Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Nope. She wasn't killing the puppies for food.

No, because if we didn't slaughter animals we wouldn't be a healthy people because we wouldn't have a balanced diet, Besides we don't eat dogs.

At 9/1/10 02:18 PM, LoliTastic wrote: Nope. She wasn't killing the puppies for food.

Implying it would have made a difference if she would have fished them out of the water and ate them.

Justification for cruel things? Drowning is a particularly sad way to die. I'm not sure how the livestock are being killed, but saying it's bad to kill animals is probably an attempt to create a double negative where even seemingly good things turn out to be evil.

I HATE dogs, and in my mind killing and eating a cow is a bigger crime than what the girl did.

I honestly have to agree with the "We don't need to kill animals for food" statement. As much as I am a heavy eater of processed meat-based foods (...extremely fussy eating habits, I highly doubt one can live off rice, potatoes, pasta and things like Super Noodles), I have to say it's my vice...

I disagree with comparing throwing puppies into a river is truly comparable to eating/using the skin of animals bred through farms and such (Discounting using bones, skin and fur accumilated through other means - I'd prefer not to think of wasting and leaving something to decompose and rot) though. One is a sadistic act of cruelty that gains nothing but a few giggles and internet notoriety. The other is a trade and a way for people to make a living - one which doesn't make it ideal to immediately stop the trade of, because as one can expect, we don't need all of these clothes (Which we probably have a lot of), we don't need meat to live either, but it will ofcourse be a major economic fuckup if changes were invoked so swiftly.

Note, this message is practically ad lib, shut up.

This says it all right here.

At 8/30/10 08:41 PM, Esshole wrote:

At 8/30/10 08:38 PM, Shrubs wrote: PEOPLE

PUPPIES?

OH WHAT HAS SCIENCE DONE?!

Created furries, my dear boy.

Created furries.

Wrong its made a delicious new food source.

At 9/1/10 01:36 PM, Auz wrote: stuff

I hope I'm not double posting here, and if I am I apologize, but Auz you are wrong. Humans do need meat, we are omnivores. Animals eat other animals, it's the food cycle. Human beings are not above that, even if we have the technology to produce protein from elsewhere.

It is our selfish behavior that makes(some of) us think that eating other creatures is wrong, it isn't. We have been led to believe that everything must live as long as it can just because it's the right thing. Unfortunately, that is just a fantasy. Without meat consumption by any animal, be they omnivore or carnivore, the earth would be over populated and would cause more problems.

Humans are omnivores and designed to eat meat as well as plants. It's evolution. A lot of vegetarians lie in their blogs claiming otherwise, but science has proven we are designed to eat meat.

http://www.biology-online.org/articles/h umans-omnivores.html

Technically, eating meat is redundant.

It is not unjust to eat animals. We are heterotrophs. By definition, we metabolize other organisms. In order for us to continue our lives, the lives of other organisms must come to an end, this is a fact of life and it is unavoidable unless you are willing to let yourself die starving for the sake of a disillusioned moral. If you won't eat meat, you'll have to eat fruits and vegetables. Which in turn are also organisms.

A counter argument to this is that animals feel pain where as vegetables don't. This is invalid in the fact the a life still ended for yours to continue. Just because it felt no pain does not make ending it's life any more moral.

The bottom line is, life is all about survival of the fittest. We choose to eat what we want, and as long as we to consume, no person is moral than another due to their diet. Morals are just a human concept and it has no bearing in nature. And unless we become autotrophs, consuming animals or plants, is not immoral. And that's the word, we'll be right back. WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

At 9/1/10 03:54 PM, Xgsniper wrote: It is not unjust to eat animals. We are heterotrophs. By definition, we metabolize other organisms. In order for us to continue our lives, the lives of other organisms must come to an end, this is a fact of life and it is unavoidable unless you are willing to let yourself die starving for the sake of a disillusioned moral. If you won't eat meat, you'll have to eat fruits and vegetables. Which in turn are also organisms.

A counter argument to this is that animals feel pain where as vegetables don't. This is invalid in the fact the a life still ended for yours to continue. Just because it felt no pain does not make ending it's life any more moral.

The bottom line is, life is all about survival of the fittest. We choose to eat what we want, and as long as we to consume, no person is moral than another due to their diet. Morals are just a human concept and it has no bearing in nature. And unless we become autotrophs, consuming animals or plants, is not immoral.

This is intelligent. I wish more users were like this.

I wish more people understood this though. Too many people think with their emotions only.

Since I have to make filler, let me just say penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis

At 8/30/10 08:32 PM, Dubbi wrote: We kill farm animals for food; there's no reason to kill people puppies.

over population

what's worse? a quick death by drowning or a long drawn out death on the streets by starvation?

At 9/1/10 11:17 AM, harryjarry wrote:

At 8/30/10 08:33 PM, Shrubs wrote: Animals serve little to no purpose other than food.

Really? What purpose do the great humans (that are also animals) serve?

Animals eat animals.

It's natural.
If it wasn't, you wouldn't need to eat all these supplements and vitamins to constitute eating meat. Because that's what our bodies were designed to run off.

At 9/1/10 11:22 AM, SlayerX3 wrote: PETA is mostly composed by retards

There is no need to call anyone a "retard."

there is a clear difference between animal abuse and harvesting animals for food

One is the pleasure of harming an animal, and the other is the pleasure of taste through harming an animal. Both are unnecessary and abuse.

and for a long time has gone from a Non governmental organization who fought for animal rights to a group o angsty teenagers and immature people to think they should tell you what to eat, based on anything that hurts animals in any way is evil

They definitely aren't fighting for animal rights. PETA thrives on controversy. Harming any sentient being is wrong/evil. All animals have an interest not only in not dying but also in staying alive. You don't have to consume any animal products at all, so why harm another/pay another to do so when there are other viable options?

come on, remember the hoaxes they made on milking farms? paying an employee or having a member abusing farm animals in front of the cameras to cause public outrage, well it backfired when they found out it was PETA itself it was promoting those videos.

It doesn't take beating an animal on a dairy farm to make it wrong. Treating any animal as a commodity is the same whether you beat them or not. It's all wrong.

We've been eating meat since dawn of time, and there is no reason why we should stop.

Why should we continue? We should stop because it puts sentient beings into the status of property. They should be able to live their lives just as we wish to live ours. If one is not born as a human, do they not have a right to life? How does it make sense to treat another as property for something they had nothing to do with?

At 9/1/10 11:57 AM, Kanon wrote: This and PETA also needs to understand that the world was meant to kill for food, by telling us that killing for food and meats is wrong is like telling a carnivorous animal to eat a salad. Everything that dies has a purpose whether it be for food or used as nutrients for the ground, nothing will ever change that.

Humans do not require any nutrients from animals. We are able to live a perfectly healthy life without any animal products. Yes, beings eventually die, but that is not the same thing as putting others into the position of property because we like the way they taste. No one is born into their purpose or role in life. All are here for their own reasons.

At 9/1/10 12:21 PM, MuyBurrito wrote: If you are able to demonstrate a healthier and more reasonable way to survive than to raise farm animals for painless slaughter, be my guest. Otherwise, we need something to power the growth of a workforce and the future generations, and farming animals has worked for thousands of years longer than I've been around.

It is easy to survive without any animal products-they are not essential to sustain human life. If you care about the future generations, you should want all to live vegan. We use much more food (and water) to get meat (or whichever animal product you would like to put here) than we end up with. If we quit breeding animals for human consumption, we would be able to harvest more plants and end up with more food. That would also be able to make the food less expensive, so more people would be able to afford it (and more of it).

At 9/1/10 12:23 PM, LynchedJohNNY wrote: Yeah man, like every nation is developed like the U.S.A and Canada dude. Hey wait man, if that's true then why do we still make shit like jackets and medicines from animal parts?.

You do not need any advanced technology/whatever to grow vegetation. As I said earlier, if we quit using animals as food, we wouldn't have so many from the excess breeding; this would allow for more vegetation to grow for human consumption. All would have more to eat, not less. There are people right now who are vegan all over the world.

