Peta Videos

PS. Late in the UK, so off to bed. Don't expect any more replies for a few hours

 

Mocked them for their beliefs? Please show me where i mocked anyone because they were a vegan or a veggie. If you mean i mocked them by telling them to get off their high horse, then i am not attacking them becuase of how they eat, but because they think they are doing better for the world than me, when it is rather hypocritical. If that was their belief, that they were bteter than me, than yes, i guess i did mock them.

I dont mock anyone for what they eat.

nite nite

 

OK. How about:

Rather than discuss what was meant as a serious analogy, you mock it because it does not conform with your world view.

Dude, you're the one that's on a high horse here! Most people are here just to quietly discuss vegetariansim with other veggies (with a couple of obvious exceptions, granted). Yet you seem to keep fixating on this idea that you have that we all think we're superior. This is in your head, not ours. You have on massive chip on your shoulder.

Bullshit. I don't even know what you do for the world, so how could I possibly have made such a judgement?

But this is mainly in your head. As soon as someone explains the moral case for vegetarianism, you jump to the conclusion that they think they're better than you. Why the persecution complex?

And you've still not had the courtesy to apologise for your earlier generalisations. I'm doing my best to be polite to you despite your confrontational behaviour in this forum, so it'd be nice if you could make a similar effort in return.

Oh yeah, and this time I'm really off to bed

 

Because i dont see the analogy as serious. You dont believe/dont accept that we are endowed with natural rights, i do. Whether someone wants to accept that or not, doesnt change that we *are* endowed with those rights. I dont believe animals are endowed with the same rights. I do partially agree with what you said that we were blessed with brains that have given us morality that i dont believe animals have. Now i think we have a responsibility to not try and torture animals just because we have the power to do so. I said earlire that i support animal rights improvements but i am against banning the meat industry all together.

I think this is another topic that needs to get nudged up their to politics and religion as something not to discuss.

On a lighter note, i am sorry for the attitude towards you, it would have been better directed at others, like didgeridoodoo and phoenixx. You have been pretty respectful towards me, even when i havent been, so cheers.

 

Because you were acting anti-Jewish. As I later explained, in the eyes of MANY jews, you calling a Holocaust survivor a whackjob is anti-Jewish. In fact, I showed this thread to my rabbi and he thinks that you are probably one of those Christians who thinks that the Holocaust happend as a way to punish Jews for not "believing" in Jesus. If you don't agree with the PETA campaign, fine. But get your facts straight and be honest...you're attacking Issac Singer, not PETA. He first made the comparison, not them or any other group who has used it. He was in the camps, he knows what happend, he and other survivors are the ONLY ones who can tell us what to compare it to.

 

what the hell are you talking about? I am the one saying it was atrocious for them to compare killing animals to killing jews..and i'm anti jewish!? what kind of messed up logic is that! I am outraged that they would make any such comparison, but i am anti jewish? I didnt even know who isaac singer was until you told me, so how the hell was i really out to attack him!?

I dont care what religion he is, i called him that because i think it is a horrible atrocity to compare killing chickens to killing jews. If that makes me anti jewish, then i guess so. There have been many more jews who were from concentration camps who condemned peta's comparison.

Seriously, grow up, i have done nothing or said nothing that has at all been anti jewish

 

okay seriously this is getting really old really fast. what was the point of this thread when is started?

 

AHHHHH!!!!! HOW MANY TIMES AM I GOING TO HEAR THIS RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT?!?
Einstein was a vegetarian and advocated it, does that make him evil for some reason???
Besides, that isn't even true. Allow me to quote a paragraph from one of my books about this:
Wasn't Hitler a vegetarian?
Is it really relevant what Hitler ate or did not eat? Would anyone cite Hitler's abstinence from smoking to discredit non-smokers? However, Hitler's alleged vegetarianism is brought up so often that it invites a response.
Because he suffered from excessive sweatiness and flatulence, Hitler sometimes went meatless. However, he generally continued to eat meat. In his definitive biography, The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler, the historian Ralph Payne mentions Hitler's special fondness for Bavarian sausages. Other biographers, including Albert Speer, point out that he also sometimes ate ham, liver and game. Hitler not only ate meat, but he also banned vegetarian organizations in Germany and the occupied countries, even though vegetarian diets would have helped solve Germany's food shortage during the war.


