Group (PETA) Passes Out Controversial Cards to Children

[truthpusher]

http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=3393016&nav=AbBzaIj1

Group (PETA) Passes Out Controversial Cards to Children
------------------------------
May 25, 2005, 6:25 PM
------------------------------
EL PASO, TX. - Students at a Northeast El Paso Middle School are subjected to the "ugly side" of eating fish and parents are upset. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) targeted Terrace Hills Wednesday morning for getting their anti-fish eating message out.

(snip)

The member not only passed the trading cards, but fliers as well, to children who walked by. The location was a concern to some as Terrace Hills is next door to Collins Elementary School, where the cards could have been distributed to children as young as 4 years of age.

PETA is using the trading cards, with cartoon characters such as "ill Bill" and "wicked Wanda", to get the message to kids that eating fish is "hazardous, unhealthy and cruel."

According to the "ill Bill" card students received, Bill became ill because "he ate poop-filled fish since says fish swim in their own poop." On the "wicked Wanda" card, children are told that Wanda is wicked because, "she's so mean because the fish she ate for dinner felt a lot of pain when it was killed."

complete story: http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=3393016&nav=AbBzaIj1

[ProudToBeLiberal]

1. o_O

:wtf:

[truthisfreedom]

2. idiots.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

36. PETA RULES !! helps the numb "folks" realize things they want to deny!

Are Animals here for us to kill or to do with as we please?...

Are we supposd to be the highest species on the ladder?
If so then i propose it's our job to be "just" to all lower species.

Since it's a largely unpopular "concept", PETA attempts to in help protect those who cannot protect themselves...
At least SOMEBODY is speaking out--

killing animals?
It's ok?
-it's jest wut we do?--
--well, fire up that cue Elmer! -
Let's gnaw on some decomposing body parts!-
don't ferget the barbeecue sawse!

it's just what we do here in these here parts-
oh yeah, I know, we've always done it "thataway" right?

Same argument used to perpetuate Slavery.
Same argument used to prevent equal rights for women.
Same argument used to prevent civil rights
Same argument used to prevent rights for the poor
Same argument used to preserve child labor
Same argument used to repel Environmental controls.

Animals will have rights in the comming century
(if humanity survives) largely because of the noble efforts of those who recognize the current attrocious injustice and publicly address the issue...

And Children might understand many "higher" ideals if they are at least exposed to them.

ignorance="ignore"+"ance"--the act of ignoring

Peta contests the "ignoring" of animal abuse.
...The Truth can hurt !--
especially for those who practice " denial " as a philosophy of life--->
I'd bet it can really just tick 'm the hell off !!
How dare someone tell them they're doing something wrong!

Get down in yer place treehugger--woman, fix my dinner!

Am I right? or what ..

[MADem]

67. No, you are not right

If you do not want to eat meat or fish, don't. No one is stopping you,

But until cows and cod pay taxes and vote, they're fair game, pardon the pun.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nolabels]

106. EAT THE RICH

How tasty :evilgrin:

Btw a few glases of a good thick dark german :beer: makes it taste even better

[Lilith Velkor]

130. EAT THE RUDE

yum yum!

[nolabels]

175. I gave up fish and I am not rich but I do take pride in my own rudeness

A Short History of American Capitalism

Chapter 8
CLASS WARFARE FROM ABOVE, 1865-1920

The profitable use of America depended on development of a working class. But concentration of workers has always cultivated a fear among employers that large numbers of workers might organize and become a counterweight or even a superior force to that of the employers. To frustrate the formation of a unified working class became a prime aim of American (and other) employers. Not only would this head off united worker action at the workplace. It would also deny workers access to political organization based on their economic interests. Weakness on this front would also stave off effective demands for legislation advancing labor's cause.
(snip)

SUMMARY

Early in American history, groups were deliberately set against one another to weaken both. Employers regularly encouraged racial and ethnic conflict among workers, both in the South and North. This was not a matter of individual employer prejudice but of capitalist class strategy.

Slavery was based on the right of owners-employers of enslaved workers to enforce labor discipline by violence. In the generation after the Civil War, employers demanded and received governmental permission and encouragement to use deadly force to put down labor protests. Slavery thus served as a model of organization in labor relations throughout the country. Violence against white and black workers was used at will by American employers. A quasi-military alliance between large corporations and governments repressed efforts to form labor unions and conduct strikes. Factual accounts of such episodes can be described by such terms as ordnance, headquarters, armories, military courts, military arrests, casualties, military attacks, vigilante actions, espionage, command functions, and infantry.

In the South, as slavery was abolished and replaced by a capitalist form of sharecropping, employer terror continued to be used against black workers by various violent means. Thus, the advent of capitalism both north and south was accompanied by rising violence against workers.
(snip)
http://www.newhistory.org/CH08.htm

[Lilith Velkor]

184. I fail to see any rudeness in your post.

Although I have seen some holier-than-moi vegans react as if such statements are rude.

Such people cannot seem to grasp that the motive behind most cruelty to animals, including our own species, is profit. Factory farming is what it is because quarterly returns are what the business community deems important.

Is it that I'm blaspheming against the Holy Free Market? :shrug:

[nolabels]

190. Profit propels it but being creatures of habit is how we got here

We ate meat long before there were stores to buy it from

I kind of think PETA is silly but I guess it takes all kinds :shrug:

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[livinginphotographs]

112. "If you are going to compare fish to children, you have some issues."

And you're one of the crowd comparing animal-rights activists to fundies. How ironic, since your statement is all opinion with nothing to back it up.

Here's a tip: just because you say it doesn't make it true. Get over yourself.

[MADem]

116. And just because you say the opposite, does not make it true either

By their tactics we shall know them.

[livinginphotographs]

117. I'm not the one making completely unsubstantiated statements.

Did the Bible tell you the fish are any less worthy of our consideration than human children? Just curious.

[MADem]

123. Yes you are, and I'm done with you

You are way off my page.

And last time I checked, the Bible was not yet the law of the land.

You really shouldn't make assumptions about someone's religious orientation simply to try to win an argument--it doesn't fly.

[livinginphotographs]

124. I never said the Bible was the law of the land.

In fact, I believe quite the opposite.

But it's always meat-eaters who insist on the "that's just the way it is" model of what kind of suffering they are more sensitive to, and it just reminds me of fundies, that's all. :shrug: I've yet to find one who can explain it to me in a way that doesn't betray their true attitude, which is the fact that they just don't give a shit.

[livinginphotographs]

155. Hmmm...

It's also always the meat-eaters who never bother to come back to prove me wrong that they aren't operating on the "that's just the way it is" model. :shrug:

[shockra]

167. Children don't pay taxes and vote.

Aren't they fair game?

[UncleSepp]

71. Nope. Not right.

"This is how it is done" may have been used to justify actions we all agree are reprehensible (slavery), might be used by some to justify actions PETA believes are reprehensible (killing and eating animals), but has also been used to explain actions which are neutral (putting tomato ketchup on french fries vs. vinegar) or actions which are good (bringing food to someone who has had a death in the family).

One might also say that your insistence that your opinions are "The Truth" and are "higher ideals" is the same as the insistence of religious fundamentalists that their beliefs are "the truth" and represent higher values. That part would be true. What would not be true would be to then claim that somehow PETA and the Spanish Inquisition are equivalent because you, a PETA supporter, have insisted on the absolute correctness of your opinions in the same manner as an Inquisitor once insisted on the absolute correctness of Catholic doctrine. Clearly, one would be a raving idiot to make such a claim, and a fool to do so in public.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UncleSepp]

91. What the hell does that mean?

Did I strike you as a trucker? Perhaps you're accusing me of being a con artist? Or maybe a conservative?

Perhaps I ought to post to you the pictures of the Democratic Underground banner, pre-demonstration, on my kitchen floor? Perhaps I ought to post to you the pictures of me limping through the streets of Seattle in the rain, carrying said DU banner in a peace march? Perhaps that's not enough dedication for you - would you like to see the pictures from San Francisco instead?

It is possible for people to actually be liberal and not agree with you on every point. If you'd like to accuse me of being a conservative plant, please, do so in plain language. Breaker breaker one nine.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

95. a convoy-a band wagon-jump on board- PETA uses free speech-how AWFUL

copy that ?
--looks like we've got a "convoy" of anti PETAs as far as the eye can see...

Hey, to address your protest mention--I get a gold star too--
I myself-attended nearly every protest since pre-invasion...most were sponsored and organized by A.N.S.W.E.R.
--posted so many pics of them on DU it's not even funny--

So if you're "down" with the progressive way of thinking, what the hell is wrong with free speech?
PETA's, mine or anyone else's?

If you don't think it's right to protect animals and promote the ethical treatment of animals then don't.--I don't care who eats what-
But this is a discussion board, and I'm going to say something when people who promote themselves as progressive thinkers end up sounding uptight, upset, and freaked out because a group uses publicity stunts to draw attention to a "liberal" cause.

look at this thread!
MOST of the pro PETA posts have been DELETED!
Amazing!!

Can't even get a chance to defend those who are defending our environment
(animals are a very big part of the environment.)
WTF-
???
I am truly amazed.

[UncleSepp]

135. There's nothing wrong with free speech.

Glad to hear you were out for the ANSWER events. I've been at a few of those, and at the NION events. The more, the merrier! That was intended to establish that I'm not a conservative. I wasn't sure what you meant earlier, so I thought I'd at least cover that base.

I don't have a problem with your right to say what you want, or of PETA's. That's free speech. However, neither you nor PETA has a right to speak unopposed. That's dictatorship. Free speech means you say what you think and I say what I think. Sometimes, we agree, sometimes, we disagree. One private citizen opposing the speech of another private citizen through his own free speech rights does not constitute suppression or oppression.

As far as the bandwagon goes... We might also have a "convoy" here of people disagreeing with the Iraq war. Sometimes, many people share the same opinion not because they're followers, sheep, or on the bandwagon, but because the opinion is reasonable. Most people will agree that crap smells bad, for example, and I think that's what's happening in this thread.

I have looked at this thread, and it makes me sad. It makes me wish PETA and ethical vegans in general had louder, stronger representatives. Apparently, the people who are vocally pro-PETA here can't express themselves in a manner that isn't inflammatory to the point of being contrary to the the rules at DU. If your post gets removed, it's not because the censor disagrees with the message of rights for animals. It's because the moderators enforce existing codes of civil conduct. Those deleted posts aren't saving any animals. Perhaps some politeness, respect, logic and reason might. Do it for the animals.

