Do you remember that Sadaam Hussein wanted to use his Nuclear weapons on the United States? Oh yeah... that's right... he didn't, all of those things were lies. However if you pair a shocking image, that shatters people's beliefs about how animals are treated on farms, or the lives they lead then it has a very real effect on people. That's what shcoking images do. Battles must be fought on many fronts and that is just one facet of PETA's efforts to promote awareness of the situations farm animals are in. If you actually believe that;s all PETA has done, then you are naiive or misled, furthermore if you believe PETA does not have an impact on policy, people's opinions and changing conditions for animals, then you are wrong once again.

PETA is a radical group which should be on a terrorist watch list. They assault people. They try to strike fear in people. They try to have people's livelihoods taken away because they SUSPECT animal cruelty is happening. It's just like fucking Green Peace. Everyone thinks Green Peace is fucked up because they use fucked up methods to achieve their goals like bombings, assault and snuff films.

The Civil Rights Movement was achieved using sit-ins, peaceful protest, and real appeals to reason. Had blacks gone around and started assaulting people and burning down houses and putting out lynching films, no one would have taken them seriously. Did that happen? Yes it did. But it didnt define their methods. Those were the RADICAL wings like the Black Panthers.

Look, I'm as caring as the next guy about animals. I wanted to see Michael Vick strung up for what he did to those dogs. But we have to appeal to REASON when we think about these issues. Saying "Dont eat meat ever" is being unreasonable. Saying "Dont wear fur ever" is unreasonable. Saying never experiment on animals ever is unreasonable. You have to want to REDUCE the incidents of this type happening. Not totally eliminate it. Appeal to people's real reasoning as opposed to their disgust emotion or their sadness emotion. Try talking to them like they are smart and reasonable people.

See how far you get.

1) Why is saying don't wear fur ever unreasonable? Why is saying don't eat meat ever unreasonable? I do both, and have since I wa s8 years old. Am I somehow unreasonable? Throughout this whole thread I am the only person that has relied on facts, statistics, sound reasoning and logic to prove my points, whilst everyone else attempts to make straw-man and ad hominem arguments. Interestingly enough I am the "crazy" radical whose opinions everyone else seems to want to marginalize and "everyone else" are the nice, rational, non-acting, believers in the great myth that is the American political system. Go figure.

[ColibriDon]

1) animal issues are human issues. Humans are animals but they like to pretend they aren't.

2) My "scientific" evidence comes straight from the USDA, not "extreme" cases blown out of proportion. I don't think you read my post or the sources they came from. They are cold hard facts, from the corporate owned, factory farm protecting, United States Federal government. If they are biased, then they are certainly helping out corporate farms, not "[blowing things] out of proportion"

3) Do you doubt the efficacy of showing people shcoking pictures? Do you remember the saturation coverage of the twin towers falling? Do you remember that Sadaam Hussein worked with Al-Qaeda to attack America and kill 3,000 Americans? Do you remember that Sadaam Hussein wanted to use his Nuclear weapons on the United States? Oh yeah... that's right... he didn't, all of those things were lies. However if you pair a shocking image, that shatters people's beliefs about how animals are treated on farms, or the lives they lead then it has a very real effect on people. That's what shcoking images do. Battles must be fought on many fronts and that is just one facet of PETA's efforts to promote awareness of the situations farm animals are in. If you actually believe that;s all PETA has done, then you are naiive or misled, furthermore if you believe PETA does not have an impact on policy, people's opinions and changing conditions for animals, then you are wrong once again.

Humans are animals, yes, in a technical sense. However, we are advanced animals. We have supreme intelligence. This intelligence is what makes us great. Do we pretend that we are not animals? No. We act like animals, with very high intelligence. And I'm sorry, a slaughterhouse does NOT equal the holocaust! We understand the consequences of our actions, we contemplate our existence and life beyond our existence. Does a dog do this? No! They act like animals, they act on instincts and responses to stimuli. We do NOT equal animals. We are beyond them, we are above them, it's actually very simple. Now, if you bring me a dog who has begun to contemplate his life and the consequences of it, I might change my mind. Good luck finding that dog.

Where your evidence comes from is not my point, my point is that the evidence is ridiculous. YOU may not blow your statistics out of proportion but PETA does, "Everyday thousands of these animals are mistreated and it's YOUR fault!" Right...it's my fault. If that's not blowing things out of proportion I don't know what is.

