It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PETA out to starve humanity

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I was so going to try and not come back to this thread...but....as I have said before...PETA has done more to move animal rights to the forefront of people's minds than any other organization...and that's a good thing! NO I do not adhere nor condone their tactics...NO I do not believe in all they say or try to do......but I am all for animal rights and as said, they have done more than anyone else to get people to think about it.




posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by llpoolej
Well, you are contradicting yourself. You first say that no dog should be bred, yet that it is cruel to alter them so they don't breed. How do you rationalize that thinking???


I'm not contradicting myself. I repeat the point that I have already made: that pet owners face a dilemma in that either choice they make (fixing their pets or perpetuating the practice of keeping domestic pets through breeding) is wrong. Thus the practice should be abolished.

What are the effects of fixing on people? Would any seek to eliminate the reproductive rights of people because it reduces their risks of cancer? How about just for prisoners and retarded people? Get my point?



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I'll add this thought that PETA is also the ulimate expression of political correctness gone to it's natural conclusion.

There is nothing wrong with an individual choosing to be a vegetarian.

There is everything wrong with a group that tries to force their views of what to eat (or anything else) on everyone else.


PETA is of the same ilk as those "eco-terrorists". You know, the ones that burn down new houses for "environmental reasons".


[edit on 1/20/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
“In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”—Howard Zinn


Since when do humane people to animals become inhumane to human's?
You can eat meat all you want, it's how they kill them.

Throwing them in boiling hot water alive, cutting the babies beaks off, it's all just so inhumane, it doesn't make these people extreme, yum! foods is only one of 56 other broiling plants kfc works with in the country.

If animal cruelty didn't exist then i'm sure there would be no need for an animal cruelty council.

But it does, and people who care are just out there for the animals.

The animals are counting on caring people to help them.


dh

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

I know that, although I can live on plants only, it would not be easy to maintain a balanced and healthy diet doing so. Homo sap has evolved toward carnivore status over the millennia, just as Ursus sp. from class Carnivora has evolved away from it.

I think that eating meat is a personal choice. I would not gainsay anyone from a vegetarian lifestyle, but the people who want to constrain my eatinghabits because of their philosophy are, in my book, nothing but power-hungry fascists.


Funnily enough I almost agree with you
Mind you I haven't eaten animals for an inordinate number of years and still remain healthier in the sense of not falling ill much, compared to
meat-eaters around me
With reference to veal, most of them are munching on chickens and pigs reared in the most appalling of conditions, and I can only think of them as buying into the karma as expressed in the chemical overload they're receiving
I don't particularly object to your yearly kill, and think that if that is the relationship that people have to the animals they consume, then all well and good
Of course that is not the majority case
Most people have no consciousness of their meat source or its conditions of rearing and death
They are hiding and in denial, which increases their susceptibility to manipulation on other life and death issues



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
"There is room for all of god's creatures, right next to the mash potatoes."

Anyways, humans are omnivores, we eat both meat and plant, we are born this way, we are built this way, NOT eating meat is unnatural. Also, who cares how they are killed? They are still just as dead. Think about it. It is like "We aren't buying these clothes cause they are made by kids." Guess what? Still being made, so now the work the kids did goes to waste cause the clothes are still made, still there, just a small minority aren't buying them. The cow is still dead, the pig is still dead, the lobster is still dead, guess what? You not eating it doesn't bring it back to life.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
It comes down to this:
the greater majority of food animals are living in cruel and torturous conditions for their entire existance and then to top it off, they are often killed inhumanely. The reason for this is that intensive animal farming for food is accepted as nessesary to supply demand, because demand grows exponentially with population. You either care or you dont. PETA advocates going vegetarian in order to stop this simply because most are ignorant of the fact or dont care and those who enjoy eating animals dont bother to suggest alternative methods of raising food humanely, they simply say, "well humans first". Intensive farming cruelty IS UNACCEPTABLE,
yes there are plenty of other non animal issues, but that is no reason to let this huge problem slide by the board, and PETA face a world of mindless uncaring opposition.
It comes down to personal choice,
(a) accept and ignore
(b) boycott the practice by being vegetarian
(c) IF you care~ come up with a better alternative

Tough choices arnt they!


dh

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   


It comes down to personal choice,
(a) accept and ignore
(b) boycott the practice by being vegetarian
(c) IF you care~ come up with a better alternative

Tough choices arnt they!


(a) Perpetual numbskull - insensitive armored being
(b) works for me, maybe not for everone
(c) Hunt or rear your own meat source or support genuinely free range organically farmed produce despite the price premium



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh


It comes down to personal choice,
(a) accept and ignore
(b) boycott the practice by being vegetarian
(c) IF you care~ come up with a better alternative

Tough choices arnt they!


(a) Perpetual numbskull - insensitive armored being
(b) works for me, maybe not for everone
(c) Hunt or rear your own meat source or support genuinely free range organically farmed produce despite the price premium


choice (c) is out for most non rural consumers for obvious reasons, and most would cite the cost as good enough reason to choose (a) And it seems when you get thoughtless silly comments like
"there is room for all gods creatures, right next to potatoes", that (b) is also unacceptable and they Automatically choose (A) ! No wonder PETA are Desperate!


dh

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   
That's why the world is full of numbskull TV-hypnotised Bush-supporting 'Droids
Pay the proper price for food- Yes I know about the poor and the starving
They're all part of this process



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Good point, if food was the most expensive amenity we might have less to spend on war!



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Free range costs alot of $$$$ Even the half of a cow we buy is $$$ not because it is more expensive, but that it is in a lump sum. About $900 and a large chest freezer is needed to store it. It IS healthier though. If for no reason other than that it is worth it.

