PETA out to starve humanity

If they think Bread is Murder they would faint at what I do to Bambi

I like meat, it is what made our evolution possible as a species and without it we could be arguably be squatting in a tree somewhere. Protein helps to develop a larger brain and hunting an animal takes more intelligence than sneaking up on a apple.

Mother Nature is a Cruel Bitch. My shooting of a Deer/Rabbit/Hog/etc is MUCH less cruel than being torn apart and eaten alive by dogs or wolves.

I hunt and fish and will continue to regardless of PETAs position on the subject.

I wonder if they think by releasing the animals they will all live togather in one big happy walt disney cartoon? Most Farm animals could not survive a year in the wild, and would die a death much worse than being sledge hammered.

Originally posted by Amuk
If they think Bread is Murder they would faint at what I do to Bambi

ok, not funny... They are too cute, I don't know how anybody has the heart to gut such a precious looking animal. Especially the fawns.

I like meat, it is what made our evolution possible

What?

Protein helps to develop a larger brain and hunting an animal takes more intelligence than sneaking up on a apple.

hunting an animal does not take more brain power then sneaking up on an apple.

Unless of course your not using a gun or any other device that entails your hand holding on to some sort of gizmo.

Plus I think peta is talking about the humane and ethical treatment of animals in a slaughter house. I could be wrong... I think this bread thing though is blown up and over exagerated because it's peta.

See how cute they are, how could you?






yes mother nature is a bitch but you don't have to participate, thats what makes humans superior, they have a conscience.

more picture

[edit on 21-1-2005 by TrueLies]

Originally posted by TrueLies
See how cute they are, how could you?

You should see how he looks in my frying pan

As for meat being a step in evolution it was on a Discovery Channel special explaining how it boosted brain power.

As for sneaking up on an apple, it does take intelligence to sneak into spear range of a deer.

Originally posted by Amuk
As for sneaking up on an apple, it does take intelligence to sneak into spear range of a deer.

Spear, yeah, gun, no. Hey i'm not expert on the matter, I understand the justifications for it, I even agree with some of the points, especially if your comparing hunting to slaughter houses. I'd rather hunt too, It's just their too cute for me to hurt. I hope they have a fast death though amuk.

Originally posted by centurion1211

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.

How did you jump to that conclusion. Thats typical of such knee jerk reactions. I SAID NOTHING ABOUT DELIBERABERATLY STARVING PEOPLE. YOU DID!
I simply said IF food was a more expensive commodity, we might appreciate it more, waste less, and find empathy with those who do starve now because the west wants meat, which uses huge resources to feed, instead of feeding the grain etc to the starving. I.E. use cattle grazing land to grow food crops for humans instead.
In short if we spent more on solving hunger, we'd be less preoccupied with spending billions killing each other .
Im sure your an intelligent guy, use logic not emotional knee jerk response without thought.

I'll repost this because folk still dont understand. You dont NEED meat, but if you WANT it, fine. Thats not the issue. Alternative and Humane raising and slaughter methods which seem to be beyond the comprehension of most folk, are the issues in the raw. Please read SLOWLY below.

Originally posted by instar
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!

The sad folk who come up with deliberatly silly/sarcastic nonsense about this issue show they are incapable of intelligent and reasoned ideas for a solution /happy medium. So far not one of the "I love my meat" brigade
have suggested any alternative to cruel intensive farming practices, they are too busy paranoidly defending themselves against an idea put forward as a solution/means of raising awareness, they cannot see beyond the self fueled hype and sillinest the word PETA evokes.
If you could come up with a humane farming method that would match supply to demand on a mass scale then PETA wouldnt care if you east meat.
There problem IS NOT with eating meat per say, but with the fact that on a mass scale it makes sheer totrurous cruelty nessesary. Their proposed solution is go vegetarian because it kills two birds with one stone.
(A) No more cruelty
(b) more food for humans
So until/unless you can devise a better solution, your mindless childish rantings serve no purpous at all. Theres not much of that crap that hasnt been heard already, you add nothing to the discussion. why waste your time, you dont get voted way above for such crap.
Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

[edit on 073131p://28017 by instar]

Originally posted by instar
How did you jump to that conclusion. Thats typical of such knee jerk reactions. I SAID NOTHING ABOUT DELIBERABERATLY STARVING PEOPLE. YOU DID!
...
In short if we spent more on solving hunger, we'd be less preoccupied with spending billions killing each other .