I love your comparison here, lies to lies. Great. You're right, lying is a great way force people to believe you. Which is why PETA does it, they don't lie, per se. However they do exaggerate their points. Come on, they do. And I do believe that is all PETA has done. Do they have an elected official? Any sort of office in or near Washington D.C. (Clubhouses don't count)? Sure they may start petitions every now and then but they don't do anything because they're too extreme.

If they want people to follow along with them, they need to tone down their propaganda. Like Bulldog said, "No meat" is ridiculous. We eat meat, simple as that. Clearly their shocking tactics are far from effective because we are not vegetarians or even close to vegetarians. But we are all fed up with PETA.

And as far as your snide comment about how you're the only logical one here...lawl. You're the only one who cares to bring up these statistics. I'm not debating statistics, I'm debating methods. Seriously, statistics don't prove a point. That's PETA's problem, they depend on statistics and statistics alone to get their point across. Why, oh why, do we care about the statistics? I will admit that they have tried to get people to care with medical claims, but failed. They need to change gears.

I am not against the ethical treatment of animals, I love and treat my animals better than most people and believe people who mistreat animals should be shot but PETA needs to try a different way to get the public's support. Am I wrong in saying that? Clearly shocking videos and statistics alone are not enough, we need something else to pull us in.

[An1m]

1) animal issues are human issues. Humans are animals but they like to pretend they aren't.

2) My "scientific" evidence comes straight from the USDA, not "extreme" cases blown out of proportion. I don't think you read my post or the sources they came from. They are cold hard facts, from the corporate owned, factory farm protecting, United States Federal government. If they are biased, then they are certainly helping out corporate farms, not "[blowing things] out of proportion"

3) Do you doubt the efficacy of showing people shcoking pictures? Do you remember the saturation coverage of the twin towers falling? Do you remember that Sadaam Hussein worked with Al-Qaeda to attack America and kill 3,000 Americans? Do you remember that Sadaam Hussein wanted to use his Nuclear weapons on the United States? Oh yeah... that's right... he didn't, all of those things were lies. However if you pair a shocking image, that shatters people's beliefs about how animals are treated on farms, or the lives they lead then it has a very real effect on people. That's what shcoking images do. Battles must be fought on many fronts and that is just one facet of PETA's efforts to promote awareness of the situations farm animals are in. If you actually believe that;s all PETA has done, then you are naiive or misled, furthermore if you believe PETA does not have an impact on policy, people's opinions and changing conditions for animals, then you are wrong once again.

Humans are animals, yes, in a technical sense. However, we are advanced animals. We have supreme intelligence. This intelligence is what makes us great. Do we pretend that we are not animals? No. We act like animals, with very high intelligence. And I'm sorry, a slaughterhouse does NOT equal the holocaust! We understand the consequences of our actions, we contemplate our existence and life beyond our existence. Does a dog do this? No! They act like animals, they act on instincts and responses to stimuli. We do NOT equal animals. We are beyond them, we are above them, it's actually very simple. Now, if you bring me a dog who has begun to contemplate his life and the consequences of it, I might change my mind. Good luck finding that dog.

Where your evidence comes from is not my point, my point is that the evidence is ridiculous. YOU may not blow your statistics out of proportion but PETA does, "Everyday thousands of these animals are mistreated and it's YOUR fault!" Right...it's my fault. If that's not blowing things out of proportion I don't know what is.

I love your comparison here, lies to lies. Great. You're right, lying is a great way force people to believe you. Which is why PETA does it, they don't lie, per se. However they do exaggerate their points. Come on, they do. And I do believe that is all PETA has done. Do they have an elected official? Any sort of office in or near Washington D.C. (Clubhouses don't count)? Sure they may start petitions every now and then but they don't do anything because they're too extreme.

If they want people to follow along with them, they need to tone down their propaganda. Like Bulldog said, "No meat" is ridiculous. We eat meat, simple as that. Clearly their shocking tactics are far from effective because we are not vegetarians or even close to vegetarians. But we are all fed up with PETA.

And as far as your snide comment about how you're the only logical one here...lawl. You're the only one who cares to bring up these statistics. I'm not debating statistics, I'm debating methods. Seriously, statistics don't prove a point. That's PETA's problem, they depend on statistics and statistics alone to get their point across. Why, oh why, do we care about the statistics? I will admit that they have tried to get people to care with medical claims, but failed. They need to change gears.