It's really not your message, it's your tactics. Try defending the environment and animals in a way that doesn't make people angry and you might get somewhere. Not everyone who disagrees with your tactics is anti-animal, pro-cruelty, or even a meat eater. You haven't bothered to find that out, you just assume that someone who disagrees with your methods disagrees with everything you stand for and probably you as a person. It doesn't have to be that way, that black and white, that extreme. Don't compromise your message. If you believe that no animal should be killed, hurt, or kept in captivity for human use, get that message out there in a moderate way that will bring other people to your side instead of driving them away.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

104. Last fall I shot a five-point buck

and as I plunged my hands into its still-warm chest cavity, I had to chuckle just a little bit at how appalled the lunatics at PETA would be if they were there just then.

PETA represents nobody. Even vegetarians (as evidenced by posts on this thread) find their tactics appalling and their message sophomoric. PETA is a classic example of an echo-chamber -- or a circle jerk, take your pick -- an organization that does nothing but stroke the egos of its own members.

Per capita meat consumption has risen nearly forty percent in my lifetime, and that includes only beef, pork and poultry. No fish or seafood. So PETA as an organization has had virtually no effect on anybody's eating habits. Yet they blather on and on, even though nobody really cares what they're saying.

[TX-RAT]

125. even though nobody really cares what they're saying.

How else are they to raise money?

If it's a good idea it's not necessary to use fear as a marketing tool.

[pokercat999]

127. You better hope there is no such thing as

KARMA.......lol I wish you a full return on your investment. Good luck.

[paula777]

183. Yes, you are right. n/t

[Taxloss]

3. The usual extremism.

I wish PETA would learn they're doing their cause no good.

[MrSlayer]

4. And people wonder why PETA is hated.

This is as bad as the fundies who target children.

[PittPoliSci]

5. here comes the flamefest...

[truthisfreedom]

9. in this case it's well-deserved. there's no science behind what they're

saying. it's just manipulation of childrens' minds. it's pure evil. if they want to spread their message to adults, that's fine. but they have no business doing this.

[flvegan]

12. You didn't really check your facts, did you?

Fish can feel pain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm
http://www.liv.ac.uk/pro/news/trouttrauma.htm

Of course, before you start Googling the opposite, here you go (BTW, this was conducted by someone who LIKES to fish...go figure).
http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/s/c_fea_Becher_fish_pain.html

[PittPoliSci]

17. just one problem...

I don't care if fish can feel pain because I like how they taste.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PittPoliSci]

21. still don't care.

[flvegan]

22. Wasn't trying to make you care.

Just pointing out another fact. A sad fact, but a fact regardless.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shockra]

172. Fish feeling pain.

Their mouths are the most sensitive part of their bodies, since they have the most nerve endings.

PETA's campaign showed a dog's mouth being hooked, but wouldn't it have been more analogous to show a person being hooked by his or her genitals?

I wonder why PETA didn't make an ad like that? :evilgrin:

[Xithras]

204. Fish feel no more pain than Terry Schiavo did

Sorry, but those researchers only proved that fish have functional nerves that transmit sensations. Without a developed cerebral cortex, fish simply don't have the neural capacity to process those signals and turn them into pain.

The argument that they feel pain is solely based on the fact that the fish avoided eating after their lips were injected with acid. That doesn't prove pain, it simply proves that fish don't eat when they can't feel their lips.

It's bogus science.

[PittPoliSci]

13. oh i agree.

but i bet not everyone here does.

[Sean Reynolds]

6. This is no different than the religious fundies.....

That send out those damn cards saying gays, non-Christians and other "Godless" people are going to burn in hell for all eternity .

[progressiveBadger]

8. Well, except that the religious fundies are a hate group against humans

and PETA is just embellishing the truth about fish. I'm not condoning their actions mind you, I'm just saying that there is no comparison. The fundies play on peoples fears of god and hell, and PETA is bringing up actual facts that can save people's health.

[Sean Reynolds]

24. So calling kids wicked because they eat fish is right?

'Cause that is exactly what one of the cards said.

I don't see the different here? I've never gotten sick by eating fish and I don't think I'm wicked because of it.

Screw PETA. They're just as big of a hate group as the religious right.

[jobycom]

32. No, see, that's exactly why I hate PETA. They are a hate group

against humans.

I'm big on animal rights, and a vegetarian, but these guys are disgusting. Their Jesse Arbogast sign was as hateful as anything I've seen right wing Christians do. A young kid had his arm bitten off by a shark, his uncle wrestled the shark and the kid up onto the beach, the shark was killed and the uncle reached in and pulled the arm out. The arm was reattached, but the kid had lost so much blood he was possibly brain damaged. Before anyone even knew if the kid would live, PETA bought a billboard on that same beach saying "Would you give your right arm to know why sharks attack humans?"

Sorry. That is hate. It isn't an active hatred, maybe, but it is the same type of hate Bush shows--a cruel indifference to other human lives. That's what allows fundies to hate gays, that's what allows Bush to slaughter people everywhere and laugh at it, and that's what allows PETA their supposedly cute little PR stunts.

They are a right wing hate group with a left agenda, is all.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jobycom]

47. And Bush is fighting for the freedom of the Iraqis

My post speaks for itself. PETA is despicable.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saigon68]

110. ADIOS

[flvegan]

52. It's not hate.

It's marketing, advertising. They get a point across. Agreed, the Arbogast sign was a bad choice for acceptance. I wouldn't support that sign or that campaign's base. However, comparing PETA to Bush is ignorant.

[jobycom]

62. That was not an isolated incident

They are more interested in upsetting (shocking) people than they are in persuading them. Not unlike trollers at DU who counter every argument they dislike by hurling insults. It might make them feel better, but it hurts their cause.

I'm not ignorant of PETA. I know quite a bit about them and what they call their marketing. To me, it is right wing.

[UncleSepp]

73. It's propaganda. What's worse is it's BAD propaganda.

If it were good propaganda, there would be neither a controversy nor a beef industry. They don't get their point across well by either grossing out or pissing off the majority of their target market.

[AlienGirl]

195. LOL, very good point

Too bad there isn't some highly skilled marketing person who can come up with a basic campaign for "Treat any feeling creature with respect and work to relieve suffering." A campaign that would embrace both animal and human causes, maybe even throw the environment in for good measure. Maybe it's because this philosophy doesn't fit well into sound-bites, or actually requires thought. Or...maybe it's just not being marketed right.

Tucker

[UncleSepp]

197. It's just being mis-marketed

Political propaganda in principle is active and revolutionary. It is aimed at the broad masses. It speaks the language of the people because it wants to be understood by the people. Its task is the highest creative art of putting sometimes complicated events and facts in a way simple enough to be understood by the man on the street. Its foundation is that there is nothing the people cannot understand, rather things must be put in a way that they can understand. It is a question of making it clear to him by using the proper approach, evidence and language.

Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to an understanding that will allow them to willingly and without internal resistance devote themselves to the tasks and goals of a superior leadership. If propaganda is to succeed, it must know what it wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and seek the appropriate means and methods to reach that goal. Propaganda as such is neither good nor evil. Its moral value is determined by the the goals it seeks.

- Goebbels, 1934


Hey, we repurposed rockets, didn't we? The tools are still sharp. Maybe it's time to use them to build up instead of tear down.

[AlienGirl]

198. All we'd need is someone with the talent... n/t

[UncleSepp]

199. Nobody here but us chickens... (n/t)

[AlienGirl]

200. Hey, I tried inviting the Chicken Farmer to DU...

[UncleSepp]

202. Well, there goes the neighborhood!

[AlienGirl]

203. Someday *everybody* will be on DU! BwahahahaHAHAHA

[etherealtruth]

209. Touche

[renaissanceguy]

118. No, the fundies promote hate and death

while PETA people preserve life and respect. BIG DIFFERENCES.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.19254803
http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.19254802

[Danieljay]

207. or hand out pictures of aborted fetuses as kids walk in to church

They did it several times at a church I attended in Wichita Kansas when I lived there. They would run up to the children, push pictures of aborted fetuses in their face and told them their mothers killed babies. These poor kids were traumatized..crying..it was awful.

PETA is no better than the right wing nutjobs that do the same thing when it comes to abortion. Its sick and unethical when the fundies do it and its sick and unethical when PETA does it. There is no difference in my book. Cut from the same mold, they are.

[nine30]

7. Bravo PETA !!

The industry hides the ugly side of eating flesh, and people are happily oblivious to it. But Peta is relentless in its pursuit. Yes, yes, I know even the libs are full of Peta haters. Fine. But I liken Ingrid Newkirk to an angel, if there is any such thing.

I will admit that even though PETA's goal is noble, their techniques sometimes need to be rethought. Dressing up like clowns outside fast food restaurant is idiotic..but handing out cards to passers by is just fine.

[flvegan]

10. Thank you!!!

Regardless of the typical closed-minded prejudicial bullshit responses from some folks, thank you for talking about another PETA outreach. It kicks ass when folks put whatever PETA does out there in the public eye, be it at a school, on the street, in court, or here on DU.

I have to laugh every time folks get bent over PETA "forcing their agenda" of compassion on kids, but nobody seems to give a toss when some sluttied-up MTV creation tries to convince these same kids that drinking Coke is cool.

Why are we in this handbasket again, and where are we going?

Who are the idiots again? Is it PETA or those that have helped to make them a household name? Oh, yeah...

[jobycom]

37. Yeah, right, a lot of us were convinced at the El Paso Democratic

convention when anti-abortionists handed us cards with pictures of bloody fetal globs. That really changed our minds and made us love their cause, in exactly the same way PETA is now converting a new generation to their cause.

[flvegan]

58. PETA's exposure of animal abuse

has opened a whole lot of minds, and has made a whole lot of folks question the ethics of their diet. You can't refute that. Again, comparing the two...ignorance.

[jobycom]

69. I do refute it, and it's not ignorance

PETA has been one group working for public awareness. Not the only group. Whereas PETA wins hearts and minds exactly the same way Bush and Cheney win freedom, other groups have actually tried to convince people of the cruelty to animals using respectful tactics. PETA closes minds with their tactics, it doesn't open them.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iamjoy]

177. PETA Is Like The Anti-Choice Crowd

they use some of the same arguments in talking about the rights of animals that the Anti-Choice crowd uses for the rights of the unborn.
The inflammatory rhetoric, the gross pictures...the moralistic little stories, all so similiar.

Ill Bill had sex, the Sex Ed class didn't tell him the condom wouldn't protect him, so he got venereal disease...Wicked Wanda had an abortion and her little baby screamed in pain as it was torn apart, so God punished Wicked Wanda...

