And I never thought this thread would settle down long enough to comment.
When you keep a Sow in a 18" x 6' cage (in which she gives birth and nurses her piglets----permanently---you have a serious ethical issue. When you have an entire industry run this way you GUARANTE groups like PETA coming out of the woodwork.
They grind up the dead chickens and swine and feed them back to animals that fu<king NEVER see the sun. That is HIGHLY unethical.
As for wolves in Alaska---and other similar situations---with "thinning out the herd" you have to understand that the wolf populations in question can decimate a Caribou herd. This bares on a game management sytem know as "sustained yield" and "maximum sustained yield". The biologists in question will argue some on the numbers, but there is no question that , unchecked, the wolf populations will do more damage to herd than is desirable. To keep Caribou herd populations stable you MUST cull the wolves down to a nominal level. Unless of course you want to let the wolves "let fly" and take you chances with the genetics of the herd. After all, that's why American's can't have a portion of land the size of Rhode Island in a landmass the size of North Dakota devoted to oil exploration in ANWR---to keep the Caribou safe.
And I never thought this thread would settle down long enough to comment.
When you keep a Sow in a 18" x 6' cage (in which she gives birth and nurses her piglets----permanently---you have a serious ethical issue. When you have an entire industry run this way you GUARANTE groups like PETA coming out of the woodwork.
They grind up the dead chickens and swine and feed them back to animals that fu<king NEVER see the sun. That is HIGHLY unethical.
No kidding.
And groups like PETA can right back *into* the woodwork without much loss to society. They're not helping anything than their own egos.
Quote:
As for wolves in Alaska---and other similar situations---with "thinning out the herd" you have to understand that the wolf populations in question can decimate a Caribou herd. This bares on a game management sytem know as "sustained yield" and "maximum sustained yield".
*FOR HUNTING*.
Left alone, the wolf and caribou populations will balance each other out. Hunting is a big ticket influx of cash to the state, however, so it's in the state's best *ECONOMIC* interests to cull the wolves so humans can take over the predatory role.
Quote:
The biologists in question will argue some on the numbers, but there is no question that , unchecked, the wolf populations will do more damage to herd than is desirable.
Desirable TO HUNTERS.
Quote:
To keep Caribou herd populations stable you MUST cull the wolves down to a nominal level.
News flash - no predator/prey population coupling is stable. Take a numerical modeling class sometime. Heck, take a biological systems class.
Quote:
Unless of course you want to let the wolves "let fly" and take you chances with the genetics of the herd.
Which has worked quite well for billions of years, and... oh, wait. Right. Evolution is a crock. Nevermind.
You know, just as an aside, I'm beginning to see a lot of the disconnect with some folks and their approach to the environment. If evolution is false, then survival of the fittest is highly questionable. And if survival of the fittest is questionable, then populations must be kept stable to protect them from, well, I guess themselves. And if *that* follows, then Genesis's decree of giving mankind 'dominion'* over the animals indicates that humans have a divine mandate to keep populations stable, even at the expense of natural processes. Which gives a justification for all sorts of odd programs.
I guess I never realized how far that one assumption changes things. Weird.
* Even if the original term is better translated as 'stewardship', indicating a role of keeping things going on an even keel as they were, instead of imposing an external force for whatever reason... but I digress.
Not meant as an attack on anyone, just... it never struck me before to run that line of reasoning through logically given that one basic change of assumption. Wow. Must ponder.
Quote:
After all, that's why American's can't have a portion of land the size of Rhode Island in a landmass the size of North Dakota devoted to oil exploration in ANWR---to keep the Caribou safe.
Oh bullpucky. It's got nothing to do with the wolves, and more to do with the overall environmental impact on the tundra. Well, that and it's a heck of a nice political piece to be moved around to push people's emotional buttons.
PETA ...... They're not helping anything than their own egos.
PETA is a natural symptom of the horrific conditions of factory farming, if you want more examples I can give them to you.
Quote:
*FOR HUNTING*.
Left alone, the wolf and caribou populations will balance each other out. Hunting is a big ticket influx of cash to the state, however, so it's in the state's best *ECONOMIC* interests to cull the wolves so humans can take over the predatory role.
Again, no, Big game is a small fraction of that state's income. Resident /Native use/subsistance use is in question here, neither of which bring in "any" money at all.
Quote:
News flash - no predator/prey population coupling is stable.
This is a truism.
Quote:
Which has worked quite well for billions of years......
This goes back to the question of Native/Resident use. and how long the natives have been in Alaska--100,000 years--200,000?
Quote:
It's got nothing to do with the wolves, and more to do with the overall environmental impact on the tundra. Well, that and it's a heck of a nice political piece to be moved around to push people's emotional buttons.
You are basing that on hearsay.The regulations/stipulations that the oil industry is under in order to be in the Arctic regions of the U.S. are considerable. Actually, they are quite extreme. Modern directional drilling and other advances in technology would make any incrusion into ANWR much less invasive than the original incrusion into the "North Slope" of Alaska.
I took a philosophy course last semester and we briefly covered environmental ethics. We had to read this piece by Peter Singer. I personally found his view to be well argued and it challenged my views about animal rights.
I have grown up eating meat, and I do like it a lot (summer BBQs are awesome), but I have been continually bothered by the apparent inconsistency and lack of justification in my views since I read Singer's work. My eating habits will therefore eventually change towards vegetarianism unless I find a justification for eating meat.
Mine is simply my own body's biology - I've attempted a vegetarian (not even vegan, but ovo-lacto-vegetarian) diet four times. Each time I stuck with it for at least three months, one time nine. Each time I hit a wall at some point, and that wall was protein. Not balanced proteins, not a lack of amount of protein, but animal protein. I would get languid, weak, and overall sluggish... the exact opposite of all my vegan friends. Each time I had tons of support and help in guiding my dietary choices to make sure that intake was balanced and rational. And each time my body was telling me that *something* was missing from my diet.
The lack? Red meat. Not chicken, not fish, not pork. Beef at a minimum, buffalo or venison preferred. Not a *lot* of it, but some is needed still to keep me going at my peak. I don't know why, but I'm convinced by now it's not a mental block, it's physical. Most of my vegan friends agree, and pardon me on grounds that it's medicinal.
So given that, I make sure that what meat I do eat is not factory farmed if at all possible. Ditto for the eggs, milk and cheese I consume.
I also have this belief that most people find strange, that if you can't bring yourself to participate in the slaughter and dressing of an animal, you probably shouldn't be eating it. And yes, I have. It's... not pretty. It really drives home where that meal comes from, and it's something I think most people should experience once in their lives. I'm sure the factory farming would decrease as a result. \
We definitely agree on that latter end of your post, 100%. As a species, we're screwed.
However... a wolf has teeth, we have a brain and tool-using ability. Both are natural traits. We can produce those indefinite food sources *without* resorting to cruelty to the animals, so saying that our production of systems for food production is unnatural is, IMHO, a silly conclusion to jump to.
Natural/unnatural has never been the issue. The issue is: does producing illogical and irrational statements and taking irrational and overblown positions do anything other than polarize a population when what you want is consensus? No.
PETA's methods aren't any better than the ipodbatteriessuck paint taggers, IMO. They drive off more supporters than they gain, and the more the mainstream population shifts towards their extreme viewpoint *from other pressures*, the more that will happen. Eventually they're just going to be a tiny little voice screaming in the wilderness for nothing, while the rest of society smiles politely at them and ignores them. *shrug*
In my opinion, they're inconsequential in the long run, so any resources/media/time they get now is just a waste. The only people they're going to sway are those looking for the next extreme cause to throw their psyches behind, and I have as much respect for those folks as I do the screamin' fundies. Same psychological makeup, as far as I can see.
The rest of us can work towards real honest to goodness long term viable change in the meantime.
There is nothing natural about the conditions animals on factory farms live in. Chickens have their beaks clipepd and their social structure destroyed, cows are force fed antibiotics and dozens of other chemicals (including steroids). Or how about the problems they have down in Virginia with all of the run off from the factory pig farms causing SO much pollution that lakes and rivers are literally dieing. This is not natural and THIS is what they argue against.
Gladly, your opinion counts for very little, especially in the long run. Your comparison of PETA to radical fundamentalists is as off base as... well just about anything else you said in that post. What do they gain by doing what they do?
There is nothing natural about the conditions animals on factory farms live in. Chickens have their beaks clipepd and their social structure destroyed, cows are force fed antibiotics and dozens of other chemicals (including steroids). Or how about the problems they have down in Virginia with all of the run off from the factory pig farms causing SO much pollution that lakes and rivers are literally dieing. This is not natural and THIS is what they argue against.
