Peta

[Shinpachi222]

Ok. SOmeone PLEASE explain PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) to me.

And where do they get the animal blood? And what about animals ripping up other animals ALIVE in the wild? How come they don't complain about that? WE'RE OMNIVOURS!!! WE EAT MEAT!!!!!

please, anyone, explain it to me. They seem to only exist to annoy.

[Altarus]

At 11/26/06 01:54 AM, Shinpachi222 wrote: Ok. SOmeone PLEASE explain PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) to me.

PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.

And where do they get the animal blood?

What animal blood?

And what about animals ripping up other animals ALIVE in the wild? How come they don't complain about that?

Because animals don't know that what they do is wrong. It's the same standard that we apply to children. If a young child commits a crime, society is usually very lenient because that child probably did not know better. We should apply this standard to animals.

WE'RE OMNIVOURS!!! WE EAT MEAT!!!!!

Not everyone eats meat.

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

Meat is tasty, and the PETA can't change that.

[Altarus]

At 11/26/06 02:22 AM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: Meat is tasty, and the PETA can't change that.

Mugging innocent people can be profitable. Just because you might want to do it does not make it right or moral.

[Empanado]

At 11/26/06 02:25 AM, Altarus wrote:

At 11/26/06 02:22 AM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: Meat is tasty, and the PETA can't change that.

Mugging innocent people can be profitable. Just because you might want to do it does not make it right or moral.

Alas, mugging innocent people for profit hasn't been considered a key aspect in human evolution.
As prevously stated, human beings are omnivorous. They eat a lot of stuff.
With that being said, PETA doesn't only advocate meat-eating...less...ness. One or two things that they stand for, I may consider them quite reasonable and sensible, even though I don't agree.
Everything else, though, is hippie pinko bonghead tree-hugging stuff.

[Altarus]

At 11/26/06 02:32 AM, Empanado wrote: Alas, mugging innocent people for profit hasn't been considered a key aspect in human evolution.

The prime enemy of humans in nature is other humans. It has been that way for many centuries, and yes that has most definately been factored into our evolution.

As prevously stated, human beings are omnivorous. They eat a lot of stuff.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

With that being said, PETA doesn't only advocate meat-eating...less...ness. One or two things that they stand for, I may consider them quite reasonable and sensible, even though I don't agree.
Everything else, though, is hippie pinko bonghead tree-hugging stuff.

It is just as reprehensible to make an animal suffer as it is to make a human suffer. As long as the level of suffering is the same, the species shouldn't matter.

[Phantom]

In most cases, meat is nutritious to the human body, while we must at least have the dignity not to eat endangered animals, regular forms of meat are usually good for food. Nature intended some animals to be hunted, and some to hunt. Being completely vegetarian diets aren't good to people, we aren't rabbits, we need vitamins and minerals, some found only in meat, not to mention meat is more filling and we won't have to eat as much of it to be full than vegetables...

Like, I wouldn't eat a shark, but Tuna is alright, I wouldn't eat an Ostrich, but chicken and turkey is fine.

The human, by it's teeth structure can and should eat meat along side vegetables...

[Altarus]

At 11/26/06 03:01 AM, Phantom wrote: In most cases, meat is nutritious to the human body, while we must at least have the dignity not to eat endangered animals, regular forms of meat are usually good for food. Nature intended some animals to be hunted, and some to hunt. Being completely vegetarian diets aren't good to people, we aren't rabbits, we need vitamins and minerals, some found only in meat, not to mention meat is more filling and we won't have to eat as much of it to be full than vegetables...

All food basically comes from planets and other non-animal sources anyways (after all, where do animals ultimately get their food?). Therefore, it should be theoretically possible to bypass the killing of animals to obtain these nutrients.

[Tancrisism]

At 11/26/06 02:49 AM, Altarus wrote: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

It's a very natural thing to eat meat, seeing as how we are, as stated twice thusfar, omnivores. How can nature be wrong?

[Altarus]

At 11/26/06 03:06 AM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 11/26/06 02:49 AM, Altarus wrote: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

It's a very natural thing to eat meat, seeing as how we are, as stated twice thusfar, omnivores. How can nature be wrong?

