PETA: Whatever It Takes. Poodle burgers at a dog show?

Excellent longish article about PETA. I took the Poodle burger thing out of context to draw attention to this. Woof! Sorry.

http://www.alternet.org/story/26094/

<edit>

I started following PETA's activities because of my personal connection to it, and as I did, I became engrossed with its media tactics, which, to sum them up would be to say they say and do anything at all to draw attention. It sounds simple and obvious enough -- anything at all -- but it clearly isn't, or other groups would be following its lead. Other than the ACLU, which progressive advocacy group (yes, PETA is progressive) garners a regular share of news coverage across the country on a daily basis? Not a single one.

PETA goes after places, people, events and ideas of social meaning and finds a way to seize the headlines -- or create its own. It will do whatever it takes to expose people to its point of view. When PETA asks an agricultural town to change its name from say, Cowtown to Liberated Cowtown, it knows that a bored reporter in the surrounding region will fall for it and write a story about it, and that a bunch of readers sick of stories about septic tanks and cattle prices will fall for the headline. Somewhere in that story will be the sentence: "A PETA representative told the mayor that killing animals is wrong."

With that sentence, PETA scores a victory.

So PETA sends vegetarian chefs to Camp Casey; runs semi-nude pictures of Pamela Anderson with anti-fur captions; and urges the USDA not to rebuild animal labs at the Katrina-devastated Louisiana State University. And every time PETA gets mentioned in a story, it's a win for the organization -- and some real animals might be saved in the process.

Because the truth is, this animal rights thing is a tarpit. The more people are exposed to it, the less comfortable they are with the concept of animal suffering. That's the premise, anyway, and I think it's true.

more...

to the average American voter. I don't like their tactics at all.

Peta may have some fine ideas, but they have sure spoiled their image. No one really takes them seriously, they come off like a bad joke. Lunatic fringe ya know.

as well. Am I wrong? As in grabbing attention at an antiwar rally, or somesuch.

PETA's brand of extremism hurts us all. This is the kind of thing that makes progressives a "tree hugging" laughing stock in the mainstream.

I don't have any off the top of my head. But the broader point is that the majority of people read stories about PETA antics and disagree with them. In fact many disagree so strongly they aren't even interested in discussing the pros and cons. (my opinion from past observations)

How long has PETA been around anyways?

That is too cute!!

The song, "Purina Hall of Fame"

Here it is in all it's glory...
Sleeping masters roused to burning homes from beds. Steeping toddlers plucked from their watery deaths: ribbons, plaques and soft-soap are the ephemeral rewards paid to the slaves whose selfless acts accord a higher value to their masters, while parting gifts (bolt pistols) console the rest. The remainder. Too bad the tributes paid to lives that relegate these thrones to lives spent valuing the runners-up, are known to be neither fleeting nor desirable. But nothing surprises me these days. I just sit and watch the box-cars roll by and wait. Patient. Unattended. A package under a terminal bench. A short fuse to scatter steady hands if I forget to remember that better lives have been lived in the margins, locked in the prisons and lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in palaces.

Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' 'bout...

:eyes: PETA is brilliant. They single-handedly turned killed fur as a fashion. We should learn from them, not criticize them.

I think they are often so out there that they are not really associated with any other progressive causes. I can't recall some right win nutjob campaigning against an opponent by tying then to PETA.

PETA is way out there usually, and I don't usually agree with their tactivs, though I have to admit some of them have quite a bit of wit attached to them. And I do think they keep animal issues in the spotlight.

Sometimes any publicity is good publicity. The media may report on their antics and make them sound silly, but they usually also report on the reasons for their activities!!

they fit in with thst image of the "looney left" that the wingers like to paint of us.

But after reading that article, I realize that THEY DON'T CARE. And it appears to be working for them.

Interesting.

of live dogs and cats as shark bait, I sat and thought about who would care and who would do anything. The only organization I came up with was PETA. I emailed them and a representative personally emailed me back a long email and said they were looking into the situation. I know of their reputation for being extremists but I feel better for the contact with them.

I'm tolerant and a Democrat, but PETA is way out there in my opinion.

I fish. I have hunted, too.

And anyone really using live dogs and cats as shark bait are kooks.

:think:

People complain about using live dogs and cats as shark bait, partly because we have dogs and cats as pets, we care about them. I don't blame them for complaining, but what about farm animals? Farm animals suffer tortuous conditions for months or years, then are killed. We should at least not make them suffer like that.
What tortuous conditions? Birds having their beaks sliced off, animals put in cages so small they can't move, the overwhelming stench of ammonia, being kept in darkness, being deformed (e.g. frankenturkeys who can't even mate normally), having no family, having their offspring taken from them at birth, overcrowding, having their toes cut off, electric shocks, beatings, being castrated or having their horns cut off - without anesthesia, ... have I missed anything?

This is happening to BILLIONS of animals.

...I'm vegetarian. I just cannot contribute to that.

I lose my appetite thinking about it.

Edit: and as off-the-wall as PETA is, they do get this stuff in front of people's faces where they can see it - where they HAVE to see it. That's important. I have to thank them for that, though their tactics are extreme. It's too easy to ignore an animal rights org if they stay too much in the status quo. Maybe PETA stays too much outside the status quo and should pull their 'horns' back a little, but someone has to raise a little hell, rock the boat - or nothing will change.

We all know that getting angry enough to upset the status quo is what it takes to get things changed. Look at Cindy Sheehan, for instance. A lot of people call her campout at the TX ranch of Drinky Dumbass a radical, stupid thing, but it galvanized the anti-war movement.

Yea, PETA is extreme, but I'm just sayin...

the article.

Already got a couple.

:popcorn:

Metaphorically. Seems PETA picks soft targets.

I like to eat meat, I wear leather shoes, and if I ever win the Lotto, I'm buying a sable coat. F#&% PETA.

What makes them progressive?

and abused constituency -- animals. It has its analogies to other progressive causes -- the environment, historic preservation, campaigns to promote the arts, preservation of Indian languages and cultures. I'd call them progressive in that sense.

They or at least the leaders are disciples of the crackpot philosopher Peter Singer, which tells me everything I need to know about them.

They're crazies, and they don't care about animals or about people.

Disciples? Don't care? Elaborate, please.