I am not against the ethical treatment of animals, I love and treat my animals better than most people and believe people who mistreat animals should be shot but PETA needs to try a different way to get the public's support. Am I wrong in saying that? Clearly shocking videos and statistics alone are not enough, we need something else to pull us in.

1) I never said anything about the holocaust but you keep bringing it up as though I have. 


2) It is collectively, everyone in society's fault when injustice occurs and they hsve done little or nothing to prevent it or stop it. You may not personally abuse animals but if you don't care enough to get off your ass and do something then you're complacent in the mistreatment of animals.

3) Your ideas about "animals just reacting to stimuli" are fascinating. I don't think you truly understand how the human mind works or why humans do most of the things they do, in reaction to stimuli. We are animals point blank. 

4) PETA's "propaganda" doesn't rely on lies, it relies on facts, facts that people tend to dislike. PETA goes undercover into rule breaking, and particularly brutal slaughterhouses to prove a point. I've seen videos on mainstream television, like the Discovery channel,, where farmers are doing ridiculous things to animals, the point is that most people don't care very much about animals, but most people will question issues if they are bombarded with certain images. 

5) I am the only one waging a logical debate. Everyone else is making up facts, attributing characteristics to PETA that are inaccurate and have no proof, but some people claim that radicals are irrational and not open to debate or dialogue. As far as I can tell, and this is true for every debate I have ever witnessed or been a part of, any serious radical organization is very open to debate and dialogue. The problem is that the general public often tends to be very anti-intellectual. People would rather talk about the "way they feel" about PETA (which often tend to be unfounded, caricaturizations that they have invented), rather than actually explore PETA's arguments. The average person frowns upon statistics, and don't enjoy expending the brain power to comprehend them and then to meta-analyze what that information means beyond numbers on a paper. I didn't get any engaging responses about what those statistics meant, and when people were proven wrong about their own ideas they didn't come back and say "Oh wow thanks I didn't know the frequency with which cows got crazy udder infections" or "There's no federal regulations about that" it's "PETA throws paint on people!" or "They want to hold me accountable for my actions as a consumer."

While people may not like to hear the truth, it nonetheless should be told. If you shop at wal-mart for toys, then you complicitly support a ruthless anti-union corpration that houses people in other countries, in tiny dormitories where they sleep when they're not working 12-16 hour days. Where they share one bathroom per 25 or so women. If you eat meat and you don't support local farmers, and people that don't do fucked up things to animals then you are complicit in the state of animal welfare in this country. Who cares if you don't like hearing that, it's true. The average consumers, mindless as they are, have the power to affect change through what they purchase, and what businesses to support, If people aren't willing to do anything then they should accept that their inaction allows giant, factory farms, free reign to do whatever they want to. If you do nothing to change a situation, then your lack of action can often help to perpetuate it. As Orwell said, "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist." Edited December 6, 2008 by An1m

[Bulldog_916]

I'm not complicit to any sort of animal abuse based on what I eat. You're basically saying that I support the abuse of animals if I eat meat. I dont know how to tell you this, but humans have eaten meat for 1 million years. They will continue eating meat for a million more. All we can hope is that the animal that we're eating was slaughtered humanely and we have laws that make that happen. Do I feel sorry for some cows that are raised purely to be eaten? Yea I do. But it wont stop me from eating beef. Or chicken. Or turkey.

But in the mean time, here's some food for thought....Delicious

[staygone]

Went through this topic in ethics, had something to do with moral standing.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/

-QM

[An1m]

I'm not complicit to any sort of animal abuse based on what I eat. You're basically saying that I support the abuse of animals if I eat meat. I dont know how to tell you this, but humans have eaten meat for 1 million years. They will continue eating meat for a million more. All we can hope is that the animal that we're eating was slaughtered humanely and we have laws that make that happen. Do I feel sorry for some cows that are raised purely to be eaten? Yea I do. But it wont stop me from eating beef. Or chicken. Or turkey.

But in the mean time, here's some food for thought....Delicious

You seem to be impervious to logical argument. If you have read anythign that I've said, or knew what PETA fought for you probably wouldn't have typed this post.


Yes, you support the abuse of animals if you don't care enough to change the conditions that the animals live under. The point of this whole debate is "ethical" treatment. Humans have been eating meat for a long time, yes I could also point out the myriad civilizations that led vegan/vegetarian lives, like certain indigenous Central American peoples, or Indians but that's not even the point. The point is that animals do not have to be abused and treated inhumanely to be raised for food. For some reason you can't understand that.