Nature isn't really wrong--eating meat is very nutritious and all of that. Nature is just insensitive to suffering. As humans, I think we should be sensitive to suffering... but if that fails, we should at least try to be logically consistent. If you think human suffering is wrong, how can animal suffering be okay?

[dySWN]

At 11/26/06 03:05 AM, Altarus wrote:

At 11/26/06 03:01 AM, Phantom wrote: In most cases, meat is nutritious to the human body, while we must at least have the dignity not to eat endangered animals, regular forms of meat are usually good for food. Nature intended some animals to be hunted, and some to hunt. Being completely vegetarian diets aren't good to people, we aren't rabbits, we need vitamins and minerals, some found only in meat, not to mention meat is more filling and we won't have to eat as much of it to be full than vegetables...

All food basically comes from planets and other non-animal sources anyways (after all, where do animals ultimately get their food?). Therefore, it should be theoretically possible to bypass the killing of animals to obtain these nutrients.

And yet, somehow, very few athelete would survive off a totally vegetarian diet. Meat is the most realistic source us humans have for iron, protien, fatty acids, and other important life-sustaining nutrients. While it would make people feel good not to have to kill animals, it doesn't change the fact that running a large brain takes a lot of exotic chemicals, and meat is the easiest way to obtain some of them. Chasing animals for food and running from predators is part of what made us evolve into intelligent beings in the first place - it doesn't take much brainpower to sneak up on a piece of wheat.

[Camarohusky]

At 11/26/06 03:14 AM, Altarus wrote: Nature isn't really wrong--eating meat is very nutritious and all of that. Nature is just insensitive to suffering. As humans, I think we should be sensitive to suffering... but if that fails, we should at least try to be logically consistent. If you think human suffering is wrong, how can animal suffering be okay?

I would like some proof that these animals are suffering...

Eating a dead animal doesn't seem like makiing it suffer to me...

[qygibo]

PETA's goals are somewhat admirable; basically to cease animal torture and all that. However, they are an extremely radical organization that basically advocates for every person in the world to become vegetarian, to stop using animal products, and to stop using them as entertainment. Their tactics are equally horrible, see here, or better yet, look up "Your Mommy Kills Animals!"

[Demosthenez]

Watch the Penn and Teller: Bullshit episode on PETA if you get a chance. You can probably find it on Youtube if you look, I saw it on there the first time I saw it.

Lets put it this way: they have been connected funding people who are adamently against killing animals yet are OK with killing humans. What idiots.

At 11/26/06 03:14 AM, Altarus wrote: If you think human suffering is wrong, how can animal suffering be okay?

I eat cows, I dont eat humans. I talk to humans, I dont talk to cows. I have sex with humans, I dont have sex with cows. I play video games with humans, I dont play video games with cows. I play b-ball with humans, I dont play b-ball with cows. Did I mention I eat cows and not humans yet?

At 11/26/06 02:49 AM, Altarus wrote: The prime enemy of humans in nature is other humans. It has been that way for many centuries, and yes that has most definately been factored into our evolution.

We have been evoloving for millions of years. Bands and tribes have probably been around for hundreds of thousands of years, I am not sure. Hell, maybe it is even millions of years, it doesnt matter. There was fighting but there is also fighting between animals in the wild who do form thesmelves in groups similar to bands and tribes (zebras, goats, monkeys, buffaloes, etc). Chiefdoms only have come around in the last 12 or so thousand years and states only began maybe 5 or so thousands years ago. That is when large scale organized fighting and war started between humans. As previously stated, you are an uninformed jackassed retard. Dont push your bullshit on anyone and pretend it is more moral or right. I will continue to eat my damn hamburgers and enjoy it.

At 11/26/06 02:20 AM, Altarus wrote: What animal blood?

I think he means the crap they throw on fur. I think thats paint though.

Because animals don't know that what they do is wrong.

You are an idiot. Plain and simple, you are an idiot. You are telling me a lion eating a zebra is wrong. That is fucking stupid. And it shows how stupid you are.

Just look at what a decreased shark population does to an enviroment. The fish overeat the plankton or whatever and lots of extra fish are made and eventually they deplete their enviroment and fish populations drop drastically. We have already seen this demonstrated in the wild. Every carnivore, every omnivore, every herbivore, every plant is absolutely vital to the survival of the enviroment. Its not about morality (who the fuck inserts morality into the wild anywas? The fuck are you smoking?), its about survival and regulating what would otherwise be a plague on the land. To much of anything is a bad thing, drugs, fish, McDonalds, whatever.

