Quoting:
Did the school know what was going on? I can't believe they are allowed to spread their propaganda at public schools, of all places.

BTW...I'm a member of PETA:

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals


End Quote

LOL!

Quoting:


People
Eating
Tasty
Animals


End Quote

I have a pin that says that......


this just makes me sick.....

Quoting:
The idiots at PETA hald a rally here in my city today, and who did they target?...An elementary school! >:(  These jerks have no shame.


They gathered in an elementary parking lot and handed out trading cards showing kids eating chickens, depicting them as murderers.  Other cards showed obese kids eating chicken, insinuating that if you eat chicken you will automatically become obese.


Beware, the morons at PETA may be at an elementary school near you on their national tour to schools.


I truly despise these people.
End Quote

I wonder if this could be considered "inciteful" speech.  I wish free speech wouldn't be used so irresponsibly and gratuitously sometimes.

Quoting:
PETA would be better off targetting every single dog/cat "breeder" in the country and chicken farms.  What you see in those places would bring you very close to becoming a vegan.  :o :(End Quote

PETA does bring awareness about the treatment of animals for human use, which is why they promote vegetarianism and veganism! This is from their website:

PETA believes that animals deserve the most basic rights—consideration of their own best interests regardless of whether they are useful to humans. Like you, they are capable of suffering and have interests in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation, or for any other reason.

I'd like to retract what I'd said earlier, insinuating that PETA was a radical organisation. Yes, they tell some horrible stories. They may be true, or they may not be. But as with any organisation, there's bound to be extremists, and those are the ones that are doing this; going to elementary schools, spraying paint on someone's fur coat, etc. (By the way, on the website, there was a banner with a kid eating a burger saying, "Wake Up, America: Eating Meat Makes You Fat!" Was this one of the things they were handing out at the school? I thought it was FUNNY! :D) I myself am not a radical. I would never force anyone to do anything they didn't want to. The trick is to educate, not force. I think PETA for the most part tries to do that, and tries to bring awareness to the atrocities that animals go through all for the "benefit" (and I use the term loosely) of human consumption. But I won't deny that some of their members may go too far. That's not right.

Apologies for not making a more informed previous statement.

Absolutely Vile

Quoting:

PETA does bring awareness about the treatment of animals for human use, which is why they promote vegetarianism and veganism! This is from their website:

PETA believes that animals deserve the most basic rights—consideration of their own best interests regardless of whether they are useful to humans. Like you, they are capable of suffering and have interests in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation, or for any other reason.

I'd like to retract what I'd said earlier, insinuating that PETA was a radical organisation.
End Quote

Actually, PETA is a very dangerous radical organization.  That is, unless you support the following:

*Support a traveling College display called "Holocost On Your Plate", which compares eating meat to the death of over 6 million Jews in WWII Germany.

*PETA's Director of Vegan Outreach Bruce Friedrich said at the 2001 Animal Rights Conference, "We, as a movement, are going to be blowing stuff up and smashing windows. For the record, I don't do this stuff but I do advocate it.  I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and to toss them through the windows.  Hallelujah to the people willing to do it."

*PETA is under investigation by both the FBI and Congress.  The FBI is interested in many things, including a $70,000 grant to Rodney Coronodo, a convicted arsonist who blew up a Michigan State University lab in 1995.

*Just this last December, others and myself in here blasted PETA for a comic book they gave out in New York.  They gave these to children leaving "The Nutcracker" on Broadway.  It showed a woman holding a meat cleaver and stabbing a rabbit, and was titled "Your Mommy Kills Animals!"  http://www.furisdead.com/momfur.html

*PETA sent self-confessed cannibal killer Armin Meiwes a vegetarian cookbook and a Christmas hamper full of veggie burgers and tofu.  Peta spokesman Juergen Faulmann said: "What this man did to a German computer expert is done to other creatures every day".

*During Spring Break, ran billboards around major Colleges, encouraging students to drink beer instead of milk.

*Is against ANY animal research.  This is brought home clearly by PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, who said that “Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”

I can go on and on, but you can find these things for yourself.

PETA is a group that had good ideas when it began.  But over the years, the nuts have taken over and it has become much more radical.  Just like I have no problems with Vegitarians, PETA is run by Vegans, who tend to piss me off.

Just be very careful, because starting to understand and sympathize with extreme groups like this is the first step to supporting terrorist activities.  I myself am against Abortion, but I deplore and condemn the activities of groups like "Missionaries to the Unborn".  To me, the cause does not matter if they use terrorism and lies to tell their message.

Quoting:


*Just this last December, others and myself in here blasted PETA for a comic book they gave out in New York.  They gave these to children leaving "The Nutcracker" on Broadway.  It showed a woman holding a meat cleaver and stabbing a rabbit, and was titled "Your Mommy Kills Animals!"  http://www.furisdead.com/momfur.htmlEnd Quote

I went to this website, and I have only one problem: The kids' mothers did not kill the animals they wear! This sort of approach only scares little kids into thinking that their mummy goes out and kills foxes, raccoons, and minks just so they can wear them! This is simply not true. It is the trappers who work for the fur industry who keep these animals in horrible conditions and kill them. The kids' mothers who buy these furs and wear them are only supporting and contributing to the fur industry. They are not killing the animals themselves.

I think it's wrong to scare little kids into thinking their parents are murderers because they wear fur or eat meat, unless they hunt the animals themselves. Otherwise, they are only contributing to the fur and meat industry, thus making them thrive.

Absolutely Vile

Quoting:
Whoa... :o OK, actions like that are extreme and radical, and I do not condone it. As I said before, the trick is to educate and not force.
End Quote

The problem with radicals of any bent, is that they feel anything they do is justified.  PETA is an active suporter of Earth First!, Earth Liberation Front, and the Animal Liberation Front.  They give them money, allow and encourage recruitment of their members to these groups, and help to hide them when they are on the run from the law.

The activities of ELF are far to long to list.  Just take a look at their homepage, and see what they themselves claim:
http://www.earthliberationfront.com

Their biggest contention is that they are not terrorists, because nobody has been injured in these actions.  The big word they miss though is "yet".  Ask any firefighter how dangeruos their work is.  It is only a matter of time until one of them is injured or killed putting out one of these fires.  And some of their fires in Vail and San Diego swept through homes.  Next time, they may be people in those homes.

I thought that that was what these people were doing, but not with actions like that! There are only a couple of the things they did which you mentioned that I supported.

Quoting:
- I knew about the beer campaign. I read about it on their website. Their point was that milk is so awful that even beer is better for you. (I, personally, consume dairy products, including milk, so I'll leave that as their opinion. I can understand the reasons to cut out dairy from one's diet though. It's just too hard for me!)
End Quote

Well, to bad you could not have talked to my mother.  She suffered with extreme lacto-intolerance, and in later life she suffered through osteo-perosis.  Even giving CPR to a dummy broke her wrist.  She had to stop skiing before she was 50, because her bones were so brittle.  The sad thing is, women who do not get enough dairy are in much more threat of illness then men are.

Quoting:
- I am against animal testing of any kind, and I do think that surely they can find alternative ways of doing their research without the use of animals.
End Quote

Well, if you can think of one that works, let me know.  I will become a billionaire with this.  I would like another way as well, but there just is not one.  Some animal testing is very helpful.  For example, Chimps are used for AIDS research.  This is because Chimps and Humans are the only animals that can get the AIDS virus.  But in Chimps, it is harmless.  This is why it is believed that AIDS came from Chimps, because they are the perfect host.

Quoting:
I also think it's unfair to compare PETA and anti-abortion groups to terrorist organisations which are hell-bent on murdering thousands of people, unless you can prove to me that these groups have killed or have threatened to kill people for their cause.
End Quote

Earth First!, ELF and ALF are basically the terrorist arm of PETA.  Just like the "mainline" PLO is publically against terrorism, they still support and sponsor groups like Hammas and others that do.  Here is a quick list of activities they have done:

(placed in next post)

Quoting:
December 23, 2003, Vancouver, Canada: Safeway is warming shopper to check their turkeys after receiving three threatening letters from an animal rights group. Activists claim to have thawed several frozen turkeys and injected them with arsenic.End Quote

I've heard about this story. Apparently, Safeway pulled the turkeys off the shelves, but it was found that they were fine and were subsequently given to local food banks.

Quoting:October 27, 2003 Newchurch, England: An arson attack by animal rights terrorists destroyed an unused house at Darley Oaks Farm, where guinea pigs are bred for research. Activists calling themselves "Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs" have been protesting outside the farm for four years. The protests have escalated into violence and intimidation against the owners of the farm and anyone doing business with them.  On its website, the group has published contact information for the farm owner and associates.  (once again, boldface mine.  This is the same behavior Anti-abortion groups do against Doctors at clinics.  This publishing has lead to the death of many doctors)End Quote

As an owner of four Guinea Pigs, I can't tell you how much it breaks my heart that they are still being bred for research. If I knew about places like this, and if I had the ways and means, I'd probably protest against it myself! I'd do it in a non-violent manner, however. It's a much more mature and effective way to get your point across.

These so-called "animal rights" organisations seem to think you need to be violent to be heard or to get attention, but it's just not the case. Amnesty International, a human rights organisation, does just fine with letter writing campaigns and investigations of their own in an attempt to free Prisoners Of Conscience. You don't need to resort to violence to take action against a cause.

Quoting:October 26, 2003 Forest Lake, MN: Authorities in Minnesota are investigating a fire that destroyed a nearly completed $5-6 million lakeside mansion. Following a front page newspaper article describing the home, the owner began receiving harassing phone calls.End Quote

Was the person living in this house violating animal rights? Not that this justifies his house being set on fire, but you never said why this happened...

I'll say it again: I do not condone or support the use of violence to fight for a cause! It is unnecessary! There are better ways of going about it!

Absolutely Vile

Quoting:
Well, to bad you could not have talked to my mother.  She suffered with extreme lacto-intolerance, and in later life she suffered through osteo-perosis.  Even giving CPR to a dummy broke her wrist.  She had to stop skiing before she was 50, because her bones were so brittle.  The sad thing is, women who do not get enough dairy are in much more threat of illness then men are.End Quote

Well, I am a woman myself, and I am mildly lactose intolerant, and so is my mum. I still eat dairy but sometimes it causes me problems. If necessary, I'll take Lactaid or something so I don't get sick. I'm certainly no health expert, but there must be alternative ways to get adequate calcium, otherwise every lactose intolerant person and vegan would end up like your mum! There are plenty of supplements on the market. Most people don't take as good care of themselves as they should, and I'm definitely no exception! I take multi-vitamins and Evening Primrose Oil, because I don't eat enough grains, legumes, beans, fruits and veggies, etc. to warrant a healthy diet. I do sympathise with your mum's plight though. But if she can't consume dairy products, then perhaps it would have been a good idea to find out how she could get adequate calcium on a non-dairy diet! (I really hope this doesn't sound condescending because I certainly don't mean to be! :))

Quoting:Well, if you can think of one that works, let me know.  I will become a billionaire with this.  I would like another way as well, but there just is not one.  Some animal testing is very helpful.  For example, Chimps are used for AIDS research.  This is because Chimps and Humans are the only animals that can get the AIDS virus.  But in Chimps, it is harmless.  This is why it is believed that AIDS came from Chimps, because they are the perfect host.End Quote

Well of course my main concern is animal testing on things like beauty products, and household items. Things that don't have to be tested on animals. Research has always been a grey area with me. While I don't agree with it in principle, I suppose it's necessary to test on monkeys, chimps or whatever because they are our closest primates and would most likely react to things the same. (Although I don't know if any antibiotics or other drugs have been tested on them, especially those which have been deemed dangerous to humans and have been pulled off the market.) What I don't agree with is testing on animals like dogs, cats, Guinea Pigs, mice, hamsters, or rats. These animals bear no resemblance to humans in their genetic makeup, and they are most commonly kept as pets...and should remain so.