People can do more than "hope" that the animals they eat aren't treated inhumanely, I can't believe you're even serious. That's what PETA fights for, to actually DO SOMETHING, to enact change, not to sit around on their asses and "hope." In the European Union animals are much better off, why? Because animal rights activists and groups like PETA fought for tougher standards, and laws, they didn't sit back and "hope." People like you, that appear to have an utter lack of understanding of how politics work, just stand in the way of progress. People "hoped" black people would get civil rights, "hoped" we wouldn't go to war in Iraq, "hope" gay people get civil rights. Here's a novel idea: get off your asses and do something. If animal rights is not what you're passionate about then so be it, but the way you talk signals to me some fundamental disconnect with reality. "We have laws" certainly, but very few and they're ineffective. The law isn;t given to us by some supreme being, in this country the people are responsible for creating them, and that is what activist groups are for, raising awareness to help people bring about certain changes. Laws can be improved, simply because there are some laws, does not mean that everyone should be content. Hell why don't we just dissolve congress already? I mean we've already got laws! I "hope" you people wake up someday. 

Either way I'm pretty much done with this thread, I just keep repeating myself and others keep bringing up nonsense arguments. Adios.

[Rayneuki]

An1m, I know you said you were done with this thread but I'd like to, ya know, say a few things,

For one, if you really want to be taken seriously don't go into Ad Hominim (To Human). This in turn means insulting other folks ect. Saying "Get off your Ass" and such does not constitute a strong argument. This goes for anyone else who's used anything like this. It makes you look unreasonable, this is one of the reasons so many people have issues with PETA. Yes, everything is our fault, even you An1m by buying vegetables from a grocery are supporting the same farmers who raise cattle. Why? Because it adds to the populace that they see as possible people to sell meat to. They see you buying veggies and think "Oh cool! He buys food from (store)! He might start buying our meat!" they add an extra cow to the lot, and that cow dies.

If you think I didn't research before I did this thread, read again. I have crawled the PETA site, I have a few friends who've tried to turn me to be veg. I just find their approach distasteful. That's what this thread is about, not about being 'right' but about what's too far. Have they gone too far? In my opinion, yes. You don't think so, just because everyone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you 'give up'. No one's going to agree with everyone for the same reason. You are basically here saying 'you're all wrong for thinking what you're thinking'.

You said: " Your ideas about "animals just reacting to stimuli" are fascinating. I don't think you truly understand how the human mind works or why humans do most of the things they do, in reaction to stimuli. We are animals point blank. "

Humans do NOT equal dogs or cats or even monkeys. Why? We have the knowledge, and concept of death. If a Dog understood death, and that it was going to come, do you think that it would run out into the road after it just saw another dog get hit by a car? No they wouldn't... But they do. Would deer constantly run out in roads and get hit? No, because they would have 'learned' by now. They would have realized 'Hey! Our friends die when they run out into the road and see those lights! Let's not do that!' This is what makes humans more evolved and able to make societies, otherwise if animals were on our same level... They'd have done the same things by now. They would have full languages... It's that concept of death that has spurred our societies along.

You said: " PETA's "propaganda" doesn't rely on lies, it relies on facts, facts that people tend to dislike. PETA goes undercover into rule breaking, and particularly brutal slaughterhouses to prove a point. I've seen videos on mainstream television, like the Discovery channel,, where farmers are doing ridiculous things to animals, the point is that most people don't care very much about animals, but most people will question issues if they are bombarded with certain images. "

The reason many people see the videos and pictures on PETA.org as propaganda is simply because... The only proof of it being where they claim it is, is what they write on their site. It might be a bit more believable if they actually used third-party investigation units, called the COPS and used LEGAL ways to gain their information. What they do is highly illegal, which makes it questionable, because one would think that IAMS would have sued the hell out of them after the IAMS footage they got.

It might even be a bit more believable if it showed up on the news once in a while. Americans, by nature, don't believe things unless they show up on big network TV... I'm not saying it's right, or intelligent, but it's how it works.

You Said: "I am the only one waging a logical debate. Everyone else is making up facts, attributing characteristics to PETA that are inaccurate and have no proof, but some people claim that radicals are irrational and not open to debate or dialogue. As far as I can tell, and this is true for every debate I have ever witnessed or been a part of, any serious radical organization is very open to debate and dialogue. The problem is that the general public often tends to be very anti-intellectual. People would rather talk about the "way they feel" about PETA (which often tend to be unfounded, caricaturizations that they have invented), rather than actually explore PETA's arguments."