Those that do not have the extra money to pay 3x's as much for chicken or for the nicer cuts of meat have to buy what they can afford. Many times those that are poor, are more overweight due to the food choices they can afford.

I don't know about everyone else, but eating HEALTHY is expensive. Unless you grow your own. I don't grow anything as it would die under my care. I am a wonderful caretaker of animals but NOT of plants.

What in the heck does Bush have to do with PETA anyhow?? Oh yeah, everything is his fault


dh

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by llpoolej
Free range costs alot of $$$$

I don't know about everyone else, but eating HEALTHY is expensive. Unless you grow your own. I don't grow anything as it would die under my care. I am a wonderful caretaker of animals but NOT of plants.

What in the heck does Bush have to do with PETA anyhow?? Oh yeah, everything is his fault


What does Bush have to do with it?
Because we have a whole system of brutalisation of humanity, animals, forest, agriculture
The most gain for the most few, and the world suffers
You notice those top chefs and those top eaters
You note what Prince Charles supports and his organically derived produce on his estates
Their preference would be for the masses to eat GM gruel and pesticide laden poison and antibiotic-laden adrenalin-driven cruelly raised animals till lwe die in our millions from one attack or another



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Yeah, these last 4 years our society went from being completely loving, kind and good to animals to capitalistic animal haters. It is allll Bush's fault. Yes, he is the root of all evil.

PEOPLE have choices to make. Bush isn't that powerful of a speaker or leader to sway an entire population into being cruel to animals.

Maybe an organization could be started that isn't radical like PETA. That doesn't have an agenda like they do. That is looking out for ETHICAL TREATMENT or at least HUMANE treatment.

I disagree with many of their basic beliefs. I have come to this conclusion from their website and what it lists. Although there are many things I do agree with them with. Their delivery is the main thing that makes them distasteful

I disagree with HOW they go about getting out their message. This was taken off their website (peta.org):
“How can you justify the millions of dollars of property damage caused by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?”
Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are examples of movements in which people broke the law in order to answer to a higher morality. The ALF, which is simply the name adopted by people who act illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. ALF members burn empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF “raids” have given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have otherwise been discovered or believed and have resulted in criminal charges’ being filed against laboratories for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. Often, ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs, and some abusive laboratories have been permanently shut down as a result.

This to me is just the same as the abortion clinic bombers methods. I will destroy what I see harmful regardless of who it hurts. IT is WRONG



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Well, I can tell you one thing. You'll never get the people of South Louisiana to stop boiling crawfish, I don't care if PETA threatens to stage a mass suicide.

Wait a minute! I think I just had a brainstorm!



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   

What in the heck does Bush have to do with PETA anyhow?? Oh yeah, everything is his fault



Who mentioned Bush till then?



Well, I can tell you one thing. You'll never get the people of South Louisiana to stop boiling crawfish, I don't care if PETA threatens to stage a mass suicide.

Wait a minute! I think I just had a brainstorm!



Real intelligence their Grady.


People hear the word PETA and their thought processes just shutdown.

Funny how the phrase "I dont care" pops up so frequently from these people in any context.

[edit on 093131p://11019 by instar]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
The pleasure is all mine and if my calculations are correct this post should push me over the 100,000 point mark. How's that for intelligence?



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The pleasure is all mine and if my calculations are correct this post should push me over the 100,000 point mark. How's that for intelligence?


It explains many of your post thats for sure. Thanks for pointing it out.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
But even less substantive.

I'm neither a PETA fan nor detractor, but the logic that the promotion of vegetarianism is an attempt to starve the world couldn't be further from the truth.

Meat is the unnecessary luxury that deprives. I'm not saying I don't eat it, but I'm not blind to the facts of the ultimate "protein factory in reverse."

If you hunt and eat deer, quail or fish...good for you. This does not apply to naturally developed wild animals that feed themselves off the land while providing an invaluable service in the cycle of nature themselves.

But farm raised meat borders on madness. Setting aside the grotesque alterations to evolution we've accomplished in just the last few decades to bovine, swine and fowl that couldn't hope to fend for themselves, much less walk in nature...look at the protein costs. The substantive nutriants we expend in raising feed by the tons and tons for sustanance over the life of these gorged abominations of nature is a travesty considering starvation is rampant on parts of the globe.

Millions if not billions of human beings live at or near the danger level for starvation and we talk about a world crisis of available food, the decline of farms, etc. etc.... while we feed many, many, many times the amount of protein needed to feed the population of several planets our size in plant-protein to livestock in order to one day extract a paltry amount of meat protein as a luxury item.

If memory serves, chickens require about 40 times the protein they produce in a lifetime of otherwise human edible nutriants and cows are something off the chart. Like hundreds of times the protein factory in reverse. I understand the concentration effect that a bite of chicken can sustain you longer than a bowl of rice, but that's also not how the west eats anymore. Our version of chinese food (for example) is a joke. We overeat meat to our own demise. To the point it's not good for us, and it's horrible for the planet.

Think of it like the Total cereal commercial. Next time you sit down to a steak, think of the silo (if not silos) of grain it took to make that cut. And the village it could have fed for a year instead of you at one sitting.

Then cluck your tongue about PETA trying to starve the world.


Bottom line: There is no shortage of food on this planet. We just feed MOST of it to cows.


Good perspective, you get my way above vote. I didn't quite see it that way. I still will continue to eat meat, but your point was well articulated.

-ADHDsux4me



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar
Good point, if food was the most expensive amenity we might have less to spend on war!


You think it's OK to make food an expensive commodity? To price it out of the reach of poor people around the globe? To starve a large portion of the human race that doesn't have the money and resources to sit here and coldly write them off as you have just done? Just to save some chickens, cows and fish some pain?

Thanks for verifying the title of this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join