Feminist Fuck You: PETA

PETA is treating the assassination of Dr. Tiller as an opportunity to spread their message to the pro-life and pro-choice communities. According to Kansas.com the animal rights organization is planning to erect two billboards in Wichita, one that says “Pro-Life? Go Vegetarian,” and one that says “Pro-Choice? Choose Vegetarian.” Both show images of baby chicks.


I wish I could say this is the most disgusting campaign PETA has ever run, but sadly that’s impossible at this point. PETA is not a social justice organization. Their primary media tactic is to appeal to the worst bigotry in U.S. culture in an attempt to stir up controversy and shock people into vegetarianism. Their tactics in working for animal rights is an affront to the cause of justice.

I have been blind with rage since first reading about this campaign. I hope every billboard company in Wichita refuses these ads. And I hope someone at PETA grows a conscience.

http://community.feministing.com/2009/06/feminist-fuck-you-peta.html

:hide:

I think this is the second anti-PETA article from them in the past 3 months.

Oh well, everyone has an agenda, I suppose. :shrug:

n.t.

i hardly see it is a female agenda. not like females world wide went after peta willy nilly.

This ad campaign is pretty harmless, I have seen much worse from PETA and I am a vegan, they can be pretty ridiculous sometimes but this is not a big deal.

Yikes. I guess everybody on DU thinks I hate them then.

I have beverages.

:beer:

I support PETA.

It is tasteless to do this.

A man was murdered, and for them to use this murder for their agenda is disingenuous. Shame on PETA.

the wholesale murder of animals is tasteless, as a vegan I count myself among those people. I don't agree with PETA on everything and I think they can hurt as much as help animal rights issues. But does PETA bomb slaughterhouses, does PETA assassinate chicken farmers?

Beef? Tasty.. Chicken? Tasty.. Fish? Meh.

*duck*

Imagine the outrage if I were to interject a homophobic remark on a GLBT thread, and rightfully so. To many animal rights is an important issue it is sad that on DU, "the bastion of tolerance", that isn't the case when it comes to this subject. Many only show their ignorance by snide comments, you among them. Thank you.

Stop trying to make it into one.

I've decided not to continue this thread out of respect for other people and because arguing my points isn't going to sway anyone.

Sorry, I like my meat.

For the meat haters out there (NOT who I am responding to) (the main reason I dislike vegans, is their self righteousness - oddly the same with mac users) what do you suggest we do about feeding our pets?

do we send away our dogs and cats?

let free our horses to run the parries until they are it by cars or viciously taken down by wolf packs? (which btw, I am all for re-populating wolves and foxes, they have been unjustly diminished in populations)

why is it, that vegans take such a black and white view on the world? YOU MUST DO EET ZIS WAY! ZIEG HAIL!

I'm all for moderation.

I want steak, if that means greatly increasing the price so that the number of food-cows goes drastically down so that they can live better lives before gracing my plate, i'm all for that.

drastically reducing the amount of meat in my diet? ok, give me an AFFORDABLE ALTERBNATIVE that does NOT taste like WOOD!

and if you dear, morally superior people out there DO dane to let me keep my dog and cat, whom I love like children, what do I feed them?
I can't give them a vegan diet, their bodies can NOT digest that, THEY actually NEED MEAT TO LIVE, they are carnivores, they kill things that are alive, and eat them when they are dead.

so what do you suggest mr Vegan?

Quite a swiss cheese argument you have put forth. Number one: classic straw man argument "all vegans are self-righteous". I don't consider myself self-righteous at all, if you want to eat meat, go for it. You wonder what we do with feeding our pets? They make vegetarian dog and cat food that is very healthy so that isn't much of a problem.

Then you go back to the old straw man again, if our pets don't eat the horses then they will run wild in the streets and get hit by cars and eaten by wolf packs, and you are accusing me of taking a "black and white view of the world", you are positing that if we don't eat animals then they are going to get hit by cars and devoured by wolf packs.

Unfortunately, the steak you enjoy more often than not has been killed on a factory farm where some of the most cruel and inhuman treatment takes place, things you would never want to see, at least I don't but I force myself to watch from time to time.

You claim to love your dogs and cats like children but you don't mind the wholesale slaughter of other animals, is it because cows aren't as cute and cuddly as your dog or cat. What makes dogs and cats better than cows. Pigs are one of the smartest animals in the animal kingdom, on factory farms they are caged in pens where they cannot move, standing still for their entire miserable lives. Would you be outraged if a cocker spaniel was treated this way? Of course you would, so why cant we offer some compassion for pigs? Because they taste good? What if you got a really great recipe for dog and found out that dog was tasty? Would you stop caring for your dogs then? I might be using a bit of hyperbole in my statements but I think you get what I am saying.

Have you tried meat alternatives? I have no problems with them and think they are delicious.

Again with the blanket assumptions (when will you stop it), since I am a vegan I think I am morally superior. You actually missed a really important issue that would have helped your argument considerably, and you came really close to mentioning. I am not going to help you though.

All in all you brought the weak sauce with your reply.

you never answered the meat of my questions, and ignored my comments.
i did say, many time over in many posts, i want my food supply to be well treated.

yes i'm a hypocrite, some animals are food, some not.

you never answerer what to do about our pets.

in the peta charter they actually mention treating animals like equals!!!

I also mention many times i cook veggie.

and you ARE acting self righteous "Oh look at me i'm so MORAL! I don't eat meat. all you meat eaters are evil" (not a direct quote)

I never once mention that I want harm to animals, ever!

But have you ever stopped for a moment and realized what YOU want is impossible?

That people are even considering alternatives is great! That Animal protections are increasing (albeit too slowly) should show you that demanding a stop to all meat eating is really just harming YOUR OWN CAUSE!

I have never met a vegan that doesn't go into the whole "oh you meat eaters..." rant.

Vegetarians, yes,very reasonable people. I am slowly going vegetarian, but ass hats that wave around their self superior attitude bullshit really keep me back.

if being a vegan means acting like you, bring on the BBQ sauce!

Read my post again, and maybe you need to slowly.

you fit the stereotype to a T.