[truthisfreedom]

11. i just realized why this totally irritates me. PLANTS GROW IN POOP.

no plant eating, kids! back away from the corn!

[Dave Reynolds]

14. But I'm sure it is poop

that is pooped out by non-meat eating poop producers.

So that makes it okay.

[progressiveBadger]

15. Plants extract the nutrients from it

And with fish, the toxins become a part of its body. There is a difference.

[truthpusher]

16. I have to take a poop right now!

on edit: Took poop....feel better...sorry PETA?

[sakabatou]

18. PETA is officially gone off the deep end

Then again, they've always done this kind of thing, né?

[shance]

19. This the typical propaganda against a terrific organization.

If you hate those men and women who actually have the conviction and compassion to stand up for animals that have NO voice, NO lobby in Washington D.C, and no PAC organization, AND you want something to scapegoat and unfairly criticize, go after the REAL bullies if you even have the guts. But you don't and you won't. Youll go after the easy targets because its the easier thing to do.

PETA does fantastic work, Democrats could actually learn some great lessons from PETA, and, instead of picking on an organization that is actually awakening the world to the mind numbing cruelty done to creatures who cant speak up for themselves, go after the real offenders of this planet and any progress.

[Sean Reynolds]

25. So it's fantastic work calling kids "wicked" for eating fish?

[shance]

41. Knock yourself out with your selective defense of mainstream media.

You are assuming this is not a biased piece?

So I guess you pick and choose what you want to believe from our legitimate media?

[Sean Reynolds]

43. Riiiiiiight.

Unless proven un-true I'll go with what the kids and parents are saying.

Or do you get to pick and choose what YOU believe from our "legitimate" media? Maybe PETA is dumping pig's blood on the kids and hucking meat patties at 'em?

I mean.....it wasn't said in the article, but you can't go around assuming it didn't happen.

[shance]

48. Like you said Sean darlin'......Riiiiiight.

You hate and deny the fact that animal cruelty exists and/or you could give a shit.

Says volumes more about you than it certainly does me.

I'm sorry you have need to demonize a great organization.

[Sean Reynolds]

81. I guess it does.

It seems PETA doesn't give a rats butt about the plants they kill and eat. What's the difference? Oh animals feel pain, but life is life...right?

Every time you eat fruit you're eating the offspring of a plant.....

I wonder if these PETA members have any wood things in their homes....'cause I'm sure that wood came from trees. Trees that once were living things.

Oh but when a kid eats a fish it's wicked...but it's never wicked to go out and chop a tree down for your house, or rip the offspring of an orange off a plant!

Yeah, riiiight.

You can hate meat and fish all you want, however PETA needs to respect the rights of others. I don't agree with them and I don't like them calling me wicked because I happen to like meat.

I don't go around calling PETA plant killers.....

[livinginphotographs]

103. One thing to note...

Most fruits (at least the non-poisonous ones) are made to be eaten. That's how plants convince animals to spread their seeds. So by eating fruit, you're doing the plant a favor.

[redqueen]

156. Fruit was a bad example. Use carrots or broccoli instead

then it works.

:evilgrin:

[livinginphotographs]

162. Carrots and broccoli don't have a central nervous system.

Pain is something evolution gave animals to alert them to danger, so that they could react. Pain serves no purpose for an immobile object, like a plant.

And yes, I know you're trying to be funny.

[redqueen]

164. hehehe... "trying"

What's that thing that happens when a plant is cut, then? That people were saying was evidence plants could "feel pain"... what's that?

[livinginphotographs]

165. Pain is emotional

That doesn't mean they can't interpret data that tells them they've been damaged, not that they can anticipate injury. It just stands to reason that since a plant can't react by removing itself from danger, "pain" would serve no purpose.

[redqueen]

166. Pain is not emotional.

In the case of plants, they're actually communicating, in a way, with other plants nearby.

[livinginphotographs]

170. I'd be very interested in seeing that study.

Especially if it says that plants are communicating with other plants to warn them of danger.

And the data that causes what we call pain is not emotional, but the sensation of pain is. Maybe I'm not being clear as to the terms I'm using.
edit: spelling

[redqueen]

178. I can't find the exact one... would plants having intelligence matter?

http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/clearstreets/84/intell.htm


http://aob.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/92/1/1

[livinginphotographs]

181. I'll check these out when I get home.

But no, it still wouldn't convince me to eat meat.

[redqueen]

182. Ah, no, that's not what I'm after.

I would only like an admission that eating plants isn't really that much different is all.

[WeRQ4U]

168. Actually,

That theory doesn't exactly meld well with nature's little plan. True, plants have fruit with seeds inside to help disperse the plant's offspring, but the mechanism doesn't work with humans.

First, we don't eat the seeds usually. They are thrown out with the other unappatizing parts of the plant, aka rind.

Second, we don't shit in the woods... I hope.

[livinginphotographs]

171. But naturally, animals do shit in the woods.

(We invented toilets and sewers, after all).

The seeds were meant to be passed in our excrement. I saw it on PBS. :)

[WeRQ4U]

174. Yeah....

I too attempted humor and failed. <wink>

Personally, I think the comparison of animals to plants is a stretch. What would be more interesting is a comparison of "animals" as we have come to know them and insects or lower forms of human life, like bacteria, single cell creatures etc.

Why not the outrage against antibiotics and other forms of chemotherapy? These organisms have mechanisms to respond to stimuli. And they are mobile. How do we reconcile here? Is it not OK to destroy life in order to save one's own health? We've exploited bacteria to manufacture diary products. Sue Danon?

[livinginphotographs]

176. The idea of "animal rights" is about a creature's ability to suffer.

I can't debate the science of whether bacteria and such lifeforms have the ability to suffer, but it's indisputable that animals do.

[nine30]

26. Amen.

[ekelly]

33. Hmmmmm.......

"Youll go after the easy targets because its the easier thing to do."

PETA should take a lesson from you.
They should stop targeting children.....ya know, the EASY TARGETS.

[jobycom]

35. PETA is a hate group that makes me daily reconsider my vegetarianism

To me they are a right wing hate group who just happens to have an agenda that aligns with some of us liberals. Just like someone who might oppose the Iraqi Invasion because they would prefer to use nukes, I don't consider them my allies, as an animal rights supporter, as a vegetarian or as a liberal.

Liberals have compassion for other humans. PETA hates other humans. They are elitist, arrogant... They are conservatives, no matter what their agenda might be.

Flame all you want, I'm going to eat a Boca burger.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jobycom]

45. Yeah, my freezer full of Boca burgers

and my deli draw full of Tofu and Tempeh, not to mention my thousand or so posts about vegetarianism over the last three years are all contributing to animal cruelty.

I really can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not. If so, pretty funny. If not, read more carefully before accusing.

PETA is a right wing fascist hate organization. I judge tactics as much as results, and their tactics override any results they have. THere are doubtles at this moment dozens of kids in El Paso eating fish tonight only because PETA's cards angered their parents so much. THAT's the effect PETA has.

[shance]

46. LOL***I love how people try to hide behind a facade like bocaburgers.

for example.

Bring on some examples and references. You don't have diddly Joby except a bunch of hot air.

Keep blowing to your "right wing fascist" content.


:)

[jobycom]

49. Examples of what?

What are talking about? Are you claiming I'm not vegetarian? Do a search here, you'll find all the proof you need. Are you claiming I've offered no proof PETA is a hate organization? You responded to one of my posts upthread where I gave an example. We both know I could list those all day.

I still can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic, but calling me a liar three times in a single thread is a bit much, even for sarcasm.

[nine30]

54. Shhhh..quiet you two.

I am going to make myself a Boca burger and get some Diet Pepsi.

[shance]

55. Would you make me one too?

This arguing makes me hungry***

[shance]

57. You calling PETA right winged, fascist elitist is not true Joby.

It's simply not true.

They really do a lot of great work. It's hard work. It's heartbreaking work too. I couldn't deal with half the stuff they deal with because it's such a wipe out to see how animals are being treated.

And so many people are totally unaware.

[jobycom]

60. That's better, I'll respond to that

I explained myself completely. They are a bad group. They undermine their cause with their hate-filled tactics. Right now, people in El Paso are eating fish because PETA told them not to. That's the effect they have on people.

Their pattern of hatefilled propaganda of the type I described above, the billboard about Jesse Arbogast (a kid from near my home town in Mississippi) shows their colors. They don't care about life. They care about their egos, their fundraising. They have no respect for humans, and if you don't respect humans, you are not going to convince them you are right.

They are a bad organization. I agree with their agenda, but their tactics make them evil.

[livinginphotographs]

101. If PETA's actions in this particular story

Would make you reconsider your stance on vegetarianism and animal rights (and I'd truly like to see your definition of animal rights), well, that shows just how strong your convictions are to begin with.

[renaissanceguy]

119. How does PETA hate other humans?

You make a big claim, now back it up with evidence.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.19254803
http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.19254802

[cornermouse]

23. I'm sorry.

If you want to pass out cards to adults, fine; but stay away from my kids. I would object to anyone passing out anything to my kids.

Also, your motives may be relatively pure, but when you do something like that you setting a precedent for kids to talk to strangers whose intentions may not be as nice as yours. This is not a good thing to do.

[ekelly]

30. I hear ya on that one......

If I ever caught anyone who is a stranger to my kids trying to get them to interact in any way without my consent, those people would find their asses at the end of my foot!

Targeting children in their campaign shows just how desperate they really are.......and how little they care for the safety of children.


Anyone who shows such disregard for the safety of children is a real sicko in my view.
They care more about the safety of fish! Whackos!

[d.l.Green]

74. Righto! That is the main problem with this- targeting children. Parents

are already up against their children being bombarded with inducements to buy, buy, buy. But if you're going to get angry at this, then you need to be even angrier about the paid-for public fundamentalist ads by coke and mickeyd's- and that crap will make your kids even more unhealthy than eating fish. This is a small organization with a smaller budget. You are allowing the media to decide what you need to get angry about- for shame!



:spank:

[Mad_Dem_X]

99. Good point - they shouldn't be approaching kids

If they have to pass out info, they should target the adults.

[renaissanceguy]

120. I can agree with that.

Parents do have a right to say what their kids can and can't eat. I think a better tactic might have been to somehow promote how good vegetables and fruits are for you, or something like that...maybe influencing the local school board to promote healthy eating in that way. Kids can't make judgment calls like this, but they can understand at that age how vegetables and fruit are both healthy and tasty.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.19254803
http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.19254802

[cornermouse]

193. Promoting vegetables and fruits are good goals.

You just shouldn't approach the children to do it.

I don't know if you've noticed, but kidnapped and murdered children is a real concern for parents. It puts anyone who has contact with the kidnapped child in the position of being considered a suspect and I'm sure you wouldn't want to be considered a suspect. Its safer for you to limit your activities to the adults.

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

27. Eating fish tastes good.

I have always enjoyed fish. That doesn't make it an intelligent thing to do. Or something that serves mother earth's best interest. (I know, quaint idea.)

[Danieljay]

28. a radical is a radical...I don't care what

side of the political spectrum they fall on.

[shance]

42. Give specific REFERENCED examples of their "radicalness"

Do your homework and back it up with something other than accusations.

[Danieljay]

133. Just a few examples of radicalism...now flame away...

This is just as bad as the radical right holding up pictures of aborted fetuses to children entering public arenas...I witnessed this over and over when I lived in Wichita Kansas. There are better ways to get messages across than "Shock and Awe". And that is just what this kind of activism is.

"The $25 million animal rights group targets kids at every age level, sidestepping parents and school authorities to lure young and impressionable children into radical activism. PETA targets kids using graphic comic books, age-specific websites, grotesque toys, schoolyard demonstrations, and e-mail alerts sent directly to small children."

"Elementary School -- PETA activists give young children graphic "Your Mommy Kills Animals" comics outside theaters; a newsletter introduces children to the vocabulary of the radical "animal liberation" movement; PETA employees in colorful animal costumes intercept kids as they walk to and from school."

FROM THE PETA WEBSITE>>>>Kids in the company of fur-clad mothers will receive PETA’s “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” leaflets depicting a demonic mom thrusting a bloody knife into a terrified rabbit, along with graphic photos of animals killed for fur. The action is part of a leafleting campaign at performances of The Nutcracker nationwide:

Date: Tuesday, December 23
Time: 6-7 p.m.
Place: Phoenix Symphony Hall, 225 E. Adams

http://www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=3562

http://www.furisdead.com/pdfs/mommykills.pdf

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36208

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/120893p-108825c.html

During Christmas performances of the Nutcracker Suite, PETA activists are distributing pamphlets to children whose mothers show up wearing fur coats. The cover of the pamphlet shows a woman with a bloody knife in one hand and a rabbit in another. The headline of the comic book-like leaflet screams: "Your mommy kills animals!"

On its Web site, PETA says it will distribute the leaflet to children in 20 cities across the nation.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/vote/2938.php

[d.l.Green]

76. Uh, and McD's and coke aren't "radical" because they pay for their

fundamentalist hypnotism on every inch of available space?

[newscott]

29. I don't want anybody addressing my children

in any way, without my explicit permission.

These people have terrible tactics.

[flvegan]

31. I hope you've unplugged your tv and your internet, then.

I also hope you blindfold them on the way to school. Just because someone isn't handing them a card or a brochure, they're being addressed.

I'm just saying.

[newscott]

140. I definitely understand your point

but this is beyond the pale.

This whack job organization has to go.

I eat meat. I like meat. Sue me.

[VegasWolf]

34. All this talk made me hungry, gotta run and eat some salmon. n/t

[flvegan]

61. Holy shit, but that's funny. It's the originality that really gets it.

Whoo. Gotta take a breather after that one.

Salmon. Fishing. Heh heh. You should write for Letterman.

[Imajika]

39. Ahhh, good ole' PETA

The great thing about this organization is everyone hates them.

I have friends on the right and left, a few on the far right and far left, centrists, moderates, center left, center right, etc, etc - and the one organization that virtually everyone hates is PETA.

I couldn't agree more. PETA's tactics are disgusting.

I am perfectly fine with people who don't want to eat animals whether it be for moral or health reasons. I am fine with vegetarians and vegans. I also support their right to try to persuade the public why we should follow their lead. Infact, I'm willing to listen.

What I am not fine with are these disgraceful tactics and in your face stunts they routinely pull.

PETA's antics are so offensive that they actually drive people away from the cause of animal rights.

PETA should stay the hell away from people's kids. Geeze, how pathetic can these people get.

Imajika

[Catchawave]

40. Peta Kids is more than biased corporate press coverage....

Please educate yourselves peta-naysayers! And I'm sure most of you remember those Garbage Pail Kids cards a few years ago, that were even more disgusting !

From: http://www.petakids.com/homelessmission.asp

Summer’s almost here, gang, and that means it’s time to hit the stores for all of your warm-weather gear. You know—new clothes, new flip-flops, and beach must-haves. After the long, nasty winter most of us have had, we’re definitely ready for the warm, lazy days ahead (no school!), bike rides, veggie burgers and veggie hot dogs at backyard barbecues, and yummy summertime treats like Tofutti Cuties. But before we get carried away plotting how we’ll spend all of those sunny days, we should stop and think about those less fortunate than us—and that includes homeless animals.

Animals in shelters don’t get a summer vacation like we do, so why not put some of your free time to good use and collect donations for the local animal shelter? It’s not hard or complicated, we promise. You just have to call your local shelter and find out what supplies it needs most for the animals, then have a drive to collect the supplies. Get permission from your local grocery store, library, YMCA, or youth rec center to set up a collection box to hold all the donations. (If you’re allowed to set up a table, you MUST get your parents’ permission, and you should definitely enlist the help of your siblings and friends—and maybe mom and dad—so that you’re not sitting there by yourself!) Decorate the box with the shelter’s name and pictures of cats and dogs, and be sure to make posters so that community members know what the collection box is for.

Another fun way to help animals in shelters is to have a rummage sale, lemonade stand, or even a bake sale, and donate the money to the shelter. Be sure to decorate the collection can and don’t forget the posters!

Whatever you decide to do, be sure to have a friend or parent get some pics of you collecting the goodies, then send a few of them, along with all the details (your name, age, e-mail address, phone number, and mailing address) to us, and several of you will get a special prize pack. You may even find yourself gracing the pages of PETA’s Grrr! magazine or PETAKids.com!
<snip>
...and so much more at the website!

[Imajika]

51. Is this for real?

It reads like a comedy skit.

"After the long, nasty winter most of us have had, we’re definitely ready for the warm, lazy days ahead (no school!), bike rides, veggie burgers and veggie hot dogs at backyard barbecues..."

Yeah, kids are all fired up about veggie burgers and veggie hotdogs. Give me a break.

Imajika

[Catchawave]

102. It's a children's website, did you check it out?

Certainly nothing like that biased "news" report.

[Karmadillo]

50. Doesn't PETA know corporations already own the rights to target kids?

Hope all the PETA haters at DU are working to get advertising out of the nearest elementary school.

http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content4/ads.in.schools.html

Many advertisers view children as a uniquely profitable three-in-one market: as buyers themselves, as influencers of their parents' purchases, and as future adult consumers. Each year, elementary school children have an estimated $15 billion of their own money, of which they spend an estimated $11 billion on such products as toys, clothes, candy, and snacks. Children influence at least $160 billion in parental purchases (McNeal, 1994). As future adults, children are potential consumers for all goods and services. This digest reviews the recent history of advertising to children, spotlights controversial marketing efforts, and focuses attention on the evolving nature of commercial messages directed toward children in the public schools.

Because of the increase in children's spending power in recent decades, advertisers have closely targeted children as consumers (Wartella, 1995). New advertising strategies aimed at children steadily proliferate. The toy-related program or program-length commercial, in which a television program is developed to sell toys, is one that has stirred public attention and debates, as have the 900-number telephone services aimed at children. In the 1980s, children got their own TV networks, radio networks, magazines, newspapers, kids' clothing brands, books, banking, and such high-ticket items as video games and other high-tech products. Other recent advertising tactics include kids' clubs, store displays directed at children, direct mailing to children and their parents, and marketer-sponsored school activities. Linking their products to educational goals, advertisers have reached into the schools by sponsoring such activities as literacy programs, reading projects, anti-drug campaigns, and communication skills training, while rewarding students for good performance with coupons for products and free meals. This spread of advertising in the schools can be seen as part of a historical pattern toward the commercialization of youth (Wartella, 1995).

Channel One
Because children spend 20 percent of their time in schools, advertisers have been eager to pursue school-based marketing in many forms. Although traditionally there have been links between business and education in this country (Harty, 1979), commercialism in schools has recently skyrocketed and has spurred public debate. In 1989, controversy arose when Whittle Communications (now Channel One Communications) announced the test marketing in six school districts of "Channel One" a 12-minute daily news show for students in grades 6 through 12 that included two minutes of age-appropriate ads for products like jeans and soft drinks. In exchange for airing the program each day at the same time for three years, Channel One Communications gives schools a satellite dish, a cable hookup, a television monitor for each classroom, and an agreement to service the equipment for three years. While some state school systems originally said no to "Channel One," the Consumers Union Education Services (CUES) (1995) notes that Channel One Communications reports its program is viewed in 350,000 classrooms. A further concern is that the presence of "Channel One" in classrooms may be evident more in some neighborhoods than in others. For example, one study (Morgan, 1993) found that among those schools showing "Channel One," a disproportionate number are located in areas of high poverty.

Although "Channel One" has attracted a great deal of public attention, in-school advertising takes many other forms as well. According to James McNeal (1990):

In-school advertising is being talked about more, and in a more critical manner, because of the increasing amounts of it and because of the advent of television advertising in schools. (Criticisms of TV advertising in schools seem to be directed mainly at Whittle ... because of its intrusive nature and because the firm flaunts its ability to buy its way into schools.) In-school advertising takes an endless number of forms scoreboards and billboards in athletic areas, posters, pamphlets, book covers, lesson plans, films, and vending machines. (p.73)

more...

[MADem]

113. Not sure where you are going, here

The corporations use dispicable tactics, so PETA should be allowed to as well? It's all good?

Or maybe, it is all bad.

Hate to tell you, but I think there are plenty of moderate meat eaters who agree that all of that crap needs to be pulled out of schools. The failure to endorse the tactics of PETA does not translate into a support of corporate sales tactics in the learning environment.

Fallacious argument.

[Karmadillo]

210. Not really.

Corporations, whether one likes it or not, target children in and out of school. Part of that shitstorm involves convincing children it is unobjectionable to eat meat. PETA obviously lacks the resources to compete with the meat industry on an equal footing. That some local chapters decide to take the steps described in the original post is not surprising. The alternative is to abandon the playing field to the corporations (who, whether or not you approve of their tactics, aren't going anywhere).

Interesting to see the intensity the relatively insignificant PETA invasion of public schools generates at DU. Compare the responses on this thread to the far fewer (and far less passionate) responses to the far more damaging corporate invasion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3735009&mesg_id=3735009

One might conclude the passion of you carnivores is generated, at least in part, by a desire the opposition (and your dinner) remain silent. I understand the desire, inasmuch as no one wants to be reminded they're a willing part of the corporate animal torture machine. Better to believe one is eating Happy Cows than to be exposed to the truth.

By the way, thanks for your efforts to critique my "argument", but where did I say failure to endorse PETA's tactics meant support of the corporate invasion and manipulation of public schools?

[Zomby Woof]

56. Fuck PETA

I suppose when a lion kills an antelope on the savannah, that antelope had "rights" and we must teach that lion a lesson, and pamphleteer it to death. We'll get a bullhorn and bully the den of lions. We'll be big pains in the ass like PETA. We will also be ignorant and wrong, exhibiting an extreme and unhealthy denial about what nature is all about.

The antelope is on the food chain under the lion. Many animals, including fish, are under humans. This does NOT make humans better or superior. It's just nature. We could easily be shark food, and at times we have been. In the end, we are fodder for bacteria. Is the bacteria wrong for eating human remains?

PETA is actually more anthro-centric than its targets. It will not condemn the lion for causing pain to the antelope. But by condemning humans for doing the same to fish, fowl, and other sources of meat, it separates us unnaturally from the rest of nature with these special rules. Therefore, we must be special and 'above' nature.

All the food we eat, plant or animal, is organic, and PETA makes a false choice when they differentiate between the validity of eating fish or cows, as opposed to tomatoes or potatoes. Do they not all have DNA? Does a cow or fish being sentient and having a nervous system excuse them from the human food chain? No, it does not.

I am frying some fish this weekend. PETA has raised my consciousness, and I want to thank them for reminding me how much I love fish!

[flvegan]

59. Actually, it's NOT nature. Here's why...

The lion kills the antelope. The lion is a carnivore and needs the antelope to survive. We do not need to eat fish, etc to live. Humans eat them because they taste good, are convenient, etc (notwithstanding those in outlying areas that MAY actually need meat to survive, etc).

Your comparison of a cow to a vegetable is nonsensical at best, but if you want to make them equals in that regard, then tell me...which one suffers?

You say it yourself, you're eating fish because you love it. Taste...ego...want. Not need. Keep the lion out of this.

[0rganism]

63. Humans evolved as hunter-gatherers

From the day the first homonids stepped out onto the savannah, some creature or other was sacrificing its life for humankind's meals. Arguably, it is our relatively recent agrarian tendencies, combined with the doctrine of eternal population growth, that have damaged the planet more than anything else.

PETA would be every bit as justified to picket hospitals and grainaries.

[megatherium]

64. If you would like learn what our natural diet is, the diet we evolved

eating, please read "Paleolithic Prescription" by S. B. Eaton et al (HarperCollins, 1988). Our Pleistocene ancestors were hunters; modern humans originated in the ice age some 60,000 years ago. We were fire-users; we cooked our food, including plenty of meat. Technically, we're omnivores, we eat lots of everything. Our nearest relatives are the chimpanzees, we share a common ancestor 5 to 7 million years ago -- and chimps get 15% of their calories from meat.

Of course, a vegen diet can be very healthy; I've thought of being vegan for that reason alone. However, while I do eat meat and poultry, I generally only buy organic meat and poultry (cage-free, no antibiotics, only fed plant-based feed) -- I'm well aware of how animals are treated in confined animal feeding operations, and I do not want to have any part of that. I don't think eating animals is wrong, but I most certainly believe that CAFOs are cruel and unhealthy.

[flvegan]

68. Excellent post.

However, the diet that we evolved eating, and what our "natural" diet is, is completely different from what we're doing today, I think you'll agree.

We used to eat meat to survive. Now, we eat it because it tastes good. Evolution should go beyond this. Evolution usually leads to something higher.

Yes, we are omnivores, like many animals. The word "opportunistic" comes into play here when we start comparing ourselves to chimps, etc. I'm certainly not denying nor refuting anything you said, as this is probably one of the more intelligent posts in this thread.

[megatherium]

70. I'm flattered!

You are right, we now can think of choosing a diet based on things other than survival. (But it's worth suggesting that meat tastes good precisely because we evolved eating it.) I'm omnivorous, but I often choose veggie products; e.g., I like rice milk over my breakfast cereal, or I'll have veggie bacon with my eggs.

By the way, would you know of any veggie burgers that don't have MSG in them? They all seem to have autolyzed yeast extract or some other form of MSG in them. Not a big concern of mine, but every once in a long while, I get a migraine, so I try to avoid MSG.

[flvegan]

80. Agree/disagree

I'll say this, meat tastes good because it tastes good. I don't think that it's evolution. Meat can taste very good, if you like the flavor (or the flavoring one might add, such as mesquite on the bbq or a good tenderizer).

As for veggie burgers...I usually make my own. I don't know if the Boca version (I've only had the original/vegan ones) have MSG or not. There's one made from portabella shrooms that's very good, but I'm unsure of the brand at this moment.

[UncleSepp]

78. "Evolution usually leads to something higher." - false

No, evolution leads to something better adapted. The idea of evolution as an upward ladder is exactly the kind of logic on which the concept of man as the king over all the animals rests. Evolution is simply the process of perpetuation of changes beneficial to survival, not a grand progress toward "something higher".

"We eat meat because it tastes good" is also not necessarily true. Some people may eat meat because it tastes good. I personally eat meat because I feel healthier when I have a variety of meats in my diet. For six years I was an ovo-lacto-vegetarian, prepared complete meals with balanced proteins, and was in general very conscientious about it all. I also had constant stomach and intestinal pain, and even ulcers, and weirdly high cholesterol. I also had constant muscle aches. After putting some meat back into my diet and reducing the legumes and soy (not a lot of meat, I couldn't afford it), I did not have the gastrointestinal problems. When I began eating meat regularly, legumes occasionally, and soy only rarely, I lost the muscle aches. My cholesterol level went up a little and then back down, and now it is actually lower than it was while I was not eating meat. I feel altogether healthier.

Now, this is only one person's story. However, it does invalidate your claim that "we eat it because it tastes good". "Some people eat (meat) (just) because it tastes good" would still be true.

How exactly does "opportunistic" come into play here? I would assume that it means that humans and chimpanzees are both opportunistic eaters, and will munch on what they find when they find it. Did you mean that the use of the comparison of chimpanzees to humans was itself opportunistic?

I would love to see PETA's arguments, and yours, without the gross generalizations and without the misappropriation of misunderstood and misstated scientific concepts to support ethical points. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. I would actually like to see this laid out in a rational, logical way that touches the emotions without being shrill, that uses science and fact as tools and not as bludgeons, and which shows respect for the target of the argument. I would also like to see some kind of admission that there is an argument, debate, discussion even going on and not the enlightenment of the lower flesheaters by the higher vegans.

I would like to see effective propaganda for the ethical treatment of humans, animals, and all beings. I would like to see enlightenment. Seeing propaganda which calls itself enlightenment, though, just makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

[flvegan]

79. I. I...me...my. I...I...I. I...my...

Better adapted is not higher? My bad, I suppose.

Yes, I should be more clear...most people eat meat simply because it tastes good. I did have the pleasure of having one DUer put me in my place. He has advanced AIDS and has difficulty keeping weight on, and therefore feels that he needs meat. I have no business whatsoever suggesting otherwise. I'm not his doctor. However...

As for opportunistic, you project, but you do it well. We are omnivores, but are opportunistic carnivores, like many other animals (you can look that one up).

I'd like to see YOUR arguments without the disdain for the "higher vegans" and until then, will bid you farewell...

[UncleSepp]

92. I don't have any disdain for vegans

Ask AlienGirl. And yes - your bad. Better adapted for cold is not higher than better adapted for heat. It's basic evolutionary theory. You know this - I assume that because you're here. It just doesn't appear to serve your purpose to admit it. I know full well what an opportunistic carnivore is, I don't need to look it up. Is there a particular reason why you would assume I would need to look it up?

I neither put vegans as higher or lower than anyone else. I have no disdain for them just because I do not choose to be vegan myself.
How do you know it's most? Please show me your research that justifies the "most". I assume there is such research, yes?

[UncleSepp]

196. I think I just figured out your headline

I think you were trying to make some point about my post having many sentences stating "I", "me", and "my". Is that correct? That's not projecting, by the way, that's me trying to infer the meaning of your unclear communication. I'm still not sure what the point is that you might have been trying to make.

I will take another guess that perhaps you find fault with a person expressing his or her own views in the first person. I wonder, if I am not to speak for myself, for whom may I speak? I do not believe that speaking as "we" is correct, unless I am either the Queen of England or I happen to have a mouse in my pocket. Perhaps I should speak in gross generalizations instead of personal specifics?

[snooper2]

138. This is a bunch of crap bullshit....

Do you realize that you are able to type and have the crazy thoughts you have due to the fact that early humans became omnivores?

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-4a.shtml

Life cycle and energy requirements

Parker <1990> analyzes intelligence and encephalization from the perspective of life history strategy (LHS) theory, a branch of behavioral ecology. LHS is based on the premise that evolutionary selection determines the timing of major life-cycle events--especially those related to reproduction--as the solution to energy optimization problems.
Extensive energy required for brain growth. Parker discusses the life history variables in non-human primates, and then examines how life history events relate to large brain size, gestation period, maturity at birth, growth rates and milk consumption, weaning and birth intervals, age of puberty, and other events. The motivation for studying such events is that the brain is the "pacemaker of the human life cycle" , and the slow pace of most human life history events reflects the extensive energy required for brain growth and maintenance.

Foley and Lee <1991> analyze the evolutionary pattern of encephalization with respect to foraging and dietary strategies. They clearly state the difficulty of separating cause and effect in this regard; from Foley and Lee <1991, p. 223>


In considering, for example, the development of human foraging strategies, increased returns for foraging effort and food processing may be an important prerequisite for encephalization, and in turn a large brain is necessary to organize human foraging behaviour.

Dietary quality is correlated with brain size. Foley and Lee first consider brain size vs. primate feeding strategies, and note that folivorous diets (leaves) are correlated with smaller brains, while fruit and animal foods (insects, meat) are correlated with larger brains. The energetic costs, both daily and cumulative, of brains in humans and chimps, over the first 1-5 years of life are then compared. They note :

Overall the energetic costs of brain maintenance for modern humans are about three times those of a chimpanzee. Growth costs will also be commensurately larger.

