what P.E.T.A doesnt tell you

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by fookerboy69
Great post Obsidian! You basically said all I wanted to say and more. I think the main reason people join PETA is because thats the biggest animal rights group there is. They often dont really know just how demented its extremist leaders are, they just want to help the cause for animal rights in a peaceful way.


Exactly! Truth me told, the costume designer on my film is a card-carrying member of PETA, though one cookout (on the grill... mmmm steaks), and a little collaborative effort from me and her boyfriend, she's starting to realize that she's a much more sensible person, and more of an animal welfarist, rather than an activist. She agrees more with my views on animal rights than she does Peta's. Hell, even at that cookout, she had a burger and a hotdog (I only buy 100% beef burgers, and 100% pork or beef hotdogs (typically they're beef franks), a whole lot more than a PETA activist would consume - and she was informed of the meat cotent prior to consumption. She's able to be saved, but don't let her know that I'm trying to enlighten her... she'd protest. Although, in the pets arena (PETA would ban them all), she's a proud and happy owner or two dogs and two cats, all of whom are happy to be living with her. She, like me, views her animals as children (as she has chosen never to have human children, and has had medical procedure to ensure that). For her, animals are more important to raise than humans. Given that she will never have a human child, she's entitled to that opinion.

Even I myself, having nobody willing to have children with me (my girlfriend doesn't want children at all - she prefers animals), prefers animals as children.\

To many of us who will likely be childless couples, animals are our children. They are treated just as well. Who is Ingrid Newkirk and PETA totell us differently? As far as I'm concerned, they can just (string of expletives that are not appropriate for ATS content).




posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Delta Alter
Okay, so here's Claire's pie-in-the-sky Utopian ideals...

Animals and humans co-exist in unity and in harmony.




Just found this thread.

The above is one of the real problems with most of the anti-animal cruelty rhetoric.

Animals eat each other. They do it for a living, not just for sport.

A single coyote will kill hundreds of cottontails during its life. And kill every one of them by tearing them apart. That's what a coyote does. So, in the wild, no rabbit ever dies of old age.

So how is it cruel for a human to kill a rabbit instantly, with a bullet, while the poor thing otherwise faces the prospect of being eaten alive by predators.

Which would you rather have happen to you.

No, I don't think this is a license for us to be cruel to animals. I'm just pointing out that, with perspective, you can see that "natural" doesn't mean pain-free. Quite the opposite.

Honestly, the only "animal rights" type people I've ever met are dwellers in large cities, who have almost no firsthand experience of animal life. It's like they grew up on Bambi films or something. They can't quite admit the dictum of Heraclitus, history's first biologist:

"Where ever something eats, something else eats it.

.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft



Honestly, the only "animal rights" type people I've ever met are dwellers in large cities, who have almost no firsthand experience of animal life. It's like they grew up on Bambi films or something. They can't quite admit the dictum of Heraclitus, history's first biologist:

"Where ever something eats, something else eats it.



We now, as humans, live in an age where we can live perfectly happily and healthily without meat. An animal obviously has no choice but to kill other animals for food.

But does that animal in the wild breed his meat specifically to produce profit, in inhumane, barbaric conditions - dealing out torture and fear at every turn?

The answer is obviously no.

Humans have co-existed in harmony with animals - the Native Americans being a good example. They ate the Buffalo, but treated them with respect and awe. I'm not saying that necessarily would be possible now, but it's like I said earlier - Pie in the Sky. I just don't want to contribute to pain and suffering, where I can help it.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Humans have co-existed in harmony with animals - the Native Americans being a good example. They ate the Buffalo, but treated them with respect and awe


Hopefully dr_strangecraft will come back here and enlighten us a bit about his anthropological work doing a review of bison kills on the American Plains. If not, you can read his comments here.

You also might read the intro story to that thread here.

An excerpt:


After studying thousands of animal bones found in a garbage heap on the shores of San Francisco Bay, Broughton concluded that Native Americans living in an area where the city of Emeryville is now located hunted several species to local extinction from 600 B.C. to A.D. 1300.


I would imagine you’d consider extinction “barbaric” and “inhumane.”

All I’m saying here, is be careful upon which “facts” you base your ideology. You might just find out they are myths.


We now, as humans, live in an age where we can live perfectly happily and healthily without meat.