And megara, veganism isn't about perfection, it's about reducing suffering, not eliminating it. It is impossible to be a "perfect" vegan since some animal products are unavoidable. (like animal-based glue in the binding of books) Vegan Outreach realizes this. www.veganoutreach.org Oh, and did you look at the factory farming website I posted? www.factoryfarming.com It is NOT a PETA site by the way.

 

I did, its sad....though i did find somethings i found weird...

for instance:

"
Many beef cattle are born and live on the range, foraging and fending for themselves for months or even years. They are not adequately protected against inclement weather, and they may die of dehydration or freeze to death. Injured, ill, or otherwise ailing animals do not receive necessary veterinary attention. One common malady afflicting beef cattle is called "cancer eye." Left untreated, the cancer eats away at the animal's eye and face, eventually producing a crater in the side of the animal's head."

Do they want humans to interfere or not? They complain when the animal is out on the open field and gets sick...they will complain if they are in a factory....what can be done to please these people other than outright banning meat slaughter?

 

NO, but what you are saying IS anti-Jewish because you're putting down the fact that it was a JEW who first made the comparison. Yes, there are Jews who are against the campaign. HOWEVER, most of them don't know their history and think that PETA is just making it up. Many of the ones you are talking about (Holocaust survivors) didn't even realize that Issac Singer first came up with the analogy. As I said once given the facts most of them either didn't care about the campaign or said it was fine.

Someday, read some books from Holocaust victims and survivors and you will see that comparing the Holocaust to what happens to animals for slaughter comes ups a lot. Even Anne Frank makes a similar comparison in her diary.

And telling me to grow up when it was my rabbi who said your statements are anti-Jewish is slightly wrong, don't you think?

 

well my priest said not only are you anti christian, that you are anti male and anti common sense and decency.

i try not to hld that against you though.

Seriously, if your rabbi or you seriously thinks my statements that the holocaust comparison is wrong is anti jewish, you both need to 1) read a dictionary, 2) look up the worst bigot, 3) learn what it means, 4) make sure you know what it means, 5) look at "anti", 6) learn what it means, and then 7) apologize to me.

 

By the way, that "rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" quote from Ingrid Newkirk has been floating around in anti-animal rights publications and syndicated columns for at least a decade. If it relatively recently appeared in the Washington Times I'm guessing it came out of one of the ultraconservative newspaper's animal rights-bashing commentaries, of which there are no shortage of.
The paper's outdoors columnist, it should be noted, even attacks the more widely supported moderate organizations if they dare criticize any entrenched/profitable use of animals.
The over-relied-on quote has also been mangled and edited through constant outraged re-publications. Supposedly, the original quote actually begins, "When it comes to having a central nervous system and the ability to experience pain, hunger, and thirst..."
I'm not saying there aren't any valid criticisims of PETA and its overall effect on the image of activists, however the tiresome description of the group as a boot stomping force which will magically outlaw all meat eating and animal testing tomorrow is ridiculous. No state or federal legislature would agree to such a ban, and just about everyone knows it.
(The opposition has also not been above spreading blatant mistruths about the organization, such as the urban legend that the group releases or poisons dogs at shows. Even the American Kennel Club acknowledges this is a lie and has never happened.)
And no matter how many mangled, edited, or out-of-context quotes meat and testing industry front groups drag up, the fact remains that we do have freedom of speech, and that includes the right to favor even radical changes.
In short, just because someone from PETA or any other group says something, it hardly means it will come to pass in any foreseeable year.
I do agree that this thread has gone way out of context and everyone has probably overwhelmed the original poster who had an innocent question.

 

holocaust:a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire

They are pointing out the mass amount of deaths by eating meat.
9 billion I'm thinking the number is, without counting fish. Its around 19 to 27 billion counting fish that are killed every year

 

what excuse is there for PETA donating money to terrorist organizations and known terrorists? Sorry, but this isnt just some group promoting peaceful ideas....they have very extreme views and support those who take extreme actions...

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/oped_detail.cfm?OPED_ID=145


As for the holocaust...its such an interesting word....it really means a sacrifice...

However, comparing animals to 6 millions jews and 6 million others is absolutely degrading not only to them but to everyone. I know, what about littel bambi? Well sorry, little anne frank was worth more than bambi and flipper.

 

Did you know that during the Holocaust people who helped Jews and other victims were considered to be "terrorists" by Hitler's government?

BTW...Consumer Freedom is run by rednecks.

Issac Singer made the comparison to begin with. He wouldn't degrade his own people. