supersaver

Author Topic: PETA?  (Read 6308 times)

Offline hamlet

Re: PETA?
«Reply #75: November 06, 2009, 04:13:50 AM»
I watch whale wars too. I love those guys.

I don't agree with opinion on eating meat though. We're omnivores. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables. Why is it wrong to survive by doing just that? Is wrong when a carnivore does it? Eating meat or just vegetables is a choice and neither should be forced on the other. No one likes the thought of an animal dieing, (unless they're just sick fucks), but the hard fact of life is that eventually all things die. Even if every human being on this planet were to convert to eating just vegetables we would have some major problems. One, we wouldn't be able to adequately support our nutritional needs on vegetables alone.  Two, it's just a speculation, but I don't think there where would be enough vegetation to support  us and herbivorous animals. It would cause major deforestation, competition, and drastic life style changes.

I guess take it for what it's worth. Didn't seem like you were interested in feedback anyway. :)

^ kinda blurry so http://glutenfreevegan.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/chart.jpg


Offline hamlet

Re: PETA?
«Reply #76: November 06, 2009, 04:15:58 AM»
I think animals specifically bred and raised for the purpose of food is appropriate.
The thing I disagree with is how often these animals are abused before they're killed.
They are already being killed. Why abuse them?
who's right is it to decide what lives should translate to 'food' and who can be free??? it's no ones, it's not right period. there are very FEW exceptions to where I can understand someone would take another life for food, but let's be real.

Offline Ilsa

Re: PETA?
«Reply #77: November 06, 2009, 12:41:04 PM»
The above chart from the vegan site (which appears to be focused at pressuring others into conforming to their personal life choices, for shock value I'll call it "the vegan religion") reads: All A are B. All C are B. Therefore, all A are C.

This is a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

"All herbivores have these features. All humans have these features, therefore all humans are herbivores."

Try switching it up. All humans have these features. All herbivores have these features, therefore all herbivores are humans.

(Googling "Detoxify vitamin A" as I didn't take a biology class yields a bunch of vegans trying to pressure others into conforming with their beliefs with that chart, but none of them explain why detoxifying vitamin A is important.)

Would we have developed differently if we didn't have opposable thumbs and had to rip carcasses apart using only our teeth? Would it be different if we did not cook our meat before eating it?

If there was no need to develop certain features due to other adaptations, do those features develop?

Cup Ramen

  • Topic Author
Re: PETA?
«Reply #78: November 06, 2009, 02:46:30 PM»
If there was no need to develop certain features due to other adaptations, do those features develop?

This sort of ties in with the other thread I started about evolution. I completely agree, anyway.

This thread always makes me want meat..

Black Rain

  • Topic Author
Re: PETA?
«Reply #79: November 06, 2009, 03:35:51 PM»
There's many Vegetarian websites out now trying to pressure people with their beliefs by saying things that I have yet to see be backed up scientifically.

Offline Ilsa

Re: PETA?
«Reply #80: November 06, 2009, 03:39:42 PM»
Here's a fun Visual:

Rabbits are Herbivores.




This is a human with similar features listed.




Human's features are identical or nearly identical to herbivore according to the chart.




Cearly humans are not rabbits.



...But don't tell these boys that.




Source 1
Source 2

Black Rain

  • Topic Author
Re: PETA?
«Reply #81: November 06, 2009, 03:49:02 PM»
Those charts are epic fail.
LMAO

Cigarette

  • Topic Author
Re: PETA?
«Reply #82: November 07, 2009, 03:31:19 AM»
I didn't take the time to read every post that was under this subject.

PETA unfortunately does more damage than anything. They kill off more animals than they "save." I can't argue when the subject of them disagreeing with animal testing comes up; I am 100% against this as well. PETA likes to think that their deeds are holy and merely for the good of the animals. They ride a very high horse.

Although I do agree with some of the things they do, I can not say I support them. In fact, I very much so dislike them. I understand wanting to stop animal testing but trying to force your beliefs onto a omnivore (as most of us are) is ridiculous. The things they publish says it all, clearly.

Prisons and Jails are full of criminals who serve no good purpose in this world. Half of them will rot in their cells. Hopefully we all know that animal testing isn't 100% accurate when creating a new formula for laundry detergent, facial makeup or medications for humans. You can't test on an animal and expect the same outcome for a human being. What I want to know is why can't we be 100% sure next time? Why can't we use a pointless human who has done nothing but bad to the earth and it's beings? I don't believe in that religious bullshit. You can't tell me there is a "God" watching us destroy ourselves and the "world he created." That's ridiculous so when or if you answer, don't give me that as your answer. God isn't to blame, we are.

Every living animal has a heart, a brain, a voice box, a this and a that. Why don't people understand that testing a chemical on an animal is hurtful? I'm sure those "scientists" wouldn't want anything harmful to happen to their children, siblings, or for that matter, loved ones in general. I disagree with animal testing. I hate it and I hate that people who do it.

This is such a touchy subject for me. I can honestly say I have my sympathy for an animal than I do for a human.

Offline anathema

Re: PETA?
«Reply #83: November 07, 2009, 08:42:28 AM»
Quote
Why can't we use a pointless human who has done nothing but bad to the earth and it's beings?

because most first world countries have laws against cruel and unusual punishment?

Offline Ilsa

Re: PETA?
«Reply #84: November 07, 2009, 03:19:58 PM»
I used to work for a biomedical company. We developed under subcontract a number of medical devices that are used in life saving and life medical procedures.

In order for our devices to get approved by the FDA, we --had-- to do animal testing. After we'd finished that phase and got permission to go ahead doing medical trials on people. I recall we had to send our machines and test subjects to Mexico for these clinical trials.

I did some googling of some of the projects I remember working on and many of said devices are approved and in use in the united states. They're helping people with orthopedic problems that require knee replacement, letting women get sterilized without going under a knife and many other things.

Many good things come out of it, and there are laws and regulations that protect laboratory animals. Meanwhile, ALF and other groups are vandalizing homes and workplaces, assaulting, and bombing cars of scientists and researchers.

This is such a problem that laws had to be passed to protect researchers under the name of "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act". You can see some such acts of 'terrorism' here.

Electric Guitar

  • Topic Author
Re: PETA?
«Reply #85: November 07, 2009, 03:48:46 PM»

Cup Ramen

  • Topic Author
Re: PETA?
«Reply #86: November 07, 2009, 08:51:25 PM»


They ride a very high horse.

lol @ irony.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 09:35:58 PM by Wings »

Offline Fallon

Re: PETA?
«Reply #87: November 07, 2009, 10:16:10 PM»
I should make a christian group that goes against PETA because they don't use the gifts God gives them... :/

Cup Ramen

  • Topic Author
Re: PETA?
«Reply #88: November 08, 2009, 08:18:06 PM»
I should make a christian group that goes against PETA because they don't use the gifts God gives them... :/

But religion makes almost everything worse...

Cigarette

  • Topic Author
Re: PETA?
«Reply #89: November 09, 2009, 02:09:10 AM»
Quote
Why can't we use a pointless human who has done nothing but bad to the earth and it's beings?

because most first world countries have laws against cruel and unusual punishment?

Their useless. They obviously did something "cruel" to end up in Prison. Animals have feelings and emotions too, so that comment doesn't make sense, nor does it prove anything. It's still cruel and unusual.


I should make a christian group that goes against PETA because they don't use the gifts God gives them... :/

But religion makes almost everything worse...

Agreed, another religion is the last thing we need.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 02:13:31 AM by Jake and Kayt »

Offline Sync

Re: PETA?
«Reply #90: November 09, 2009, 11:33:18 AM»
@ jake and kayt because quoting on this board sucks

human testing of condemned criminals, in america at least, is a direct violation of the bill of rights no matter how much rationality you want to put into it. if you put it int context of the time it was written, it was specifically meant to disallow the torturing of criminals.

despite that, there have been experiments conducted on criminals previously when the power of a prison warden was easier to abuse. i don't know what happened to the wardens afterward, though the public opinion of it is pretty easy to guess.

Electric Guitar

  • Topic Author
Re: PETA?
«Reply #91: November 09, 2009, 05:58:48 PM»
Take a look at early asylums. The stuff they did to people back in the day could make you puke.

Offline Hugo

Re: PETA?
«Reply #92: November 09, 2009, 10:36:37 PM»
The death penalty isn't well-received in every state, how do you think the population would feel about the experimentation penalty?

Hell, I'm game. Go, go, science fiction!

_________________

Cup Ramen

  • Topic Author
Re: PETA?
«Reply #93: November 10, 2009, 09:01:52 PM»
While testing on criminals might be pushing it, I do think that jails need to suck more... think about it. You go to jail and get a roof over your head and free food. If you're in a gang, chances are you'll just be hanging with your homies the whole time. It's really not that much of a punishment... at least it isn't around here.

Offline Altria

Re: PETA?
«Reply #94: November 11, 2009, 03:59:53 AM»
i love animals just as much as the next person; i'm going to school for wildlife conservation. but PETA? no. just no.
contact: altria, meiko

Mutaclone

  • Topic Author
Re: PETA?
«Reply #95: November 11, 2009, 04:33:56 PM»
PETA members should be scalped and their hair used in lovely and fashionable "fur" coats. Much more humane.

We had a German foreign-exchange-student at our school for a semester and she had to move out of the house she was staying in because they told her that if she didn't eat meat, she wouldn't be a "part of the family" or something retarded like that.

I've heard of PETA members passing out your mommy/daddy kills animals pamphlets to very young students at elementary schools. Not sure how true that is, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if PETA did that. If I was a parent, I'd sue their asses for that kind of shit. If I was a teacher I'd call security on them and get them arrested. Kids shouldn't see that kind of crap.

Quote
"Chicken blood in every bit of KFC chicken"
Lol PETA.. Why would a piece of chicken not have blood in it? Are there a bunch of bloodless chickens running around out there somewhere that I should know about? :X

Kids shouldn't be exposed to violence, the reult could go very wrong at a young age. Depending on the age exactly, though. A five year old my be scarred for life or become antisocial, or some other disposition.

Personally, This makes e wanna slip in a Mutaclone fursuit and stand around them for awhile [being that he's a violent character] because, hell, Kids shouldn't be exposed to violence under the age of ten. it's wrong.
So, It's instinctual for me to grab the nearest blunt object and chase them out of my school, neighborhood, etc. hey need to stop. They attacked obama over a fly. It's bullshit. I never liked PETA because of their methods. I mean, SHOULD they be attacking the president for ANY reason? disrespectful.

IMHO, complete bullshit, this could make kids fear their parants or make them phobic of sharp objects.
They'll be harming more than they help. I'll be waiting for their plan to backfire.
But i still want to chase them out in a fursuit of some type. It'd amuse me greatly. or, just meanmug 'em. Though, LOL, only if protesting their actions doesn't get anywhere.
STOP TRAUMATIZING OUR KIDS.
I still love animals but Jesus H. christ, this is going to backfire.

Electric Guitar

  • Topic Author
Re: PETA?
«Reply #96: November 11, 2009, 08:43:12 PM»
You really think PETA will tramuatize kids? Kids mature a hell of a lot faster these days. They're exposed to a lot of mature content early on. I doubt a bunch of PETA supporters really do them any harm unless they perhaps threw a dead puppy at some. You want to see some proof that kids are a lot tougher these days? Read this article:

http://news.aol.com/article/9-year-old-malik-medford-foils/759223

Besides. Scaring children is not how PETA operates. They'd be more likely to hand them a bunch of propaganda and try to recruit them early on.

Also, I doubt violence would help the situation at all. Many members are some of lowliest scum on the face of this planet. Others are just brainwashed kids. When it comes down to it though, they're still people. And like all people, they can press charges against you. Protesting doesn't get them anywhere, but violence won't get you anywhere either.

Cup Ramen

  • Topic Author
Re: PETA?
«Reply #97: November 11, 2009, 09:16:35 PM»
@Electric

Well, the way they recruit early is to at least partially traumatize them... in the original post, I linked to a pamphlet that they regularly hand out to children that contained graphics of a woman violently killing animals with a big butcher knife...

Electric Guitar

  • Topic Author
Re: PETA?
«Reply #98: November 11, 2009, 10:15:09 PM»
Missed that. In whatever form, pamphlets or cute stickers, it's all propaganda irregardless.

Offline Hugo

Re: PETA?
«Reply #99: November 12, 2009, 01:00:29 AM»
Propoganda or a dead puppy. It's a message being conveyed, not the medium.

_________________

 

supersaver