"Crazies?" I am a member of PETA, and so are many DU members. I don't think it's appropriate to call anyone names. Please at least ATTEMPT to have a bit of maturity, tact, and respect. No one is attacking you, so please back off a little ok?

These people are a bunch of fucking morons.

Intolerance and personal attacks are not welcome here.

and I'd appreciate you stick to the issues, not personal attacks.

Thanks:hi:

and it works.

They champion the causes of the creatures on this planet with no voices and that are subjected to the worst, most horrific kind of abuses.

They are very, VERY progressive, because they care, and use whatever means they can to bring attention to their cause.

They're rather brilliant actually, so CHEERS to PETA for putting a FACE and a SOUL on the creatures humans so willingly abuse and torture for profit!

:evilgrin:

That people can post a serious topic about animal rights and/or PETA, and we can all sit down and have a mature, rational discussion.

Oh wait, that's not like DU at all. Thanks for reminding me.

Man, were you a carpenter in a past life, cuz you just drilled the shit outta that one?

Obviously, some people do not understand the subtlety of sarcasm. So I'll be a bit more blunt.

PETA are a bunch of looneys who, not liking to eat meat, think everybody else should not eat meat. I would never criticize a person who takes a principled stand on an issue that is dear to them, but not every issue demands equal standing.

Like most of mankind over the past few million years, I am an omnivore. Of course I want animals to be treated humanely. But I will never be a vegetarian, let alone a vegan.

There. How's that?

But repeating the same third-grade humor that shows up on every bloody one of these threads does not a great first impression make.

And since you called PETA "loonies" (I happen to be a member, thanks for proving my point about the inability of DUers to argue about PETA or animal rights without channeling middle school), I'll take that as a personal attack and move on. But I will say that if you care about treating animals humanely, you wouldn't eat meat. Or is it that you don't really care about animals if they get in the way of your tastebuds? Hmmm, sounds pretty selfish to me. (Oops, maybe that was a personal attack. Sorry about that.)

You don't want it enough (the "want animals to be treated humanely" part).

And your previous post, um, wasn't sarcasm, was it? I mean the mockery, complete with the "evil grin" smilie? C'mon...

"Equal standing" means...what?

Thanks for the clarification...or whatever the hell that was.

They don't want anybody else to eat meat. Thanks for backing me up.

on edit: I'm an omnivore. Get used to it.

I mean, I know that deep, deep down, it felt good to type that and put it out there, but c'mon, back that up.

Please share. I'll wait...

I eat meat and will always eat meat. Get over it.

That's really the best you got? Cuz hell, that sure got me crying.

Wow.

Why do you think this is about eating habits?

I post a humorous post. You can't have anybody joking about anything as serious as your precious bodily fluids untainted by anything as evil and bad as animal protein.

I support your right to eat anything you want, and support your right to *not* eat anything you don't want. It's a personal choice. You have every right to make it. I would defend your right to my own death.

However, your position is abundently clear--if you had a choice consuming animal protein would be illegal. It's exactly as I portrayed it. You cannot stand that anybody chooses to consume animal protein.

That's why people correctly label PETA as insufferable, humorless, and out in left field.

Show me where I stated anything about wishing/wanting "consuming animal protein" to be illegal. I'll wait.

You didn't post a humorous post, did you? It was outright flamebait, wasn't it? Be honest.

It's really not about "tainting" my "precious bodily fluids" now, is it? It's not really me so much as it is, dare I say, you?

Show me my hostility, too, please. The only hostility I see, sadly, is yours.

Call PETA what you want. That's your choice. I ain't PETA.

Broad brush much, eh?

Exactly what field are you in??
That's right...so much for working toward progressive causes together.

That's what I love about these PETA threads. They bring out the absolute ugliest side in so many DUers.

Your OP was pure flamebait, nothing more, nothing less. The :evilgrin: says it all.

Flvegan was never hostile to you. If you have nothing productive to add to a discussion, as you clearly do not here, stay the hell out of it, ok? :banghead:

Whoah... serious Dr. Strangelove flashbacks going on here.

of eliminating animal suffering. However, becoming veg*an saves the most animals lives.

Also, alot of us don't find animal cruelities humorous!

I'm in awe. Truly, I am.

(And for the record, THAT was sarcasm. Your original post was nothing more than flamebait.)

We are used to omnivores.

What are you talking about?

I am a member of PETA, as are a number of other DUers. I don't appreciate being called a "looney" and I'm pretty sure that's against DU rules anyway.

Please try and show some maturity and a tad bit of respect for others - even if you personally don't share our beliefs. We promise to do the same. Thanks.

<< I don't appreciate being called a "looney" and I'm pretty sure that's against DU rules anyway. >>

... but it is okay to say in general terms that PETA are loony. It's not an attack on *you* unless you choose to own it.

<< Please try and show some maturity and a tad bit of respect for others - even if you personally don't share our beliefs. >>

PETA sets itself up for ridicule and scorn... and you act surprised that people feel they way they do about PETA?

There are many people here who need to develop thicker skin if they want to participate on a public discussion forum where they are likely to run into people who oppose their viewpoints. (There's a special PETA-friendly participation-restricted highly-moderated "group" on DU where club-members can be free of molestation from those who think PETA are kooks.)


<< We promise to do the same. Thanks. >>

You promise WHAT?! -- Now THAT'S funny!

Really funny!

:boring: moldy oldie.

You can always count on the immature, insecure, boring old PETA bashers to come out of the woodwork for every AR thread. :rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Not only do I love it, but it's the only "meat" I'll...nevermind.

I'm sure there will be plenty of occassions to use it.

it focuses almost exclusively on PETA's success in the public relations game:

How rare to see a non-profit group beating our commercial society at its own game, in aid of something that is truly good for the world. My visit confirmed for me what I had come to believe as a casual observer: PETA is the most successful, iron-fisted, 501c3 I have ever witnessed; and the only one to make it out of the progressive slums and wage a winning battle at the mass media level.

Of course, the "game" played by our commercial society disgusts me for the most part. And I really believe that, for every person who hears and is ready for PETA's message, more than one person is turned off to them and, often, to the left as a whole.

“Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”
— PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue,


Look, I know she said it a little over sixteen years ago, so she could very well have changed her mind. But if she hasn't, it is my feeling that she can just go to hell. I've worked with organizations that help people with AIDS (though I have not personally interacted with people who are sick), and if she said something like that to the other helpers, the patients, their family members and/or their friends, she might very well end up in the hospital.

