Would you support MEEATA?

[WinkOsmosis]

Sorry I didn't ask the full question in the title. Not enough room. Anyway, would you join an organization devoted to promoting ethical treatment of animals, but not vegetarianism? MEEATA? Meat Eaters for the Ethical Treatment of Animals?

It seems that most people on this forum, and therefore an even greater proportion in the real world, can't distinguish between cruelty to animals and eating animals. Whenever PETA has a campaign, people miss the point, screaming that humans are omnivores, and ignoring the unethical way most food animals are treated. I believe this is PETA's fault for themselves not distinguishing between cruelty to animals and eating animals with their extremist promotion of strict vegetarianism..

An organization solely devoted to ethical treatment of animals would actually be effective IMO. The primary benefit would be the name, which would make it clear that opposing animal cruelty does not mean opposing eating meat.

 

[rpc64]

I think that's a great idea and that is exactly how I feel about the issues of animal treatment and eating of meat. I'm in.

 

[beer]

You eat animals? I'm a photoautotroph. mmm..glucose

 

[WinkOsmosis]

bump?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
It seems that most people on this forum, and therefore an even greater proportion in the real world, can't distinguish between cruelty to animals and eating animals.

I would say that PETA is included in that, but they don't seem to live in the real world.

- M4H

 

[tcsenter]

It seems that most people on this forum, and therefore an even greater proportion in the real world, can't distinguish between cruelty to animals and eating animals. Whenever PETA has a campaign, people miss the point, screaming that humans are omnivores, and ignoring the unethical way most food animals are treated. I believe this is PETA's fault for themselves not distinguishing between cruelty to animals and eating animals with their extremist promotion of strict vegetarianism...

No I dare say it is you who misses the point.

Every word PETA utters, every dollar it spends, every thing it does, flows from its animal rights extremism and ideological opposition to the human utilization of animals in any way, shape, or form, for any purpose whatsoever.

When PETA talks about "animal cruelty", it indeed is talking about the fundamental issue of eating or utilizing animals, irrespective of how 'cruel' or 'well' the animal was treated or harvested. If chickens were given private rooms, personal masseuses, and a health spa before slaughter, it would still constitute animal cruelty in the eyes of PETA.

PETA is ideologically incapable of even having a rational thought or opinion on the issue of animal cruelty in the context of how to treat animals more humanely while still eating them or using them for research. It would be like asking a gun prohibition organization to give you their opinion of how to reduce firearm violence or make guns safer without banning firearms; on every single conceivable question you could ask about firearms, their answer will always be "ban them".

PETA isn't stupid, it knows damned well it has no hope of getting the entire planet to go vegan at once. It will take whatever it can get, whenever it can get it, "death by a thousand cuts", one cut at a time. It will use 'animal cruelty' as a start, but if you believe this is where it will end with PETA, you are a fool.

Most people understand very well what PETA is about and it isn't about treating animals 'humanely'. It is about putting animals on equal terms with humans philosophically, politically and legally. And so when you see all these people turn any debate in which PETA is involved into a question of 'to eat' or 'not to eat', they do so precisely because they "get the point".

Its you we're not so sure about.

 

[scauffiel]

I'd be all over it if it were "ME Eating Another Tasty Animal however.

Steve

 

[VictorLazlo]

I would support research into genetically engineered cows. Cows that want to be eaten, and can tell you so in a clear and concise fashion, ala Hitchhikers Guide.

 

[gistech1978]

i support the ASPCA; they actually work to make a difference, to save an animal's life.
PETA is just an insane organization, who use shock value and dont ever seem to accomplish anything.
there is a town in OK named Slaughterville, named after a railroad man or something, last named Slaughter in the 1800s.
PETA actually tried to get them to change the name to Veggieville, because of the negative conotations with the name Slaughterville. they offered x amt of pounds of veggieburgers if they decided to. WTF good will that do? needless to say, it didnt work.
PETA sucks. ASCPA good.
i voted yes, if they are not extremist in their views and actions.

 

[tcsenter]

To add, I think inherent in your proposal is the recognition that, if any organization should have its name associated with animal welfare in the context of supporting the use of animals for food, research, and numerous other purposes, that organization should not be PETA, nor its more 'public friendly' sister organization in animal rights extremism, the Humane Society of the United States. I could not agree more.

Unfortunately, I believe you will find there is very little middle ground on this issue.

There is just something counter-intuitive or illogical about the notion that we should express concern for the treatment of animals we intend to stick on a hook, slice their heads off, pull their feathers off, gut them, cook and eat them. It does not compute.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Yes I would support MEEATA

 

[Bassyhead]

i'm in!

 

[LAUST]

Sure if they think things through and do it correctly, burning stuff down and handing out blood buckets is simply retarded, thats something a 15 year old with hormone problems would think of.

Get an undercover guy in there and take some video, get em to play it on NBC, something anything but their terrorist acts, those have the EXACT OPPOSITE effect. If you give into terrorism it will just spawn more.

 

[Woodchuck2000]

I think we should work on 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Other People' before we worry too much about the finer points of animal welfare.

$0.02...

 

[Calin]

I'd support MEEATA but I expect the prices for meat to increase. I sometime think the meat is too expensive :'(

Calin

 

[Shockwave]

I voted no. Ethical treatment and maximization of production do not go hand in hand. You want to pay double what you pay now for meat? So the animals can live in single room condo's?
Me either.