I have a subject to bring up.

Remove all ads!

Not really.....unless you are hearkening back to humanity's days as hunter/gatherers. Livestock actually consumes more of our crop yields than we do. When agriculture is less efficient, growing more livestock than can be grazed on a fallow field (which is practically nothing) is an even worse idea. We haven't needed meat in a long, long time.

We won't stop eating meat tomorrow, and the economic blow would be a hell of a lot smaller than you think. In our current agri-business envioronment, family farms are failing at an alarming rate. Corporations are also constantly finding ways to farm more land with less people and are already putting farmers out of work left and right. The jobs that would be wiped out if we were to discontinue livestock production would mostly be underpaid migrant positionsA lot less people work in agriculture on the "crop growing" side of the fence than you think.

It is inevitable that, as our population grows, we will have no choice but to greatly reduce (eventually, even to eliminate) livestock production. The levels at which Americans consume livestock are simply not sustainable over the long term and the modern methods we are using to keep crop yields high enough to continue with animal agriculture to the degree we do is beginning to destroy our farmland. In other words, we face an increasing population and a decreasing ammount of arable land. Soon we will have no choice but to reduce livestock production to a more sustainable level.

@Nakia: PETA doesn't want you to like them. In fact, they mostly want the opposite. What they want is some kind of visceral reaction because, without it, no one gives vegetarianism, vivisection, or the envioronment a second thought. Without that controversy, activists are labeled into oblivion by the large industries they oppose.

 

That's Rich.

First you jump all over me for wanting the Government adopt rules matching my moral views against Abortion and Gay Rights, then you defend a group that wants to get the Government to enact laws that match their moral stance against eating meat.

I do agree that most industries that rely on the harvesting of parts from an animal run inefficiently. If as much of the animal could be used as possible, that would be a good step.

Another thing forgotten in PETA's crusade is that there is another useful by product--manure. Animals poop, and that excrement contains nutrients that, when spread over the fields, return vital nutrients to the land to increase crop yields. This is all natural, unlike the chemical fertilizers. Further, Cattle and horses tend to eat hay. Hay is a collection of various forage grasses, like Timothy, Treefoil, Alfalfa and Clover. I would rather eat a nice steak than a bale of hay...

 

I am an animal rights as well as a human rights advocate. There are certain pet foods I do not buy because of their past activities but PETA had nothing to do with it. I was a around long before P
ETA, I grew up on a farm with pigs, goats, horses, cows, chickens, cats, dogs etc. I can't give a percentage of food distribution but I believe it was fair. I agree that many modern practices are questionable at best and unhealthy. Here in the USA meat is certainly over eaten hence health problems.

I have known many vegetarians some for health reasons, some religious, some moral and I respect their choice.

However my point is that at no time did PETA influence any choices I made and they only impressed me negatively and I haven't given them a second thought until this thread appeared. I believe in moderation in all things and any one who tries to scare or disgust me into something gets my hackles up and make me dig in my heels.

We can argue this ad nauseum and never come to an agreement.

Side note: I am an adamant wolf's rights advocate and my cats aren't vegetarians.

 

@Gnarff: I never said I advocated making meat consumption illegal. Hell, PETA doesn't advocate that either. They advocate people doing it on their own. They don't lobby the government to make meat consumption illegal. They lobby to stop de-beaking and LD-50 tests, and they run campaigns to get American companies to actually follow the regulations of their own government. They fund commercials about making sure we spay and neuter our pets. Not one dime is spent on lobbying the government to outlaw meat consumption.

I have never actually criticized you for your stances on abortion. If you've ever read any of my posts on the subject, you'd realize that I share them.....most of them, anyway. I happily concede that I have jumped all over you about your idea that we should pass legislation barring gay marriage. Until you actually manage to find someone who was actually injured in some way due to someone else's gay relationship, we have nothing to talk about. Two men f***ing is in no sense of the word similar to abortion. I have never been injured by strangers having gay sex. Even when they were in deeply commited and loving relationships or were married by their church (some denominations do that, now). Abortion hurts the fetus. Eating meat kills an animal. Who does gay marriage kill, might I ask?

@Nakia: Most people also hate telemarketers, but I can garauntee you that telemarketing works.....otherwise telemarketing wouldn't be a billion dollar industry. If one person won't buy what you are selling, you just move on to the next call. Someone will buy.

 

quote:
_________________________________________________
You don't have to like PETA. Just recognise that their tactics are measured, purposeful, and they work. The people I hear from who argue about how PETA does more harm than good are usually the same people who refuse to acknowledge a word I have to say once they find out I'm a vegan
_________________________________________________


Drew, PETA hurts the cause more than it helps just as any fringe group on either end of the spectrum of any debate. Their extreme tactics sicken most people and accomplish nothing...and as far as their tactics working; I would direct your attention to the people who post in this thread, no hearts are being changed here. And as far as you being vegan; firstly, you have PETA to thank (atleast partially) for the negative response you receive due to this revelation, secondly, I adamanly defend your right to be vegan and being vegan has nothing to do with your reasoning capacity or the validity of your argument as far as I'm concerned - it's not that I'm not listening, I just don't agree with you.

quote:
_________________________________________________
In fact, this thread bashing PETA is actually helping them because the participants of this thread, by talking about PETA, are actually talking about vegetarianism and the practices of modern agribusiness.
_________________________________________________


Yeah, PETA gets me thinking about vegetarianism like Jeffrey Dahmer gets me thinking about cannibilism. If I were considering vegetarianism, PETA and discussions about those idiots would surely be found under the "cons" column...maybe checked twice.