Absolutely Vile

Quoting: What I don't agree with is testing on animals like dogs, cats, Guinea Pigs, mice, hamsters, or rats. These animals bear no resemblance to humans in their genetic makeup, and they are most commonly kept as pets...and should remain so.

Absolutely Vile

End Quote

You'd be surprised, despite the obvious genetic differences, how similar protein cascades, DNA repair mechanisms, and immune systems are between mammals.  Not to mention that most of these animals you listed breed like crazy and in much less time than the human gestation period.  

Yeah, it sucks to have to cut up mice and rats (I'm responsible for the genocide of at least 100 mice and rats; I'm awaiting trial by the Rodent War Crimes Tribunal), but if not for animal research, medical breakthroughs would be hard to come by.

Quoting:
By the way, I'm not lactose intolerant but if given the choice between drinking milk and buying expensive supplements...by all means, hand me the udder :P
End Quote

I am psychologically milk-intolerant, mainly from being overexposed to it as a child (I used to help my father design & install 'milking parlours' in dairies). I find beer is far more agreeable, though it makes cornflakes soggy more quickly!  ;D

Quoting:
Well of course my main concern is animal testing on things like beauty products, and household items. Things that don't have to be tested on animals. Research has always been a grey area with me. While I don't agree with it in principle, I suppose it's necessary to test on monkeys, chimps or whatever because they are our closest primates and would most likely react to things the same.
End Quote

Oh, I do agree there.  I see no reason to put cleaning supplies into an animal's eyes, just to see if it is harmful.  But the blame there is on Government regulations in many cases (and not just those of the US).

In order to get FDA approval of many cosmetics, companies HAVE to do the "eye test".  Normally it is done to rabbits, because of hoe their eyes work.  Some cosmetics do not use animal testing, but they also do not have FDA approval.

And I do believe you when you have said you do not approve of these tactics.  It is just that so many of these groups look innocent to get approval of people, while trying to hide other activities.

While I am provisionally against abortion, I would never do anything to impede a woman's right to get one.  I myself have been the target of anti-abortion hate tactics after my wife had a partial miscarriage.

Just go into groups like that with eyes open, and check them bout before you join.  I do this every time, and it has kept me out of many organizations because I did not like how they do some things.

:)

Quoting:On a side note, judging by 80sRocked oft stated belief that supporting a perceived radical organization automatically makes you one, couldn't be more unrealistic.  Yeah, walking that fuzzy gray line between white and black can be morally ambiguous at times but sometimes thats how it goes.End Quote

In my own defense, I think its commonly known that I have a very strong dislike for groups that endorse actions such as what PETA did the other day here in town.

If you support an organization that endorses the disgusting act of targeting children outside of their school and telling them that they and their parents are murderers simply becasue they don't follow the same diet as they do...that is what I cannot stand.

No I don't think that all members of these organizations are radical.  But it does strike me as strange how someone can support a group that not only does such harmful things, but brags about it publicly no less.

Quoting:
PETA even says it's okay for our cats to have an all-VEGAN diet! Which is total BS because cats are CARNIVOROUS and must have meat/animal products as part of their diet! BTW,I have no intention of boycotting IAMS cat food! My cat,Tika,says"I love IAMS Hairball Care cat food,and the NUTS at PETA can kiss my furry tail coz I won't eat anything else!"
End Quote

Peta needs to watch Animal Cops.  There was a lady on there that fed her cats a vegan diet and one of them was totally blind because he was missing essential vitamins that come from the meat.

Quoting:


Peta needs to watch Animal Cops.  There was a lady on there that fed her cats a vegan diet and one of them was totally blind because he was missing essential vitamins that come from the meat.
End Quote

Even though I don't eat meat, I would never force my cat (if I had one) to eat something that totally goes against what they're naturally accustomed to. Although it's said to be possible to supplement the meat in a cat's diet with a more vegan diet, it would probably take very careful planning and is probably not worth fussing over. Just feed them cat food. Thankfully, we have Guinea Pigs and they're vegans so we don't have to worry about such things! :D

On the Iam's issue: That's your own choice. If I were in the same situation (i.e. if I owned a cat or a dog), I'd probably give PETA the benefit of the doubt and not buy it anyway. Besides, when I did have cats, I fed them Whiskas! :D

Absolutely Vile

Quoting:

On the Iam's issue: That's your own choice. If I were in the same situation (i.e. if I owned a cat or a dog), I'd probably give PETA the benefit of the doubt and not buy it anyway. Besides, when I did have cats, I fed them Whiskas! :D

Absolutely Vile
End Quote

What is the Iam's issue?  I have heard references to it but never heard an explanation.

(My cat gets Cat Chow ;))

Quoting:


What is the Iam's issue?  I have heard references to it but never heard an explanation.

