WTF is wrong with PETA?

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: guppyplayer
fuckin tree huggers

You do know there is a difference between a tree hugger and an animal rights activitst, right?

Tree huggers suck, and animals rights activists blow?

hahahahah....:beer:

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: So
Of course it's a shame, but it is still impressive that in this day and age, we can feed ourselves so easily. Think, just 300 years ago something like 95% of the population were subsistance farmers.

But yet, it really isn't that impressive in this day and age, with all of the compromises made.

Factory farming makes it quite easy, yet it has many negative effects that substinence does not have.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: guppyplayer
fuckin tree huggers

You do know there is a difference between a tree hugger and an animal rights activitst, right?

Tree huggers suck, and animals rights activists blow?

hahahahah....:beer:

I used to respect lirion for his photography, but now he has set a new low for himself. Good job, idiot.

Grow up.

 

[xeno2060]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: amdfanboy
How did they get the blood ?

spiked club + bunnies and kitties

dont forget the baby seals, too.

Club'em Club them Baby Seals, CLUB'EM
CLUB'EM AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!:Q

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: So
Of course it's a shame, but it is still impressive that in this day and age, we can feed ourselves so easily. Think, just 300 years ago something like 95% of the population were subsistance farmers.

But yet, it really isn't that impressive in this day and age, with all of the compromises made.

Factory farming makes it quite easy, yet it has many negative effects that substinence does not have.

See though, you're taking factory farming for granted...with all of the complicated machines required for it to work. It really is impressive.

Here's a list of negative effects that subsistance farming does not have:
- Not being dirt poor.
- Having fortified foods
- Having safe, clean plastic packaging
- Having fresh pasteurized milk
- Not having the working class starving in the streets
- Enjoying fruits and vegetables year round, and not contracting scurvy.
- etc....

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: So
Of course it's a shame, but it is still impressive that in this day and age, we can feed ourselves so easily. Think, just 300 years ago something like 95% of the population were subsistance farmers.

But yet, it really isn't that impressive in this day and age, with all of the compromises made.

Factory farming makes it quite easy, yet it has many negative effects that substinence does not have.

See though, you're taking factory farming for granted...with all of the complicated machines required for it to work. It really is impressive.

Here's a list of negative effects that subsistance farming does not have:
- Not being dirt poor.
- Having fortified foods
- Having safe, clean plastic packaging
- Having fresh pasteurized milk
- Not having the working class starving in the streets
- Enjoying fruits and vegetables year round, and not contracting scurvy.
- etc....

Yeah..so..why are you even discussing fruits and vegtables? Forget that, meat is the real issue here. With the technological innovation over the past 100+ years it really isnt that impressive. It's not like it came out of nowhere.

Negative effects of fatory farming...

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: So
Of course it's a shame, but it is still impressive that in this day and age, we can feed ourselves so easily. Think, just 300 years ago something like 95% of the population were subsistance farmers.

But yet, it really isn't that impressive in this day and age, with all of the compromises made.

Factory farming makes it quite easy, yet it has many negative effects that substinence does not have.

See though, you're taking factory farming for granted...with all of the complicated machines required for it to work. It really is impressive.

Here's a list of negative effects that subsistance farming does not have:
- Not being dirt poor.
- Having fortified foods
- Having safe, clean plastic packaging
- Having fresh pasteurized milk
- Not having the working class starving in the streets
- Enjoying fruits and vegetables year round, and not contracting scurvy.
- etc....

Yeah..so..why are you even discussing fruits and vegtables? Forget that, meat is the real issue here. With the technological innovation over the past 100+ years it really isnt that impressive. It's not like it came out of nowhere.

Negative effects of fatory farming...

Fruits and vegetables are just a minor point here....

You've entirely missed the point, the technical innovations over the past century are the impressive part they are factory farming, which is just another way to say mechanization. I'd like to see you feed a planet with 6 billion plus people without machines.

There are approximately 300 million egg laying hens in the U.S. confined in battery cages ? small wire cages stacked in tiers and lined up in rows inside huge warehouses. In accordance with the USDA's recommendation to give each hen four inches of 'feeder space,' hens are commonly packed four to a cage measuring just 16 inches wide.

Okay....

In this tiny space, the birds cannot stretch their wings or legs,

That's a shame, but why not call for the USDA to change it's requirements to say...16" per bird? That seems like a reasonable fix.

and they cannot fulfill normal behavioral patterns or social needs. Constantly rubbing against the wire cages, they suffer from se[vere feather loss, and their bodies are covered with bruises and abrasions.

Okay, they've jumped the shark here....SOCIAL NEEDS? It's a frickin bird. It's only social need is to lay eggs.

Edit: Fixed problem with the bold.

 

[TechnoKid]

i think of it as: what if we were all vegetarians--there'd be too many animals [that are farmed for human consumption] overpopulating the Earth. I think it's just human nature to eat meat; this point can be shown through evolution and simple biology of humans.

And, what about the poor poor vegetables that are killed everyday? what about those? they are living too.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
i think of it as: what if we were all vegetarians--there'd be too many animals [that are farmed for human consumption] overpopulating the Earth. I think it's just human nature to eat meat; this point can be shown through evolution and simple biology of humans.

And, what about the poor poor vegetables that are killed everyday? what about those? they are living too.

As much as I am hugely in favor of eating meat, I am also a big fan of a solid argument. If we weren't farming these animals there wouldn't be as many, because we breed them to eat in the first place. That issue is moot. As for vegetables, vegetarians (the semi-sane ones), would generally say that plants have no nervous systems and as such can feel no pain (which is why a good number of them, as I understand it will eat fish, which suppossedly can't feel pain either).

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: michaelh20
It doesn't take too much to realize that most chickens are raised in some pretty horrible circumstances. If peta is wild and outlandish for pointing that out to you then there isn't much to be said.

I'll be over to throw a bucket of dead field mice and rabbit blood at your house shortly. Don't worry - it's just my way of demonstrating the horrid deaths that befall these animals during vegetable harvest season. If that offends you, then there isn't much left to be said.

- M4H

Do you know any numbers, or are you gonna continue using that BS argument like every other ignorant meat eater?

Maddox pwns you.

 

[TechnoKid]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
i think of it as: what if we were all vegetarians--there'd be too many animals [that are farmed for human consumption] overpopulating the Earth. I think it's just human nature to eat meat; this point can be shown through evolution and simple biology of humans.

And, what about the poor poor vegetables that are killed everyday? what about those? they are living too.

As much as I am hugely in favor of eating meat, I am also a big fan of a solid argument. If we weren't farming these animals there wouldn't be as many, because we breed them to eat in the first place. That issue is moot. As for vegetables, vegetarians (the semi-sane ones), would generally say that plants have no nervous systems and as such can feel no pain (which is why a good number of them, as I understand it will eat fish, which suppossedly can't feel pain either).

What would we do with all the ones we have right now? Like the many many cows and the like? I do agree with you in that there wouldn't be as many animals if they weren't farmed, however, what natrual and free range animals PETA says there ought to be, those would continue to grow, if not eaten by other natrual hunters and predators.

The ocean the is the best example of this. A lot of seafood is not farmed; although there are shortages in certain species, the ones that there are usually not shortages in that we eat abundantly would likely see a surge in growth. My original post doesn't apply as much to land animal as it does seafood/fish etc (a lot of it is farmed somewhat, but the majority is still caught).

 

[So]

Originally posted by: TechnoKid

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
i think of it as: what if we were all vegetarians--there'd be too many animals [that are farmed for human consumption] overpopulating the Earth. I think it's just human nature to eat meat; this point can be shown through evolution and simple biology of humans.

And, what about the poor poor vegetables that are killed everyday? what about those? they are living too.

As much as I am hugely in favor of eating meat, I am also a big fan of a solid argument. If we weren't farming these animals there wouldn't be as many, because we breed them to eat in the first place. That issue is moot. As for vegetables, vegetarians (the semi-sane ones), would generally say that plants have no nervous systems and as such can feel no pain (which is why a good number of them, as I understand it will eat fish, which suppossedly can't feel pain either).

What would we do with all the ones we have right now? Like the many many cows and the like? I do agree with you in that there wouldn't be as many animals if they weren't farmed, however, what natrual and free range animals PETA says there ought to be, those would continue to grow, if not eaten by other natrual hunters and predators.

The ocean the is the best example of this. A lot of seafood is not farmed; although there are shortages in certain species, the ones that there are usually not shortages in that we eat abundantly would likely see a surge in growth. My original post doesn't apply as much to land animal as it does seafood/fish etc (a lot of it is farmed somewhat, but the majority is still caught).

I apologize, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant had we never begun eating meat. In the ocean we would definitely see a resurgance of many fish populations, but that would eventually equalize back to the numbers that existed before we began fishing in large volume. I actually suspect that in the coming years, more and more fish will be farmed and this will begin to happen. I suspect that something similar occurred during the agricultural revolution when man moved from nomadic hunting to land farming.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: clamum
It amazes me that people can care so little for a living animal... chicken, cattle, cat, dog, all the same. They're more concerned about the goddamn price of the McNuggets. Really sad.

Last I checked, there were more than 6 billion of us humans on the planet, all of whom need to eat. In order to completely stop eating animals, a couple billion of us (at least) would need to disappear. Are you advocating genocide?