[ August 15, 2006, 00:35: Message edited by: nunsbane ]

 

Nothing says that they would like people to make the choice on their own better than yelling 'murderer' at butchers. Utter, horrible "We're right, you're wrong" mentality being yelled at people. Much like how meat-eaters don't go up to vegans and yell "You're unnautral! Freak!" PETA shouldn't picket outside peoples' places of work calling them monsters.

People take notice of them the same way that people take notice of terrorists. People don't like what they do, we wonder why they do it so we investigate their point of view in a hope of stopping them from doing what they're doing.

 

@Abomination: Actually, as a vegan, I am subject to far worse than what PETA does to meat eaters. I was even fired for a job once because I didn't "fit in" with the team due to my diet....which I never even once brought up.

@nunsbane: The negative reactions our society has towards vegetarians has been obscenely negative far before PETA ever existed. In fact, vegetarians today get it far better than they used to. Remember.....PETA may not have worked with you or anyone else, for that matter. tell me honestly, though......if there were no PETA would you be more or less likely to be vegan? I doubt it.

 

I never really developed a solid opinion on animal rights, since I think animal testing for medical purposes is necessary to the advancement of modern medicine: for example, thanks to medical testing we've been able to create insulin and numerous antibiotics.

However, I'm also aware of the horrific conditions said animals are kept in, and the unbelievable torment they go through every day. A majority of animals tend to actually go insane in these conditions. It's like the slogan says: "The only walk this puppy knew was the one to the lab".

I'm furiously opposed to harming animals for cosmetic purposes, and the fur industry should just be banned. There's no justification for it. One way they kill an animal to leave the fur intact is to insert an electrode into either end and frying their insides, meaning an incredibly painful death for the animal and an unscathed pelt.

Fun Fact: a lot of the sites which are vilifying PETA are sponsored by the meat and fur industry. COINKYDINK?!

Excpet for the People Eating Tasty Animals guys. They're just tools.

 

How does a chicken eat if you de-beak it? That grain doesn't just fly into the chicken's mouth. I do think that they should be decapitated before being turned into McNuggets...

I don't know what LD-50 tests are...

It's a question of morality, not injury. For one group gay sex is immoral, to another, meat consumption is immoral.

That can be done without. It's one thing to present a well reasoned, highly informed position forward on why your way is better than the way they do things, but out right harrassment is completely different.

 

Guess what? I agree with Gnarfflinger.

Too bad Drew has had such a rough time of it as a vegetarian or vegan. Having had relatives who where vegetarian and known other people who where I must say that I felt far more harassed than they where.

Advocating humane treatment of animals is one thing but using scare tactics, insults and other forms of intimidation to try and force people to stop killing animals I do not like and it turns me off.

 

LD-50 stands for Lethal Dose, 50%. These tests are cases where a subject population is exposed to a chemical or physical agent until half of that population is dead.

 

I dont buy the 'PETA harm animal rights/protection' bit. None here would feel that merit of the human rights ideal (or democracy) was damaged because the US made it one of the reasons to invade another nation. Credibility of the US suffered, not the ideal itself. Same with PETA and their protegees.

Contrary to Death Rabbit's claim that only the most gullible will be swayed by PETA, I would say only the most gullible will be swayed against the protection of animals due to PETA. Those to whom the wellbeing of animals is a value in itself remain unaffected. Of course PETA will be brought up against the whole movement, but who will be impressed by that. The most gullible perhaps.

PETA will be PETA, and protection of animals will be protection of animals. They may converge - or not. But Jhonka's thread is a fine example of how people are being played by certain groups. Instead of discussing industrial farming and the disgusting business of fur farms... or whatever really, PETA is the topic. Distracting much? And that's not any fault of PETA, but of those who let themselves be distracted by the 'ususal suspects'.

 

Couldn't have put it better.

 

Peta are all about tacky publicity stunts and making women into objects. I really doubt that they care about animals at all.

Why waste time and money on pressuring a town called 'Slaughterville' (named after the Slaughter family), when there are are abused animals that need help?

 

@ Dendri,

That's not what I was saying, don't twist my words. Here's what I said:

I was referring specifically to the tactics PETA reps use - in my own personal experience, of running up to people with poster-board signs and pictures of clubbed baby seals and screaming guilt-trips in people's faces as they walk by. A popular stunt in the '80's was to throw blood or red paint on women in fur coats. THESE are the tactics that sway the gullible, and do nothing but damage to the animal rights movement because they piss everyone else off who might be otherwise appealed to.