Then they consider encephalization and delayed maturation in humans (compared to apes), and conclude, based on an analysis of brain growth, that the high energy costs of brain development are responsible for the delay in maturation.
Dietary shift beginning with Homo. Finally, they consider the dietary shifts that are found in the fossil record with the advent of humans (genus Homo), remarking that :


The recent debate over the importance of meat-eating in human evolution has focused closely on the means of acquirement... but rather less on the quantities involved...
In considering the evolution of human carnivory it may be that a level of 10-20% of nutritional intake may be sufficient to have major evolutionary consequences...

Meat-eating, it may be argued, represents an expansion of resource breadth beyond that found in non-human primates...

Homo, with its associated encephalization, may have been the product of the selection for individuals capable of exploiting these energy- and protein-rich resources as the habitats expanded (Foley 1987a).


The last sentence in the preceding quote is provocative indeed--it suggests that we, and our large brains, may be the evolutionary result of selection that specifically favored meat-eating and a high-protein diet, i.e., a faunivorous diet.

[flvegan]

158. You really want to argue energy expenditure of early foraging man

against modern factory farming? Brilliant. Nice resource, too. Leonard and Robertson did a better job. You should read their paper and not have beyondveg.com do your "work" for you.

While I would agree that conversion to a higher protein, animal-based diet helped us evolve, considering the energy savings realized however many thousands of years ago we're talking here, we should also have evolved past inflicting acts of torture upon other sentient beings.

Crazy thoughts, indeed.

[shockra]

191. On the subject of human evolution in general.

The "Man the Hunter" myth has done a lot to justify the eating of meat. Elaine Morgan pretty much exploded that myth 30 years ago with The Descent of Woman. I've seen men who are vehemently anti-feminist (having argued with them on that topic) who actually love this book. She's written a few others since then, too.

The belief that meat-eating/hunting was the turning point in human evolution justifies its glorification in many minds, especially those who think that hunting is macho. Morgan expounds on the Aquatic Ape theory, first introduced Allistar Hardy, to argue that the aquatic characteristics that humans exhibit point more towards the qualities for human advancement having evolved from living near the seashore, and spending a lot of time in the water. (For one thing, it offers more protection from predators like the big cats).

Also a dietary staple would have been fish, which is high in Omega 3 fatty acids (as are some legumes, grains and nuts -- but we hadn't learned how to grow them yet) which are crucial for brain development and health.

"We have noses that trap air and allow us to swim and dive, subcutaneous fat, salt tears and other characteristics of marine animals -- including a large brain. The largest brains belong to the Cetacea. There is also the fact that we are among the few primates that swim at all!"

If you think science can't promote an agenda...of course it can. One of my favorite books on the subject is The Gendered Atom by Theodore Roszack which reveals that a patriarchal agenda is the status quo. The story of (especially human) evolution is no exception. Scientists also most often reflect the ideology of their times. They're subjective as well as objective beings and their opinions are formed in the dominant culture.

Of course you will find websites devoted to "debunking" the Aquatic Ape theory. Anything that threatens one of our most cherished myths, like that of Man the Hunter, is going to be attacked. As well as anything that argues women were a crucial factor in human evolution rather than just breeders sitting at home waiting for their men to bring home fresh kill.

[MrPrax]

65. I Like PETA!!!

I generally think they are on the right track...it's good to spotlight enormous ethical concerns in a capitalist system once in awhile, and it's too bad more groups don't take a chance and do it more often with the same flair for the extreme and radical.

The best part about them, is they usually give me a giggle (who can say that about lobby groups) and they seem to really really annoy 'tightasses' on all sides of the political spectrum.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

94. "annoying the tightasses"--- gotta LOVE IT!-LOVE IT!-LOVE IT!

The people who get annoyed by PETA need to question WHY.
Defending the rights of and promoting the ethical treatment of animals is very "progressive", in other words "expanding on and questioning pre-concieved notions"--
--
Conservative thinking resists questioning the status quo and resists change.

If there ever were a progressive well intended agenda it would be that of groups like PETA.

I am AMAZED that on a liberal progressive discussion board, 90 pecent are getting their panties in a bunch every time PETA gets mentioned.
Why?
Because they are worried for some reason that their own participation in and support of some of the ever so cruel practices may be brought to light.
Denial is a very powerful defense mechanism and anyone who infringes on someone's defense mechanism must be "BAD" and trouble causing...

And what's with only pro-PETA posts get deleted--WTF?

Hell, the environment includes "animals".
What's the big deal about raising awareness and questioning some of our commonly accepted practices when it comes to abusing the environment and those animals that are included in it?

Options are offered, not enforced--a flyer is a piece of paper-
How much harm could a free press do ?
Passing out flyers to children that let them know that some people are looking out for even the smaller animals is very educational and provides "options" for them to ponder.
One-sided shelteredness is much more harmful to children in the lon run.

What's the big deal every time PETA expresses a controversial opinion?
What do we want? Freedom or totalitarianism?

[shockra]

96. Children are low on the dominance hierarchy.

Men
Women
Children
Animals

Children can best relate to the powerlessness and voicelessness of animals, because they so often feel without power or a voice themselves.

Thus, the best time to reach people and help prevent them from trampling on the rights of others in adulthood is when they're children. Teaching empathy for those with less power than you is a good lesson to take into adulthood in a racist, sexist, ageist world.

I think a lot people have resentment over the lack of choices they had in childhood, yet rather than help a newer generation live differently they take the opportunity to exercise the kind of "absolute" power that was exercised over them. I love Alice Miller's books on this like For Your Own Good : Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence, and Thou Shalt Not Be Aware: Society's Betrayal of the Child.

[Rex]

66. Poor PETA, so behind the times.

Are they blind? The people who run this country don't care when American citizens feel a lot of pain when they are killed - just ask a dead soldier (we have quite a few now). Someone must make PETA understand that they should include HUMANS in their agenda, we are the only animal that can stop senseless slaughter of other animals BUT we won't until we stop the senseless slaughter of other PEOPLE.

Wake up and smell the fresh genocide PETA.

[The Stranger]

132. Nice right wing talking point -- PETA doesn't puts animals over people.

But it is not the truth. Support for animals does not exclude or in any way contravene protection of human rights, but the right wing uses this to demonize PETA.

More importantly, the animals obliterated daily cannot speak for themselves, so someone must speak for them.

Thank whatever God there may be for PETA.

[Rex]

192. What is PETA doing about the human slaughter going on in Africa

or how about the 100,000 human animals we have senselessly killed in Iraq? You obviously missed my point - if PETA actually gave a crap about animals then they would protest the senseless destruction of the human race by fellow humans. IMO, until we can stop each other from mindlessly killing off our own species, nothing will change towards other animals. Wake up and smell the reality. Might as well bang your head against a wall.

[MN ChimpH8R]

72. Propagandizing children

is totally fucking EVIL no matter who does it. :grr: :grr:

If fundies were doing something comparably disgusting, DUers would be blowing their collective stack and justifiably so. PETA is one thoroughly fucked up organization, every bit as crazy and ideologically intolerant as the Fristian fundamentalist shits. :nuke:

Fuck these scumbags with the same pitchfork that should be used on Dobson and the Freepers.

[truthpusher]

75. It does feel like something the far right would do....

...we are probably going to see more action from unexpected groups that mimic the right and their tactics...why? Because people are starting to get tired of seeing the 'other side' win by goiong about it in dishonest ways.

[d.l.Green]

77. And Madison Avenue is just so pure and thoughtful with our children's

vulnerability? Get your priorities straight! This is a tiny little orgazination with a small budget. You're misdirecting your anger...

[MN ChimpH8R]

83. I am not going

to defend advertising agencies or marketers. They are sleazeballs and I am their worst nightmare. I refuse to buy anything unless I have a need for it and don't watch commercials whenever I can avoid them.

The corporate marketing game is all about the $$$ and I expect nothing better from them than shysterism and lowest common denominator huckstering. But for a group that purports to be "idealistic" to pass out propaganda leaflets to small children for the purpose (or effect) of making them feel bad about themselves is reprehensible. PETA are asshats.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

88. Children need to be reached- they CAN understand if given a chance

I remember when I was a kid--One of my earliest memories---the first time I ever saw a bloody piece of meat on the counter--I screamed: "we're going to eat THAT?"
I refused-No way was I going to eat that bloody red stuff-
...but after much persuasion for months and maybe years I gave in-
-Had PETA reached me through their noble efforts I might have remained assured that what I felt was "right" actually WAS right-

-I was propagandized by the "status quo"--took me years to finally get back in the "right" track.

Let PETA reach anyone they like and fell GOOD about it--
Children set the stage for our future The least they deserve are "options" of opinion---that allows them to think for themselves.

[MADem]

115. That is a standard tactic, the misdirection of the argument

The far right uses it as well.

"Well, THEY are bad, TOO" therefore our actions are justified.

I'm with you, they don't equate!

[bitchkitty]

86. Yawn, yawn, yawn -

all this wringing of hands over the tender little blossoms reading about Wicked Wanda and Ill Bill is so silly it might be amusing if it weren't so boring.

The same people who have no problem with pumping their kids' brains full of trash via their favorite babysitter, the television, but start crying because PETA gave their kids some literature, should just shut up.

Eating fish is unhealthy, and not because they swim in poop. If it were just poop it wouldn't be so bad, but it's mercury, and it's deadly, especially to children. So if some little kid gets scared away from eating the fish sticks in the lunchroom, I don't find it tragic.

KUDOS to PETA!

[Robeson]

90. I'm with you bitchkitty....

...our kids brains are pumped full of shit all day, but when PETA speaks, "the end of times are near!"

Sad.

[sandnsea]

89. Mercury in fish, PETA endangers people

That's the real tragedy of this story. PETA has distorted fish eating to the point that people will ignore the real danger of eating fish due to mercury.

Now to go read about the frozen embryo boys.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...

[BikeWriter]

93. Anyone doing this to a child under my supervision would get their...

asses kicked!

[dsc]

97. We should be as outraged at this

as we are when the right wing does it. Regardless of the underlying message's veracity or lack thereof, children should be offlimits to this kind of stuff.

[blondeatlast]

145. This seems to be beyond the understanding of so many.

I am equally as pissed off about my son being exposed to this regardless of whether it's Nickelodeon, Praise The Lord, the Dems/Reps/etc, PETA, or the local cocaine caddy.