Not everyone eats meat.

Our digestive systems and teeth are designed to eat meat. Meat also has nutrients you can only find in certain plants, I believe they are legumes. Yes, we should all eat meat. Its how we were made.

[Slizor]

Not that I agree with non-meat eating, but I feel I have to point out two just plain crap arguments that no-one has picked up on.

Nature intended some animals to be hunted, and some to hunt.

Nature did not intend anything. It does not have a will, it is not a force, it is a state of being. Nature makes no arguments, intends nothing and puts forth no points of view, it simply is.

The human, by it's teeth structure can and should eat meat along side vegetables...

That it can is a simple argument, which is obviously proven. Where does should come into it?

[The-Soul-Eater]

At 11/26/06 06:31 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

Our digestive systems and teeth are designed to eat meat. Meat also has nutrients you can only find in certain plants, I believe they are legumes. Yes, we should all eat meat. Its how we were made.

No offense but your argument is wrong, while are teeth CAN tear meat our digestive systems are NOT made to digest meat, it can take years to pass some forms of red meat...... Also a lot of meat is very unhealthy for us, such as a steak or a hamburger.

[JakeHero]

If a woman can abort a nine month old baby then I can do whatever the fuck I want to my dog.

[SkyCube]

At 11/26/06 01:06 PM, BanditByte wrote: If a woman can abort a nine month old baby

She can?

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

At 11/26/06 02:25 AM, Altarus wrote:

At 11/26/06 02:22 AM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: Meat is tasty, and the PETA can't change that.

Mugging innocent people can be profitable. Just because you might want to do it does not make it right or moral.

But it IS profitable.

[cold-as-hell]

I dont know why we experiment on animals in the first place. wont they have a different effect to humans.

[cold-as-hell]

At 11/26/06 01:06 PM, BanditByte wrote: If a woman can abort a nine month old baby then I can do whatever the fuck I want to my dog.

3 month u dumbass

[cold-as-hell]

At 11/26/06 02:24 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/26/06 01:25 PM, ClottedCreamFudge wrote:

At 11/26/06 01:06 PM, BanditByte wrote: If a woman can abort a nine month old baby

She can?

In places like Vermont, some doctors have aborted late-term babies for mild medical problems such as a mother's depression, but that's besides the point.

PETA is a corrupt organization, every day it's getting harder and harder to argue in support of them.

Ever see that vid on phones where a guy chops up a live pig with a chainsaw?

Besides what you say about corruption. Every organised structure throughout history has had corruption in it.

[DrBrainTrust]

At 11/26/06 03:05 AM, Altarus wrote:

At 11/26/06 03:01 AM, Phantom wrote:

All food basically comes from planets and other non-animal sources anyways (after all, where do animals ultimately get their food?). Therefore, it should be theoretically possible to bypass the killing of animals to obtain these nutrients.

That assumption would be incorrect. The reason ruminant animals are able to extract all the nutrients from plant sources is because they chew their food for a couple hours, not to mention that their teeth are specifically designed for that kind of activity. Humans, on the other hand, aren't equipped to digest most plant materials. Even cooked, we loose much of the nutrients the plants hold. The fact of the matter is that many of the nutrients we need can only be extracted by herbivores who have done the heavy digesting for us.

As for the whole morality thing, what makes you think that it is any less moral for a human to kill and eat from an animal than any other predatory creature? The way animals are killed in nature are far more cruel than what we do to them. Not to mention that if the animals we kill are so inferior to us that they aren't responsible for their own actions, why should they have the same rights we assign to people? They contribute nothing to our society unless they're dead or in captivity, and people don't value them unless they're dead or in captivity.

[cold-as-hell]

At 11/26/06 02:37 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/26/06 02:32 PM, cold-as-hell wrote: Ever see that vid on phones where a guy chops up a live pig with a chainsaw?

No.

Besides what you say about corruption. Every organised structure throughout history has had corruption in it.

1.) I highly doubt that
2.) Does that make it right?

I dunno, does it? Its seems to fucking be around long enough.