We make so many things out of animals because of demand. Again, not necessary. As long as we consume any product that results from an animal, it will continue to be made. Change at the individual level can make it so that those products are not made any longer.

On the medicine issue, if humans were more likely to take care of themselves through both diet/general lifestyle/hygiene, we wouldn't need so much medicine. Medicine is not always the answer-if you change what you do/put into your body, you would be surprise at how better you will feel.

At 9/1/10 12:38 PM, Sonvra wrote: It's really different when you kill for eat, and when you kill for have a good time.

Both are harm to bring yourself pleasure in one way or another that could be brought in the same way without the harm.

At 9/1/10 12:51 PM, Zanuha wrote: Do you know why your brain is complex enough to think independently? Because humans have always been eating meat. If not for meat, we'd still be scratching our hairy armpits in a cave being unable to talk.

Whether or not eating animal products brought us to the point we are now, we don't need them now. There is no reason to continue consuming animal products of any kind. We can sustain life perfectly well without.

At 9/1/10 01:01 PM, Rockyusa wrote: If they found a substitute that actually grew cow meat and such in an isolated area, without the animal, I'd be fine. I don't support PETA, I prefer my hamburgers. Either way, that bitch is a whore.

There are vegan substitutes for just about any animal product you can think of.

At 9/1/10 02:23 PM, DP36 wrote: No, because if we didn't slaughter animals we wouldn't be a healthy people because we wouldn't have a balanced diet, Besides we don't eat dogs.

It is entirely possible to live a healthy life without any animal products. I do live without any animal products, and many others do as well. Living vegan is easy.

At 9/1/10 03:13 PM, 1Tyla1 wrote: I disagree with comparing throwing puppies into a river is truly comparable to eating/using the skin of animals bred through farms and such (Discounting using bones, skin and fur accumilated through other means - I'd prefer not to think of wasting and leaving something to decompose and rot) though. One is a sadistic act of cruelty that gains nothing but a few giggles and internet notoriety. The other is a trade and a way for people to make a living - one which doesn't make it ideal to immediately stop the trade of, because as one can expect, we don't need all of these clothes (Which we probably have a lot of), we don't need meat to live either, but it will ofcourse be a major economic fuckup if changes were invoked so swiftly.

You can't justify one because it is made into a business. People will always find a way to make money-if everyone were to go vegan right now, those in the business of animal products would simply find another way to make money.

At 9/1/10 03:22 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote: I hope I'm not double posting here, and if I am I apologize, but Auz you are wrong. Humans do need meat, we are omnivores. Animals eat other animals, it's the food cycle. Human beings are not above that, even if we have the technology to produce protein from elsewhere.

If humans do not need meat (or any other animal product for that matter), then I must not be human. There are many that live lives completely free of meat and are healthy. We don't produce protein from elsewhere, we just eat it from a different source. Eating plants for nutrition doesn't require any special technology to create it.

It is our selfish behavior that makes(some of) us think that eating other creatures is wrong, it isn't. We have been led to believe that everything must live as long as it can just because it's the right thing. Unfortunately, that is just a fantasy. Without meat consumption by any animal, be they omnivore or carnivore, the earth would be over populated and would cause more problems.

It is selfish to value the life of another? All beings deserve to life their life. Animals can sustainably live in proportion to their environment. Should we start killing humans because they're overpopulating the planet?

well only kill the ugly animals, cows are ugly, so we eat them, puppies are cute, so we dont...

Humans are omnivores and designed to eat meat as well as plants. It's evolution. A lot of vegetarians lie in their blogs claiming otherwise, but science has proven we are designed to eat meat.

Are you so sure?

At 9/1/10 03:54 PM, Xgsniper wrote: It is not unjust to eat animals. We are heterotrophs. By definition, we metabolize other organisms. In order for us to continue our lives, the lives of other organisms must come to an end, this is a fact of life and it is unavoidable unless you are willing to let yourself die starving for the sake of a disillusioned moral. If you won't eat meat, you'll have to eat fruits and vegetables. Which in turn are also organisms.