You are the one who started throwing around facts . Joking, joking. The reason I brought up things like "what about vegetables?" and such, is an example of how most people feel about PETA. They're Radicals as you say, they're unpredictable, they're terrorists by definition. The reason for this thread was "Where will they stop?" "Have they gone too far?" Not, "Are they right about what they preach?" But it can be warped into that.

You Said: "if you shop at wal-mart for toys, then you complicitly support a ruthless anti-union corpration that houses people in other countries, in tiny dormitories where they sleep when they're not working 12-16 hour days. Where they share one bathroom per 25 or so women. "

I personally don't shop at wal-mart for anything because even here in America they pay their female employees less. They abuse their employees, and they're a horrible company.

You Said: ""should" you go to the zoo? I don't know. Do you enjoy having animals abused for entertainment? That's a personal choice, animal rights activists seek to inform people."

Actually PETA seeks to MAKE YOU NOT DO IT. Because they want it to NOT BE ALLOWED. But that's the difference between Animal Rights Activists and PETA, in my opinion. To my knowledge, last time I checked at least, If a zoo is found abusing animals they are pretty much buried UNDER the jail.
And I'm pretty sure with that they were referring to circuses, now that I looked into it a bit more.



P.S. No hard feelings, seriously. Don't take anything in a debate to heart, that's why using Ad Hominim is rather stupid, it makes the debate personal and ruins friendships and possible friendships.

P.P.S. By the way, if you really want to help the environment and save animals... Start a garden :] Grow your own veggies (if you don't already), I'm planning on doing it once spring comes. Edited December 7, 2008 by Rayneuki

[An1m]

Rayneuki: I agree with just about everything you said, except I wasn't making any ad hominem arguments. An ad hominem argument would have been if I said "people don't get off their asses so they're wrnog" I just said that they annoy me, but I did treat their arguments as valid and adressed the substance of what they were saying. But all I kept encountering were straw man and ad hominem arguments from the other people in the thread. "PETA throws paint at people, and that's wrong so I hate PETA" or "PETA are radicals and radicals don't know how to get anything done, thye only fight for what they want, and so EPTA is wrong."

Also, PETA is for ethical treatment of all animals, not just farm animals, or zoo animals or circus animals. You asked me if animals have a concept of death, the answer is yes, very much so. Not all animals, but some certainly do. Take elephants for example, they have a very complex society, customs, and they bury their dead and hold vigils at the burial site for a few days afterward. Every year they'll come back and visit their dead relatives for years or decades after. Elephants, also have enough respect for humans as other intelligennt animals, that even when they kill us, they will actually bury us the same as they would one of their own and humans are the only animals they will do it for.

My main gripe with people is that they can not accept that other animals are intelligent in the same EXACT ways that humans are, but there is no one animal that encompasses all of the ways that we define intelligence. Some scientists believe that the ability to lie, joke, learn language, or realize that one is mortal constitutes intelligence. Well other primates can lie, joke, and learn languages, Dogs do playful mischievous things that could be seen as jokes, Elephants realize they are mortal, and even bury their dead. But the problem with people is that when presented with evidence like this, they often feel compelled to make as exclusive a definition as possible of what intelligence is. Basically most people just say "intelligence is being human" therefore eliminating any possibilty of non-human animals being considered intelligent.

Also you said: "Actually PETA seeks to MAKE YOU NOT DO IT. Because they want it to NOT BE ALLOWED. But that's the difference between Animal Rights Activists and PETA, in my opinion. To my knowledge, last time I checked at least, If a zoo is found abusing animals they are pretty much buried UNDER the jail.
And I'm pretty sure with that they were referring to circuses, now that I looked into it a bit more."

This is the problem, as I see it, with the public's perception of animal rights, especially on farms, in zoos, and in curcuses. "abusing animals" is illegal, yes, but what does that truely mean? States with major agricultural businesses say "Farmers can not abuse or msitreat the animals, if most farmers want to do something, anything to an animal, it does not constitute abuse" as you can see, laws like these are of very little use for anyone concerned with keeping the animals from being abused. The same goes for regulations at zoos and circuses. You should check out some of the things that are done to the animals at those establishments and decide for yourself if they are abusive, and see if the current legislation is sufficient and / or not sufficiently enforced.

I appreciate your contribution , because it was sensible and I like the idea about having my own garden, but I live in NJ and there's plenty of organic, local, farmers and farmer's markets so I may never start my garden.

P.S. I don't object to the use of the word Propaganda, it is a legitimate word, however some people don't realize that and think that it is purely pejorative, connoting some sort of nefarious goings on, like Nazi propaganda, or U.S. government propaganda. Propaganda is information presented and framed in such a way that it appeals to people's emotions primarily, and very little to logical reasoning, if at all. I do contend, though, that PETA is happy to provide stats, but they want their numbers to have an impact on you. So instead of seeing the number of male baby chickens each day that are killed and thrown in to huge piles, they'll show you a picture of it, and give you the number. It's much more effective at getting the point across. What's more impactful for you? hearing that 150 people died in a terrorist attack or seeing bloody, gorey pictures of limbs and body parts strewn about with blood running through the streets and people running in fear?

[Bulldog_916]

My point is that human and animal ethics are different. How we treat humans and how we treat animals is necessarily different. Humans look out for themselves and their families, that's what we do. Animals come somewhere around tenth on our list of things to care about unless it's our pets.

We as a species would not survive if we did not kill animals for food. Farmland does not last very long. Look at Africa, the eastern central US, middle Europe, the Middle East...farmland is perishing at an ever faster rate. Guess what happens when that happens? More habitat is needed to convert forest to farm. Same goes with cattle farms and the like. If we were all to go vegan right now, entire forests would be demolished, huge swaths of delta land would be drained in order to raise crops. Water, a scarce resource as it is, would become more valuable than gold, and it's going that way right now. By advocating a vegan lifestyle, you're automatically saying everyone should do it. By going vegan we would make entire species extinct in our quest to raise crops. Think about the consequences of what you're advocating.

We've had farmland in central California since the gold rush in 1849. Our farming methods are the best in the world. We wouldnt be where we are without comprehensive regulation. I gave you the inspection protocol for ante-mortem cows. Anything that looks suspicious is rejected. Under capitalism, the best thing you can do as a cattle farmer is keep that cow or bull in the best condition possible as to avoid getting red tagged. An abused bull or cow doesnt help his bottom line. A sick cow or bull doesnt help his bottom line. Any dairy farm is subject to strict regulation, even more so than beef farms.

I'm an advocate for the ethical treatment of animals. We shouldnt have circuses. Zoos, though, do a valuable service by informing average citizens about animals in an entertaining and close up way. People who abuse their pets should do mandatory 10 year sentences. People who run dog fighting rings should get 20-life. I wanted to see Michael Vick HANG for god's sake. Dont think that I'm not an animal advocate. I'm just a realist when it comes to food animals. Our eating them actually does them a service. Their desire is to feed and make more animals, that's what they do. We're actually helping them do that. It's a partnership between farm animals and us. We need food, they need food. We need more cows and bulls and pigs and chickens. They want to make more cows and bulls and pigs and chickens. And we still wanna make more humans, even though we shouldnt. There's no easy answer here. Going vegan isnt an answer. It's a potential disaster.

[An1m]

Bulldog 916:


I said I'd stay away from this thread but I guess I lied.

Once again, treating animals "differently" does not equate to some sort of inevitability of abusing animals. You keep ignoring my points, and what PETA's point is. Treat animals ETHICALLY. Also, why should a dogs life be more important than any other animals? I understad how most people feel about pets, but that doesn't make it right, which is why groups like PETA and other animal rights activists try to get people to realize their bias towards certain animals like cats and dogs.

"We as a species would not survive if we did not kill animals for food. Farmland does not last very long. Look at Africa, the eastern central US, middle Europe, the Middle East...farmland is perishing at an ever faster rate. Guess what happens when that happens? More habitat is needed to convert forest to farm. Same goes with cattle farms and the like. If we were all to go vegan right now, entire forests would be demolished, huge swaths of delta land would be drained in order to raise crops."

I really don't know where you get your ideas from, but I'm convinced you just make them up and I'm certain you don't actually bother with researching them to any extent. Human's wouldn't survive as a species without eating meat? That's the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. If you understand biomass and the fact that livestock have to be fed before they can be eaten then you would understand how much food is wasted on livestock. When you eat an animal, roughly 10 percent of what you ate goes toward producing more biomass. When a cow eats grain, it's body only stores 10% of what it eats as enrgy and expends the rest on metabolism, or it's lost as heat energy. When humans eat cows, they have access to that 10% of energy which the cow stored, but of course the human can only store 10% of that energy. If you cut out the cow, you increase the amount of calories/energy avaialable for human consumption exponentially.