This scenario is very far removed from reality. Are you suggesting that lowering the standard of living for everyone will lead to less conflict around the world? Have you ever conversed with the "starving masses" for whom you so readily come to the defense -- do you think they want more expensive meat? Do you somehow think that meat being more expensive would lessen the inequality in the world at large and third world countries specifically? I think it's clear that the opposite would take place - those with more power in society would seek to continue their previous standard of living, at the expense of those in society who have no bargaining power. Are you prepared to take responsiblity for the inevitable results of adopting this braindead idea in the imperfect, real world, or are you more interested in angry rhetoric to feed some sense of self-importance?

The sad folk ... show they are incapable of intelligent and reasoned ideas for a solution

Okay, let's examine your rhetoric:

Alternative and Humane raising and slaughter methods which seem to be beyond the comprehension of most folk

The sad folk who come up with deliberatly silly/sarcastic nonsense about this issue show they are incapable of intelligent and reasoned ideas for a solution /happy medium.

Im sure your an intelligent guy, use logic not emotional knee jerk response without thought

So until/unless you can devise a better solution, your mindless childish rantings serve no purpous at all.

you dont get voted way above for such crap.

Let us know when you're ready for "intelligent and reasoned ideas for a solution" rather than more childish tantrums.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by HeirToBokassa]

Hmmm, I'll bring it home. If gas was more expensive by the same multiple as free range "meat", we might conserve more or even stop using it. We could use solar and wind power and get around just fine. How could you hurt the earth, its where we live and looks so puurdy from space.

People don't like PETA because they don't like the dirty tactics that they use or the fact that others have the right to do what they please because its whats left of thier freedom.

Just because PETA feels that animals (not pets) have rights, they feel we should not impose on the animals rights/freedom. No one will convince PETA that these animals would have died anyway or that the places they "normally" live in are gone or in the process of being "invaded". Its just to bad no one is standing up for OUR rights over the govt.s "rights", or even the world, since greed is what started it all anyway.

This scenario is very far removed from reality. Are you suggesting that lowering the standard of living for everyone will lead to less conflict around the world? Have you ever conversed with the "starving masses" for whom you so readily come to the defense -- do you think they want more expensive meat?

There you go, KNEEJERK reaction. Who said anything about lowering the standard of living? How many folk in starving third world countries do you see chowing on rump steak? What do people send as food aid to these nations, cattle? no, grains and rice..... Think about what your saying, attack me all you like but be logical.

I think it's clear that the opposite would take place - those with more power in society would seek to continue their previous standard of living, at the expense of those in society who have no bargaining power.

Helloooo..thats already a fact, thats one of the reasons why they starve!

So until/unless you can devise a better solution, your mindless childish rantings serve no purpous at all.

you dont get voted way above for such crap.

Let us know when you're ready for "intelligent and reasoned ideas for a solution" rather than more childish tantrums.


Did you take this personally?

Im referring to useless comments about Bambi and harming potatoes and not mowing the lawn etc


XL5

No one will convince PETA that these animals would have died anyway or that the places they "normally" live in are gone or in the process of being "invaded".

The fact that domestic food animals "would have died anyway" is Not the point. The point is that they live their entire unatural existance in incredible cruel conditions BEFORE they die!
As for non domestic animals, is the fact that were destroying their habitat
enough to condone cruelty? NO.





[edit on 103131p://270110 by instar]

Originally posted by instar
There you go, KNEEJERK reaction. Who said anything about lowering the standard of living?

In case you don't remember, this is what you wrote: Good point, if food was the most expensive amenity we might have less to spend on war!

You do realize that poorer people spend greater proportions of their income on food, don't you?

How many folk in starving third world countries do you see chowing on rump steak?

Generally the middle and upper classes do eat meat. Even the poor eat meat in some form on festivities. The relevance is in the connection with another statement I made: I think it's clear that the opposite would take place - those with more power in society would seek to continue their previous standard of living, at the expense of those in society who have no bargaining power.

Think about what your saying, attack me all you like but be logical.

Uhh... right.

Helloooo..thats already a fact, thats one of the reasons why they starve!

Yes, and the braindead idea that somehow things would be better if food were more expensive would exacerbate that reality. Do you still need help understanding that?

Yes, and the braindead idea that somehow things would be better if food were more expensive would exacerbate that reality. Do you still need help understanding that?

I didnt say things would be better, you read into that what you wanted to.
i said

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

and...

In short if we spent more on solving hunger, we'd be less preoccupied with spending billions killing each other .

I never implied it SHOULD be more expensive so we would have less to spend on war.
Do you still need help understanding that?

[edit on 113131p://190111 by instar]

So you do now see that the answer to your question,

Who said anything about lowering the standard of living?

is: YOU!

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

I never implied it SHOULD be more expensive so we would have less to spend on war.