(My cat gets Cat Chow ;))
End Quote

Oh I had mentioned in an earlier post that PETA wants people to boycott Iam's because they supposedly did an investigation and found animals in their lab living in horrible conditions. Multiple cats or dogs crammed in small cages, some of the animals were dead, and other horrible things too icky to mention. (Go to www.IamsCruelty.com for the full story.) I really don't know if the allegations are true or if PETA is just looking for publicity again (along with having a "celebrity spokesman!"). If I had cats I'd probably wouldn't even feed them Iam's in the first place. I'd feed them Whiskas like I always had. But I'd definitely give PETA the benefit of the doubt, just in case. Couldn't hurt, could it? :D

Absolutely Vile

Quoting:
Well, if you can think of one that works, let me know.  I will become a billionaire with this.  I would like another way as well, but there just is not one.  Some animal testing is very helpful.  For example, Chimps are used for AIDS research.  This is because Chimps and Humans are the only animals that can get the AIDS virus.  But in Chimps, it is harmless.  This is why it is believed that AIDS came from Chimps, because they are the perfect host.End Quote

How about death row inmates!!! or even prisoners in for life!
People always talk about how lightly they are getting off, well now they can be of some use to society!

Quoting:
Listen if you a vegatarian, great, but shut up..I DID NOT climb to the top of the food chain to eat carrots.  And I agree lets test chemicals on crooks convicted of rape, child abuse, murder, and treason and leave some animals who did nothing alone.
End Quote

So, it's not OK to test on animals, but it's fine to eat them? That makes no sense. Either way, you're hurting them. This leads me to something I've always wondered: How many of these so-called "animal activists" go out and protest against the horrible treatment of animals, and then go home to a nice side of beef or whatever? That's just wrong. I think if you love animals that much, you shouldn't eat them. Just my opinion of course...:)

By the way, vegetarians/vegans just don't "eat carrots." Our diet is probably a hell of a lot more healthier than that of someone who eats meat. :)

Absolutely Vile

Quoting:


Oh I had mentioned in an earlier post that PETA wants people to boycott Iam's because they supposedly did an investigation and found animals in their lab living in horrible conditions. Multiple cats or dogs crammed in small cages, some of the animals were dead, and other horrible things too icky to mention. (Go to www.IamsCruelty.com for the full story.) I really don't know if the allegations are true or if PETA is just looking for publicity again (along with having a "celebrity spokesman!"). If I had cats I'd probably wouldn't even feed them Iam's in the first place. I'd feed them Whiskas like I always had. But I'd definitely give PETA the benefit of the doubt, just in case. Couldn't hurt, could it? :D

Absolutely Vile
End Quote

Nope, couldn't hurt.  Iams is expensive, anyway.  Thanks for the info. :)

Quoting:
There a huge diffence between slowing killing and frying the faces off animals then there is killing a cow in a heartbeat with a hammer.End Quote

No there isn't. Whether it be quick and efficient, or slow and painful...either way, it's still killing.

Quoting:I love steak.  And as for not eating meat, every vegan i've seen always seems alittle pale and its a known FACT that if you go without meat for along period of time your immune system weakens.  Steak has protein, and is part of a healthy diet (2-3 serving a day.) Plus what about Atkins and his lose weight eating only meat diet, I know people who lost weight on that.End Quote

I'd like to know where this "fact" came from that if you go without meat for a long period of time, your immune system weakens. It is a PROVEN FACT, however, that eliminating meat from your diet lowers your risk of heart disease, high cholesterol, certain cancers, among other things. Check out this website if you don't believe me. It's from the American Dietetic Association: http://www.eatright.org/Public/NutritionInformation/92_11838.cfm

The Atkins "diet" is just gross. It has also been proven to be unhealthy and can put you at risk for the above health problems. Also, the whole thing about all vegetarians/vegans looking pale is a myth. If you eat healthy enough you won't look that way. I don't!

Quoting:And i'll end on one final note, i've seen fat vegans, a guy at my work named Henry has been a vegan since 1984 (I know because hes says he has been completly meat-free for 20 years) and he is HUGE!End Quote

Well, that goes to show you that vegans aren't just skinny little waifs, doesn't it! And so what if your co-worker is overweight? He probably eats a lot of pasta and bread products which can bulk someone up. Doesn't mean he's unhealthy though! Being overweight doesn't necessarily mean you're unhealthy. It could also mean that he might have some sort of medical problem which puts weight on him despite his meat-free diet.

Absolutely Vile

Quoting:


Nope, couldn't hurt.  Iams is expensive, anyway.  Thanks for the info. :)
End Quote

You're more than welcome! :D

Absolutely Vile

Quoting:
Listen to these REAL acts: 1. 2 members of PETA a man and a women made out in San Francisco during valentine's day to say that ''people who don't eat meat look.'' 2. PETA was out protesting The Passion of Christ saying ''Thou shalt not kill includes animals.''  3.  In NY 2 PETA members got fully naked, got in cages painted fully in tiger colors saying the circus is a bad place for tigers.End Quote

OK, back on topic...

Yes, I think we've established that PETA has become known to pull silly little stunts (and sometimes dangerous ones) for the sake of publicity. It is because of this that I do question their credibility. However, if they said they've done an investigation into a corporation (like Iam's), found animals being mistreated, and they are urging people to boycott their product, I see no harm in giving PETA the benefit of the doubt and boycotting that product. Like I said before...couldn't hurt! :)

Absolutely Vile

Quoting:


My cat gets Cat Chow ;)End Quote

My cat, too because she won't eat anything else. I once tried to give her some chicken. She wouldn't eat that. But, she will eat canned cat food-well, a bit of it. She isn't much of a meat eater.



Cat

Quoting:


How about death row inmates!!! or even prisoners in for life!
People always talk about how lightly they are getting off, well now they can be of some use to society!
End Quote

I like the way Snrub thinks!! ;D

Absolutely Vile

Quoting:




My cat, too because she won't eat anything else. I once tried to give her some chicken. She wouldn't eat that. But, she will eat canned cat food-well, a bit of it. She isn't much of a meat eater.