Actually, what they argue against is a much more extreme position than that, that's just a convenient subset (that I happen to agree with, if you'd been actually reading the thread instead of topic skimming for a fight). If this was what they were *actually* against, and they used the rational, obvious, and solid arguments, I'd be able to support them. Instead, they have extreme views (witness meat industry == Auschwitz), they have morally questionable tactics (destruction of private property), and they come across to most people as the raving loons they are.
Quote:
Gladly, your opinion counts for very little, especially in the long run. Your comparison of PETA to radical fundamentalists is as off base as... well just about anything else you said in that post.
Clever discourse there.
I repeat my comparison... PETA is the Hamas of the animal rights world. The underlying cause has valid points, and is something to strive for, but the group in question is run by raving lunatics with questionable morals, unjustifiable extremist positions, and a crusading passion that overrides any rational thought or limits of action.
They're a fringe group with a big bullhorn. ie, tinfoil hats.
Quote:
What do they gain by doing what they do?
You're discussing it, aren't you?
Nope, PETA never appeared in the above post about my beliefs concerning eating meat, and I've discussed it elsewhere without PETA appearing anywhere in the thread or discussion.
They're irrelevant to my opinion. Always have been.
Instead, they weaken my ability to discuss these topics with others and sway their opinions, because a lot of people equate PETA as 'the voice of animal rights/vegetarian/vegan activists'... which is precisely what PETA *WANTS*. They *WANT* to be 'the voice', otherwise they wouldn't scream so shrilly. And in doing so, they only weaken the overall social movement and effect that they claim to uphold, by putting an ugly face on the body of animal rights. Lame.
Mine is simply my own body's biology - I've attempted a vegetarian (not even vegan, but ovo-lacto-vegetarian) diet four times. Each time I stuck with it for at least three months, one time nine. Each time I hit a wall at some point, and that wall was protein. Not balanced proteins, not a lack of amount of protein, but animal protein. I would get languid, weak, and overall sluggish... the exact opposite of all my vegan friends. Each time I had tons of support and help in guiding my dietary choices to make sure that intake was balanced and rational. And each time my body was telling me that *something* was missing from my diet.
The lack? Red meat. Not chicken, not fish, not pork. Beef at a minimum, buffalo or venison preferred. Not a *lot* of it, but some is needed still to keep me going at my peak. I don't know why, but I'm convinced by now it's not a mental block, it's physical. Most of my vegan friends agree, and pardon me on grounds that it's medicinal.
So given that, I make sure that what meat I do eat is not factory farmed if at all possible. Ditto for the eggs, milk and cheese I consume.
I also have this belief that most people find strange, that if you can't bring yourself to participate in the slaughter and dressing of an animal, you probably shouldn't be eating it. And yes, I have. It's... not pretty. It really drives home where that meal comes from, and it's something I think most people should experience once in their lives. I'm sure the factory farming would decrease as a result. \
I admire your self-honesty. I hope that I can be as honest with myself as I digest this issue for myself.
I admire your self-honesty. I hope that I can be as honest with myself as I digest this issue for myself.
Thanks. Despite what some may think, I have formed these opinions from years of discussions, personal experience and thought.
None of which were ever *positively* influenced by PETA.
Every person has to come to their own conclusions. If they're lucky, they are their *own* conclusions, and not some force-fed to them by a louder voice and stronger ego.
Think it out, and if at all possible, visit a factory farm (I have), visit an organic farm (I have), and participate in a slaughter and dressing (I have)... that way you have first-hand information for the various situations and the simple fact of what meat really is. Then listen to your body and its needs as well. Balance it out, and come to your own personal conclusion.
Actually, what they argue against is a much more extreme position than that, that's just a convenient subset (that I happen to agree with, if you'd been actually reading the thread instead of topic skimming for a fight). If this was what they were *actually* against, and they used the rational, obvious, and solid arguments, I'd be able to support them. Instead, they have extreme views (witness meat industry == Auschwitz), they have morally questionable tactics (destruction of private property), and they come across to most people as the raving loons they are.
Skimming for an argument? Please, I'd go elsewhere for a challenge if that's what I wanted.
I know what PETA stands for, and it is a bit extreme. I never denied that. Some of it is downright... odd. But several of their views make a ton of sense. I don't like any flippant references to the Holocaust, by anyone, unless they actually make sense. As a vegetarian of well over 10 years, I understand what they are saying, but dislike how they say it. I was taking exception to your comment about how natural the meat industry is.