"I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery, that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil." - Dr. Charles Mayo, Founder of the Mayo Clinic

http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_ToolbarID=5&i_PageID=151

Explore the rest of the site as well.

Um........






NOT.

I have a feeling that no site I would mention would be "impartial" enough for you. Either way, try this one (I hope it's "impartial" enough): http://www.amprogress.org/index.cfm

Hey, tell you what, howsabout you convince me to be a Republican. Quote Free Republic at will, since there's no spin there, okay?

And no, bloody hell, it isn't impartial at all, never mind impartial "enough" for me.

Try again...and don't insult me this time.

I have shown you websites that are trying to advance their belief that animal medical research is valuable. I also feel that unless a website were to leed to an overall conclusion against animal research, you wouldn't consider said site objective. Also, how are these sites "unobjective?" Please explain.

Show me impartial. Also, please note that you've already judged me and what I consider valuable. How dare you suggest what I'd consider to be valuable to begin with. Broad brush much?

How are they "unobjective" sir? Well, look at the sources...

What do I think of the website?

It's pretty, I guess.

level of bias on the issue?

Gee...the whole "Patient Advocates Agains PETA" really threw me. Gosh, but you're tough.

So, how specifically are PETA activists hindering finding a cure for AIDS?

Just wondering if you've gone beyond the "Google is truth" stage...

taking such a fanatical stance against ALL animal-based medical research.

You'd be right if you had stated (less "fanatical"...I mean, c'mon, is that spin/frame really needed here?) against unneeded research.

I think I think I think I think...

You see a trend to what you're stating?

Just wondering...

go into nursing. They have both basically said that some forms of medical research are necessary, but it depends on how the experimentation is set up and what the dividends might be (cosmetics testing, no; cancer research, yes). Also, she has said that that we ought to continue research that would render animal-based medical research unnecessary.

:eyes:

I have also talked to a student planning on going into nursing who lives on my dorm room floor, and as I said, they support it when absolutely necessary.

You can say that you talked to X Y and Z, but you better have something to back up your argument.

If you were an attorney, you wouldn't go into court and argue forensics to a judge or jury based on what a 19 year old, probably inebriated dormmate that might go into nursing said.

Or would you?

Also, I have tried to back it up, but every website I have shown is labeled "biased."

And you are trying to present their uneducated "opinions" as facts.

I would hardly call her "uneducated" in regards to research issues.

So what? You want to play a "years" game? Okay, I'll raise your 8 years experience with someone with 20 years. What's the diff?

It was dumb to do, and I ended up looking like an asshole. I appologize for wasting your time with such arguments. However, this does not mean I will cease arguing for animal-based medical research, but that I will try to be less, um, "Passion ridden" if you will, about the issue.

I could point you to a thousand folks that thought the same. I could also point to to a thousand folks that thought otherwise.

Why, might I ask, would they suggest that we should go after research that would render animal-based medical research unnecessary?

they feel that it is a necessary evil, and that if it can be eliminated, then so much the better. Also, I am aware that some medical professionals disagree with it. But I am simply trying to show that I have spoken to a medical professional (and a professional to be) that support it, and am offering opinions they have reached based on their knowledge as testimony.

So?

It's not a necessary evil in far too many cases. I see and respect what you're saying. However, you must admit, as I do, that there are two sides to this, right?

But, as I have said, I disagree with the idea that it has provided no useful contrabutions. For example, as this (http://www.fbresearch.org/education/myth-polio.htm) editorial argues, I believe that animal based research testing was valuable for developing the polio vaccine.

At no point did I say that no value came from it. Did I? Really, did I? BTW, even Kornberg said that progress was limited by using primate test subjects in the polio vaccine.

My point is that now, with the technology we have, and our abilities, do we need to continue? Aren't we beyond what we've done/been doing?

Even Proctor and Gamble, the worst of the worst, dumped, what $5000000 into alternatives to animal based research?

But, as you did say in post 75, it was "unneeded." That is where we differ, in that I think it is still necessary. But that does not mean I do not adhere to the "Three R's," as they are termed. Also, he said they moved on to monkeys, despite the limitations involved, because they had originally used cell cultures derived from fetal tissue taken from aborted fetuses; I certainly understand why they would do this.

Because your govt. tells you so?

THAT is the only reason we do it...

curedisease.com

There's a profit motive.

The following links will direct you to organizations that defend the use of animal models. Often, these organizations make no claims about supporting the best research methodologies, but instead focus entirely on the animal model. Their financial support comes from the industry they defend.

AMP: Americans for Medical Progress The AMP Board of Directors features representatives from: Merck, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.

* http://www.ampef.org


FBR: Foundation for Biomedical Research
NABR: Foundation for Biomedical Research

FBR and NABR are "sister" organizations. Their physical addresses are the same. They claim over $12 million in combined assets. Their income source is undisclosed on their website.

* http://www.fbrresearch.org
* http://www.fbresearch.org/fbr.html

They've got all the bases covered -- except one: ask them how many of them would refuse life-saving medical treatment that was created by animal testing. Then you get, "well...it's already been DONE, so what's the big deal?"

Kind of makes all the other relativity questions that they throw out, against everyone else, look stupid. Also, ask them how a Sami or an Eskimo are supposed to keep from freezing to death.

There is no ideologically pure position on this, so every position is relative, and an arbitrary value set. People get way too emotional over an issue that they're not willing to go to extremes to defend. Like someone said: soft targets -- old ladies in fur coats. Hard core: let an agonizing terminal disease rip through you, with no treatment or pain relief.

One of the defining characteristics of evil is that it is unnecessary. So "necessary evil" is an oxymoron.

http://www.curedisease.com/links.html

The following links will direct you to organizations that defend the use of animal models. Often, these organizations make no claims about supporting the best research methodologies, but instead focus entirely on the animal model. Their financial support comes from the industry they defend.

AMP: Americans for Medical Progress The AMP Board of Directors features representatives from: Merck, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.

Thank you.

http://www.curedisease.com/mediafestingwhois.html

RDS, Michael Festing, and Simon Festing: Who's Who

The Research Defense Society (RDS) is the British equivalent of the American organization, the Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR). Both groups, RDS and FBR, are single-issue advocacy groups supported by vested interests. They are dedicated to defending the use of animal models in scientific research.