[Shinpachi222]

At 11/26/06 04:23 AM, qygibo wrote: Their tactics are equally horrible, see here, or better yet, look up "Your Mommy Kills Animals!"

My aunt once told me I was eating Babe. It made me cry. She's a serious veggie gal.

[Shinpachi222]

Hokay. Two things.

One: Someone mentioned before that they doubted that there has been corruption in every gov. structure? I also doubt it, but all structures used today and likely in the lasy few thousand years have had corruption. It's sad but true.

Two: Someone also asked about the animal blood that PETA uses. That wasn't just a South Park gag. They actually do that whole thing.
For those who don't watch South Park: PETA once poured animal blood all over some kids.

[Shinpachi222]

oh, and Altarus? If animals are not for Humans to eat, and humans are animals, then why are animals only for other ANIMALS to eat? huh? HUH?!?

[FlashFilter]

At 11/26/06 03:06 AM, Tancrisism wrote:

Nature isn't really wrong--eating meat is very nutritious and all of that. Nature is just insensitive to suffering. As humans, I think we should be sensitive to suffering... but if that fails, we should at least try to be logically consistent. If you think human suffering is wrong, how can animal suffering be okay?

What makes the world great is our society is build on the freedom so you can choose what you want. You may say eating meet is immoral, but I don't care, I chose to eat meat and theres nothing you can do about it. I don't feel guilty, it's life. I'm sick of people telling me that eating meet is murder. We have the freedom to deside that for ourselfves.

[Altarus]

At 11/26/06 03:43 AM, dySWN wrote: And yet, somehow, very few athelete would survive off a totally vegetarian diet. Meat is the most realistic source us humans have for iron, protien, fatty acids, and other important life-sustaining nutrients. While it would make people feel good not to have to kill animals, it doesn't change the fact that running a large brain takes a lot of exotic chemicals, and meat is the easiest way to obtain some of them. Chasing animals for food and running from predators is part of what made us evolve into intelligent beings in the first place - it doesn't take much brainpower to sneak up on a piece of wheat.

I hadn't thought of atheletes, but the average person can get all the iron, amino acids, proteins, etc. that they need off of vegetables. This is absolutely true, and on average vegetarians live longer than the rest of the population. And while meat may be the easiest way to obtain certain nutrients, there are going to be ways around that. Two words: dietary supplements.

At 11/26/06 04:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I would like some proof that these animals are suffering...

Eating a dead animal doesn't seem like makiing it suffer to me...

A lot of the meat farms keep animals in cruel captivity though. It would be wrong to cage a human in a small space with barely enough room to move for his or her entire life. Thus, it would be wrong to do so to an animal, which has the same capacity to suffer. Don't get me wrong, not all animal captivity is bad, and PETA is not against owning animals or anything like that. But most of the animal farms keep animals in cruel conditions for economic reasons.

The second reason it is wrong is because the animal has an interest in not getting killed. After all, killing humans is wrong because they have an interest in survival. Apparently, the only reason why ignoring the interests of animals is okay, while respecting the exact same interests of humans, is because they are a different species.

At 11/26/06 04:23 AM, qygibo wrote: tactics are equally horrible, see here, or better yet, look up "Your Mommy Kills Animals!"

I see nothing wrong with euthanising animals that are in pain. The animal, had it the choice, would probably choose to die to avoid suffering. But an animal would not understand that choice, so it's up to humans to look out for their interests--the interest here being to avoid suffering. While it's true that animals also have an interest in survival, when the suffering is great enough, their interest to avoid suffering trumps their interest in survival.

As for "Your Mommy Kills Animals," that was designed to raise questions and debate about the ethics of killing animals for fur. Sometimes, the best way to do that is to use shock. It's no different than anti-abortion people that hold up photos of aborted fetuses.

At 11/26/06 06:31 AM, Demosthenez wrote: Lets put it this way: they have been connected funding people who are adamently against killing animals yet are OK with killing humans. What idiots.

Elaborate. There has to be more to the story because PETA supports treating the interests of animals and humans equally. It makes no sense to be against killing animals but, in identical circumstances, to be OK with killing humans.