Next, this statement smacks of white, “westernized”, upper-middle class ethnocentrism. You sure wouldn’t catch a Somali child or a Thai villager or a Kirabati native or an impoverished, southern, black farmer saying that kind of thing.

WE, as humans, don’t live in any such world. Only very prosperous nations are at a point where their citizens can seriously discuss removing items from their food supply rather than desperately trying to come up with even an adequate food supply. So, maybe before you make such statements from your land of plenty (I’m guessing London, or maybe you’re a transplant to the U.S.; either way, land of plenty), you should consider the situation to which you’d condemn the whole rest of the world.

Remember that removing meat from “westernized” diets necessitates a major increase in the demand for vegetable and grain products. As demand on a limited item goes up (and yes, given that there is only so much arable land and only so many people willing to work it, vegetable and grain products are limited goods), supply decreases. As supply decreases, prices go up in two ways. First, prices are arbitrarily raised as people are willing to pay more for a scarce product. Next, in order to meet the increased demand, suppliers will hire more staff, increase production, research new methods, etc., all of which will be passed on to the consumer.

Now, how are the already impoverished people of the world going to afford the small amount of foodstuffs they can currently afford after you’ve artificially inflated the market by removing meat from “westernized” diets?

Are you going to pay for it? Or are you just going to let them starve? And isn’t that awfully “inhumane” and “barbaric”? Isn’t starvation “torture”?

Your plan sounds awesome!



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Yeah, alright Hamburglar - i can understand your point without the sarcasm.

Perhaps my use of the word 'Human' was misguided, but surely you see my point?
I'm not talking about starving Somali children, I'm talking about lazy, apathetic Western people who can't see past the steak on their plate.

I too anticipate strangecraft's reply if, as you say, he has a broader knowledge than mine of the hunting of Bison. But the fact remains - every ounce of the animal was utilised for the survival of the people - it was one of the only sources available to them.

Do we need the deforestation, mass breeding, cruelty and pain that ensues in order for us to survive? Or are you really that desperate for a Big Mac?



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar
[You also might read the intro story to that thread here.

An excerpt:


After studying thousands of animal bones found in a garbage heap on the shores of San Francisco Bay, Broughton concluded that Native Americans living in an area where the city of Emeryville is now located hunted several species to local extinction from 600 B.C. to A.D. 1300.




Oh yes, the Seattle Times. So of course that is 100% definitely not propaganda to somehow justify American History?



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Delta Alter
Oh yes, the Seattle Times. So of course that is 100% definitely not propaganda to somehow justify American History?


Could be, could be not. I don't write the Seattle Times, so I don't know their particular levels and types of bias. I suggest you either read what the good dr wrote in the link I provided or wait until he responds. In either case, you will learn that they did not "use every part," as the popular myth goes. Seriously, just read what he wrote. It is enlightening.

Sorry for the sarcasm, that's how points seem to get made round here. Anyway, even if you try to take the world out of it, you can't. As I noted with the supply/demand analogy, your plan here (ending consumption of meat in westernized countries) will have direct consequences on that starving kid in Somalia. No matter what, he will be affected.

As to your questions about "cruelty" and "pain" and all the rest, there are no simple answers. You know it and so do I. There is no way to just "shut it off," and as previously pointed out, doing so would cause serious consequences around the world. I don't have all the answers here, but I know rhetoric when I see it. Questions like these aren't really designed to elicit useful, rational responses. Instead, they are designed to tug the heart strings, skew perceptions, and force pathos-driven discussion.

I don't want to involve myself any further in that kind of argument. It is counterproductive.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I read with interest the thread, and have no doubt that dr_strangecraft is a well educated, intelligent man. But people on the thread also refute his claims - and I am sure there is evidence out there that that the opposite is true - I'm no expert, I don't know. All I do know that I have read a few books on the subject and I am inclined to believe that the Native Americans were far more sympathetic to Nature than we are now. Of course, there will be pain for the creatures they killed - but that is no comparison to the treatment animals endure at the hands of Bernard Matthews et al.

All an individual can do is read plenty of books, visit plenty of good websites and try to come out with a balanced view based on what they have learnt - something I am sure that you agree with.

And with regards to your comments regarding the worldwide ramifications if everyone stopped eating meat - I'll have to do a bit of research on that before I'm informed enough to comment, but still, the question remains -is that still an excuse for the torture?