Quote:
Clever discourse there.
I repeat my comparison... PETA is the Hamas of the animal rights world. The underlying cause has valid points, and is something to strive for, but the group in question is run by raving lunatics with questionable morals, unjustifiable extremist positions, and a crusading passion that overrides any rational thought or limits of action.
They're a fringe group with a big bullhorn. ie, tinfoil hats.
And I assume that the Hamas comment would qualify as "clever discourse" to you? I think it's impossible to question their morals, especially if you supposedly know what they stand for. Unjustifiable and extremist... well... ok. I'll agree to that to an extent. I do agree with their views on furs and personally find the needless slaughter of animals in cruel and "inhumane" manners (factory farming and unnecessary animal research) nothing more than a mass slaughter.
Quote:
Nope, PETA never appeared in the above post about my beliefs concerning eating meat, and I've discussed it elsewhere without PETA appearing anywhere in the thread or discussion.
They're irrelevant to my opinion. Always have been.
Instead, they weaken my ability to discuss these topics with others and sway their opinions, because a lot of people equate PETA as 'the voice of animal rights/vegetarian/vegan activists'... which is precisely what PETA *WANTS*. They *WANT* to be 'the voice', otherwise they wouldn't scream so shrilly. And in doing so, they only weaken the overall social movement and effect that they claim to uphold, by putting an ugly face on the body of animal rights. Lame. [/B]
I think you, by far missed the point of my comment. Simply put it is this... the goal of this statement is to get people to think and discuss the issue. And well, LOOKY HERE! What exactly is it that we're doing? Discussing it? It's the "shock jock" theory, it shocks and assaults your senses so you HAVE to discuss it.
Do I agree with PETA? Sometimes, on some issues. Am I a member? No. they go a bit too afr for me, and though you don;t know me well... that's saying something. But I like some common sense mixed into my views. PETA only BECOMES the voice of animal rights because people bring their names up when it's discussed. As you've stated, it's not animal rights people who use them as a voice, it's the non-animal rights people who do.
Besides, people who use them as an argument against animal rights aren't discussing the issue. They hide behind a lunatic fringe.
If you want them to go away, ignore them. They want the attention and media. If you don;t like them, ignore them and they go away.
Comments
Originally posted by Kickaha
And it would be alright for us to fight back.
Well, actually, I'd be against it on the grounds that it's polluting an established ecosystem with an external species.
When you keep a Sow in a 18" x 6' cage (in which she gives birth and nurses her piglets----permanently---you have a serious ethical issue. When you have an entire industry run this way you GUARANTE groups like PETA coming out of the woodwork.
They grind up the dead chickens and swine and feed them back to animals that fu<king NEVER see the sun. That is HIGHLY unethical.
As for wolves in Alaska---and other similar situations---with "thinning out the herd" you have to understand that the wolf populations in question can decimate a Caribou herd. This bares on a game management sytem know as "sustained yield" and "maximum sustained yield". The biologists in question will argue some on the numbers, but there is no question that , unchecked, the wolf populations will do more damage to herd than is desirable. To keep Caribou herd populations stable you MUST cull the wolves down to a nominal level. Unless of course you want to let the wolves "let fly" and take you chances with the genetics of the herd. After all, that's why American's can't have a portion of land the size of Rhode Island in a landmass the size of North Dakota devoted to oil exploration in ANWR---to keep the Caribou safe.
Originally posted by dmz
And I never thought this thread would settle down long enough to comment.
When you keep a Sow in a 18" x 6' cage (in which she gives birth and nurses her piglets----permanently---you have a serious ethical issue. When you have an entire industry run this way you GUARANTE groups like PETA coming out of the woodwork.
They grind up the dead chickens and swine and feed them back to animals that fu<king NEVER see the sun. That is HIGHLY unethical.
No kidding.
And groups like PETA can right back *into* the woodwork without much loss to society. They're not helping anything than their own egos.
As for wolves in Alaska---and other similar situations---with "thinning out the herd" you have to understand that the wolf populations in question can decimate a Caribou herd. This bares on a game management sytem know as "sustained yield" and "maximum sustained yield".
*FOR HUNTING*.
Left alone, the wolf and caribou populations will balance each other out. Hunting is a big ticket influx of cash to the state, however, so it's in the state's best *ECONOMIC* interests to cull the wolves so humans can take over the predatory role.
The biologists in question will argue some on the numbers, but there is no question that , unchecked, the wolf populations will do more damage to herd than is desirable.
Desirable TO HUNTERS.
To keep Caribou herd populations stable you MUST cull the wolves down to a nominal level.
News flash - no predator/prey population coupling is stable. Take a numerical modeling class sometime. Heck, take a biological systems class.
Unless of course you want to let the wolves "let fly" and take you chances with the genetics of the herd.
Which has worked quite well for billions of years, and... oh, wait. Right. Evolution is a crock. Nevermind.
You know, just as an aside, I'm beginning to see a lot of the disconnect with some folks and their approach to the environment. If evolution is false, then survival of the fittest is highly questionable. And if survival of the fittest is questionable, then populations must be kept stable to protect them from, well, I guess themselves. And if *that* follows, then Genesis's decree of giving mankind 'dominion'* over the animals indicates that humans have a divine mandate to keep populations stable, even at the expense of natural processes. Which gives a justification for all sorts of odd programs.
I guess I never realized how far that one assumption changes things. Weird.
* Even if the original term is better translated as 'stewardship', indicating a role of keeping things going on an even keel as they were, instead of imposing an external force for whatever reason... but I digress.
Not meant as an attack on anyone, just... it never struck me before to run that line of reasoning through logically given that one basic change of assumption. Wow. Must ponder.
After all, that's why American's can't have a portion of land the size of Rhode Island in a landmass the size of North Dakota devoted to oil exploration in ANWR---to keep the Caribou safe.
Oh bullpucky. It's got nothing to do with the wolves, and more to do with the overall environmental impact on the tundra. Well, that and it's a heck of a nice political piece to be moved around to push people's emotional buttons.
Originally posted by Kickaha
No kidding.
PETA ...... They're not helping anything than their own egos.
PETA is a natural symptom of the horrific conditions of factory farming, if you want more examples I can give them to you.
*FOR HUNTING*.
Left alone, the wolf and caribou populations will balance each other out. Hunting is a big ticket influx of cash to the state, however, so it's in the state's best *ECONOMIC* interests to cull the wolves so humans can take over the predatory role.
Again, no, Big game is a small fraction of that state's income. Resident /Native use/subsistance use is in question here, neither of which bring in "any" money at all.
News flash - no predator/prey population coupling is stable.
This is a truism.
Which has worked quite well for billions of years......
This goes back to the question of Native/Resident use. and how long the natives have been in Alaska--100,000 years--200,000?
It's got nothing to do with the wolves, and more to do with the overall environmental impact on the tundra. Well, that and it's a heck of a nice political piece to be moved around to push people's emotional buttons.
You are basing that on hearsay.The regulations/stipulations that the oil industry is under in order to be in the Arctic regions of the U.S. are considerable. Actually, they are quite extreme. Modern directional drilling and other advances in technology would make any incrusion into ANWR much less invasive than the original incrusion into the "North Slope" of Alaska.
Originally posted by bunge
I just want to remind everyone that the comparison that was originally attacked seems to have been supported and upheld.
If by supported and upheld you mean still as insane as ever, then yes.
I have grown up eating meat, and I do like it a lot (summer BBQs are awesome), but I have been continually bothered by the apparent inconsistency and lack of justification in my views since I read Singer's work. My eating habits will therefore eventually change towards vegetarianism unless I find a justification for eating meat.
The lack? Red meat. Not chicken, not fish, not pork. Beef at a minimum, buffalo or venison preferred. Not a *lot* of it, but some is needed still to keep me going at my peak. I don't know why, but I'm convinced by now it's not a mental block, it's physical. Most of my vegan friends agree, and pardon me on grounds that it's medicinal.
So given that, I make sure that what meat I do eat is not factory farmed if at all possible. Ditto for the eggs, milk and cheese I consume.
I also have this belief that most people find strange, that if you can't bring yourself to participate in the slaughter and dressing of an animal, you probably shouldn't be eating it. And yes, I have. It's... not pretty. It really drives home where that meal comes from, and it's something I think most people should experience once in their lives. I'm sure the factory farming would decrease as a result.
Originally posted by Kickaha
We definitely agree on that latter end of your post, 100%. As a species, we're screwed.
However... a wolf has teeth, we have a brain and tool-using ability. Both are natural traits. We can produce those indefinite food sources *without* resorting to cruelty to the animals, so saying that our production of systems for food production is unnatural is, IMHO, a silly conclusion to jump to.
Natural/unnatural has never been the issue. The issue is: does producing illogical and irrational statements and taking irrational and overblown positions do anything other than polarize a population when what you want is consensus? No.
PETA's methods aren't any better than the ipodbatteriessuck paint taggers, IMO. They drive off more supporters than they gain, and the more the mainstream population shifts towards their extreme viewpoint *from other pressures*, the more that will happen. Eventually they're just going to be a tiny little voice screaming in the wilderness for nothing, while the rest of society smiles politely at them and ignores them. *shrug*
In my opinion, they're inconsequential in the long run, so any resources/media/time they get now is just a waste. The only people they're going to sway are those looking for the next extreme cause to throw their psyches behind, and I have as much respect for those folks as I do the screamin' fundies. Same psychological makeup, as far as I can see.
The rest of us can work towards real honest to goodness long term viable change in the meantime.
There is nothing natural about the conditions animals on factory farms live in. Chickens have their beaks clipepd and their social structure destroyed, cows are force fed antibiotics and dozens of other chemicals (including steroids). Or how about the problems they have down in Virginia with all of the run off from the factory pig farms causing SO much pollution that lakes and rivers are literally dieing. This is not natural and THIS is what they argue against.
Gladly, your opinion counts for very little, especially in the long run. Your comparison of PETA to radical fundamentalists is as off base as... well just about anything else you said in that post. What do they gain by doing what they do?
You're discussing it, aren't you?
Originally posted by FaydRautha
There is nothing natural about the conditions animals on factory farms live in. Chickens have their beaks clipepd and their social structure destroyed, cows are force fed antibiotics and dozens of other chemicals (including steroids). Or how about the problems they have down in Virginia with all of the run off from the factory pig farms causing SO much pollution that lakes and rivers are literally dieing. This is not natural and THIS is what they argue against.
Actually, what they argue against is a much more extreme position than that, that's just a convenient subset (that I happen to agree with, if you'd been actually reading the thread instead of topic skimming for a fight). If this was what they were *actually* against, and they used the rational, obvious, and solid arguments, I'd be able to support them. Instead, they have extreme views (witness meat industry == Auschwitz), they have morally questionable tactics (destruction of private property), and they come across to most people as the raving loons they are.
Gladly, your opinion counts for very little, especially in the long run. Your comparison of PETA to radical fundamentalists is as off base as... well just about anything else you said in that post.
Clever discourse there.
I repeat my comparison... PETA is the Hamas of the animal rights world. The underlying cause has valid points, and is something to strive for, but the group in question is run by raving lunatics with questionable morals, unjustifiable extremist positions, and a crusading passion that overrides any rational thought or limits of action.
They're a fringe group with a big bullhorn. ie, tinfoil hats.
What do they gain by doing what they do?
You're discussing it, aren't you?
Nope, PETA never appeared in the above post about my beliefs concerning eating meat, and I've discussed it elsewhere without PETA appearing anywhere in the thread or discussion.
They're irrelevant to my opinion. Always have been.
Instead, they weaken my ability to discuss these topics with others and sway their opinions, because a lot of people equate PETA as 'the voice of animal rights/vegetarian/vegan activists'... which is precisely what PETA *WANTS*. They *WANT* to be 'the voice', otherwise they wouldn't scream so shrilly. And in doing so, they only weaken the overall social movement and effect that they claim to uphold, by putting an ugly face on the body of animal rights. Lame.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Mine is simply my own body's biology - I've attempted a vegetarian (not even vegan, but ovo-lacto-vegetarian) diet four times. Each time I stuck with it for at least three months, one time nine. Each time I hit a wall at some point, and that wall was protein. Not balanced proteins, not a lack of amount of protein, but animal protein. I would get languid, weak, and overall sluggish... the exact opposite of all my vegan friends. Each time I had tons of support and help in guiding my dietary choices to make sure that intake was balanced and rational. And each time my body was telling me that *something* was missing from my diet.
The lack? Red meat. Not chicken, not fish, not pork. Beef at a minimum, buffalo or venison preferred. Not a *lot* of it, but some is needed still to keep me going at my peak. I don't know why, but I'm convinced by now it's not a mental block, it's physical. Most of my vegan friends agree, and pardon me on grounds that it's medicinal.
So given that, I make sure that what meat I do eat is not factory farmed if at all possible. Ditto for the eggs, milk and cheese I consume.