Cat
End Quote

My cat will eat any meat you feed him.  He's a pretty good cat, though.  you have to put it on the floor or he won't eat it.  He won't snitch from your plate either.

Quoting:


How about death row inmates!!! or even prisoners in for life!
People always talk about how lightly they are getting off, well now they can be of some use to society!
End Quote

Hey,prisoners are still human beings,so let's not be TOO cruel here.

Quoting:




My cat, too because she won't eat anything else. I once tried to give her some chicken. She wouldn't eat that. But, she will eat canned cat food-well, a bit of it. She isn't much of a meat eater.



Cat
End Quote

My Tika will not touch anything but Iams hairball care dry cat food. Believe me,I have tried to get her to eat other,better,brands but no go! Guess that's just one of her quirks! One barbaric spectacle should DEFINITELY  be outlawed-the RATTLESNAKE ROUNDUP! The reason I'm against it is that the snakes are KILLED rather than released in less populated areas! And the killings are enjoyed with GUSTO by the largely IGNORANT public! People justify the killings by saying that "rattlers are venomous and therefore a threat to HUMANS who live here" You have about as much likelihood of being bitten by a rattler as you do of being struck by a stray bullet or being struck by lightning!

Quoting:


No there isn't. Whether it be quick and efficient, or slow and painful...either way, it's still killing.
End Quote

So... you're opposed to humane killing?  Death matters to you but pain does not?  What are you trying to say here?  

Quoting:


So... you're opposed to humane killing?  Death matters to you but pain does not?  What are you trying to say here?  
End Quote

I thought it was pretty straightforward, but oh well...

I mean that killing is killing...murder is murder...whether it's done quickly or slowly. Whether you kill an animal slowly by constantly injecting it with crap or by cutting its throat in a slaughterhouse, you're still killing it. It makes no difference how it's done or how much or little pain is involved.

Just like capital punishment. Whether the US government (or any government that has it) sends a prisoner to the electric chair or to the lethal injection room, either way they're still killing someone!

Get it now?

Absolutely Vile

Quoting:
So, it's not OK to test on animals, but it's fine to eat them? That makes no sense.
End Quote

Yes, but what if the animal comes up to you and offers itself to be eaten?

"Hello, I am your dinner tonight.  If I may, I suggest you try my ribs, they are especially tender."

And yes, I ripped this off from Scott Adams' "Hitch-hikers Guide To The Galaxy".  :)

Quoting:


Yes, but what if the animal comes up to you and offers itself to be eaten?

"Hello, I am your dinner tonight.  If I may, I suggest you try my ribs, they are especially tender."

And yes, I ripped this off from Scott Adams' "Hitch-hikers Guide To The Galaxy".  :)
End Quote

Right, so it's fiction! :) In reality, an animal would never do that!

Absolutely Vile

Quoting:
Right, so it's fiction! :) In reality, an animal would never do that!
End Quote

Don't be to sure.  Animals (like people) are often known for doing totally stupid things.

Drive around here, and you see all kinds of squirrels standing in the road, playing "chicken".  I have seen this with a lot of rodents.  Ground Squirrels, Rabbits, Skunks, even Rats in downtown LA.  It seems to be a rodent thing, and the evidence is there on the road to all that not all of them are fast enough to get out of the way.

Having lived for many years in a rural area (Boise Idaho, the state that according to a post earlier does not exist).  Every spring, some friends got a calf.  All during the spring and summer, we would play with the calf.  We would ride him/her, groom her, and play around.  But come fall, we knew that he would have the calf slaughtered, and we would eat it.

This did not harden us, because we all knew this was the reason they got it.  And during this time, the calf had a much better life then she would have had on a large farm, or in the wild.  This calf never knew hunger, never knew fear from predators, never knew danger.  It was well pampered and most were very playful.

I myself could not slaugher an animal (other then a fish or other seafood).  I am not a hunter, but have eaten deer and other wildlife.  Mostly all I ask is that they be responsible, and not overhunt or hunt cruely.

I am not an environmentalist in the modern sense, but I am a good old fashioned conservationist.  Because the ballance of predator/prey has been upset, there is a need to keep some animals in check to prevent overpopulation.  I am against hunting for "trophies".  If you hunt something, it had better be to either keep a ballance, or to eat it.

I am against leg-grabber traps, unless it is for the above listed reason, and checked often.  For fur (if it is warn), I much prefer farmed furs, like rabbit.  Most of the rabbit fur in use comes from farms that raise them for pet food (mostly dog food).  And just like most of our leather comes from beef cattle, it is trying to use as much of the animal as possible, without waste.

PETA wants us to live in a bubble, totally isolated from the nature that we all live in.

BTW:  Next time you meet a PETA person, look to see if they are wearing any kind of leather (like shoes).  The biggest laugh I got was about 5 years ago, driving on an LA freeway.  I was behind this Toyota Camery LXE, and it had all these PETA stickers all over the back.  "Fur Is Dead", "Ban Meat", and the like.  I wonder how he/she could do that, and still sit their bottom in LEATHER seats.

Quoting:

And yes, I ripped this off from Scott Adams' "Hitch-hikers Guide To The Galaxy".  :)
End Quote

Douglas Adams ( R. I. P. :'( ) wrote the Hitchhikers Trilogy (which is five or six books, interestingly...)

Scott Adams is the Dilbert artist :)

And I still eat meat ;D

Quoting:BTW:  Next time you meet a PETA person, look to see if they are wearing any kind of leather (like shoes)....End Quote

Excellent point.  I have been wanting to mention that.


Apparently to some "animal rights" folks, its not ok to kill an animal to eat and survive, but it is ok to kill an animal to wear as clothing.   ::)

Quoting:

Hey,prisoners are still human beings,so let's not be TOO cruel here.
End Quote

I don't think it is really being cruel if you consider that some of these people have raped, tortured and murdered people!
Like I said a lot of people think that the lethal injection is to light for these people so maybe we can make them suffer like they made others suffer!

Quoting:

Drive around here, and you see all kinds of squirrels standing in the road, playing "chicken".  

End Quote

Haven't you seen the insurance commercial?  They do that on purpose, don'tchaknow?  It is a game to them.  ;)

Quoting:
Plus what about Atkins and his lose weight eating only meat diet, I know people who lost weight on that.End Quote

He died in February.  He was 258 lbs and considered obese by the CDC body mass index.

Yeah, they just issued a warning and recommend that you limit your meat intake.  Just Google "Atkins Diet" under the "News" tab and look at all the entries.

Quoting:

He died in February.  He was 258 lbs and considered obese by the CDC body mass index.

Yeah, they just issued a warning and recommend that you limit your meat intake.  Just Google "Atkins Diet" under the "News" tab and look at all the entries.

End Quote

It's not eating meat that makes you fat, it's the type of meat.  If you eat a lot of bacon, sausage, pork, etc. of course you're going to develop problems.  But, if you eat lean meats, i.e. chicken, lean meat, fish, etc., there isn't a problem.  One of hubby's friends actually lowered his cholesterol on the Atkins diet (and lost weight) by eating mostly chicken, fish, lean steaks, etc.

Quoting:
You know, the Bible actually teaches that all creatures including humans were vegetarians before the fall of man.

Gen1:29-30
29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so.




End Quote

I beg to differ...
What about Genesis 9:3 "Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat:  I give them all to you as I did the green plants."

Quoting:

I beg to differ...
What about Genesis 9:3 "Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat:  I give them all to you as I did the green plants."
End Quote

If god wanted us to eat animals, why would he give them their own personalities and make them feel pain? Does this mean that he is a sadist?   :o

Quoting:

I beg to differ...
What about Genesis 9:3 "Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat:  I give them all to you as I did the green plants."
End Quote

Yes, that was after the fall of man in Genesis chapter 3.

Before the fall of man, there was no death, therefore all creatures were created as vegetarians. Originally, God did not intend for animals to be eaten.

Quoting:


If god wanted us to eat animals, why would he give them their own personalities and make them feel pain? Does this mean that he is a sadist?   :o
End Quote

Wouldn't that be "animalalities"? :P

Quoting:
I think religious views cloud the original issue. Religious views are subjective and a matter if faith rather than fact. Many of the answers to be sought in this debate should be based on science, IMO.
End Quote

I understand where you are coming from Hairspray.

Unfortunately, this makes it really hard for those of us who believe in God to debate.

If I believe that God created everything we see including the physical laws that govern the universe that cannot be seen, then He is going to figure heavily in all of my understanding of the workings of the world.

Quoting:
If god wanted us to eat animals, why would he give them their own personalities and make them feel pain? Does this mean that he is a sadist?   :o
End Quote

If you want to look at it that way, you can.

HE also made the Lion, which is a carnivore.  You have to realize, that a lot changed after man's fall from grace.  According to which books you read, all animals were herbavores until then.  Once man fell from grace, HE made some animals carnivores, and set them upon each other in addition to against man.  HE also made man be born and die in pain, which did not exist before.

And also, if that was the case, why did HE state which animals are kosher to eat, and which were not kosher to eat?  If we are supposed to be vegitarians theologically, then all meat should be non-kosher, like it is in India.

Suggestion, do not try to use the Bible to justify something unless you are very sure of it.  It is all to easy to disprove.

Quoting:


If you want to look at it that way, you can.

HE also made the Lion, which is a carnivore.  You have to realize, that a lot changed after man's fall from grace.  According to which books you read, all animals were herbavores until then.  Once man fell from grace, HE made some animals carnivores, and set them upon each other in addition to against man.  HE also made man be born and die in pain, which did not exist before.

And also, if that was the case, why did HE state which animals are kosher to eat, and which were not kosher to eat?  If we are supposed to be vegitarians theologically, then all meat should be non-kosher, like it is in India.
Suggestion, do not try to use the Bible to justify something unless you are very sure of it.  It is all to easy to disprove.
End Quote

I never tried to use the bible to justify anything!  I am not religious and was basically just asking a question in response to a previous post!  I never even brought up the religious point to begin with!

Quoting:
If the last update date on this thread was March 18, why is it stuck between a thread that was last updated March 19 and one that was updated the 20th?
???
End Quote

Probably because the server has been a little whacked out lately.

Quoting:
I mean that killing is killing...murder is murder...whether it's done quickly or slowly. Whether you kill an animal slowly by constantly injecting it with crap or by cutting its throat in a slaughterhouse, you're still killing it. It makes no difference how it's done or how much or little pain is involved.


End Quote

So on the above basis, does this mean that it would be preferable to keep an animal alive & cut bits off when required, rather than kill it outright, purely because it delays the horror of the killing? Is this why veggies often eat live vegetables?
At the end of the day, creatures bred for food wouldn't even exist in the first place if they weren't required for that purpose. Are you saying, in your objection to them being killed, that their quality of life whilst alive means nothing? If so, I'm afraid you are the owner of a cruel attitude. If farmers held your lack of concern for animals' welfare, there would be a lot more going on for the 'holier than thou' branch of vegetarianism to be even more sanctimonious about... ::)

Quoting:

So on the above basis, does this mean that it would be preferable to keep an animal alive & cut bits off when required, rather than kill it outright, purely because it delays the horror of the killing? Is this why veggies often eat live vegetables?
At the end of the day, creatures bred for food wouldn't even exist in the first place if they weren't required for that purpose. Are you saying, in your objection to them being killed, that their quality of life whilst alive means nothing? If so, I'm afraid you are the owner of a cruel attitude. If farmers held your lack of concern for animals' welfare, there would be a lot more going on for the 'holier than thou' branch of vegetarianism to be even more sanctimonious about... ::)

End Quote

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard...

I thought my statement was quite straightforward, and could hardly be misconstrued. I am not going to explain myself again. If you haven't figured it by now...well... :-/

Of course animals which are now sadly bred for food would still exist. They would just be living out their happy animal lives doing what they do without the worry of being brutally slaughtered by humans. Their quality of life is important, and I would think that it does mean nothing... to the heartless farmers who sell their animals for slaughter, the hunters who go out and kill animals, and poachers who raise and kill animals for their fur or hide. I am not the cruel one with a lack of concern for animals' welfare. They are.

Absolutely Vile

Quoting:


Suggestion, do not try to use the Bible to justify something unless you are very sure of it.  It is all to easy to disprove.
End Quote

Not to mention that nowhere in the bible are dinosaurs mentioned.  Who, it has been scientifically proven, were on this earth long before man.  Many of them were carnivores and that was LONG before the fall of man. ;)


IMO, to each his own.  If person A wants to eat meat, they should be able to.  If person B chooses NOT to eat meat, that's their choice as well.  Person A is probably never going to convince person B that eating meat is okay, and vice versa.

Quoting:


Not to mention that nowhere in the bible are dinosaurs mentioned.  End Quote

Job 40:15-18 (BTW, this is God speaking to Job)
"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength in his loins, and his force in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones strong pieces of brass; his bones like bars of iron."

"He moveth his tail like a cedar..."  Hmmmmmmm... :P  

Quoting:

Who, it has been scientifically proven, were on this earth long before man.  Many of them were carnivores and that was LONG before the fall of man. ;)End Quote

Human and dinosaur footprints in Turkmenistan?
by Sergei Golovin

Human footprints lie alongside thousands of dinosaur prints on a Turkmenian plateau, a Russian newspaper has reported.

Journalist Alexander Bushev reported in the 31 January 1995 edition of Komsomolskaya Pravda (one of the most popular newspapers of the former USSR) that he had journeyed to the plateau near the village of Khodga-Pil in Turkmenistan, and had seen the fossilized prints of dinosaurs and humans together.

According to evolutionary theory, dinosaurs had become extinct long before humans first appeared on earth.

Bushev said that every metre of the half-kilometre-wide rock surface is covered by three-toed footprints ‘made by giant dinosaurs making their morning or evening promenade along the ancient sea-shore’. The Turkmenian plateau contains more than 3,000 footprints.

Bushev said that Turkmenian scientist Kurban Amanniyazov considers this Jurassic plateau to be at least 200 million years old.

‘But the most mysterious fact’, Bushev added, ‘is that among the footprints of dinosaurs, footprints of bare human feet were found!’ He suggested that, because ‘we know’ that humans appeared much later than dinosaurs, there was an extraterrestrial ‘who walked in his swimming suit along the sea-side’.

This report about dinosaur and human footprints on Kughitang-Tau Plateau is not the first. The news was reported to readers of the English version of Moscow News in 1983 (No. 24, p. 10). This was during a period when communists strictly controlled the ideological aspect of all publications, so an article of that kind could be published only with official commentary from a representative of official State science.

The commentary they gave at that time was this:

‘Who knows, but maybe our very far removed ancestors did mingle with dinosaurs?

‘“Science might possibly answer that in the affirmative some time in the future”, said Professor Kurban Amanniyazov, head of the expedition. “However, at present we don’t have enough grounds to say this. We’ve imprints resembling human footprints, but to date have failed to determine, with any scientific veracity, whom they belong to, after all.

‘“If we could prove that they do belong to a humanoid, then it would create a revolution in the science of man. Humanity would ‘grow older’ thirty-fold and its history would be at least 150 million years long?”’

The new report proves that nothing has changed. Indoctrinated by evolutionary dogma, people can either sarcastically deny existing facts that don’t match their beloved theory, or surrender to gullibility in something like an extraterrestrial or 150 million years of the history of mankind that left no evidence.

Such fiction seems to them more credible than the evident conclusion that the ‘millions of years’ time-scale does not match the facts and needs a revision.

Quoting:


Job 40:15-18 (BTW, this is God speaking to Job)
"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength in his loins, and his force in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones strong pieces of brass; his bones like bars of iron."

"He moveth his tail like a cedar..."  Hmmmmmmm... :P  End Quote

keep going... Job 41:10-10  "When he sneezes, light flashes forth, his eyes are like those of the dawn. 11 Out of his mouth go forth firebrands;  sparks of fire leap forth. 12 From his nostrils issues steam, as from a seething pot or bowl. 13  His breath sets coals afire; a flame pours from his mouth"  hmmmm...sounds like a fire-breathing dragon to me :P

Quoting:

‘Who knows, but maybe our very far removed ancestors did mingle with dinosaurs?

‘“Science might possibly answer that in the affirmative some time in the future”, said Professor Kurban Amanniyazov, head of the expedition. “However, at present we don’t have enough grounds to say this. We’ve imprints resembling human footprints, but to date have failed to determine, with any scientific veracity, whom they belong to, after all.



End Quote

There have been findings of dinosaur and human "footprints" all over the world.  Even here in the good ol USofA.  However, many of these have been proven NOT to be human.  Many have been found to have imprints of claws, some are way too large to be human, and others have been found to be erosion or just plain fakes.  In these areas, the dinosaur prints are clear as day, but in the photos I've seen, the "human" prints are rather sketchy.  I'm not totally convinced that humans and dinosaurs didn't coexist, but until there's more scientific evidence that we did, I'm leaning towards non-coexistence.