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
there really isnt any "torture" going one. yea animal testing puts animals in pain an disfigures them but i dont count that as torture. to me torture is continuosly harming for no real reason. animal testing has a purpose. slaughter houses have a purpose.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DalairTheGreat
there really isnt any "torture" going one. yea animal testing puts animals in pain an disfigures them but i dont count that as torture. to me torture is continuosly harming for no real reason. animal testing has a purpose. slaughter houses have a purpose.


Dalair, don't kid yourself, the treatment of animals raised for our consumption (particularly poultry) is particularly foul (if you'll pardon the pun).

This is something I've discussed with my father, a just-former professor of poultry science. Chickens are kept in deplorable conditions. They are packed in incredible numbers into gigantic barns, have their beaks filed halway down (to prevent them from pecking out the eyes of their other stressed out comrades), layers are constantly starved to keep them producing (feed them too much and they don't lay as many eggs), they never see the sun, and after their throats are slit (most of the time effectively), they are dipped into scalding tanks to help get the feathers off. Sadly, as so many are processed, the neck cutting isn't always effective, and many chickens are literally boiled to death.

Now I'm not making a judgment here, and I've tried not to so far in this discussion. How I personally feel about it isn't really germane to the discussion. However, lets call a spade a spade. It is true that most of these things are done in order to supply the consumer with as much chicken as they care to pack in their gullets.

Does that make it right or wrong? I'm not the one to say, but let's at least be honest about what goes onto our plates and how it gets there. Neither side of this discussion will make any progress by trying to circumvent the facts.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
this may sound real anti animalistic but,chickens are one of the dumbest animals on earth.
they cant fly
there clumbsy
u you catch one an point it head at the ground for a minute thell sit there an stare at if for an hour
.
the chicken probably has no problem being couped up with 1000 other chickens.i bet you if u took a chicken an tossed it out of the pic 5 bucks says itll go an jump back



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I understand much of these view points, being a strong animal advocate. I donate to several endangered species organizations every year. And I know of people who eat meat and yet cannot stand to watch the way these animals are tortured in slaughter houses. The thing is it's so commercialized now that it's difficult to find other methods. The animals themselves are a product and the same thing applies to these animals when it comes to mass production: the lack of over all quality. I am very strict in what I eat, I will mostly consume vegetarian meals and occassionaly fish or whatever. It's the only way I know how to deal with it. It's terribly sad. I also prefer to purchase any meat products from hunters whether it's for my family who are avid meat-lovers, or myself. I'm in the northwest so we have plenty of wild game (quails, deer, elk). Esp since the wolves and several other natural predators remain endangered in this area.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I just got back to ATS. I won't pester those of you who disagree with the other thread cited about the bison-kill habits of native americans. I will say that my experience of the data has led me to the conclusion that, until the last 100 years of plains indian "horse culture," native americans were not particularly aware of their impact on the environment.

After all, knowing your impact requires statistical analysis, population studies, etc; stuff they didn't have access to, or time for.


I know that it's a cherished myth that other cultures had some kind of harmony with their environment. Having studied several of those cultures, I no longer subscribe to that myth.

But then, I've never tracked a wounded deer for several miles, with an arrow sticking out of its side. So what do I know about treating animals humanely?



**********

For most of the planet, meat IS a necessity. Now, you can be completely nourished as a vegetarian, as long as you thoughtfully adjust your intake of essential proteins so that the various sources complement each other. That is fairly easy to do if you're a middle-class member of a developed nation, where food is less than a quarter of your budget.

If, on the other hand, your diet is compost primarily of corn tortillas, then you need both beans AND meat to get the essential amino acids for health. Since I cannot give you a websource, I'll just say that I'm confident that you have to eat a LOT of corn tortillas if you have no chicken or beef to augment them, since corn is actually not that nutritious. I mention it because it is a mainstay of the diet in the western hemisphere south of the US.

Add to that the complication that a lot of us live in arid climates, that won't support the kind of intensive farming required for soybean production. On the arid american grassland, the most efficient method to harness the complex sugars in prarie grass and scrub is to process it through the system of a cow, antelope, or deer.