Godwin called to say you've lost this argument already. It's the Law! :hi:

Was his "law" passed by Congress? UN Charter?

This "law; is made up bullshit from a bunch of internet flamers, and I'm sick of it being invoked. Talk about moral superiority! militant vegans have nothing on you!

Awww, but I didn't even get one of those Nazi outfits with the kicky little black boots!

Your sense of moral outrage has been noted at my invocation of Godwin's Law. I'm sure it's the worst thing that's happened to you all day.

On the other hand, you're apparently just hunky-dory with the above poster's comparison of vegan DUers to FUCKING NAZIS, right?

:eyes:

Well, at least you've got your priorities sorted out.

No.

If this is all you can get outraged about, then you have a pretty good life.

I made no judgement on the previous poster's "Seig Heil" remark, just yours and you invocation of a silly rule nobody enacted.

I can do that too. See?:eyes: Real cool huh?

You thought it was okay for a poster to compare DU vegans to Nazis. You didn't post an objection to it. You didn't berate the poster for this smear. You didn't even deign to agree with my post that it was an outrageous categorization.

But a humorous invocation of Godwin's Law? Oh, that's HUGH! Take action right fucking now! Stop the presses! MUST...RAGEPOST...NOW!!!1!!

:eyes:

So, yeah, being compared to a Fucking NAZI because of my dietary choices does outrage me, just a teensy bit.

Your focus for your outrage speaks volumes about your agenda. :hi:

And you post wasn't humorous. It was preachy and condescending. I have a problem with self righteousness, not dietary choices. Ragepost? Again... what dark crevice of your ass did you pull that from?

You have no idea what my agenda is. Right now, it's to eat my sandwich and go to work.

Here is my post that so greatly offended you, reprinted in its entirety (minus the quote):



Just to make sure I've got this straight, you consider these TWELVE words to be:

- "Not humorous": Not a failed attempt (in your opinion) at humor, but not at all in the realm of humor. And you know this how, despite the fact that I wrote those words? Do you have a Telepathy Hat? Are Alien Space Bats whispering my "TRUE" intentions to you? Did you miss Mr. Smiley Handwaver appended to the end of the twelve words?

- "Preachy": Interesting. What exactly am I preaching in these twelve words?

- "Condescending": Hmm, this is condescending, but calling vegans Nazis is not?

- "Self-righteous": So, if you were a Mormon, for example, you'd have no problems at all if I compared all Mormons to a child molesters, right? You wouldn't want to be accused of being self-righteous by objecting to that comparison, would you? THE NERVE!

---

To sum up your argument: Calling vegans Nazis is not worthy of mention, but invoking Godwin's Law is an OUTRAGE!!

:eyes:

Your agenda is crystal clear, no matter how very stealthy and witty you imagine yourself to be.

It's a good one. I'm bored with you though, so if you don't mind...

Perhaps you should dial down the faux outrage over subjects you obviously don't understand* and take more of an interest in DUers comparing an entire subset of the DU populace (and, indeed, the general populace) to Nazis because of their dietary choices. Then you wouldn't be stuck in quite-so-ridiculously indefensible positions.

:shrug:

* = By the way, here's a page on Mike Godwin, so you don't have to make an ass of yourself in future conversations that reference Godwin's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Godwin

Godwin's law is an easy cheap shot debate tactic, but that seems to be par for the course for you, giving that your silly assumptions that you won some debate here, when it clearly was me who exposed your lie about some "humorous post" when subsequent replies to me clearly show how indignant you are about the name calling. Here's the real kicker... I didn't even call you anything, and you are taking it out on me.

I understand the subject perfectly. I don't call people names based on their diets. You have a beef (so to speak) someone else on that. It is not my job or my purpose on Earth to join you in that indignation.

No defensiveness with me. I was your attacker.:D

I know all about Godwin. Cover your own ass. Mine is fine.

PS: Your still boring.

From your first post on the subject (135), calling me out for daring to be offended at being called a Nazi:


Oopsie. :blush: Best get the larger of your CYA underoos on, eh?

Oh, and from your latest gem of a post:

And you, sir, are a genius.
:rofl:

But do flame on, little warrior! :hi: So what if you have nothing to contribute to this thread but ignorance and inanity? I'm sure that's never stopped you before. I hope you got your jollies, because you sure gave the rest of us a big laugh.

This is about PETA and an ad campaign that is/is not tasteless given the timing of the good doctor's murder.

What this thread is not about is the wonders and godliness of a vegan diet, or how put out vegans are about what names omnis call them. Try and stick to the subject.

I always knew who Godwin is. Ever heard of a rhetorical question designed to stress the unimportance of the subject? In my opinion, his law is about as important to current events as Wiley's Law. The law that gravity does not act until you realize that there's no ground beneath you.

You're (as in You ARE... happy now?) really in love with yourself aren't you?

I never claimed to be a genius, but IQ is a rating of how one processes information, not on how well one is at diction. At least I know that... Genius!;)

But there it went, and to that I responded. And you were so mortally offended by my use of the term "Godwin's Law" that you had to wade in with personal attacks about my "moral superiority." Oh yeah, I'm morally superior because I don't like being called a Nazi, and I don't believe it's appropriate to refer anyone as a Nazi over their dietary choices. :banghead:

That kind of bullshit smear is the very reason for Godwin's Law, but you just keep dancing around the fact. I don't know if you think the Internet was invented when you woke up this morning for your own benefit, but it's been around for quite a while! And bullshit arguments from small-minded idiots always regress to claims of Nazism, because their tiny brains can't drum up a worse boogeyman.

So here we are, Mr. Hitler. :) As you say, you're the attacker here, and it's breathtakingly obvious that you were looking to pick a fight. But I'm sure your reasons for picking a fight with me have absolutely nothing to do with your opinions about veganism, right? :eyes:

Again, I hope you got your jollies, but that high horse doesn't fit you, big guy.

You seem to have your finger on the pulse of my entire personality and disposition... of course it's all bullshit, but that doesn't stop you from trying to apply some deep dark personality flaws that you have the clairvoyance to know about me over the internet, which was invented for my benefit, since you brought it up.