How long does it take one to die starving without eating others? I've almost reached three years, and I am happier and healthier than ever. Fruits and vegetables are not sentient beings. Being heterotrophic does not mean we need animal products to survive.

A counter argument to this is that animals feel pain where as vegetables don't. This is invalid in the fact the a life still ended for yours to continue. Just because it felt no pain does not make ending it's life any more moral.

Fruits and vegetables are not sentient beings. It is not about the pain.

The bottom line is, life is all about survival of the fittest. We choose to eat what we want, and as long as we to consume, no person is moral than another due to their diet. Morals are just a human concept and it has no bearing in nature. And unless we become autotrophs, consuming animals or plants, is not immoral. And that's the word, we'll be right back. WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

So we're trying to be as natural as possible? Buying processed meat in a grocery store from an abattoir is natural? So if morals have completely no relevance to eating, would you let others eat your family? Or yourself? Because morals are just a human concept and has no bearing in nature-as you said yourself. Or is that an exception to your rule? What did you forget to add in?

So by bringing up that we are not autotrophic, you're saying we're not this:

Definition of AUTOTROPHIC
1

requiring only carbon dioxide or carbonates as a source of carbon and a simple inorganic nitrogen compound for metabolic synthesis of organic molecules (as glucose) <a utotrophic plants> - compare heterotrophic

2

not requiring a specified exogenous factor for normal metabolism

That has no relevance to whether or not we consume animal products. Harming a sentient being is immoral, wrong, unnecessary... the list goes on and on. We can live off of vegetation alone.

At 9/1/10 04:04 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote: This is intelligent. I wish more users were like this.
I wish more people understood this though. Too many people think with their emotions only.

A high school biology class and a dictionary? If something that involves harming another can be avoided completely, why not just avoid it?

At 9/1/10 04:06 PM, jewgrounds wrote: what's worse? a quick death by drowning or a long drawn out death on the streets by starvation?

A "quick" death by drowning? If we hadn't domesticated dogs, we wouldn't have to worry about them starving. How about we quit breeding animals as human "pets"?You can find the dogs adoptive homes or try to find someone who can. There are many rescue organizations.

At 9/1/10 04:23 PM, Struggle wrote: Animals eat animals.

Some do, of course. Humans do not need to. We can thrive on a vegan diet.

It's natural.

I've illustrated in one of my posts that consuming animal products is anything but natural. Do you go out in the wild and catch them with your sharp fangs and claws? Do you run after them with your extreme speed and quick reflexes? Or do you buy it packaged in plastic at the store? Natural?

If it wasn't, you wouldn't need to eat all these supplements and vitamins to constitute eating meat. Because that's what our bodies were designed to run off.

Supplements and vitamins? I don't take a single vitamin or supplement. I used to take a multivitamin just because it is what I was accustomed to, but I later found out I had *too much* vitamin B12. There is no need for any vitamins or supplements when you eat the right foods. Can I say something about nonvegans taking vitamins or supplements? Or is that different?

PETA is full of crackheads. You can't believe any group that leaks so much hypocrisy that it's not even funny. I won't side with people that dress like Nazis just to gain attention.

I kow lots of vegetarians and vegans myself and after 10 years of having such a lifestyle they're still in a perfectly healthy shape.

Yeeeaaaaaaaa maaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnn

At 9/1/10 03:54 PM, Xgsniper wrote: It is not unjust to eat animals. We are heterotrophs. By definition, we metabolize other organisms. In order for us to continue our lives, the lives of other organisms must come to an end, this is a fact of life and it is unavoidable unless you are willing to let yourself die starving for the sake of a disillusioned moral. If you won't eat meat, you'll have to eat fruits and vegetables. Which in turn are also organisms.

How long does it take one to die starving without eating others? I've almost reached three years, and I am happier and healthier than ever. Fruits and vegetables are not sentient beings. Being heterotrophic does not mean we need animal products to survive.

And a complete misinterpretation on your part. Being heterotrophs, we need to metabolize other organisms to continue living. Last time i checked, plants were organisms that live.