*******

A third consideration is mass production. The "torture" of a coporate chicken or pig farm is TOTALLY removed from the family that keeps a pig out behind the woodshed; they name it, pet it, and feed it by hand, and the kids cry when it's time for processing. Frankly, there are a lot of humans in our culture that are less loved than some pigs and beaves I've known.

Still and all, I honestly believe that when I take a buck, I really AM saving it from being torn to pieces by wolves and coyotes. Same with a rabbit or any other creature.

*****

Funny how native Americans are assumed to be living IN HARMONY with nature when they kill an animal for food; yet I, while performing the same act, am considered HATEFUL and CRUEL, even though I use a precision firearm that ensures an instaneous kill.


Basically, If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear its crash, it must be a white man's fault.

Oh well.

.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
welll the indians version of "harmony" was killing only what they needed an using every part of the animals.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Having read a library or two's worth of topics, both for and against peta and both for and against animal welfare, Ive come to the conclusion that nothing, no amount of discussion, reasoning, logic, even proof and evidence will disuade folk from beleiving what they CHOOSE to beleive! Both sides!
The Penn & Teller vid IS a cynical look at the issue, no doubt. I do enjoy their other "bull#" shows about stuff like ufos and new age healing stuff. Funny as hell.
This one wasnt so funny.


"Where ever something eats, something else eats it.


Except us, arnt we lucky!

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Torn]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I do not have time to read the other threads on this topic so please forgive.

It needs to be mentioned that PETA is not really about animal rights. It was exposed long ago that they kill any animal they save. They are about removing domesticated animals from the face of the Earth and want them all killed. They have no problem with the fact that millions and maybe a billion would die on this planet if animal protein were to be removed from their diets. There simply would not be enough food. When an organization has no regard for the law and human life they deserve no credibility. The people they attract are anarchists looking for a cause. Any cause that stirs up trouble will do.

If PETA were left out of this discussion it would be far more productive. Just because a person eats meat does not mean they approve of animal cruelty.

Where I was raised, wild game was part of our income. We would have gone hungry without it. We ate what we killed and only killed what we ate. That was woven into my fabric as a child. If I hit a bird on the highway I grieve. If I shoot an animal to feed my family I have no remorse. It is the natural order of things.

Before moving here I lived in Idaho near where I was born. We had three mild winters in a row and the local deer population soared out of control. The Fish and Game wanted to open up extra hunts to cull the herd so more healthy animals would survive the coming winter. They said if allowed to cull the heard that as many as 75% could survive the winter and remain healthy. They further said if they did not that they could have as high as a 90% winter kill and the survivors would not be healthy. A local offshoot of the Sierra Club, I forget their name, filed suit in the 9th district court and stopped the hunt. We had a bitter winter that year and sure enough the next spring they estimated a 90% winter kill and the remaining herds were sick. It took three years for the herds to come back. Which is more humane; saving most of the herd and not wasting the others by letting someone take them for food or letting most of the herd starve to death and decimating the herd leaving only sick animals to propagate?

Many times during a bad winter I’ve watched deer starve while gorging on farmers hay stacks. Deer do not have the proper stomachs to ingest the nutrition they need from hay. It’s a horrible painful death as they bloat on the hay and die. It made me sick when I had to haul off the piles of bones with bloated stomachs. I think everyone who was involved with the suit should have been made to sit and watch them die. This of course is what happens when naïve, uninformed people are allowed to make these kinds of decisions. They always do more harm than good.

As to the Native American thing:
We are not them. We have a highly experience Fish and Game Dept. that has many years of successfully managing wild game. To compare an aboriginal people with today is ludicrous. It does not stand up to the smell test.

I also want to mention the new Eco-Tourist fad. They all belong to PC organizations like Greenpeace or the Sierra Club and swarm up here every year. They clearly believe that only they should be able to enjoy nature as only they can protect it. Pure rubbish and lots of it. They hit the trails on their bikes and tear up the watershed. They leave little piles of rubbish on the trails and wander off into sensitive areas where they should not be in the first place. They get stranded and the good people of Alaska get stuck with the bills for saving their sorry behinds. They are from large cities and don’t have a clue about the subsistence life style. Which, by the way, is our natural situation. They don’t know what they are doing in the woods. We had one nut up here that thought Brown Bears were misunderstood and they ate him. Now someone finished his film and made a fortune off of his stupidity. He’s no hero, he was just stupid and must have ate to many of the wrong mushrooms. He was actually trying to pet Brown Bears on Kodiak. If hungry a Brown Bear will eat anything that moves. They are not cute little furry animals. They have no remorse after eating a nice vegetarian for dinner. Then comes the polar bear. They are pure carnivores and will eat you if they see you. Try petting one of them.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   

"Where ever something eats, something else eats it.