Regarding Godwin's Law, it is a double edged sword. Two sides to the same rhetorical coin, where both the violator and the evoker fall victim. On the one side, evoking Hitler (which your poster didn't, he evoked a German exclamation that the Third Reich exploited so it seems synonymous in the historical context, but in the interest of argument, I'll concede that he was referring to a Third Reich reference, and in fact, his context makes it unquestionable) is mostly, but not always a sign that arguments have run dry. On the other side, it's a cheap way to claim victory in a debate without having to actually debate the Nazi caller. Another instant debate loser is the Ad Hominem attack... as in "... small-minded idiots always regress to claims of Nazism..." If you are to evoke a debate law, setting yourself up as an authority, then you must make sure you are beyond criticism yourself.

Now, a skilled debater would use this to move in for the kill, but instead you evoked the law. Pretty chickenshit.

Regarding my opinions on veganism, I have no complaint about what you eat. I have no room to judge anybody's eating habits, since I have trouble following my own diet. I do have a problem with preachiness, as I said before. I have met a few sanctimonious goody-goodys who claim to know what everyone else should eat, but I've also met the same claiming what car I should drive, what TV show I should watch, what my sex life should be, how I should vote, and even a person who browbeated me for not being a "proper" homosexual since I didn't use his authorized language. Ironically, this DUer is also from San Francisco. Is it something in the water that makes you folks the law givers of the nation? The seal shit off of the north pier? Do they bottle it or is it in pill form? In any event, the extent of my opinion on vegans is there are a few preachy ones, and probably many more who don't even post in threads about diets.

I was 12 the last time I was on a horse, and... green.

You're an incredible contortionist.

Of course, you wouldn't have to work so hard to twist, dance, and back-pedal if you had a shred of intellectual honesty. The problem is that you're a fraud: You puff up like a little finch that's been sprinkled with water when you feel you've been insulted, yet you're quite happy to pepper your diatribe with ad hominem attacks ("chickenshit," "something in the water," "sanctimonious," et al.) and gleefully sit on the sidelines to watch see others be called Nazis. Well, I won't stand around and watch people call vegans, Jews, Jains, gays, or anyone Nazis, whether or not I'm a member of any of these groups. That's not because I'm a vegan; it's because I'm not an unrepentant asshole. Try it sometime!

Small minded idiots do regress to claims of Nazism against those they cannot debate honestly. This is the very definition of Godwin's Law. I called the poster on his reference to vegans as Nazis, and tried to soften the blow by being humorous--I suggest you ask a friend to define "humor" if you have no previous experience with it--and inverting the sentence structure (cf. "It's the Law! :hi:"). Oh, but I forget! I'm not allowed to describe my intentions as humorous, because you know with your Magic 8-Ball exactly what I meant to say, regardless of my actual post!

There's no need to "move in for the kill," because the invocation of Godwin's Law clearly reveals that the poster has jumped the shark. Am I supposed to say, "AM NOT!" in response to his claims that I'm a Nazi? Why bother? I'm not trying to rack up points for my DU high score, I'm pointing out the truism that is Godwin's Law--because this is a perfect example of anonymous Internet discussions eventually regressing to claims of Nazism. And if you had a shred of decency, you'd be on the same side, berating that poster for calling other DUers Nazis. Instead, you're just having a wank.

You're scrabbling like drowning man to pick a fight, yet your starting premise (that my invocation of Godwin's Law was faulty and/or inappropriate) is ludicrous. If you're going to pick a fight over terminology, it's best not to reveal yourself as a woefully ignorant popinjay who's never cracked a book in your initial salvo...especially if you're going to ineffectually bluster and stammer later that it's all been a carefully-crafted ruse. :eyes: I fear you protest too much for anyone to take that seriously.

The first rule for getting yourself out of a hole is: Stop digging.

Hope you got your jollies, tough guy! :hi:

Trying to bait me into an emotional outburst. It isn't going to work.

I respond to every silly point you make, and you ignore most of my replies as inconvenient in your feeble attempt to define me.

BTW: You failed to defend the truism of Godwin's law with any sound argument, merely stating it is true as a "because God does exist, so shut up" statement. That hole is yours. I will admit to being wrong on one thing though. You are anything but boring. Quite entertaining in fact. If "AM NOT!" is the best you can come up with, then I guess we see "ineffectual bluster" is another projection on your part. So much for you enlightened San Franciscans succeeding at schooling us rubes in flyover territory on how to properly conduct our behavior to meet your approval.

It is such a good thing that my decency level does not hinge on joining the faux outrage on being called a nazi on an anonymous internet message board, which happens on an hourly basis. Again, it's not my purpose on this planet to or am I under any obligation to sign up to join your indignation army.:eyes:

Here's a hint. Nobody is taking either of us seriously. You haven't gotten one "You go girl!" from anybody. I've learned long ago nobody cares what I think. I'm only bothering you because I'm bored with my current porn collection.

Fair enough.

Schlosser's a film maker of the new 'Food Inc.'. It seems that the crusade your on just got a new adversary. That small fry up there is not important anymore. :evilgrin:

Oh' Sorry... Herr Reichsminister.

http://www.lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htm

I actually rather like this one.

This screed is so filled with strawmen it should stay well away from open flames.

Read Jared Diamond's Collapse if you want an honest, thoughtful, well-researched perspective on the dangers of the agricultural revolution and an over-reliance on grains as part of the diets of humans and livestock animals.

Only read the link above if you enjoy pseudo-scientific and unsupported, emotional rambling from a guilt-ridden cretin. I mean, the guy doesn't even understand the breakdown in resources required to create one pound of beef vs. one pound of fruit.

:rofl:

If you have concrete problems with the link I posted, I'm open to hearing them. Simply calling something "pseudo-scientific" doesn't make it so; it's an especially odd critique of a work of moral philosophy rather than of science.

If you don't understand the Straw Man fallacy, I suggest you Google it.