Dr. Michael Festing and Dr. Simon Festing, father and son respectively, are both spokespersons for the animal experimentation industry.

Dr. Michael Festing is a consultant for Harlan UK and is a member of, or holds a financial interest in, PPL Therapeutics; GlaxoSmithKline; Oxford Glycoscience; Acambio; Powerject Pharmaceuticals; Alizyne; Cambridge Antibody; Shire Pharmaceuticals; and Celltech.

Harlan (a part of Harlan Sprague Dawley Inc.) has claimed that it supplies more animals to research than any other commercial animal vender in the world.

more...

But they just go over the top too often

:shrug:

You support criminals?

:boring:

:shrug:

thread, and call PETA and their supporters "kooks" and the like.....

And I wish you would just stop. Please!

Let's see... having not read any of the above posts, I bet the words "kook" or "looney" show up fairly often.
Yup, I just bet.

This is DU. In case you missed the memo, that means that every poster here agreed that they share "progressive" ideals. To me, being a progressive means being accepting and tolerant of others views and values and beliefs - even if we personally do not share them. This is one of those times.

I am a member of PETA, and while of course I don't agree with everything they say and do, I agree with enough that I send them money and all. There are several other DUers that I know of personally who are also members of PETA. While I realize some of you are very threatened (or whatever you'd call it) by PETA, vegetarians, etc, the fact is that if you claim to be a progressive you at least need to show some maturity and not resort to calling us "loonies," "nutjobs," "whackjobs," "psychos," or any of the other lame names we've been called on here before.

If you don't like PETA, move on, please. But please recognize that many DU members are PETA members (and PETA in fact is a sponsor of DU) and it would be very cool if we could at least have a fair discussion without the obligatory person posting for the 37,586th time that " I AM A MEMBER OF PETA: PEOPLE EATING TASTY ANIMALS BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!" Whatever you have to say, it's probably been said before - trust me, whatever cool cut you're thinking of won't be innovative. I'm just asking for a tiny amount of tolerance, and no name calling, please. I think I know every vegetarian here on DU and NEVER have I EVER seen any one of them attack a meat-eater personally and viciously (complete with name-calling) because they eat meat. Please try and have the same amount of respect for us PETA-supporting vegetarians.

Thanks.

I respect anyone who makes a personal choice to not eat meat, or to try to do as little as possible to not contribute to the harming of animals.

But when you start telling ME that it's bad for ME to eat MY cheeseburger, and you would like nothing else than to take away MY right to eat meat as much as I want, then you step over the line from me respecting your private desicion to me defending my personal rights.

PETA is an organazation who advocates taking away a person's right to eat meat as far as LAW is concerned.

There's a line, and PETA repeatedly steps over it with their shoes.

PETA wants everyone to be veg - they aren't making it law. No one is forcing you not to eat meat so just relax. No one is threatening you, honestly.

And my plea was not that everyone give $20 to PETA. What I asked was that we please refrain from calling people names (and by people I mean PETA members, when you should know full well many DUers are members of PETA). In this thread alone I have been called a "looney" and a "crazy." That's just uncalled for. I always encourage others to take on a vegetarian diet because it is good for your body, good for the animals, and most of all it is good for the environment.

I don't really care if you dislike PETA. That's fine. But please don't call me names because I *do* like *most* of what they do. That was my point.

Has someone attempted to remove your food from your mouth or tell you what to eat? By all means, smack them and tell them to jump in a lake.



Uhh, no, that's not even true a little.

Where are you getting this stuff, and why?

They spend so much of their money on over-the-top sanctimonious ad campaigns (which sets back animal rights 50 years, instead of advancing it), they won't even set aside much of the considerable funds on no-kill shleters.

They end up euthanizing thousands of defenseless animals. So I guess it is okay for THEM to kill animals, but not anyone else.

Fucking hypocrites.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com

You won......of course it was only a matter of time before someone posted this complete and utter bullshit. :eyes:

And happily show their ignorance.

Oh, well...

A left wing, progressive site, linking to a right wing, fox-news supporting propaganda machine. Oh, the irony.

sweets. Believe what you want, believe what suits you.

MIA I see. Shocking.

You should look into the source of your post.

It kinda makes you look like an idiot. No offense...

BTW, your local shelter, all our local shelters euthanize several million companion animals every year. So, I guess those folks are all hypocrites too, eh? Oh, and if you buy a puppy, you contribute, so those folks get the buy in too, right? Yes, those rescues that can't take additional pups in too, they're at fault as well.

Your post, and it's "they end up euthanizing thousands of defenseless animals" statement...I double motherfucking dog fucking dare you to back that up.

Do it.

PETA kills animals? You ever volunteer at a shelter? You ever push a needle? Nope. Didn't think so. Your post is a fucking insult.

Bye.

They only care about themselves, NOT about animal advocacy.

This is what he said:

"Here's the objective and thinking of the PETA organization in a nutshell: 'Milions of people are starving to death and dying of AIDS in Africa, people are blowing each other up in the Middle East, deadly flu outbreaks are threatening us from Asia, we have an insane man for a president, wanting to blow up every country he sees, genocide is being committed in Indonesia, but EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, THESE POOR ANIMALS ARE BEING USED FOR FOOD AND CLOTHING!!! WE MUST STOP IT!!!!!!'"

If we stopped eating animals, the number one thing on that list (folks starving to death) would end.

Now how funny is it?

I'll wait...

But if I am just guessing....Penn or Teller, or any other 'comedian' said it, it MUST be valid!

I REALLY wish people would educate themselves before spouting off!!

you are pretty good at asking people to back their shit up, THAT one seems to meet the criteria for an "unbiased" back-up.

I'm not trying to be an ass, but let's all play by the same unofficial rules, otay?

Here's one link. You can Google the rest:
http://www.goveg.com/worldHunger.asp

Sorry, again I was really trying NOT to be a jerk. It is still a work in progress, however.

:hi:

if we all ate grass?

if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all?

Or in this case, if you have nothing relevant to say.........

If you had a choice, if you had the chance to run the country, would you make it ILLEGAL for anyone to eat meat at all, punishable by whetever fine or imprisonment??

Yes,

or No?

Simple question.

Simple answer.

Now what?

I respect the personal choices of PETA members to not eat meat, to try to stop animal suffering, etc., as long as it does NOT infringe on my PERSONAL, GOD-GIVEN right to eat any meat I want.