Except us, arnt we lucky!

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Torn]

We feed the worms, dude.


Sorry. Didn't you know that?

.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
lol...ist the life cycle

its not like we take the cows out of the wild or somthing,there bred for meat. for milk.

what about plants. should we take them outa store an stop eating them cause there being used for entertainment an food.....would chopping a watermelon to peices an stepping on ins 10 times then throwing it in a dump, be consider plant abuse?



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DalairTheGreat
welll the indians version of "harmony" was killing only what they needed an using every part of the animals.


No, it wasn't. And I'm here to tell you so. Here's my quote from that "other thread," started by someone else, about a Seattle Times article entitled "Indians Hunted Carelessly."




quote from ME

In the excavations I reviewed, bison had been killed by running them off over a cliff or trapping them in a canyon cul-de-sac. I looked at sites from the clovis culture, and compared them with Commanche, and Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara lifeways before 1580 (introduction of horse into the rio grande pueblos in New Mexico during the peublo revolt.)

My review was designed to help us locate heretofore unexcavated bison kill sites, particularly clovis culture kill sites.

What I discovered was that most kills included an average of 200 animals. On average, only 10 to 20 animals showed any signs of having been butchered. Of those that WERE butchered for meat, most were only processed on the side that was lying up after the fall from the cliff or other means of death.

In other words, the plains culture kill sites I studied generally killed massive herds, while processing only a fraction of the meat. Generally, most of the leftover carcasses were destroyed by spontaneous combustion, as the carcasses' rotting gave off flammable gases.

So, my personal experience and review of info available supports the idea that the native population had little regard for wasted wildlife resources.



Here are some links to websites about bison-kill sites that show paleo-indians comitting "bison overkill," which is a euphemism for killing many more carcasses that they could have possible butchered, let alone eaten.

Olsen-Chubbock Bison Kill Site
Licking Bison Kill Site
Bonfire Shelter Bison Kill Site

This article published by Oklahoma University This Article about the Cooper Bison Kill Site discusses the hypothesis of two researchers:



Within this framework of Paleoindian mobility and subsistence, Kelly and Todd (1988:238) propose that Paleoindian groups, upon making a kill, would immediately begin to search for another herd. When a herd was located, the group would begin pursuit, taking with it any processed materials from the last kill. Pursuit took precedence over completion of the processing of bison remains for bulk storage.


In other words, the evidence points to the conclusion that they were more interested in hunting, than they were in storing meat.

How is that "living in harmony with nature?"
.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
One thing most ppl seem to miss is it's not the act of eating meat that is so wrong, it's the way that meat get's to your plate.
Nicely wrapped up at the grocery store you don't have to witness the fear, pain and disgusting conditions the animal you eat has gone through.

In nature animals are not kept in cages or pens, fed with hormones and other stuff.
In the wild it's a natural cycle, is the battery farm or slaughterhouse a natural cycle?

The meat you eat has feces, urine and puss from wounds in it, along with other nasty stuff.
Would you eat that piece of meat if you saw the cook crap and pee on it, then drop it on the floor before cooking it?
Well that's what happens to your meat at the slaughter house. But you don't have to see it, blinded to the reality.

Cows are often skinned alive, in the rush to get the product out many are not stunned when they are supposed to be.

Do animals in the wild cook their meat? Then why do you? If it's so natural then go eat your meat straight off the bone while it's still warm from life.

The way we treat, slaughter and consume animals is far from natural.

It's all about money, not giving us a natural diet. You can't argue that Humans are healthier if they don't eat meat, that is proven, whether you want to believe it or not.

And then we have lab testing/vivisection. Put shampoo in that cats eyes, so that when you wash your hair it doesn't hurt you. You might think it's worth it, I don't.
Or force that monkey to chain smoke cigarettes for it's whole life, for what?
So they know you can get cancer? DOH!

Some pics, some ppl may find these offensive, I hope you ALL do.









top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join