[arwalden]

98. PETA = KOOKS

[livinginphotographs]

105. I'd be interested to know if this was sanctioned by PETA's HQ

Or whether it was a group of local PETA-supporters who took it upon themselves to stage this protest. If it was sanctioned by HQ, well, I think this was kind of inappropriate (I'm not going to get all indignant like some posters here who think these children will be horribly scarred for life, or something).

Something the article fails to note is that these cards seem to be parodies of the Garbage Pail Kids cards from the 80's, which were primarily concerned with toilet humor. I doubt these parents would give two shits if they'd found their kids with a Garbage Pail Kids card, but since the dreaded P-word is attached, let the frothing at the mouth begin.

And this story is a problem of our news media, not PETA. PETA does good things all day and get ignored, but the minute they do something sort of outrageous, the media reports it all over the place, and the usual suspects come out in droves to condemn PETA as elitist, human-hating, fascist hate group :eyes:, blah blah blah blah.

How many of you people who are so quick to have temper tantrums about PETA were posting on the threads here at DU about PETA exposing needless cruelty at an animal testing lab in Virginia just recently? Or exposing the cruelty of KFC suppliers? Or exposing the cruelty of Tyson Foods? Anyone? Anyone?

If not, none of you have any right to condemn those who primarily post on Michael Jackson/Runaway Bride/American Idol threads, because that's exactly what this article is: sensationalism. You like to cherry-pick PETA's actions, waiting until you find one that you can feign indigination about, and ignoring the good they do. Congrats on being a tool of the corporate media, who counts on getting you riled up on bullshit to sell ad space.

[LibInternationalist]

107. I hate a lot of what PETA does

[The Stranger]

108. Ah, yes. A PETA bashing thread.

The day just wouldn't quite be complete without it. And those poor innocent children -- exposed to fish. FISH! Yegads!

They used to just go fishing. Now they have to be exposed to the horror (the HORROR!) of trading cards with fish on them!

The HORROR!

[Danieljay]

151. the "horror" goes beyond trading cards...try this handout on for size...

What about ethical treatment of children? Would you support that? PETA obviously doesn't.

FROM PETA'S WEBSITE

News:

http://www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=3562

Literature:

http://petaliterature.com/products.asp?dept=38&pagenumber=2

Comics: Graphic!

http://www.furisdead.com/pdfs/mommykills.pdf

A few lines just in case you don't care to click on the "horror"


Do you have a puppy you take for walks or play ball with?
Or a kitty who likes to chase string? Everyone knows that
it’s fun to love and play with our animal friends.
But how would you feel if someone took away your
kitty or puppy, stomped on their head, and ripped
their skin off their bodies?
It would make you feel sad, wouldn't
it? Why would anyone be so mean? But
there are terrible people who cause our
furry friends to die that way every day.
And guess what?

SNIP

One of those terrible
people is your mommy. Your mommy kills
animals! I bet you didn't know that.
Lots of wonderful foxes, raccoons, and
other animals are kept by mean farmers who
squish them into cages so small that they
can hardly move. They never get to play or
swim or have fun. All they can do is cry—
just so your greedy mommy can have that
fur coat to show off in when she walks
the streets.

SNIP

Ask your mommy how many dead
animals she killed to make her fur clothes.
Then tell her that you know she paid men
to hurt and kill the animals. Everyone knows.
And the sooner she stops wearing fur, the
sooner the animals will be safe. Until then,
keep your doggie or kitty friends away from
mommy—she’s an animal killer!

People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals
501 Front St., Norfolk, VA 23510
757-622-7382 • FURISDEAD.COM
People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals

[TX-RAT]

152. Now that is sick

Thanks for posting it.

[redqueen]

161. Keep your doggie or kitty friends away from ... mommy - she's a... killer!

Yeah... keep it up, idiots.

:puke:

[The Stranger]

173. THE HORROR! Danieljay, THE HORROR!

"But the Emperor has nothing at all on!" said a little child.

"Listen to the voice of innocence!" exclaimed his father; and what the child had said was whispered from one to another.

"But he has nothing at all on!" at last cried out all the people.

[livinginphotographs]

179. Sorry, I don't buy it.

You didn't have a worldnetdaily link in there. :sarcasm:

[Danieljay]

206. Hey, its on PETA's website....

NOT worldnetdaily. PETA speaks for themselves. Interesting...the leaflet has moved since the first time I linked it. Anyone who supports this crap being handed out to children walking out of the Nutcracker...has major issues. This isn't some myth or rumor about PETA...its on THEIR website.

A radical..is a radical...is a radical. Surely there is a better way than this.


http://www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=3562

http://petaliterature.com/prodinfo.asp?number=SKN141&variation=&aitem=127&mitem=187

http://petaliterature.com/products.asp?dept=74&pagenumber=11

[Vladimir]

109. I disagree with PETA, but why are people so outraged?

children get fed a daily dose of propaganda and semi-truths by their parents, the TV, their teachers... why is it outrageous when PETA does it too?

[Danieljay]

153. its not what they say...its how they "say" it.

Graphic Peta handout Comic...be warned:

http://www.furisdead.com/pdfs/mommykills.pdf

[youspeakmylanguage]

114. My 2 cents

1) Eating meat is natural to humans, who are omnivores. Animals eating other animals (carnivores and omnivores alike) is as old as time and vital to keeping every natural ecosystem healthy. It can also be an invaluable part of a balanced human diet, with the emphasis on 'balanced'.

2) ...however, the animal rights movement has some valid points. Animals do not subject other animals to living in small pens, force feeding, and horrendous pain before killing and eating them simply for the sake of economy or making the meat tastier (foie gras). And eating meat contaminated by growth hormones, chemicals, and/or pollutants isn't healthy.

3) Based on some of their past sanctioned stunts, PETA is a radical organization that has hurt its own image and the cause of animal rights by alienating ordinary people. Handing out grizzly or demeaning propaganda to schoolchildren will simply alienate more people. Defending those that would hand out such propaganda to children just because you believe the underlining cause to be just alienates more people, as evidenced by this thread.

4) If you choose not to eat meat, then more power to you. If you maintain a healthy diet without meat, then more power to you. But scapegoating and attacking anyone who eats and/or promotes eating meat simply because the unwashed masses have become addicted to a fast-food culture is asinine grandstanding. If you want to convince me not to eat meat, tell me about the slaughterhouses. Tell me about healthy, digestible alternatives to meat. But don't preach or heap scorn, as so many on this thread have already done.

[TX-RAT]

121. well done

I wonder which is harder on the environment, me raising cows on 3 sections, or me farming that same 3 sections?
The amount of fuel consumed in farming, compared to fuel consumed in ranching?

[Sparkman]

129. Rainforest scientists rate grain produc'n for human consumption, calorie

wise. Animal husbandry is less calorie efficient. Too take advantage of the rice/wheat/corn we would have to include grains in our diet, and reduce the use of ranch meats. Fast foods don't include healthy grain diets, most of us ourselves prepare the grains we eat. Families I know that share the preparation of high grain diets, lentels & breads share in the task, inter-family, daily cooking/preparing communially. I can't participate in their coop, due to the 30 mile distance.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

131. It takes 10 pounds of grain to get 1 pound of meat.

So the land would be better used planting than raising cattle.


Question Answered.

[TX-RAT]

134. Where the hell do you come up with that.

In 25 years i can assure you not 1 ounce of grain, has been fed to my cows. Not real familiar with the ranching business are Ya?

Don't confuse feed ops with ranching.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

143. Ok, well if you are involved in the cow-calf operations...

then the land you set aside for forage, pasture, hay, silage, whatever...it takes a good deal of that land to feed those cattle even for the year or year and a half you have them until they are sold to the feedlot. In that time, the very land could have been used to produce grain or other direct foods for human consumption. The amount of grain you would get from planting a field full of say wheat would feed about 10 times the amount of people fed by letting your cows forage in that space. And even if you say that that number is if all conditions are ideal, even if you halve it, you would STILL feed 5 times the number of people using the same land resource for human staples as using it to let cows forage.

[TX-RAT]

148. if you are involved in the cow-calf operations..."

I am.
(then the land you set aside for forage, pasture, hay, silage, whatever...it takes a good deal of that land to feed those cattle even for the year or year and a half you have them)
Yep every bit of it.

(until they are sold to the feedlot)
Mine are not sold to feed lots, all my sales are local.

(In that time, the very land could have been used to produce grain or other direct foods for human consumption. The amount of grain you would get from planting a field full of say wheat would feed about 10 times the amount of people fed by letting your cows forage in that space.)

I'm not in this business to see how many people i can feed, I'm in this business to make money. You say grow wheat. Ever try to grow wheat in West Texas? Less than piss poor conditions. Hate to bust your bubble, but it takes water to grow wheat. 14 inches of rain a year won't cut it.

(even if you say that that number is if all conditions are ideal, even if you halve it, you would STILL feed 5 times the number of people using the same land resource for human staples as using it to let cows forage.)

Once again, I'm not in it to see how many people i can feed. I make more money bottom line, ranching on this place than i could farming.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

186. At least you are honest about it "I'm in it to make money"

But don't kid yourself that you are leaving the land as natural as it was. Ranching is every bit as harmful to land as farming is. It would make the most sense to get the most out of it if you do have to destroy the land anyway. However, since you are in it for the money, it doesn't matter.

[TX-RAT]

187. if you do have to destroy the land anyway.

I've destroyed nothing, if anything it's better than it was when i bought it, over 25 years ago.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

189. Better for whom? Humans?

The Southwest has been destroyed long ago. Ranching isn't natural, and ranching didn't start with you and it doesn't end with you. Perhaps you are one of the better ranchers. The majority aren't. And those that came before had very little regard for preserving the natural grasses and ecosystmes. They are the ones that introduced exotics that the modern ranchers are no stuck with. Nevertheless, this still doesn't make it natural.

[TX-RAT]

149. Help me out here

Why in the world would you rather me plow up 3 square miles of native trees, native grass's, prime wildlife habitat, when it's totally unnecessary. Theres so damn much wheat produced in the US already, that the only way the farmer can make a living is through Federal Subsidies.

[TX-RAT]

139. My land is undisturbed

How would plowing it up, be putting it to better use. I raise 18 head per section, with no supplemental feeding.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

147. Your land is very much disturbed.

This beloved myth of the cowhand and his herd living harmoniously in nature really needs to be destroyed.

[TX-RAT]

150. I have to hear this one.

(This beloved myth of the cowhand and his herd living harmoniously in nature really needs to be destroyed.)

Then by all means please proceed in your destruction.
This should be interesting.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

188. Oh brother, there have been so many papers on this

But here are a few snippets:

First, ranchers make no attempt to deny that they kill animals they see as "bothersome" to their herd. As a result, many predators that kept the ecosysmte balanced are gone or disappearing. Ranchers shoot what they perceive as threats to their herd, destroying natural predators like coyotes. Further, they go forward and outright poison animals that are just plain ol' annoying to them like prairie dogs.

The natural land would be a land where animals roamed free and died. Their dead bodies would be the food for other animals, either fresh or in rotted carcass form--circle of life and all that. There aren't any animals roaming free now, they've all been killed to make room for cattle ranches. The only animal that benefits from these animals is man. Decomposers no longer have a place in nature. You have a whole segment of the food web gone.

The fences you put up to protect your cows criss crosses and divides up habitats.

The grass that grows on the land is often not native, but some exotic introduced because it would be more cost efficient. Weed control to protect these grasses results in more poisonings.


As you point out in one of your other posts, in the Southwest, water isn't exactly easy to come by. This means that ranchers have to resort to irrigation methods which upset nature.

There's a start. If you think that THAT is living in harmony with nature, you're kidding yourself.

[Candide]

122. Doesn't PETA know

Wheat is murder?

http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html

hehe

[livinginphotographs]

126. I understand you're being funny...

but if you were that concerned about wheat, take a look at these:

http://www.askcarla.com/answers.asp?QuestionandanswerID=320
* More than 80 percent of the corn we grow and more than 95 percent of the oats are fed to livestock. The world’'s cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people—more than the entire human population on Earth. According to the Worldwatch Institute, "Roughly 2 of every 5 tons of grain produced in the world is fed to livestock, poultry, or fish; decreasing consumption of these products, especially of beef, could free up massive quantities of grain and reduce pressure on land."



And straight from the source:

"Currently, 36 percent of the world's grain goes to feed livestock and poultry, inefficient converters of grain. (It is worth noting that a small, but rapidly growing, share of the world's grain goes to fish farms, where the conversion is slightly more efficient than poultry.) In the developing world, the share of grain fed to livestock has tripled since mid-century and now stands at 21 percent. Further growth in this share is likely as developing nations strive to emulate the model of industrial nations, where nearly 70 percent of grain is fed to livestock."

<snip>

"Each kilo of meat represents several kilos of grain, either corn or wheat, that could be consumed directly by humans. If the 670 million tons of the world's grain used for feed were reduced by just 10 percent, this would free up 67 million tons of grain, enough to sustain 225 million people or keep up with world population growth for the next three years. If each American reduced his or her meat consumption by only 5 percent, roughly equivalent to eating one less dish of meat each weak, 7.5 million tons of grain would be saved, enough to feed 25 million people-roughly the number estimated to go hungry in the United States each day. "

http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/1998/07/02/

[CornField]

128. What a nice world it will be when adults learn to leave children alone

Let them be kids... if you must gross others out to make a point, please limit yourself to other adults. Thank you.

[blondeatlast]

144. You said it perfectly.

I don't care whether it's PETA, the Democrats, the Republicans, PTL, or drug pushers--stay the hell away from my boy and let him enjoy his far too short and precious childhood.

[WeRQ4U]

136. I agree with you somewhat....

That the sensationalism here may get many to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, the outrage people may feel toward PETA, whether prompted by the media or not, usually comes on the heels of PETA doing something OUTRAGEOUS, and people have every right to be pissed off about it when it happens. I certainly don't want anyone handing out bullshit literature to my children without my consent... whether it be about eating fish or going to church. It's all the same to me. The responsibility to educate my children as to their lifestyle choices is up to me, not some nutjob leaflet distributer in Hemp pants.

Sure, PETA may do many good things...many enlightening things, but few refute that religion does as well. And just like religious fundamentalism, when a radical hand guides the policies of an institution, it quickly loses credibility. It is ignored as fanatacism.

PETA's message is fine and it's practices accommodating... to some. But to defend the organization when it does something reprehensible, simply because it also does some good things, is irresponsible. Don't be a Lemming. You can agree with their theories but condemn their pratices used to institute them. It's OK.

EDIT: To add that Boca Burgers taste like ass.

[livinginphotographs]

146. There's a difference between simply disagreeing with one tactic

And doing what most of the usual suspects here do, which is ignore the numerous threads on the good that PETA does (those seem to sink like a stone) but come running in droves for the sensationalistic crap like this one.

As I posted above, how many of these people were posting on those threads (and how many of those even bothered to read my above post in the first place).

[WeRQ4U]

157. That's not necessarily the case....

People will comment on things done by ANY institution or organization that they do not agree with. It just so happens that with all the possible good PETA does do in the world, they do a LOT of bad as well. When people are outraged by something, they will voice concern. Perhaps a telling statistic is the numerous complaints against PETA's actions. That should tell you that it's tactics are not working.

I refuse to believe that their message cannot be spread by better means.

It's also kind of funny that you complain of the sensationalism of the media when talking about PETA. Because don't you think PETA has made a conscious decision to implement SHOCKING tactics to gain puplicity and notoriety? They have admitted to it in the past. The media is only doing PETA's bidding.

[livinginphotographs]

160. The employ sensationalistic tactics

because they get more press than the numerous campaigns that have exposed animal cruelty at testing labs, farms, etc. And I'm referring more to protesting naked than a group of people handing out cards to kids, when this particular event may not have even been authorized by PETA headquarters. Since you have such an opinion on PETA, have you even heard about these campaigns? Have you responded to those threads on DU that talked about these campaigns?

And I'm more worried about the responses on this thread. I see your point when it comes to the general public, but I'm talking about DU. I would think the people here, who seem to pride themselves on being informed, would be able to see blatant sensationalism for what it is.

[WeRQ4U]

163. I can see what you're getting at....

I'm just giving you a different angle. I don't disagree with the fact that people are resonding to sensationalism. It's true. But that sensationalism is created by PETA, most likely on purpose. And those outrageous tactics don't agree with a lot of people, including myself.

As for whether I've seen any campaigns, yes, some of the more recent. I spent a considerable amount of time looking at PETA's website and some literature I was given. Like I've said before, they seem to have a legitimate purpose and they seem to have done a lot of good. But it seems as though they've kind of let the insane run the asylum as of late. And I think many people now simply are tired of it.

As for whether I've responded to any DU posts about the topic... to be honest, I haven't been a part of the DU community long enough to have been exposed to them, so no.

I'm a little concerned about your final statements though. To dismiss those people that disagree with whatever circus PETA is pulling at the current moment as being uninformed lemmings is assuming too much. Even the informed can disagree.

Ironically, it would be very PETA-like for a person to ostracize the party with whom they most closely associate.

[livinginphotographs]

169. Regarding my final statement, it's not about simply disagreeing.

It's about making themselves look like they have an exclusive anti-PETA agenda and only making themselves known when it comes time to spread the right-wing talking points regarding PETA courtesy of Center for Consumer Freedom and the fur industry.

There a lot of long-time posters here that come out for the anti-PETA threads where they are doing something "insane," but I never hear a peep from them regarding the work that PETA does that anyone can see is beneficial. It was not to imply

[noonwitch]

137. "A Fish Called Wanda"

This whole thing is making me think of the scene in which Kevin Kline eats all of Michael Palin's fish.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WeRQ4U]

142. Subtle.... but no less effective.

[redqueen]

154. What the $#&* is wrong with these people?

:grr:

Frickin idiots. Why does anyone associate with them? I can understand wanting to lobby for the humane treatment of animals, but for cryin' out loud... are they not sane?!

[TX-RAT]

159. are they not sane?!

Afraid not. Scary isn't it. They walk up to my child and hand them that rubbish and they'll get more than a trespassing warning and a police escort off the property.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

194. protect the "children" from free press&shelter'm from alternative thinking

Real Men won't allow these "heathen ideas" into our children's fragile eggshell minds!

But let'm have video games where the blood splats when they kill the bad guys-- let'm see destruction and killing in every movie, give'm a flag and let'm root for our "team" in the Iraq war where "our team" killed 200 thousand Iraqis,

BUT GOD help the MAN/WOMAN who HANDS MY CHILD A FLYER!!@!!!-
a flyer that insists that even dirty animals have rights!
I'd kill that suckka with my bare hands! and let my kid watch me do it!!!!
Dats how I feel about it!

[Love Bug]

180. They were out of line to do this

Just as out of line as if McDonald's handed out free coupons to the same kids. Kids don't make the food decisions their parents do. I dislike it when ANY group targets kids, because it is a form of manipulation. I don't agree with junk food and advertisements in schools, either, for the same reasons.

[lynne]

185. PETA is its own worst enemy -

- with stunts like this as they negate any good they may do. NO ONE should be approaching children without the permission of the parents. Approaching children defines them as extreme and potentially dangerous.

Mother Nature or God or Evolution was kind enough to give me canine teeth. I plan to use them to the fullest.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

201. PETA RULES !!! they get everyone all riled up !! cool!!

wonder why?
Maybe deep down inside some folks realize that it's wrong to hurt defenseless creatures, but somehow they can't break away from the extensive conditioning--the idea "we've always done it this way" has been drilled into us since childhood when we began questioning our parents.

If it weren't for those who were strong enough to break free from the Pavlov conditioning there'd still be slavery, Women would have no rights, Child labor laws would have never come into being---and on and on--
Thank God for those who, in the past, broke the status quo and stuck their necks out to stand up for injustice even when it was unpopular to do so (and could get you killed).!!
And" the Byble says its so" is another crutch to resist progressive thinking.
Gawd put us on earth to do with animals as we please--
Sorry,
The idea "justice" applies across the board, not just for "our tribe"(humans)--
Thou shalt not kill--where did I hear that before?
Does it say except for Muslims and Iraqis and cows and pigs and chickens and sheep?
I don't recall that clarification.

The madder people get with groupswlike PETA (whose purpose is to protect and promote ethical treatment of other creatures), the more of an internal struggle that is present inside--that is a GOOD thing--those who get the maddest actually are on the brink of breaking through to the "other side"--and shaking off their conditioning.

Congratulations- all of you who get mad- you're well on your way!

[lynne]

208. I'm afraid you've confused -

- being riled up with excitement and being riled up with disgust. One is good for an organization - the other is not.

PETA has been bizarre for so very long that they are no longer taken seriously. "Riled up" would be an improvement for their image, which has become sadly and pathetically comical at best.

[hoffmanmotors]

205. PETA blows

PETA is against all forms of medical testing involving animals - regardless of the potential benefits to human beings. Does this form of thinking remind you of anyone? Hint: He the dumbest president in history.

[Moderator]

211. locking

Discussion is no longer productive.