Here are some glaring examples from your link:
- An over-reliance on grains is not a problem caused by vegan diets.
- Eating more meat will not reduce the amount of grain grown.
- Animals do not share the same level of consciousness (higher brain functions) as plants.
- Thanking an animal for the "gift" its flesh does not make it any less dead, nor does it make its death any less painful.

I just don't have the patience to read more of that poorly written crap, but other examples abound. You're being disingenuous (at best) if you think this is a work of moral philosophy that addresses the question of animal rights at the same level as the works of Peter Singer, etc.

It's all one gigantic straw man written in a transparent attempt for the guy to feel better about himself for not having the willpower to live in accordance with his previously established ethical code. That's like painting the target around the arrow! :eyes:

I've felt guilty for participating in commercial cereals production. What you eat and how you make your peace with that is your own business.

If you say "I like the color green," there's not much I can say in opposition to that aesthetic opinion. :shrug: I mean, hey, I like blue more, but live and let live.

If you say "Commercial grain production is just as ethically/environmentally bad as commercial livestock production," then that argument needs support, and this article is woefully bereft of any support for this argument.

That's a pet peeve of mine. Straw man arguments are valid (non-fallacious) arguments about irrelevant premises.

...Even if the straw man argument--in and of itself, in a fucking vaccuum--is not.

And you know it.

Your Seig Heil remark was in bad taste. Drop and give me twenty!:hi:

He felt picked on.:nopity:

:eyes: :evilgrin:

I understand completely that you want to shut me up. That's just the sort of person you are, I suppose.

I suggest you put me on ignore, in that case.

I'm not a chickenshit.

First I was one who should join you in outrage, now I'm a stalker.:rofl:

Make up your mind.

What are you, a nurse?

We've been arguing with someone who doesn't understand basic zoology.
Someone, in fact, who thinks that the domesticated dog is a carnivore.

:banghead:

And you expect to be taken seriously? :rofl:

We still have the metabolisms of cavemen, before agriculture and processed foods, which is why we have trouble with being fat.

The dog food is omnivorous, but that doesn't make the dog omnivorous. The grain added dog food is also why it kills dogs around 12 years old.

Because evolution is puttering along slowly. :eyes:

Scientific understanding requires one to look deeply and from all sides at a problem. It would be sophomoric to call dogs carnivores simply because they're classified in the order Carnivora. Classification and taxonomy are labels, not reality, and often outdated. The map is not the territory! :banghead:

Dogs require protein, but they do not require it from animal sources. Dogs, unlike cats or other obligate carnivores, can be quite healthy eating nothing but plant-based foods. They don't require a high percentage of protein in their diet, unlike obligate carnivores. A quick comparison between the sizes of a dog's and a cat's small intestine should quickly clear up any misconception that dogs are obligate carnivores. If you've ever seen a cat's short, smooth guts, you'd understand the difference in a heartbeat.

It would also be sophomoric to rely solely on dental classification. The teeth will lead you astray; keep in mind that some herbivores have canines.

Finally, dogs possess some of the most important digestive elements of omnivores: They can convert carotene to Vitamin A, and Cysteine to Taurine. This is perhaps the most important reason to never, ever, ever classify a dog as an obligate carnivore.

Note: I'm not proselyting a plant-based, vegetarian diet for dogs, but they can thrive on it. Obligate carnivores cannot.
Note2: I agree that highly grain/starch-based diets are not ideal for dogs, just as they're not ideal for humans.

Now a nice steak ..... mmmmmmmm ... THAT'S TASTY!!

so I guess we are even.

Where someone can act like a classless prick while bitching about PETA's latest antics, and yet fail to see the irony.

What a horrid sexist statement!

I'll just stick with classless prick.

"Oh my heavens!!!!"

thanks for bolstering that argument

And it most of it certainly isn't coming from the vegans.

Glad to see your honesty in regard to your approval of baiting comments and trolling as opposed to actual discussion, though. What, was your friend too verklempt to respond and had to send you?

(as long as it's not me) and I would never bait anyone with "I'm going to eat meat to piss off the vegans" or whatever, but I was indeed amused by your picking and choosing of what constitutes a sexist slur. Just as I was amused by your compatriot's comparison of animal rights and GLBT rights (see above) That has to be the most ludicrous attempt at "victim equivalency" I have ever seen. Well, outside of that whole "rich white men under attack" canard...

Mr. Marshall was the one that started us down that road.

edit: and SG's point (I'm assuming you're referring to him/her) wasn't about comparing GLBT rights to animal rights, it was a commentary on the pointless nastiness that seems tolerated on DU in one instance but not in another, where both incidents of nastiness-for-the-sake-of-nastiness are wrong.

Personally, I could care less what anyone on DU thinks of me or says about me, but he's still right that it's a very inconsistent part of the emerging culture here.

I guess I thought DU was a bastion of tolerance of all stripes but I guess if you advovcate for animal rights issues or the enviornment then it is okay to make inane comments like "hey I think I will go have a steak". I can imagine the outrage if there was a GLBT thread and I made a homophobic remark on it and rightfully so. But sometimes the ignorance on DU is astounding. Thank you for confirming it.

I struggle with this argument regularly perhaps because of my youth. I grew up on a ranch and I remember my first trip to the slaughterhouse (appropriate name). I don't think anyone could ever look at meat the same after that experience - even if one continues to be a carnivore - at the very least, one begins to appreciate the sacrifice and wouldn't be quite so cavalier or snide. I think those so inclined should spend an afternoon in said abbatoir or even go hunting. I think then perhaps you would understand the real 'cost' involved - and it is certainly more than 5.99/lb.

I know a few vegans that grew up on farms and saw what happened firsthand, I have seen enough videos and photos and read about some of the most cruel and inhuman things done to animals and that was really all it took for me to go vegan. I am pretty sure that they wouldn't be so snide if they saw some of these things, agreed. It isn't too hard to be a vegetarian these days, there are many healthy alternatives to meat that taste good too. And if you are approaching it from strictly enviornmental point of view, I find it irresponsible in the very least to examine it and I find it pathetic to make snide comments about it.

animal rights is a pro-life issue, as a vegan I count myself as one of those people. I am pro-choice for womans rights but I am very much pro-life as far as animal issues are concerned, I think that is the point the ad was trying to make, as hamfisted (pun intended) as it might appear to be. For someone who is a meat eater this may be a tasteless advert but for many who advocate for animal rights this is exactly what the issue is. Personally I wouldn't have run this ad and to many it might be exploitative, I don't agree with everything PETA does. But PETA doesn't bomb slaughterhouses, PETA doesn't shoot chicken farmers, you may want to think about that before you get "sick" seeing this ad.

behind our house. Tell that to the hawk that ate the bunny that was nibbling grass on the side of the highway. Tell that to the marlin that devoured three king mackerel for her lunch.

We are animals. Most of us eat other animals. I consider that my right as an animal. This vegan idea is fine if that's your thing, but those of us who choose to eat animals are doing what comes naturally.

I view veganism as a luxury of a society where people have become totally disconnected from the animal world around them. They come to view animals as pets or symbols of peace, love, and understanding (anybody remember Bambi?) when in fact, the animal world is built upon carnivores and omnivores devouring other animals. Nature's way.

Now, if you want to rage against industrial agriculture and inhumane treatment of animals I can go along with you and PETA on that.

No offense to animals, but I'd prefer not to structure our systems of morality around what wild animals like to do.

But I'm sure that since you eat meat only because you want to be so close to nature, you also don't wear clothes, don't drive, don't have AC, shit in your front yard, and don't post on the internet. Right?

If so, then you should certainly structure your diet, morality, and philosophy around those of a bobcat.

Or, there's a very small chance that you just might be a human being. If so, you should probably eat a diet appropriate to great apes, and there's the teensiest little possibility that your philosophy could be more complex than that of a carnivorous cat.

Personally, I'm not convinced either way. But you certainly type well for a bobcat! :)

because nowadays all I do is roam the neighborhood searching for small furry creatures to pounce upon and devour. Life is so much simpler without having to worry about the moral implications of shortening the life of a vole.

:hi:

Personally, I'd think that those claws would be a bitch to type with, but perhaps they give you a nimble grace with small rodents...mice, for example.

:hi:

with "doing what comes naturally." YOUR diet is unnatural, and can be allowed only because of our technological abilities. Back before this modern medicine and knowledge there was a far simpler term for someone who refused to eat meat. Corpse. You know, Corky the Carcass. Abner Cadaver. FUCKING dead.

Or do you think people poached deer from the reserves of the nobility for something fun to do? People were FORTUNATE to have meat. People DIED for the lack of it. Just because you can sit perched atop generations of medical and scientific know-how and deign to moralize about how WRONG it is doesn't mean you have any right to do so.

Bobcats were designed to hunt and kill. As were wolves, foxes, and a host of other predators and scavengers. As WE were. Deny it all you like, it's just the way of it. Should we feel guilty because we're better at it than any other animal? I don't.

Personally I think choosing a vegan diet is fine, as long as one isn't inflicting it on children. At that point, it becomes ABUSE. You can eat whatever the fuck you want. But don't tell ME what to eat and don't try to take food out of the mouths of children.

are abusers? Do you also call people who feed their obese children nothing but McD's and hot dogs abusers?

And they say vegans are hyperbolic and self-righteous.... :eyes:

And the jains would strongly disagree that back in "olden days" or whenever the fuck you're talking about, veganism = death.

who most likely couldn't have defended themselves against a strong wind as some sort of a model? Who cares? I lean more toward the Native American model--understand that the creatures we consume have sacrificed themselves for our benefit, just as they do for any other predator.

Yes, the many vegans who feed their "incredibly healthy" (I'll believe it when I see it) kids a vegan diet ARE abusers. There are complex proteins and amino acids that you either get from meat or from supplements. And if they're not getting those supplements, they're being abused.

And, as far as your other question--yeah. I DO consider that abuse as well.

You people ARE self-righteous. And I think your diet has given you brain damage. How do you like that?

You and the poster you remind me of are throwing around a lot of words on lofty topics that you're clearly not prepared for, which not only makes your veiled attempt to call me stupid ironic, but also means your opinion means exactly zip to me.

And your Internet Tough Guy macho posturing isn't all that impressive either. Congrats on being able to beat up a jain, I guess? And as far as "self-righteous," some introspection on your part might be in order. But what do I care, I don't have to live with you, although I do feel sorry for the people that do if you're like this all the time. Although, they won't have to put up with you much longer if you get this worked up about internet arguments all the time. Your beef-clogged arteries probably don't need the extra stress.

Jainism is alive and kicking, both in India and America. I live not too far from a Jain temple.

Let's not hate on them just because they've been living as vegans for thousands of years, shall we? Gandhi took many of his thoughts on the principle of non-violence from the Jains. And Gandhi wasn't a pushover.

Whenever I see the "Who, me?" response from omnis when someone dares to point out the hate for vegans in general on this site, I really want to keep this one bookmarked.

But many Americans just have little or no exposure to religious or cultural practices outside of what you see on the TeeVee.

So when the TeeVee tells you that all vegetarians are just trust-fund, white-bread college kids, and you have no experience to the contrary--for example, Jainism, which happens to predate Hinduism by a good few centuries--you just take that information at face value.

I can go along with you and PETA on that". Good then we have found common ground. The problem with your arguement that "we are animals and animals eat animals" is that the bobcat can't go to the supermarket and choose from thousands of healthy alternatives to eating animal flesh. While I see veganism as an animal rights issue I also and many others see it as an environmental issue. Factory farms and deforestation are a huge contributor to our ailing environment and veganism is a logical conclusion. If you want to argue that we as human animals should embrace our primal instinct feel free, I see the human animal in a much different way and therein lies our different world view. I see humans as guardians of the animal kingdom, we can choose to be responsible (e.g. caring for the environment and other animals, being responsible for our actions, caring for other human beings) or we can choose to be primal atavistic animals (e.g. remain irresponsible guardians of the enviornment, destroy all animals except the ones we deem cute, and destroy other human beings). I am not inferring from your response you are the latter, I am just trying to explain my world view and why I choose to be a vegan. We do live in a society where we have a choice, I am sure if I lived in a third world country or somewhere less luxurious I might have a different view, I don't doubt that but I live in a society where I have a choice and this is my choice.

that I find much to agree with you on, but I respect your approach.

The assertion that factory farms and deforestation are a huge contributor to our ailing environment is valid, but to say veganism is a logical conclusion (and I assume by that you mean veganism is a way to remedy that situation) is debatable. Land must be cleared and factory farming methods must (currently) be used just to feed the teeming masses of humans who inhabit the planet. The major problem is our population explosion and the way we have become technological rather than natural beings.

I don't view eating animals as a primal instinct so much as a natural act. I see it as my responsibility to try to live my life as naturally as possible given the constraints of modern living. I don't feel a need to be a guardian to other animals except for the fact that our presence and numbers have eliminated or threatened so many. I think it is tragic and short-sighted that we have failed to see the danger to so many species, ourselves included, but I think of that gigantic fault as being a genetic flaw in our human makeup. The lack of foresight I guess I would call it. Perhaps if we had gotten technologically enhanced without being capitalistically enhanced we might have been able to put together the vision of how to limit our impact on the planet and how to live in harmony with the natural rhythms rather than trying to overcome them. Although, I tend to discount that vein of idealistic thinking once I consider that recorded history has been one long displacement of empire after the next, so it may just be some built-in drive to dominate that has built the world we know.

My daughter is a vegetarian, so I often discuss these types of philosophical differences with her. She's a fabulous cook and has made me even more appreciative of the delicious possibilities of vegetarian cooking. I might add.

if the land being used to raise livestock and the land used to raise food to feed livestock were used to grow food for human consumption, we'd not have any problems feeding the world.

Good read if you're interested:

http://www.vegansociety.com/environment/land/

I do agree with you in that our exploding population is a big problem and will continue to be regardless of dietary choices.

enough food to feed the human population but DO NOT feed many because of political and social upheaval, as well as food being used as a weapon and leverage for political/social aims.

As our population increases by billions and our planet's weather cycles change dramatically, the production and distribution of food may well be right up there with potable water as the two most important political/social issues in the world.

Those arguing that it is a 'natural' thing are right - it is historically 'natural' for humans to consume meat. What they don't say, is that for so many on this planet and for so long on this planet, meat is, as I said, a tremendous luxury. It is expensive on so many levels, and on a couple of those levels, we may not be able to afford it in the future, regardless of our wealth. The cost of bringing a pound of meat to a table is exponential compared to other foods. We in America view meat, like we do everything else - that it is our due somehow. We really are amazingly myopic.


In so many arguments when one rises and demands - "Are we animals", it is often necessary to turn to a neighbor and ask, 'What is the argument here - I need to know so I'll know the answer'.

part. The reason meat is such a luxury now is because of the numbers of human inhabitants on the planet. Billions versus millions or even hundreds of millions.

Up until the last few hundred years, most societies were agrarian. And while much of the food supply was grains such as rice, wheat, barley, corn, quinoa, etc., almost all cultures had herd animals and domesticated animals that they used for food and sometimes for beasts of burden. Granted, not everyone had a steady diet of meat, but most people did have access to and eat meat whether it was a primary or supplemental food source.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying in your last paragraph, but MY statement that we are animals is referring to our physiological makeup and how our bodies process foods. Basically, I was saying that we humans are animals who are omnivores, not herbivores.

in this country. For very many Americans, meat is a 7 night a week staple and for many it is consumed more than once a day. That was not the case in this country before WWII.

But you're welcome to carry on your ridiculous stereotype of ALL vegans as white, middle-class yuppies, college kids, or crystal-waving idiots.

Or you could...oh, I don't know...read a fucking book sometime before spouting off.

:shrug:

perhaps PETA could consider a different marketing approach?

but PETA should never never never ever go away.

Social justice org? No. They are animal rights activists who sometimes put out the wrong message.

:popcorn:

Nothing they do surprises me.

Whatever. PETA can kiss my ass.

Some people choose to get mad at the most inane things.

of animals...

The WWF protects animals. The Sierra Club protects animals. PETA does not protect animals.

PETA's adolescent, spoiled middle class overprivileged white kid antics have done more to damage the animal rights movement in this country than any corporate agra lobby. To the point where I've long suspected they're secretly being funded by the right, and corporations.

My experince with them (and it shouldn't be taken as anything more weightful than anecdote) was that these were a bunch of well heeled kids that wanted to be activists but didn't want to do damage to their trust funds. They rarely involved themselves in anything remotely revolutionary and generally had little clue.

They also seemed to refuse to stand up for family farms and smaller more ethical grass farms because of some kind of wild zeal about all meat being pure evil. Absolutely everything was an effort to make you a vegetarian and they could be as annoying and loud as the various church groups that flock to campuses looking for converts.

Using the murder of a doctor to promote your cause helps it...how exactly?

Some people choose to say the stupidest goddamn things.

my choice is not PETA.

It's not all black or white. They are crackpots, AND they achieve a lot of good. They've suffered from failure of leadership, distorted vision and a peculiar sense of righteousness that's out of place with reality, but then again, they do get the message out even when an outrageous assertion on their part is doing the marketing.

Controversy gets people to pay attention, and if you weren't reacting you wouldn't give a damn, especially meatatarians confronted with passe advertising.

Easy on the rage - it's not achieving anything, and PETA's not the reason for your rage, just convenient.

You're doing it wrong.

PETA has taken the path that says all attention, no matter what kind, is good. They're wrong.

Marketing is marketing. Just because we don't like all of their marketing techniques doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think their heart is in the right place, but their head needs to catch up. They do more good than if they didn't exist at all. Also they take stances on issues that Sierra Club and ASPCA do not typically tackle; they do have a niche.

Meat eaters don't seem to understand the issue of animal rights and the sensless killing of animals for food, This ad is par for the course for PETA, and while I don't always agree with way they present the issue, I am glad there is such a visible advocate for animal rights issues, this is small potatoes.

and outrage, to call attention upon themselves, than actually advocate for "ethical" whatever the fuck that is (since they believe they know best when it's "best" to kill an animal), treatment of animals.

I'll give my money to SPCA and no-kill shelters. PETA can go stuff it. People who donate to them are funding this kind of stupid horseshit--and it's good that a wide-open media and the internet has the ability to show people just how royally these assholes are conning their contributors.

The fuckers really have jumped the shark. More detail, here: http://www.examiner.com/x-1146-Seattle-Eastside-Parenting-Examiners~y2009m6d3-PETA-uses-murder-to-support-vegetarianism-insults-prochoice-AND-prolife-activists

and here:

http://www.kansas.com/news/tiller/story/836204.html



Craven, self-serving opportunists. Disgusting.

Signed ... an Iditarod fan.

for animal abuse.

:sarcasm:

do you shoot wolves from helicopters as well?

Me and Sarah go out a couple of times a week.


Pfffttt........

Signed ... a cockfighting fan.


(clearly that was :sarcasm:, but the bar just keeps getting lower)

Signed... an animal rights activist and someone that cares about the enviornment.

You and Michael Vick ever hang out?

this was just a press release intended to capitalize on someone else's pain

Signed,

A scientist.

Signed,

A Phone Technician.;)

"Eat P***y, Not Meat"

:evilfrown:

but what about us c**k eaters out there?
or those of us who have a varied diet and eat p***y and c**k? :)
I am omnivorous after all :) I love it all!!! :)

However, I doubt that this is "exploiting" - These billboard designs have probably been in the works for a while now, and this is just an example of poor timing.

...and they don't even realize it.

...eatin' a lamb Shawarma.

I'm also a feminist. Duh.

Happy to have such a visible advocate for animal rights, and while I don't always agree with their tacticts I will take PETA over Kentucky Fried Death any day.

it is either embracing kfc or peta.

how about not liking kfc

aND how about peta steps over the line, every single time, and is hurting the cause

who think a benign statement must be an argument.

And they chose to piss on his grave with these billboards.

The statement is cruel, insensitive, and nasty. Anything but benign.

Loved their Sarah Palin snowball game, but that's about it. My wife and I have provided homes for many abandoned and neglected critters, and she's nursed a few injured wild birds back to enough health that they could be taken to a wildlife sanctuary. We don't need a lecture on how to show respect for our fellow critters.

But I can't help but smile at PETA's attempt to get under the anti-abortion movement's skin. That's just me.

how sadly ironic, that peta kills more animals in it's shelters than the pound!

My in-laws run a small shelter in spain, and what the spanish do to their animals... :scared: now THAT shit needs to be illegal and the lot of them tossed into a shark tank!

and that isnt even getting started on teh bull fighting in spain!!!

the peta sort are exactly what people here say in general... trust fund children who have never worked a day in their life, who have no idea what reality is, and who don't understand the world is made up of shades of gray and compromise.

maybe eating animals at our states of "enlightened" development is questionable, and for SURE we need to eat less meat, but comparing that with the whole sale slaughter of bulls in an arena for fun, or nailing dogs to trees *shivers* evil fucks!

they really have their priorities fucked up. lets protect the animals from the animals in our population first, then work towards reducing meat consumption.

I'm sure we're all waiting with baited breath for you to post a link to a CCF site that provides all the "FACTS" about PETA.


-- http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=PetaKillsAnimals.com

Or maybe you should believe every idiotic thing you read on the Intarwebz. :hi:

if you badmouth PETA around these parts. Ask me how I know.

I'm not saying all DUers are PETA people - frankly I suspect that the vast majority are not. But those who are can be quite vicious.

Get you flameproof undies on, dearie. You have stirred up a shitstorm.

I'd say they're getting the attention they seek.

Everyone's talking about......PETA. I'd hardly count that as a victory.

peta

ahhhh, so clever of peta. rollin eyes

PETA is mentioned here on DU, a number of the responses are idiotic things like "mmm...I want a steak" or "I'm the top of the food chain. Yum." I hardly consider DU a barometer of PETA effectiveness. Come to think of it, in all my time here, I don't think I've ever seen a rational discussion on veg*ism here, nevermind animal rights (at least not on the parent forums).

Besides, they've been running this particular message/campaign for a few years now and this is the most attention it has gotten. Tasteless or otherwise, I'm not shocked they'd roll it out. That's all.

Most people here don't even have a clue what animal rights is (or think that PETA is the official spokesperson for vegans everywhere).

But you have to admit that, although this campaign has been around a while, they are either (a) intentionally putting it up now in Wichita while Dr Tiller's murder is still current news, which is (at best) extremely tasteless on their part, or (b) they are so incredibly tone-deaf and clueless that they should be required to wear bicycle helmets and kneepads before they venture out in public.

And you know I'm not the typical Penn & Teller-loving, CCF-quoting, PETA-bashing drooling moron that usually stumbles their way into these discussions.

:shrug:

It is tasteless, and I do think it generates a lot of negativity towards the organization. I hate to say stuff like this, but PETA is as "mission statement" driven as, say, the NRA, and they care about as much what people think of them.

I also agree about your AR/PETA statement made first in your response, and I know you're not remotely even close to your last statement.

Corporations don't really give a fuck about where their money is coming from or to which ideology you aspire. They only care that you are buying their product and one could argue that the advertising is a product in and of itself, so merely discussing it is fantastic in the corpos eyes. This ad campaign by PETA is at least honest and I think it actually causes the viewer to reflect on his/her values, this is evident in this thread alone.

I guess talking about the murder of Dr. Tiller makes some DUers hungry for cow meat. Seems strange that they'd mention this connection out loud, but it takes all kinds.

Unless you're OK with endless hamburger pics.

The OP is ridiculous in it's faux outrage. I find it strange that DU is an oasis of tolerance of all stripes but bring up vegetarianism, veganism or animal rights issues and you can't even count all of the offensive posts about "I think I will go enjoy a steak now" "fucken plant eaters" and countless other offensive things directed at me because of my veganism. I can't imagine the outrage if I interjected something in a GLBT thread that was making fun of homosexuals, and rightfully so. If you just take veganism as a purely global warming/deforestation issue, which I am sure many on DU embrace, I find it ironic that people want to embrace their meat eating and denounce animal rights issues and anyone who chooses to be a vegan. Funny stuff I guess.

You made a choice to stop eating meat. You made a choice to educate yourself about the societal/personal impact of meat eating.

I made no such choice in being gay. As far as fag jokes are concerned, I can pertty much say all of us has heard every one... numerous times, and if this thread is any indication, our skins are a helluva lot thicker than yours.

"oh you meat eaters"
and that is the end of that conversation.
there are loads of us out there that care about animal rights.
we hate the factory food stuff, but we like our steak.

the vegans (as most vegetarians now-a-days seems reasonable) are generally the problem

we live in a omnivorous society.

the discussion needs to go on those lanes.

as soon as the self righteous come in, it's pretty much over, because the "meat eaters" among us who may have started to come out of their shells, to consider a less meaty diet, get slammed back in because they associate (not without reason) everything vegetarian with these meat-eating-hating assholes.

I'm a moderate. I am the most hated thing on this board. I believe in compromise. A compromise means giving eve3ryone what they needs, not what they want. I like meat, but I am willing to help reduce the amount available on the market if it increases the value and flavor of it.

I want my feed animals to be treated well for their (short) lives. I want their deaths to be quick, and painless, and non-traumatizing to the rest of the herd. I am willing to pay for this premium. But i won't give it up all together.

and purists, just won't accept that. and THAT is what kills the support for peta, and does irreparable harm to the entire vegan cause.

or is this really about people's hatred for being told how to eat?

I can only gather that Feministing believes PETA's marketing is even more horrible than the murder of Dr. Tiller.

:shrug:

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

You post many interesting items on DU; I hardly post anymore but I do read DU and look for your posts. I always find something I wouldn't have come across elsewhere. Thanks! :hug:

roast beef sandwich! :P

Actually I had already brought the lunchmeat in, but it'll taste that much better now.

:eyes:

It's called Stickin' It to the Man, brother!

Or...well...to the cow, in this case.

to declare your love of meat or post a "people for the eating of tasty animal" joke on the internet. Next thing you know, that poster will be doing something even more unheard of and call someone a "fag" while playing Halo. A real ground-breaker, that one.

If you scroll up a few subthreads, you'll see that it's just hunky-dory to compare ALL vegans to Nazis on DU.

Bad German accent a plus, but not required! :hi:

disrespect all the vegans and vegetarians on DU with your statements. DU, the bastion of tolerance of all stripes but if you are a vegetarian or vegan then fuck you. I can imagine the outrage if I interjected a homophobic remark on a GLBT thread and rightfully so. If you take veganism at a purely global warming/deforestation issue, then I think some of these idiotic comments might be kept in check. Don't we care about global warming I mean we are liberals, at least I thought we were. Animal rights and the enviornment is an important issue to some, I guess not you.

As it happens, I am an omnivore, who wishes to increase his veggie intake someday.

Disrespect to PETA, because it exploited Dr. Tiller's murder for its own selfish ends, however, most definitely was intended.

your constant comparisons of vegan/vegetarianism to sexual orientation is a little bit distasteful, you know that, right? so you don't eat meat/wear leather/cotton/hemp any organic products at all, congratulations on your choice. but that's what it is, a choice. you weren't born vegan. so stop playing this silly little victim card. when you make a choice, no matter how noble, you expose yourself to the potential of ridicule. if you are serious and content in your choice then some small minded insults really shouldn't bother you nearly as much as they seem to. your constant whimpering, victim-association and attempting to compare yourself to a legitimately subjugated population isn't helping your case one iota. when confronted with an obstacle, you complain and whinge. seriously, grow a pair and defend your lifestyle choices if you feel you must, or simply ignore those who disagree with you. I promise that not one person really gives a care in the world about your dietary preferences. I promise that not one person in history has been fired for being vegetarian (ok, maybe from a job as a meat taster. the best BBQ I know is made by a vegetarian who hasn't tasted her own product in years) not one person has been disowned by their family for being vegetarian. not one person has been killed for being vegetarian. not one person has had to hide their vegetarianism under a cover of exuberant meat eating to be accepted. not one person has killed themselves in despair after being told they were worthless and sub-human for being vegetarian. not one person has been denied custody of their children for being vegetarian. but that's the association you keep making. 'look at me all persecuted like the gays!' it's sick and really annoying.

as for PETA, I think it's an organization that has outlived the usefulness of its tactics. but I can see how you are attracted to them, it's the same whiney victim mentality. I wish PETA would be more consistent in protesting. I have not yet seen them protesting at a reservation, throwing blood on people wearing furs and skins. once I do, I will start to take them a bit more seriously again. after all, killing an animal is killing an animal, right?

They must be stopped!

there are terrorists in the world!

the sky is falling everywhere you look . . .

It's a good thing we're not all alike or no one would be any different. :silly:

a bunch of tantruming 4 yos to me.

You make vegetarians look bad and make omnivores hate vegetarians.

Fuck you people and all your methods.

I'm not naive, I figure this campaign must have been in the works for a while but, in light of recent events, it seems rather tasteless to not put it on hold for at least a week or so.

Also, I have to question how much effect these campaigns have. Surely everyone in the western world is now aware of vegetarianism/veganism and has probably heard at least some of the arguments on tv if nothing else. Campaigns like this probably don't do any harm (if people are pissed, they're likely to be pissed at PETA, not vegetarianism), I'm just not sure they do any good either.

Regardless of whether anyone agrees with PETA's overall message, this is just not the way to get it out there.

but there have been so many over the years... This one though has a certain something ---- I certain stink du'jour...

that PETA had put Tiller's photo on the billboard. But because they mention the issue of choice at this moment in time, you feel they are capitalizing on it? Be honest--you don't like them anyhow. And as for it being a feminist affront, how now brown cow? Women don't own the issue of abortion; it affects men to some degree. If this campaign is insensitive, it's to Tiller's family.

Serious question: if you are what you eat, can I eat a vegetarian?