You however, are most likely in the minority among PETA supporters. Most of those kooks would want to take that right completely away from me if they ever got the chance.

Now you're calling us "kooks"? Nice, real nice. Name-calling always indicates a lot. Tell me again why you claim to be a liberal?

And you notice NOT ONE of the vegetarian, PETA supporters on here advocated making meat-eating illegal. What's your comeback to that one Smiley pants?

Did you even read her entire post? :eyes: Or do you just not understand what she is saying? You made a ridiculous attempt to paint us all as crazy lunatics who want to ban meat-eating and you got not one of us to say that's what we would do...backtracking much?

With all due respect, you are horrifically misinformed, judgmental, intolerant, and closed-minded on this issue. You're also kinda mean.

You are taking the post title, and running away with your imaginiation.

Give me a FUCKING BREAK.

Can you read? Seriously. This is getting old.

Since you didn't answer me the first two times and you claim to be a liberal, I'll ask again: why are you calling me names? Did I call you a murderer or a hypocrite? So why is it ok for you to call me names?

Funny...I thought you said you were a Poli Sci minor. Why do you act like you're in 2nd grade with the name-calling?

It's your god given right as much as it is Fred Phelps to piss on Iraq vet's graves.

But since god told him it was ok......

It must be the right thing to do. :eyes:

Really, okay?

Show me where PETA has made a stance towards taking away your right to eat meat or anything else.

We'll build from there, k?

Simple answer. :shrug: What the hell is your point?

Initally, I was going to respond yes, and leave it at that.

But it would never work. In a perfect world, human beings would just realize the many benefts of not consuming other animals. That is not likely to happen anytime soon, either.

There is NO reason that an animal need to die so that you can enjoy a triple extra bacon cholesterol burger. However, people will never accept that.

If we eliminate meat from our diets, our heath as a nation would improve. The environment would benefit as we would not be creating billions of tons of animal waste. There would be far less hunger. Right now, 40 percent of the world's grain is used to feed livestock, not people.

There are many reasons for the world to go veg, but as I said, it would never work.

And that puts you on the same level as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Read the whole thing. :eyes:

As top administrator of this fine country, I'd love nothing more than to clog up the already ridiculously overcrowded criminal justice system with meat eaters, all at the taxpayers expense, natch.
I'll put them in cells next to the pot smokers, who are also madly threatening to the fine fabric of our society.

Oh wait... no. That's a stupid idea.

Simple answer.

And because of that, I had to respect and tolerate the views of PETA!!! I'm so sorry!!

Wait a minute, what is it that FreeRepublic does on a regular basis?? OH YEAH, they BAN anyone who speaks ill of Bush!!!

Don't try to force me to agree with you by trying to hide it under a veneer of liberal progressive ideology, cause that dog won't hunt. I'm a Political Science minor, and you won't get that by me personally. I won't fall for it.

I believe you invited yourself into this thread, right?

From friesianrider:

"This is DU. In case you missed the memo, that means that every poster here agreed that they share "progressive" ideals. To me, being a progressive means being accepting and tolerant of others views and values and beliefs - even if we personally do not share them. This is one of those times."

I have to be accepting of PETA's beliefs, even if I don't share them?? A little Hitler in your Howard Dean, sir??

and just stayed out of this thread, since you obviously have nothing of any weight to the conversation to add? :shrug:

He has contributed that he is a poli sci minor. With over 10,000 posts.

That flvegan only WISHES he could be banned. :rofl:

I stated an opinion, I have a right to it, you stated an opinion, you have a right to that opinion. I'm not the one going around telling people that they have to accept my beliefs, even if you disagree with them. Like I said, I'm completely cool with people making their own personal choices, but it can, and has, gone too far, entering into the realm of ENFORCING PERSONAL BELIEF SYSTEMS ON OTHER'S LIVES. It's like if a PETA group threw a bucket of blood onto me before I entered a steakhouse (PETA has engaged in this act). If I get blood on me from that, I'm obligated to either verbally (or physically, if needed) kick the ass of whatever person did that to me, because they were infringing on MY PERSONAL RIGHT to do something that is completely within the law.

That isn't being a progressive, I'm sorry. You have every right to your opinion. What you don't have a right to do is call me names just because I think you're wrong. State your opinion - fine, but I never called you names, so please give me the same courtesy.

And please don't flatter yourself that PETA may someday throw blood on you :eyes:

I would encourage you to read www.goveg.com and look into the environmental impact of eating meat. Those facts are proven, and since you claim to be a liberal surely you care about the environment. If you read the "environment" section you will see how raising animals for slaughter damages the environment - if you read it maybe you'd consider cutting back on meat a little bit, even if you don't fully become vegetarian.

I agree that the commercial meat industry in its entirety is the most nightmarish and abhorrent of practices. As is the agribusiness (no longer can it be called agriculture) industry. More than any other 2 industries, these are the ones that have damaged our environment. I gave up meat 12 years ago because of the ugliness of it all. But to be honest i have been working on a small Biodynamic farm which has its own cows (grass fed, free range, a small group of 6 or 7), chickens, and pigs. A lot of the veg scraps from farming go to pigs, chickens eat bugs in the garden, cow poop helps make compost... all of these things seem extremely healthy to me. I don't see "tortured" animals, i see an organic, whole system... circular and cyclical. This particular CSA farm has a once yearly slaughter of some of their animals, and for some people it is the only time they eat meat during the year. I personally believe that it is possible to be an omnivore and still have respect for animals. In most of my conversations with PETA folk (i have lived in community and consider myself an artist/activist so i've met many people associated with the org) i have agreed strongly with their tactics and viewpoints, but when i mention my beliefs on the subject (ie. it's okay to eat animals in extreme moderation/ with respect/ if you've watched them grow and know they've been given as much freedom and health as is possible) i am often spurned and looked down upon. I have been called speciesist and ethically challenged because of these beliefs. Would the group of vegans here be tolerant of my viewpoints? Or would you say i'm wrong for thinking the way i do?

And I can say that because I am one of them :) I don't think any of DU veggies would look down on you at all - our little Vegetarian group is about the most tolerant and accepting place I've ever been (even to those who visit and are not vegetarians). As a vegetarian, I can tell oyu that the meat-eaters on here are FAR, FAR more judgmental, intolerant, and insulting. Just look at some of the posts on here. So disrespectful and obnoxious. Why? Just because I support something they do not.

Would I prefer you did not eat meat at all? Well, sure. But I am not going to look down on you because

Honestly, I personally would not eat meat (even raised in the environment you mentioned, which sounds excellent though) just because I have personal moral and health issues with it. But, words cannot describe how much better I would feel about meat-eating if all animals were raised as on the farm you described. Much of my problem with meat is the way the animals are treated, the horrific lives they have, the transportation conditions to slaughterhouses, etc. I can honestly say that although I still wouldn't eat it, I would have little (if any) problem with Bessie the cow being raised in a healthy environment (on a farm, plenty of grass, plenty of sunshine and clean air, plus a vegetarian diet helps) and when the time comes that the family needs meat they kill her humanely and quickly. As it sounds like you know, many people just don't think twice about it. They want their meat and they want it now, and they don't give a flying fuck how much that animal suffered or lingered in agony and pain or what the environmental impact is. I think that kind of attitude is wrong and sadly, many of the meat-eaters on here have that attitude..

As you said though, you think "it's okay to eat animals in extreme moderation/ with respect/ if you've watched them grow and know they've been given as much freedom and health as is possible)." I would have to agree. I will always encourage a vegetarian diet, but I think this is perfectly okay and far preferable to the way most people eat. You're much more reasonable and respectful about it than most of the raging anti-PETA folks around here who are so psychotic about it. It sounds like you respect the animals and would do it in extreme moderation, which is always key.

Anyway, I'm sure you don't but please don't think all PETA members are crazy based on a few bad experiences. We're not all bad and militant, I promise :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You only WISH I could get banned.

:rofl:

Righhhhhtttttttttt.

nt

I'd never want a positive DUer banned for any reason. See, I think that we can disagree on things (like this) and discuss them. Then, when it comes down to hammering the rethug-Freeper asshats on the basics, we're arm in arm, you know?

I really could give a rat's ass about the post count you've garnered. It doesn't matter to me. I'm closing in on 6 grand myself, so what does it count anyway?

Got mighty quiet in here, didn't it?

10,000...6,000...what's the difference?

Big damn deal.

...I've seen people with 5 posts have great opinions.

To PETA that you are missing the point.

No one is saying you have to "respect and tolerate" the views of PETA. What we are saying is that you DO have to respect and tolerate other DU members beliefs...and many DUers are members and supporters of PETA (again, that doesn't mean they agree with every single thing PETA does). Just like some DUers are pro-life - that doesn't mean just because you think all pro-lifers are fanatics that you can go calling the DU members domestic terrorists and psychos. You're a meat-eater. Would you like it if I called you a murderer and a hypocrite? So why is it ok for you to call ME names?

And guess what? I'm a political science minor too and being a liberal progressive DOES NOT mean acting the way you are. We are saying that you cannot call yourself a progressive and name-call like children as some on here do.

I personally would even argue that if you really want to be a progressive, you would look into how environmentally degrading it is to raise animals for slaughter. If everyone in the world just voluntarily cut their meat consumption by half...

Please do some education into this before you go spewing your judgmental nonsense - and while you're at it, at least pretend to show some respect to other DUers.

Nothing polarizes DUers more. Well, except for maybe Hillary Clinton.

"progressive".

Yep.

The sound of the point flying so far over your head, you'd need a telescope to pick it up.

If someone makes a point contradictionary to your stance, you just go, "Oh, you don't understand!! You don't understand!! You're missing the point!! Did you even read what I said?? You're missing the point!!! You don't understand what I'm saying!!!"

You're the one who is name-calling and cursing like a sailor up above a few posts. Who the hell are you to act holier-than-thou with the way you've talked to some posters tonight? Give me a break.

extra brave.

Joke. Yes, you.

You know, the one where they juxtaposed pictures of concentration camp victims (like some of my relatives were) and chickens.

How silly of me, to "miss the point" on that one, much less take some kind of offense to that particular message. Wow. 'Cuz, see, here I am, someone who thinks factory farming is bad for the animals and bad for the environment, someone who supports organic, low-impact food production, and someone who believes in eating lower on the food chain.. and yet, for some reason, I still think PETA is full of shit.

Yep. Missin' the point.

You are a Democrat, no? Has a Democrat or the Dem party ever done anything that you just slapped your head and went "doh"! Similar thing here for me. However, I do see a comparison. For many of us who have seen what is inside a slaughterhouse (and as someone who has studied the Holocaust extensively) I see similarities. In bad taste? Probably.

Just because we support PETA, doesn't mean we support *everything* they do - kinda like you probably support Democrats but don't like everything the Democratic party does.

I understand they can be a bit brash and out of the mainstream, but I don't think any of us can say we support every single thing a group we generally tend to support does.

and compassionate animal raising without the extremist agenda, and counter-productive tactics, of PETA.

Raising awareness is one thing- (Upton Sinclair did more to improve meat handling in this country than PETA ever did) but drawing a moral equivalence between the lives of chickens and the lives of concentration camp victims is something else. And if Chickens really are morally equivalent to humans, then it doesn't matter WHAT the conditions are, does it? They shouldn't be killed and eaten any more than people should...

But if that's the agenda, PETA should stand up and own it.

The best way to fight factory farming and the conditions therein is to support free range, organic farming. PETA doesn't do that, to my knowledge- because PETA is point blank opposed to ALL animal use and/or consumption. That's fine, that's their perogative-- but it is hardly a viewpoint shared by a majority of the larger "progressive" community.

"You are a Democrat, no?"

Yes. Hard as it may be to believe, I am a lifetime, Yeller Dog, dyed-in-the-wool, Dukakis to Kerry, registered Democrat, who nevertheless--- doesn't support PETA.

:wow:

I'm just saying that if you support progressive ideals, then you may consider being a bit more open-minded and kinder to the many progressives who DO support Peta. Just a suggestion.

Think what you want. Still, you project what you THINK they meant by the campaign. It's about intent. Intent towards the animals, intent towards the people.

Get over yourself.

Um, I had relatives who died in the Holocaust. Not the "Holocaust on your plate", the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

You actually think it's more important to make a point about people EATING CHICKEN than to respect the memory of 6 million dead Jews?

Yeah. I'm the one who should get over himself, surely. 'Nite.

So you don't see the treatment of some farm animals as you see the treatment of your own relatives? It's intent. It's not people compared to animals.

Lost the ego. You'll go further without it.

Yeah, nite.

Read posts #162 & #154.

And what my "ego" has to do with any of this is, frankly, beyond me. If you can point to one thing I've actually said in this entire thread that has jack diddly shit to do with "my ego", I'll eat my hydrolyzed soy protein hat.

:rofl:

I hardly think that farmers are showing the level of "malicious intent" towards farm animals that the Nazis showed towards the Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Mentally Retarded, Russian POW's, Dissident Priests, Reporters and anyone else who objected to the Nazi regime who were not a part of the first five groups I mentioned at the same time. That, among many other issues I have with that add campaign, is why I disagreed with it so much.

Seriously...look again.

Think what you want. Still, you project what you THINK they meant by the campaign. It's about intent. Intent towards the animals, intent towards the people.

Get over yourself.

By juxtaposing an image of a slaughterhouse with a Halocaust image, I felt that they were trying to claim that the suffering of these animals was morally equitable with the suffering of the people kept in the camps.

"I felt"

Maybe, just maybe your outrage to the suffering of these folks (and rightfully so) overrode the logic therein.

Look, just think about it this way, okay, and bear with me...

Take a battery hen...a life only lived to lay eggs. She has roughly an 8x6 inch area that she shares with 2 or three other hens. It's not about chickens compared to people. It's about the treatment of chickens to the treatment of people. It's the action, not the subject. Can't you see that? It's a comparison. Many folks project what they THINK it means, then crucify it, rather than think about WHAT it means.

Now that you have done this, I do understand this position better; however, I am still not sure I fully agree with it.

You don't have to fully agree with it. Just understand it.

I am genuinely interested to know what you feel it is.

You posted a vague, non-specific response...

C'mon out and ask it, dammit.

his head. I asked what you felt the "point" was. How is that not specific enough.

Look 'em up if you need to.

I'll say no more.

but I still do not understand how you would be unable to understand what I was requesting that you do.

I hope that helps to clear things up...

A website about the book the campaign was based on.

http://www.eternaltreblinka.com

is morally equivalent to killing your next-door neighbor, it's a legitimate comparison.

Likewise, the pro-life extremists who complain that the birth control pill is a "human pesticide" have a point, in a way, because many of them genuinely seem to believe that a micron-sized fertilized egg is a human being from the second of conception, with "rights" that supercede, in many cases, the woman in whom the pregnancy is taking place.

Now, it seems the author you linked to makes the point that the Germans dehumanized the Jews before killing them. Clearly true. But animals aren't humans, to begin with. They just aren't.. and like it or not, there is a biological basis for humans eating some of them. Humans are omnivores- it is not "prejudice" or "hate" that makes some people eat meat, it is part of our primate physiology. At one point in the distant past we were, probably, vegetarian- however, most evolutionary biologists believe that meat eating (and the concurrent increase in protein in the human diet) was necessary to fuel the rapid brain growth which accompanied the development of Homo Sapiens.

I do think a point can be made that expanding one's sphere of compassion to include other sentient beings, and other life forms is a worthwhile endeavor- and I personally don't believe in killing other living things unless necessary or towards a good purpose.. But I do consider feeding organic, free range poultry or fish to my family on occasion to be a good purpose.

I also think that there are differences, and big ones, between -for example- viruses, ants, fish, my cat, and myself. To PETA, all are equal. And that's the real rub with all this. PETA and the folks who compare Fast Food Chicken to the Holocaust play innocent and claim that they are interested in "raising awareness", but the point of the awareness isn't to get people to eat free range chicken. The point is to say that killing a chicken is the same as killing a person.

And they're entitled to that opinion, but it certainly doesn't make PETA a "progressive" organization.. it makes them a fringe animal rights organization.

the "Eternal Treblinka" notion and campaign came directly from Isaac Bashevis Singer in "The Letter Writer." About animals, Singer wrote, "In relation to them, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka."

I honestly don't believe that it's about moral equivalence. The point is *not* to say that killing a chicken is the same as killing a person. It is that, in terms of suffering, from the eyes of a veal calf or a battery hen, humanity has created for them an eternal concentration camp.

do you make the point of specifying "...organic, free range poultry or fish..." as opposed to corporate-mass-produced poultry or fish?

I will guess it is because you are aware that corporate-mass-produced livestock doesn't allow the animal to live anything approaching a decent life; or because the corporate-mass-produced animals are polluted with growth hormones, anti-bacterals etc. and so if given a choice would prefer to not consume.

PeTA is an organization that helps to raise awareness of these corporate practices. Without them, would you pay any attention at all to where the food on your plate comes from?

Love 'em or hate 'em, PeTA does raise awareness of the unhealthy, inhumane nature of corporate "farming" and by choosing organic free-range poultry, you are endorsing their opposition to corporate "farming".

By posting on this thread you are helping to make more people aware of PeTA. Whih, in essence, was the main thrust of the story in the OP.

So, on behalf of animals, vegetarians, and PeTA - THANKS for your support! :hug:

:hi:

is morally equivalent to killing your next-door neighbor, and yet I still believe the Holocaust analogy is a legitimate comparison.

When you dehumanize, you treat humans as lesser beings. If animals weren't treated as lesser beings in the first place -- but merely different, then their treatment wouldn't serve as a prototype for so many of the ways humans have been tortured.

If humans are omnivores, how do you explain the comparisons at the bottom of this page?

The Comparative Anatomy of Eating by Milton R. Mills, M.D.

http://www.earthsave.bc.ca/materials/articles/health/comparative.html

We're more opportunistic omnivores. The profitability of animal exploitation has made it appear to be natural to eat animal products at every meal, because that suits the pocketbooks of these industries. And the less they treat the animals like living creatures, the more money there is to be made.

Post a PETA article, on DU, about how PETA intentionally uses controversy to further its message....

....and then watch hundreds of people use that very same controversy (both pro and anti) to keep the PETA message on top....

I love this place!

welcome :hi:

and thanks for helping raise the awareness!

Sounds like someone read the article too.

Welcome to DU :hi:

I read through the article, and I came away with an increased admiration for PETA's media tactics. The article's point was that PETA is willing to do whatever they need to do, no matter how controversial, to get their ideas out into the media mainstream, and that this appears to be working for them. Now, seen as a deliberate tactic, I have to admit, I'm impressed. I hadn't thought of it in this way before.