I also have this belief that most people find strange, that if you can't bring yourself to participate in the slaughter and dressing of an animal, you probably shouldn't be eating it. And yes, I have. It's... not pretty. It really drives home where that meal comes from, and it's something I think most people should experience once in their lives. I'm sure the factory farming would decrease as a result.
I admire your self-honesty. I hope that I can be as honest with myself as I digest
originally posted by kickaha
*stands up for applause*
Originally posted by Quarem
I admire your self-honesty. I hope that I can be as honest with myself as I digest
Thanks. Despite what some may think, I have formed these opinions from years of discussions, personal experience and thought.
None of which were ever *positively* influenced by PETA.
Every person has to come to their own conclusions. If they're lucky, they are their *own* conclusions, and not some force-fed to them by a louder voice and stronger ego.
Think it out, and if at all possible, visit a factory farm (I have), visit an organic farm (I have), and participate in a slaughter and dressing (I have)... that way you have first-hand information for the various situations and the simple fact of what meat really is. Then listen to your body and its needs as well. Balance it out, and come to your own personal conclusion.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Actually, what they argue against is a much more extreme position than that, that's just a convenient subset (that I happen to agree with, if you'd been actually reading the thread instead of topic skimming for a fight). If this was what they were *actually* against, and they used the rational, obvious, and solid arguments, I'd be able to support them. Instead, they have extreme views (witness meat industry == Auschwitz), they have morally questionable tactics (destruction of private property), and they come across to most people as the raving loons they are.
Skimming for an argument? Please, I'd go elsewhere for a challenge if that's what I wanted.
I know what PETA stands for, and it is a bit extreme. I never denied that. Some of it is downright... odd. But several of their views make a ton of sense. I don't like any flippant references to the Holocaust, by anyone, unless they actually make sense. As a vegetarian of well over 10 years, I understand what they are saying, but dislike how they say it. I was taking exception to your comment about how natural the meat industry is.
Clever discourse there.
I repeat my comparison... PETA is the Hamas of the animal rights world. The underlying cause has valid points, and is something to strive for, but the group in question is run by raving lunatics with questionable morals, unjustifiable extremist positions, and a crusading passion that overrides any rational thought or limits of action.
They're a fringe group with a big bullhorn. ie, tinfoil hats.
And I assume that the Hamas comment would qualify as "clever discourse" to you? I think it's impossible to question their morals, especially if you supposedly know what they stand for. Unjustifiable and extremist... well... ok. I'll agree to that to an extent. I do agree with their views on furs and personally find the needless slaughter of animals in cruel and "inhumane" manners (factory farming and unnecessary animal research) nothing more than a mass slaughter.
Nope, PETA never appeared in the above post about my beliefs concerning eating meat, and I've discussed it elsewhere without PETA appearing anywhere in the thread or discussion.
They're irrelevant to my opinion. Always have been.
Instead, they weaken my ability to discuss these topics with others and sway their opinions, because a lot of people equate PETA as 'the voice of animal rights/vegetarian/vegan activists'... which is precisely what PETA *WANTS*. They *WANT* to be 'the voice', otherwise they wouldn't scream so shrilly. And in doing so, they only weaken the overall social movement and effect that they claim to uphold, by putting an ugly face on the body of animal rights. Lame. [/B]
I think you, by far missed the point of my comment. Simply put it is this... the goal of this statement is to get people to think and discuss the issue. And well, LOOKY HERE! What exactly is it that we're doing? Discussing it? It's the "shock jock" theory, it shocks and assaults your senses so you HAVE to discuss it.
Do I agree with PETA? Sometimes, on some issues. Am I a member? No. they go a bit too afr for me, and though you don;t know me well... that's saying something. But I like some common sense mixed into my views. PETA only BECOMES the voice of animal rights because people bring their names up when it's discussed. As you've stated, it's not animal rights people who use them as a voice, it's the non-animal rights people who do.
Besides, people who use them as an argument against animal rights aren't discussing the issue. They hide behind a lunatic fringe.
If you want them to go away, ignore them. They want the attention and media. If you don;t like them, ignore them and they go away.
Originally posted by FaydRautha
If you don;t like them, ignore them and they go away.
Excellent advice.
OOOOWEEEEKAAAAUGHSTOPITSTOPIT!
Anyone ever thought if plants feel pain?
One explaination...
You Vegans out there...just think of the pain and suffering your celery went through to get to your table...