The biggest problem with PETA extremists is that they live on some fantasy world where the lion and the lamb lie down together... and NOT on the planet Earth.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

And yet hardly anyone bothered to check my thread on PETA

*sniff*

People ignore me

 

[Mani]

If PETA has a point, it's getting lost in their extremist attention whoring.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
And yet hardly anyone bothered to check my thread on PETA

*sniff*

People ignore me

Fine. I'll comment.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
And yet hardly anyone bothered to check my thread on PETA

*sniff*

People ignore me

Fine. I'll comment.

Happy now?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: coolred
D'oh, I can't link right


They plan to hand out buckets of blood and other stuff promoting how cruel KFC is to chickens I guess. As if that wasn't bad enough, the article says they plan to hand these out to children. WTF

You can't see where they could have a legitimate moral issue with the slaughter of millions of chickens?

 

[datalink7]

PETA is a PITA.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
And yet hardly anyone bothered to check my thread on PETA

*sniff*

People ignore me

Fine. I'll comment.

Happy now?

Thanks!

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: clamum
It amazes me that people can care so little for a living animal... chicken, cattle, cat, dog, all the same. They're more concerned about the goddamn price of the McNuggets. Really sad.

Last I checked, there were more than 6 billion of us humans on the planet, all of whom need to eat. In order to completely stop eating animals, a couple billion of us (at least) would need to disappear. Are you advocating genocide?

The biggest problem with PETA extremists is that they live on some fantasy world where the lion and the lamb lie down together... and NOT on the planet Earth.

clamum isn't talking about stopping eating animals. I'm really tired of this ignorance that equates wanting to prevent cruelty to animals with wanting to make everyone stop eating meat. I'll tell you what. I'll come to your house and beat your dog. If you get mad because he's suffering, I'll just say "I'm at the top of the food chain bitch!"

 

[arcenite]

these motherf!ckers need to realize there is a difference between hunting for food and hunting for pleasure.

 

[styrafoam]

Isn't it illegal to solicit minors for anything? They are brave to consider confronting people's children. Maybe shameless is a better word than brave.

 

[styrafoam]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: clamum
It amazes me that people can care so little for a living animal... chicken, cattle, cat, dog, all the same. They're more concerned about the goddamn price of the McNuggets. Really sad.

Last I checked, there were more than 6 billion of us humans on the planet, all of whom need to eat. In order to completely stop eating animals, a couple billion of us (at least) would need to disappear. Are you advocating genocide?

The biggest problem with PETA extremists is that they live on some fantasy world where the lion and the lamb lie down together... and NOT on the planet Earth.

clamum isn't talking about stopping eating animals. I'm really tired of this ignorance that equates wanting to prevent cruelty to animals with wanting to make everyone stop eating meat. I'll tell you what. I'll come to your house and beat your dog. If you get mad because he's suffering, I'll just say "I'm at the top of the food chain bitch!"

If you eat the dog when you are done then I guess it's all good.

 

[tcsenter]

and they cannot fulfill normal behavioral patterns or social needs. Constantly rubbing against the wire cages, they suffer from severe feather loss, and their bodies are covered with bruises and abrasions.

lmao! Social needs? They're going to be dinner! Their only purpose in life is to be regular or extra-crispy. They are food, not pets or wild animals. They wouldn't even exist had they not been selectively bred for millennia as domesticated foul for a dependable source of food.

Now I'm all for raising any food animals in conditions that do not promote or encourage disease and I am opposed to the pervasive use of prophylactic antibiotics in the commercial meat industry, but not because I give two hoots about the chicken. I think it is increases the risks for humans to consume animals that but for the constant use of antibiotics from birth would never make it to slaughter. It also promotes resistant organisms and superbugs that do not respond to our best antibiotics.

Why would I give a hoot about the "social needs" of an animal I plan to have with mashed potatoes and gravy? Don't worry, when preparing the little guy, I promise to lovingly rub and tenderly caress him....with garlic and herbs. lmao!

On a note related to the discussion, many environmentalists are coming to the conclusion that "farming" fish and other sea food is not a superior alternative and has its own consequences. The pollution and waste materials produced by any fairly large commerical fish or sea food farm can pose a huge problem to the local environment and area watersheds. Prawn farms in Asia are notorious for polluting nearby lakes, rivers, streams, and crop land with raw sewage and bio-wastes (e.g. metric tons upon tons of prawn poop).

The fact is, we are too damned successful for our own good. There are simply too many people on the planet to rely on any one source of food nor can we exclude any source of food. It is about striking a sustainable balance between all available sources and methods. This problem isn't going away folks nor is it getting any better, lest the planet should rid itself of a few billion people in the near future.