Currently the world is in a food crisis, something like the entire world going vegan would, in theory, save the world and end world hunger. Obviously it's unrealistic, but it shows how wrong your claims are. 


Farmland doesn't "perish" as long as it is well taken care of, irrigated properly, and crops are rotated. Under capitalism, the best thing one can do is to buy politicians, not take care of animals, which is precisely what factory farms have done. I'd hate to break it to you, but cows with cancerous lesions can be USDA grade A beef, as long as they can walk to their slaughter, which is often the only stipulation for whether a cow is "healthy."

" By advocating a vegan lifestyle, you're automatically saying everyone should do it." That's pretty laughable, more straw man arguments from you. Invent points, attribute them to me, or PETA then attack them. Nice job.



We are in the middle of a global food price crisis,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_price_crisis

Don't be surprised if people in this country are lining up for food rations pretty soon. With a tanking economy and rising food prices, it's the perfect storm. 

__________________________________

Here's some real food for thought:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97...estock.hrs.html

Here's a few excerpts:

""More than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans," Pimentel said. "Although grain production is increasing in total, the per capita supply has been decreasing for more than a decade. Clearly, there is reason for concern in the future.""

"If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported at the July 24-26 meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montreal. Or, if those grains were exported, it would boost the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year, Pimentel estimated.

With only grass-fed livestock, individual Americans would still get more than the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of meat and dairy protein, according to Pimentel's report, "Livestock Production: Energy Inputs and the Environment."



Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)

Animal agriculture is a leading consumer of water resources in the United States, Pimentel noted. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. "Water shortages already are severe in the Western and Southern United States and the situation is quickly becoming worse because of a rapidly growing U.S. population that requires more water for all of its needs, especially agriculture," Pimentel observed.

Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined. On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed.

[erufiku]

...

Ahh... there, there...

/thread

[Bulldog_916]

Ok An1m, I guess you win. You've defeated my straw man arguments. Your argumentative skills are far beyond mine. I'll start eating vegan tomorrow. No dairy, no meat, no eggs, no nothing, I promise. I guess it's just a better, more environmental way to live. I need fertilizer from all those cow corpses anyway.

And yes, I do just make up reasons for my arguments. It's fun. I never cite sources for my information or my opinions. I base my all of my information on my opinions and my opinions on my opinions. It's a lot less work. And it makes sense in my head.

I will miss the days where I could come home and look forward to putting a big...juicy slab steak on the grill, marinated with garlic, soy sauce, Montreal steak seasoning and terryaki sauce.

Should I buy organic, grass fed beef? Or is no beef acceptable? I know I said I would go vegan, but it's a step by step process, like quitting smoking.

[mustang_steve]

Peta lost any respect of mine when they handed out the KFC "murder buckets", which were aimed directly at children.

That type of imagery is not suitable for kids, and using someone's children as pawns for a cause is not only irresponsible, but unforgivable. No organization who has a leg to stand on should ever use such a tactic, and until a globally broadcast apology and firing of all responsible staff occurs, they will be seen by me as just a bunch of crazy people using the wrong methods to do something decent. Edited December 8, 2008 by mustang_steve

[camelflage]

i dont care about animals or the environment. i regard PITA as a group of morons. i will eat meat, burn gas, and step on bunnies till i die.

thank you and goodnight.

[Scoop]

its funny how some people brought up "safety regulations in place" and trust those such regulations.

you really trust your government with safety regulations (im being serious) youre beyond naive.
if you still think fluoride (an industrial waste and extremely reactive element / poison) in the water is a good thing, its time to open your eyes and read some research. (just 1 such safety regulation put in place by the us government; while its banned in practically every european country)

[staygone]

Too much of any mineral is bad, how much fluoride do the papers say people drink in a typical day?

-QM

[Hippo_Master]

What's so bad about being a vegetarian?

We can't digest raw meat. All other carnivores can, and they use their natural weapons to kill and eat prey. Are lions going to hell for killing the antelope they just devoured in 10 minutes? Probably not, mainly because there is no hell, but also because killing and eating other weaker animals is natural. So should we be eating meat? Yes, because we are smart enough to cook it. Should we eat as much meat as we do? No, of course not, it's not necessary to a nutritious diet, but it definitely helps int he protein department, but so do eggs.

PETA is trying to stop something that is impossible to take down. Americans love to eat cows and chickens; really more than anything but sex and football (in which they add chicken and beef to football), and yet there are still some folks who will pass up sex for a Fillet Mignon. These animals are grown by us to be killed and then eaten. The human race is severely overpopulated, way more than nature intends it to be. We have to create out own food, create channels in which our shit can flow through to reach a giant rotting pile of stinking shit and piss and garbage. There's 2 reasons we can't shit outside. First, because we eat so much synthetic crap that our shit doesn't ever disintegrate. Secondly, we are so severely overpopulated that doing so would create a vast Ocean of shit. Nature is all a circle, no matter where you start. We have dug ourselves so far into a hole that we can never escape, so why not keep digging and hope we come out on the other side? We know we won't but maybe God will save us. Oh right, he's gonna come down and kill most of us.

PETA is a lost cause. Unless everyone becomes a vegetarian, or maybe even 50% of just the United States, it is a completely bogus and aimless war they wage.

[inino]

The argument that PETA makes about if you eat turkey you support the inhumane treatment, and other similar arguments is not very good. To make a similar argument: If you pay taxes you support everything that the government does with your money. If you drive a car you support polluting the air. If you buy clothes not made in your country, you support the exploitation of the people that make them. Im sure you guys can think of other fallacies.

[dafunk5446]

its funny how some people brought up "safety regulations in place" and trust those such regulations.

you really trust your government with safety regulations (im being serious) youre beyond naive.
if you still think fluoride (an industrial waste and extremely reactive element / poison) in the water is a good thing, its time to open your eyes and read some research. (just 1 such safety regulation put in place by the us government; while its banned in practically every european country)

Well if they take the fluoride out of our water, how else will they make money off the cancer and autism that comes from it. While this is not scientifically backed, per se, no good can come from ingesting the most electromagnetic element. What about chlorine? Thats some real healthy shit to!

[TheScotsman]

PETA better protest my cats. It seems they are picking up those bad human habits of killing for sport. Now that the global warming is set in, and I am er, "enjoying" -7 degrees, and a 40mph wind the little fuzzy bastards are trying to move in where it's warm. Mr. maine coon has been busy. Never eats them, just tears their little mouse heads off after a hour of "bat the mouse across the floor". When the PETA nut-jobs are done correcting the natural behavior of my cats, the need to get after my wolfhounds, they enjoy a good bunny-chase that usually ends badly for the bunny... or rather what's left of it. Damn animals are doing what is natural... killing other animals in grotesque ways.

Point being (if I really have one) is that animals kill other animals, sometimes out of need, sometimes just for the hell of it. PETA is a collection of activist wacos trying to force their warped views of some euphorianistic "eden" on the rest of the world, and the animals themselves are't listening.


Fluoride in the water=bad... unless you happen to enjoy osterocarcoma, kidney disease, and a few more assorted nasties. http://www.qawf.org/documents/officiallyopposed.pdf Even the dentists think it's a bad thing. (Not to mention that fluoridation compounds regularly contain arsenic, lead, copper, barium.) Just another reason to prefer my Laphroaig neat.

[gaia.plateau]

I actually agree with Scots.

PETA are fucked. It's really not nearly as much about the animals for them, as it is about coping with their own emotional damage through a radical distraction.

[TigerLord]

I am 100% for animal protection associations. However, PETA is managed and formed by clinically insane persons with seriously deranged minds.

When you are unable to distinguish the difference between ethics and personal beliefs, moral and religion, you are setting a precedent which says "do as I say and not as I do".

PETA militants tend to be over the top crazy, yet they ask we use our common sense and judgment toward protecting animals. They're socially corrupt in that their fight has long gone surpassed simple "ethics" and went political on many occasions. You can watch a few of their rallies and most of the people you will see are some groups of punks and hippies protesting incoherently, spitting total bullshit our their uneducated mouths.

Even the woman who leads it (if it's still her) is a complete moron. She constantly uses propaganda and extreme crazy arguments to rally people to her cause that make no sense or/and have no scientific basis or proofs.

If PETA went into flames tomorrow I'd be more then glad. There's been way too many fucked up idiots who spoke in PETA's name to save its reputation.

There are other animal protection movements that are much more clear minded and use rational arguments to rally the people's attention. However, asking everyone to become a strict veterinarian that consumes no product whatsoever that comes from any animal is nuts.

They have no problem wearing stuff made in China by some kid for 10¢/hour but don't want us to drink cow milk because it's infected by pus due to bad treatment?

No member of PETA should reproduce and insert their genes in the circle of life!