I never said that people who believe or agree with PETA are gullible.

On that note - don't tell us all that we're gullible and distracted because we're discussing PETA in a thread about PETA. If you want to discuss factory farms, the fur industry, why Cookie Monster's fur is blue, or whatever - start your own thread and let's hit it.

[ August 16, 2006, 11:52: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Death Rabbit.

There are other animal rights groups which have been around longer than PETA which do not use their revolting and unfair tactics. Trying to turn me into a vegetarian or vegan by calling me a murder just is not going to work. I do not believe the mosquito I swatted today is the reincarnation of some once human soul. If you do not believe that PETA considers insects more important than human beings check the thread I linked to in an earlier post.

Death Rabbit is correct and it is very easy to click the 'Post New Topic' button.

 

Question for all the detractors: what could PETA do rather than what they're doing now that would make you go 'Hey! They're no longer dip****s!'?

 

Change their tactics from public annoyance to public informing. By targetting the animal abusers who they depict in their videos and not people who are doing the least against animals (butchers selling their products, animal shelter staff who have to put down some animals etc.). Get off their fat asses and go help some animals rather than attacking people. Be an inspiration, not an annoyance.

 

Who's twisting words?

I'm just glad that any and all animal rights activists I have met so far are nothing like the screaming and frothing hysterics you described. Here, they have their stands and placards, approach people in a civil manner to ask them to sign protest notes, become sponsors, take along some leaflets and whatis. Without breaking down in tears and clawing away at people, too. Can our worlds be that different?

Good point. Totally beside my point, too. Let me attempt to clarify.
In your own words: "The problem is, many people now associate animal rights activism with PETA, and PETA with lunatic paint-throwing, protest-rally jerk-offs.."
I cannot know the situation in the US, of course, though your opinion usually is a valid one in my book. So... if many people think of PETA as the whole of the movement, and the movement is thereby dimished, that begs the question why PETA holds this dominant position. It just puzzles me that people are bothered so by something they recognize as absurd. Makes me wonder whether PETA should pride itself of its PR... or if they of all are MADE into the whole movement by those who have no interest in animal rights. A fragment made into the whole by giving it more attention and publicity than a fragment should have. If people (not necessarily those in this thread) fall for it by playing along then I will think them gullible.
You can knock yourself out discussing PETA or fur pigmentations of Cookie monsters for all I care - and I will express my opinion that I feel people are being manipulated into this discussion in the first place for ulterior motives. It is almost as obvious a sham as should those weirdos of the Volunteers for Human Extinction (or something) all of a sudden get more spotlight to discredit environmentalists.

Next time I feel need of someone pointing out the obvious I will pm you, Nakia, thank you very much.

 

Ugh - I hate to get into a semantics battle here, but...

You are, still.

"That kind of approach" is clearly referring only to the extreme publicity-stunt tactics PETA activists have come to be known for here in the US. It does not encapsulate PETA and their philisophy as a whole. Agreeing with PETA does not make one gullible, but if that agreement is achieved because some stranger wearing a "meat is murder" t-shirt tells you you're a bad person for eating a hamburger and shoves a picture of a mutilated calf in your face, then yes - you're gullible. Correlation does not equal causation. I agree with PETA in principal because I support animal rights and abhor animal cruelty. I just don't approve of their tactics.

Drew addressed a lot of this earlier, but I can add that PETA are at the forefront of the movement because they are so PR driven. Good press, bad press - it's all good for them. Because they're so good at working themselves into the spotlight, they attract the attention of celebrities, who in tern use PETA for their own self promotion (and vice versa). With this promotion comes donations.

Someone says to themselves "I'd like to help my community - I'll donate to charity!" But which cause is important to me, they ask themselves. "I love animals and don't want them abused...who can I send my money to? What organizations do I know of that handle this sort of thing? Hmm...I know, PETA!" And scribble scribble goes the checkbook.

Ever watch any bible channels? The goofiest, gaudiest, most narcissistic preachers get the most donations because they have the biggest platform, when the mission down the street is often the one who could benefit immensely from your generosity but has a PR budget of zero.

So it's not that we distracted gullible people give PETA more attention than they deserve. They take it. It's like the problem kid in the class full of third graders who is disruptive and likes making a spectacle of himself so the other kids giggle. The teacher doesn't mean to give him more attention than the reverent, thoughtful kid - that's just how it works out. PETA has the biggest megaphone, and there often isn't any choice in the matter. You can't NOT think of PETA these days when considering animal rights issues.

And I kind of resent the idea that I'm somehow being manipulated by some corporate interest with alterior motives because I think there's a right way and a wrong way for activists to bring attention to an issue like this. The whole reason I will never call myself an "activist" is because of jerks like the ones I described - I want people to change their way of thinking about animal rights issues by appealing to their logic and sense of humanity, and that can't happen if they think I'm a barking lunatic with too much free time...precisely the image many activists give off, sadly.