Now, a thought-experiment has occurred to me. What if *other* groups started using this "anything to get noticed tactic?" In other words, extend this media philosophy to other organizations and groups and what might that look like?

I'm just sort of mentally doodling here.... A clean-air organization gets down and dirty, posting posters of black lungs all over town. They show up at a notorious elected official's speaking opportunity and release clouds of some white nontoxic gas. ....

What else, I'll keep this noodling around in my head and maybe post more if I think of them. Can anyone else think of examples?

The other thing that occurs to me, though, is that this "anything to get noticed" tactic is also reminiscent of the pro-life folks with their big trucks with gigantic photos of aborted fetuses. Again, they don't care about "offending" people they just care about their message. (Please note I'm just DISCUSSING THE USE OF MEDIA here, folks, I haven't said one thing about PETA itself, nor do I really wish to go there.)

Now, does this tactic if extended to other groups start to make the overall tone "too shrill?" Does that matter?

I got the sense that the author was pretty impressed, too.

The "truth" campaign against smoking staged these types of events as well, as a national group activity, and then through local chapters.

And there is no outcry against these media spectacles, but I am guessing it is because the idea of kids not smoking is a much less contentious issue than people not using animals for A, B, C and D. :)

The "truth" campaign. They did some pretty blunt stuff.

I wonder if this kind of thing would be effective at a local level? This article really has me thinking.

Personally, I don't care what someone eats, meat or not -- that's their personal business.

What I object to is PETA juxtaposing images of the Holocaust and other historical atrocities with that of animals. Yes, maybe their intent is to show similar inhumane conditions, but what most people take away from it is an implied moral equivalence.

It does grab attention, but all publicity is not necessarily good publicity.

I think PETA would disagree. They're getting their message out there, right? So what if they get branded as "kooks." At least people have heard of them. I mean, what's the logic behind "all publicity is not necessarily good publicity." It's a truism, but is there any truth to it?

Did you read the whole article? Fascinating idea. I'm very intrigued by it.

They do their CAUSES no good by making people CARE LESS about animal welfare.

They are opportunistic criminals. Assault, vandalism, stalking, trespassing, slander, liebel... such theatrics "benefit" PETA only as far as getting them recognized as LAWLESS KOOKS.

Even when genuine issue emerge (Katrina pets for example) when PETA gets involved, then rational people who are familiar with PETA are turned off.

PETA does much more harm that good. They aren't winning people's hearts.

nt

For despite their occaissonal over the top pieces of street theatre, PETA performs a valuable service in our society. They raise the issue of animal right, the raise the issue of food safety for all, they raise the issue of unsafe food processing, they raise the issue of what is being done with and to our food. They help to keep our food supply safe, and for that we should be grateful to them.

Yes, sometimes they are over the top, but quite frankly there are a lot of groups, both on the left and right that are as over the top as PETA, if not more so, yet these groups seem to always come in for less criticism than PETA. I think that is because PETA's message makes a lot of people, especially liberals and progressives, uncomfortable, they make these people's conscience squirm a bit and thus we see this sort of criticism that is blown all out of proportion to the act itself. That's OK, I think that we all need to have our consciece tugged on once in awhile.

But overall PETA does good work, and for that I thank them, and you should too. After all, it is through the actions of PETA that your tasty tasty burger is free of many of the contaminants and diseases that are a constant threat to our food supply.

<< They raise the issue of animal right, >>

Animals are not humans, they do not have rights.

<< Yes, sometimes they are over the top, but quite frankly there are a lot of groups, both on the left and right that are as over the top as PETA, if not more so, yet these groups seem to always come in for less criticism than PETA.

<< I think that is because PETA's message makes a lot of people, especially liberals and progressives, uncomfortable, >>

Why do you think it's the "message", couldn't it just be the METHODS?


<< That's OK, I think that we all need to have our consciece tugged on once in awhile. >>

I have no guilt.

<< But overall PETA does good work, >>

Self-serving "work". "Work" that benefits themselves only and does nothing to persuade people to care about animal advocacy.

<< and for that I thank them, and you should too. >>

PETA would have to reach MUCH higher standards before they will receive any thanks or gratitude from me.

<< After all, it is through the actions of PETA that your tasty tasty burger is free of many of the contaminants and diseases that are a constant threat to our food supply. >>

Do you believe what you're saying? I don't.

You think animals have no rights, while I and many many others think that animals have the same inate rights that all creatures, humans included, have. How you can deny said rights to one group is beyond me, but hey, as I said, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

And throughout history there are many many pieces of street theatre that could be termed as physical assault. PETA's little practice of tossing fake blood on people originated long, long ago, with the Socialists and anti-war demonstrators of WWI era. People thought that they were over the top too, but hey, we got some of our best legislation, Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, straight from the Socialists. Sometimes a protest group has to go over the top a bit to make a point. If you don't believe me, go do some research on the Sufferagetes, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Vietnam protest movement among others. You may not like it, but it is effective and a valid form of protest. Or do you consider such over the top actions valid for only the movements you like?

"I have no guilt." I think that thou doth protest too much:evilgrin:Your vorciferous attacks on all things PETA betrays your conscience. That's OK, sometimes it takes even a duck awhile to deal with their conscience;)

And yes, PETA does indeed do good work. They expose the excesses of our factory farming system, thus making that tasty tasty burger you get from Mcie D's that much safer. Or those yummy chicken strips you got from the store are that much more tasty since PETA forced a lot of chicken farms to go free range. And yes, it has been proven time and again that free range animals are tastier, and better for you. PETA has even managed to help the workers at the slaughterhouse. By pointing out the pain and suffering an animal goes through on a hyper kill line, PETA's actions make it safer for the workers on the kill floor, more humane for the animals, and a safer end product for you(after all, the faster a kill line is, the more mistakes are made, and the more e-coli you get in the end product)

PETA does good work at being a counterbalance against the factory farms. And Lord knows, this country needs all the counterbalance we can get when weighing in against Corporate America. You may not like their methods, but hey, that is simply a matter of personal preference. After all, many people didn't like the methods of ACT-UP either, but they to performed a valuable service in bringing AIDS awareness to the forefront of our collective conscience.

No group is 100% right in every solitary action they take. None. Look at how much the Dem party fucks up! But we still support them don't we?

I won't add anything else - your post was absolutely perfect.

This thread has become a vehicle to beat on each other.