I think this is blatantly false. I didn't infer anything that wasn't natively implied in your comment. Please, feel free to explain how your comment could have any meaning in the discussion at all if it didn't imply exactly what I interpreted it to mean.

It was merely an observation, nothing more and nothing implied, excepting that we spend way too much on war and not nearly enough on solving more fundamental problems. You can interprate anything anyway you choose, it does not mean your interpretation is anything more than subjective.

I think this is blatantly false. I didn't infer anything that wasn't natively implied in your comment

Are you now infering im a naive liar? Perfect example of a kneejerk reaction + assumption = wildly incorrect conclusion.
You have now drawn us both way off topic, so I will leave this wild tangent right here.

[edit on 113131p://450111 by instar]

Untill we give up pets that "naturally" eat meat, there will be the killing of some sort of livestock, we may as well keep up with what we have been doing since we started. If 9/10's of the worlds population died, then farms would come back and people would still eat meat.

If I said hitler was a wonderful caring man and didn't say I was joking and did that on TV, would people be shocked and knee-jerk? Sure they would, no one knows what your thinking unless you tell them, thats the reason we have smilies.

Untill we give up pets that "naturally" eat meat, there will be the killing of some sort of livestock, we may as well keep up with what we have been doing since we started.

Thats still avoiding the real issue, cruelty to animals while they live! We may aswell keep it up?

When you say cruelty, do you mean keeping cows for milk and meat or veal type cruelty? If its the first, that be like asking people to stop using gas/oil just because people can live with out it. Pain is a part of life, even if its not "needed", its universal, even with out us.

What I'd love to see is PETA put up 5mill in donations to buy an island and put every animal that can live there on its own and live there with the animals. You know, to set an example, but I'm sure that after a year at least one animal will be killed by a person for some reason.

My uncle Farms. He raises corn for DelMonte and cattle for beef. His cattle are out on 300 acres. Another thousand is designated for the corn. He sells the better corn and uses the excess as "feed" corn.

The cattle are out all the time. They have grass, hay and corn to eat. A VERY natural existance. MOST of of your cattle are raised like this as it is much less expensive to raise. Dairy cows are out on pasture, called in early in the morning and milked by machines, then let back out. They are fed while being milked. Slightly unatural, but in no way cruel.

Do you really believe that grains are in short supply??? Have you ever seen how little farmers get for their crops?? How much do you pay for a 5lb bag of flour or a bag of frozen corn?? About a dollar. If it was scarce, it would be ALOT more expensive. Ever buy milk in Hawaii??? It is over $7 a gallon as it is difficult to get. Amazing fish is cheap(abundant) and steak is outrageous(scarce)

We send out Food aid and send what is less perishable and CHEAP
usda.mannlib.cornell.edu...
www.foodaid.org...

So, the premise that cattle are using the majority of our grain stocks is just plainly false. Raising the price of grains to stop war, is well, stupid. Hey, got a brilliant idea. Make food unavailable to all but the wealthy and war will end. How does raising food prices on regular people help to impact what the government does?? Hello??

Large corporations DO treat animals inhumanely in the search for raising profits. Vote with your wallet. Don't buy Tyson chicken, don't buy Walmart beef. Don't complain about it, educate yourself.

Like I have said, I do agree with some of PETA's goals. I do not agree with how they go about it. Just like I will not support antiabortion groups as their methods are completely distasteful to me. Nothing like a semi truck with gory horrible things on it driving by and freaking out your kids. Gee, that was a really effective way to stop abortion(not!)

I cannnot tolerate that which is not rational. The two groups I have mentioned like to try and get their point across with intimdation, shock, and many times violence. I will not listen to them. I will not support them

Do I think PETA is out to starve us? No. I think they are out to convert us in ways more overt than evangelical Christians.

When you say cruelty, do you mean keeping cows for milk and meat or veal type cruelty?

Veal type cruelty.

Whats the point of the 2nd paragraph that you couldnt say in a more straight forward manner?

Raising the price of grains to stop war, is well, stupid. Hey, got a brilliant idea. Make food unavailable to all but the wealthy and war will end. How does raising food prices on regular people help to impact what the government does?? Hello??

Hello??? did you miss something?

I didnt say things would be better, you read into that what you wanted to.
i said
quote: Good point, if food was the most expensive amenity we might have less to spend on war!



and...

quote: In short if we spent more on solving hunger, we'd be less preoccupied with spending billions killing each other .


I never implied it SHOULD be more expensive so we would have less to spend on war.
Do you still need help understanding that?

It was merely an observation, nothing more and nothing implied, excepting that we spend way too much on war and not nearly enough on solving more fundamental problems

Hello??