|
Post by eunhathes on Jan 24, 2007 11:32:19 GMT -5
Alright. I'm going to start one. I saw this on YouTube yesterday: A PETA propaganda video. WARNING!! This is graphic! It is not for the animal lovers or weak of stomach.In any case, it is obviously propaganda. However, I wondered everyone else's stance on the subject. Specifically, the video's approach annoyed me more than anything else. Personally, I wouldn't mind being a vegetarian. I already understood the ramifications of said choice. However, given the society I live in, my occupation, and my lack of power to change my house's menu, I am omnivorous. I understand, and want everyone else to understand, that this is my choice. I could easily enough change. The video points out that the animals involved in slaughters have feelings and 'scream, because they're in pain'. Well, if I should stop eating a cow because it has feelings, then shouldn't that lion out there on the Serengeti should leave that poor, defensless gazelle alone. After all, he's scared and has feelings too. Right? What do we do about whales eating krill? How about bats eating insects? I suppose we'll have to go after them, too, won't we? If a group is going to resort to sensationalism and shock propaganda, then they need to expect other opposition from equally passionate groups. I wanted to be a vegetarian. I suppose that video just might do what it was intended to do... make me change my mind. Edited for continuity of argument
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jan 24, 2007 14:37:07 GMT -5
PETA is garbage, they dont follow their own rules. Animal rights? Bullshit. PETA doesnt ever make any statements or complain about the presence of aquariums in most high-dollar seafood joints. In fact, PETA almost never references anything involving seafood. However, I think they'd go apeshit if someone put a petting zoo in a steakhouse.
|
|
|
Post by Atreides Conscript on Jan 24, 2007 15:05:22 GMT -5
Nice point, Batman.... Man, that just sounds weird to say....
I agree, we do not hear PETA petitioning to remove aquariums from anywhere... even if the pets are the night's main course. I also agree that PETA would grab their signs and start making up slogans if their was a steak-house where you could go outside and pick your own steer.
PETA has this issue where they tend to fight only for the animals that are:
1. Obvious For example... cows. You don't look into a field and miss the black-and-white-moo-moo-milk-machines.
2. Fluffy/Furry Todays example is... bunnies. Aren't they cute? How could one dare to kill them for food!?!? And then, how could you wear their pelt!?!?
3. Playful This one... dolphins. You hear them say, "ooh! Their sooo intelligent! How could we pollute their oceans?"
If it doesn't fall into one of these categories, then it only came to their attention by outside influence. In many cases, that would be the Threatened and Endangered Spieces List. Sometimes, it's because another, legitimate, animal rights organization is fighting for the particular animal's protection/rights.
Either way, PETA is an organization of zealots. Like most zealots, they are blind to the faults of their own ideology and hostile to anyone that gets in their way. Their is a difference between righteousness and zealotry. PETA happens to be on the wrong end of that scale.
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jan 24, 2007 15:20:35 GMT -5
I agree with you in full.
|
|
gryphonpoet
Superior
Shangri-La is in your mind. Your Buffalo isn't. (Sign in Olympic Village in Beijing)
Posts: 292
|
Post by gryphonpoet on Jan 24, 2007 16:44:59 GMT -5
I agree with the gist of your statements above. PETA is an ultra-left group and as such are prone to using shock and fear (because we feel fear) in getting to a position of controlling the masses.
If you want to be a vegan or a vegetarian, that is your choice. Don't inflict it on me. I enjoy eating animals. I have killed my own food and will do it again, if given the opportunity. Thank you. But I also know that there are necessary blocks of protein that are impossible to find in vegetables.
Honestly, there is a reason humans have canine teeth AND molars. Since it isn't by any human's design, it must have a utilitarian purpose. As in, we are omnivores by nature.
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jan 24, 2007 17:37:51 GMT -5
Nature should be left to decide all.
|
|
|
Post by thehuntingbeast on Jan 25, 2007 11:43:38 GMT -5
Okay I will NOT by any means go into detail about this topic. It would get messy and I don't have the time for it, even though I have not worked in over a week.
Suffice to say on MySpace I am apart of a little group called 'PETA is Fake.'
End.
|
|
The Hatter
Reputable
Twinkle, twinkle, little bat, how I wonder what your at...
Posts: 162
|
Post by The Hatter on Jan 25, 2007 17:21:04 GMT -5
Batman, your statement about a petting zoo in a steakhouse....GOLDEN!!![color/] But yeah.
PETA is a joke as far as animal rights movements go. Yes I understand that you want to preserve nature and the creatures in it, but not at the cost of inconviencing the most populate species on the planet, you know...us. Like it or not PETA seems to be forgeting the humans are animals as well, and it just so happens that evolution favored us in the long run. Are there better alternatives to wearing fur...yes. Can a human survive on nothing but veggies?....yes. Doesn't mean that I'm going to stop wearing my rabbit fur lined gloves in the winter because their comfy and keep my hands warm, nor does that mean that I'm going to stop eating my steak served just the way I like it...still grazing.
I end this with this statement....
There is room for all God's creatures....right next to the mashed-potatos.
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jan 25, 2007 18:15:20 GMT -5
There is room for all God's creatures....right next to the mashed-potatos. This wins. It absolutely wins.
|
|
gryphonpoet
Superior
Shangri-La is in your mind. Your Buffalo isn't. (Sign in Olympic Village in Beijing)
Posts: 292
|
Post by gryphonpoet on Jan 26, 2007 0:40:52 GMT -5
We need an applause emoticon. Right now.
Wittily said, Keraz. Well done! (Actually, medium well.)
|
|
|
Post by curulambe on Feb 12, 2007 11:02:39 GMT -5
One thing that always amused me was "dolphin-safe tuna". All these people making damned sure that there weren't any dolphins caught with their tuna and not giving a moment's thought to the tuna.
Vegetarianism/veganism from an animal-rights point of view is a valid moral standpoint, but its ethical practice requires a total revamping of more than just your dietary habits. Down that way lies something that is like Jain practices, but somewhat less extreme. This is why I have little respect for morally-based vegetarianism as typically practiced today: it is negligent.
I know some people, however, who do not eat meat simply out of squeamishness: the idea of eating another creature's muscle tissue just grosses them out. I find this both stupider and more respectable.
|
|