A counter argument to this is that animals feel pain where as vegetables don't. This is invalid in the fact the a life still ended for yours to continue. Just because it felt no pain does not make ending it's life any more moral.

Fruits and vegetables are not sentient beings. It is not about the pain.

Then what is it about? Please divulge whatever else it could possibly be about.

The bottom line is, life is all about survival of the fittest. We choose to eat what we want, and as long as we to consume, no person is moral than another due to their diet. Morals are just a human concept and it has no bearing in nature. And unless we become autotrophs, consuming animals or plants, is not immoral. And that's the word, we'll be right back. WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

So we're trying to be as natural as possible? Buying processed meat in a grocery store from an abattoir is natural? So if morals have completely no relevance to eating, would you let others eat your family? Or yourself? Because morals are just a human concept and has no bearing in nature-as you said yourself. Or is that an exception to your rule? What did you forget to add in?

Where the hell did you get that from?

I did not say that, i said the act of metabolizing other organisms is natural and necessary to continue living.

Society is not nature. But you are however, missing the point.

So by bringing up that we are not autotrophic, you'r e saying we're not this:

Definition of AUTOTROPHIC
1

requiring only carbon dioxide or carbonates as a source of carbon and a simple inorganic nitrogen compound for metabolic synthesis of organic molecules (as glucose) <a utotrophic plants> - compare heterotrophic

2

not requiring a specified exogenous factor for normal metabolism

That has no relevance to whether or not we consume animal products. Harming a sentient being is immoral, wrong, unnecessary... the list goes on and on. We can live off of vegetation alone.

Really? What makes sentient beings so special? Tell me exactly what makes a cow more valuable than a tree? Please, do go on.

At 9/1/10 05:06 PM, Xgsniper wrote: And a complete misinterpretation on your part. Being heterotrophs, we need to metabolize other organisms to continue living. Last time i checked, plants were organisms that live.

Vegetation is enough by itself to sustain human life. Being a heterotroph has nothing to do with whether or not consuming animals is morally right. We have to consume organisms, but we don't have to consume animals.

Then what is it about? Please divulge whatever else it could possibly be about.

Sentience. Animals don't want to die; they want to continue living.

Where the hell did you get that from?

You said:

Morals are just a human concept and it has no bearing in nature. And unless we become autotrophs, consuming animals or plants, is not immoral.

So if morals are just made up and have no place in nature, you should see no difference in consuming human animals and nonhuman animals. You also said:

We choose to eat what we want, and as long as we to consume, no person is moral than another due to their diet.

That seems to confirm my previous point. You are saying whatever we consume has no effect on how morally right someone is. After all, it is "survival of the fittest," right?

I did not say that, i said the act of metabolizing other organisms is natural and necessary to continue living.

The act of consuming vegetation is natural and necessary-nothing more is.

Really? What makes sentient beings so special? Tell me exactly what makes a cow more valuable than a tree? Please, do go on.

Sentience: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought. A tree is not capable of perception/thought/emotion, but animals are.

Those idiots, If you are doing it for food it is not cruelty.

maybe that's what the puppy thrower got off on

Didn't they get pissed at Obama for killing a fly on TV during an interview?

your friends a fuckin idiot. animals eat other animals so it's natural for us to eat animals but she just ignores senseless puppy killing for something most of the population does? smack that person.

If you want to help animals join the ASPCA not PETA.

But anyway, back when we were neanderthals did we just eat random plants? No. We killed animals to survive. We still need to.

Say we didn't kill animals for food. Instead we just harvested eggs and milk. At a certain point we would have an overstock of milk and eggs, the prices would drop drastically, and people wouldn't be making as much money. Killing animals regulates this.

If animals that have no morals to us then we should be able to have no morals to them. Domesticated animals take a liking to their owners and owners take a liking to them thus making it seem unethical to kill domesticated animals.

If a bear mauls me for invading its property why can't I kill a bear for entering into my backyard. If a bull can kill me when I get to close to it what makes it so different that I kill a cow for steak.

You silly PETA twats.