Quoting:
Regarding the whole "did humans live with dinosaurs", there is an interesting site that talks about these sort of things.  Here are 2 mentions of the possible dinosaur/human coexistance as mentioned in the bible.  (if you get a chance, the rest of the "faq's" on that site are very interesting as well.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=20

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=27

PS-  its interesting to note that the word "dinosaur" wasn't invented until 1841.  Before that, they were referred to as "dragons", which are mentioned in the bible several times.
End Quote

no offense, but IMO, that guy's an idiot.

Quoting:
BTW, Hitler was a vegetarian.
End Quote

I agree, well said.

This is a problem most of the "liberal" groups in this country have had over the last 30 years.  It seems that every year, they tend to become more and more radical.

This leads to some comical "political marriages", like lesbians and ministers supporting pro-abortion (I'm sorry, "pro-choice") agendas.  Or Labor Unions supporting candidates who want to send work off-shore or close their industry (like oil refining or mining).  Or those that scream about "censorship" supporting a presidential candidate who had congressional hearings that tried to censor music.

The problem is that a lot of these groups had a good idea originally, but people with a much more radical ideal have been able to hijack the movement.  PETA, Veterans For Peace, Greenpeace, Alliance For Survival, GLAAD, NOW, the list goes on and on.  ANd the result is that they force out the more "mainstream" members, leaving only the radicals in place.

For a good example of this, check out "The New Thought Police", by Tammy Bruce.  She is the former president of Los Angeles NOW, who was forced out because of many things she did to make her organization non-political, including recruiting men into the organization and forbid the use of NOW offices for political campaign work.

This started mostly in 1968, and has been accelerating every year since then.  These groups now are so concerned with politics and statements that their original message has been lost.  PETA is one of the most obvious of these groups.

I for one am 100% for the "Ethical Treatment Of Animals".  But because of my view of this group, I must obviously be against this treatment.  I am all for equal rights for women, but because I am opposed to NOW's political agenda (just like my mom was against it), I am obviously a sexist oppressor male pig.  :P

I would like to make a challenge to PETA and all other such organizations:  get out of politics.  Let your original message stand on it's own, and try to change how people think through the message, not strong-arm tactics.  Otherwise, I will view you as no more then a more "enlightened Hitler".

Quoting:


I agree, well said.

This is a problem most of the "liberal" groups in this country have had over the last 30 years.  It seems that every year, they tend to become more and more radical.

This leads to some comical "political marriages", like lesbians and ministers supporting pro-abortion (I'm sorry, "pro-choice") agendas.  Or Labor Unions supporting candidates who want to send work off-shore or close their industry (like oil refining or mining).  Or those that scream about "censorship" supporting a presidential candidate who had congressional hearings that tried to censor music.

The problem is that a lot of these groups had a good idea originally, but people with a much more radical ideal have been able to hijack the movement.  PETA, Veterans For Peace, Greenpeace, Alliance For Survival, GLAAD, NOW, the list goes on and on.  ANd the result is that they force out the more "mainstream" members, leaving only the radicals in place.

For a good example of this, check out "The New Thought Police", by Tammy Bruce.  She is the former president of Los Angeles NOW, who was forced out because of many things she did to make her organization non-political, including recruiting men into the organization and forbid the use of NOW offices for political campaign work.

This started mostly in 1968, and has been accelerating every year since then.  These groups now are so concerned with politics and statements that their original message has been lost.  PETA is one of the most obvious of these groups.

I for one am 100% for the "Ethical Treatment Of Animals".  But because of my view of this group, I must obviously be against this treatment.  I am all for equal rights for women, but because I am opposed to NOW's political agenda (just like my mom was against it), I am obviously a sexist oppressor male pig.  :P

I would like to make a challenge to PETA and all other such organizations:  get out of politics.  Let your original message stand on it's own, and try to change how people think through the message, not strong-arm tactics.  Otherwise, I will view you as no more then a more "enlightened Hitler".
End Quote

Personally, I prefer Lenny Bruce to Tammy Bruce.  ;D
I'm a liberal.  I don't believe mankind has already achieved its greatest state.  I believe in new ideas, "progressive" ideas, if you will.  Unfortunately, those who malign "liberals" and "liberalism" all day long have conflated "liberal" with "libertine," you know, "anything goes."
However, I'm not into TELLING other people how to run their personal lives.  I don't think no fault divorce is good for families, and I'm in favor of a structured family and community life, but I don't preach.

I would add to your list of strange bedfellows the militant anti-pornography feminists (such as Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin) and the Meese commission.  The difference is, the militant feminists wanted to have THEIR pornography (excuse me, "erotica") sold openly and without restriction.  My university bookstore was forced by the "feminists" to stop selling Playboy, but at the same time they sold a lesbian "erotica" book with photographs of women doing strange things to one another, some of which I didn't think were anatomically possible. :o

There was a debate on college campuses and "liberal" communities over what is "pornography" and what is "erotica." I found the answer simple, if it's marketed to heterosexual males, it's pornography.  Otherwise it's erotica.  This isn't the definition the PC crowd wanted, but that's how it ended up!

It's a misnomer to call PC (political correctness) "liberal."  Once you say "free speech for me, but not for you, because your free speech offends me," you have come full circle.  Political correctness says their is ONE correct way of viewing the world and WE will dictate it to you.  This is the antithesis of liberalism.  Try to tell PC adherents that they aren't liberal, and they'll accuse you of "hate speech."  I always said PC was "Stalinist," as Uncle Joe was the man who coinded the term "politically correct."  It's true!
 ::)