I eat cows, I dont eat humans. I talk to humans, I dont talk to cows. I have sex with humans, I dont have sex with cows. I play video games with humans, I dont play video games with cows. I play b-ball with humans, I dont play b-ball with cows. Did I mention I eat cows and not humans yet?

Cows don't have an interest in talking to you, having sex with you, or playing games with you. They have an interest in survival though, the exact same interest that humans have in survival. The only reason that you gave for different treatment is different species. I see...

We have been evoloving for millions of years. Bands and tribes have probably been around for hundreds of thousands of years, I am not sure. Hell, maybe it is even millions of years, it doesnt matter. There was fighting but there is also fighting between animals in the wild who do form thesmelves in groups similar to bands and tribes (zebras, goats, monkeys, buffaloes, etc). Chiefdoms only have come around in the last 12 or so thousand years and states only began maybe 5 or so thousands years ago. That is when large scale organized fighting and war started between humans. As previously stated, you are an uninformed jackassed retard. Dont push your bullshit on anyone and pretend it is more moral or right. I will continue to eat my damn hamburgers and enjoy it.

I wasn't talking about large scale war, more like fighting among bands and tribes. One band attacks another because of a terratorial dispute... stuff like that.

You are an idiot. Plain and simple, you are an idiot. You are telling me a lion eating a zebra is wrong. That is fucking stupid. And it shows how stupid you are.

I'm talking about how humans treat animals, not hard to understand. Once again, animals don't know what they do is wrong. They do not have the capacity for morality.

At 11/26/06 02:22 PM, Grammer wrote: I didn't know surviving in the wild could be considered "wrong".

It's either eat, or be eaten. That's how wildlife works.

BS, you telling me you don't consider it to be wrong when an animal kills a human? After all, that is survival to the animal too.

Animals needs to eat each other to survive. That's not wrong, that's life.

Then, I guess you wouldn't consider it to be wrong if an animal kills someone you know.

At 11/26/06 02:27 PM, Grammer wrote: You really can't compare a mugging to eating animals that were practically meant to die.

Who decides who was meant to die and who was not? Apparently Grammer does. However, the way I see it, both species have an equal interest in survival.

[Altarus]

At 11/26/06 02:40 PM, brown-recluse wrote: That assumption would be incorrect. The reason ruminant animals are able to extract all the nutrients from plant sources is because they chew their food for a couple hours, not to mention that their teeth are specifically designed for that kind of activity. Humans, on the other hand, aren't equipped to digest most plant materials. Even cooked, we loose much of the nutrients the plants hold. The fact of the matter is that many of the nutrients we need can only be extracted by herbivores who have done the heavy digesting for us.

I still say that it is possible to get all the vital nutrients without killing animals. Vegetarians do it all the time. Most of them have a more healthy diet than most humans, which are often eat too much meat and too few fruits and vegetables.

As for the whole morality thing, what makes you think that it is any less moral for a human to kill and eat from an animal than any other predatory creature? The way animals are killed in nature are far more cruel than what we do to them.

It's not less moral. The difference is that humans have the capacity for morality, whereas animals do not.

Not to mention that if the animals we kill are so inferior to us that they aren't responsible for their own actions, why should they have the same rights we assign to people?

Children aren't responsible for their actions. I guess they shouldn't have the same legal protections as other people.

They contribute nothing to our society unless they're dead or in captivity, and people don't value them unless they're dead or in captivity.

Do you feel the same way about humans that do not contribute to society?

At 11/26/06 03:06 PM, Shinpachi222 wrote: Two: Someone also asked about the animal blood that PETA uses. That wasn't just a South Park gag. They actually do that whole thing.
For those who don't watch South Park: PETA once poured animal blood all over some kids.

How they got the blood is critically important. If they got it from an animal that was already dead, then I fail to see the contradiction. If they killed the animal to get its blood, then of course that would be wrong.

At 11/26/06 03:09 PM, Shinpachi222 wrote: oh, and Altarus? If animals are not for Humans to eat, and humans are animals, then why are animals only for other ANIMALS to eat? huh? HUH?!?

Animals don't have the capacity to take the interests of the humans or animals that they kill into account. Humans have the capacity to do that, and, in fact, that is the reason why most humans do not kill other humans. I am suggesting that humans respect the interests of animals equally with the interests of other humans. The argument is really about consistency.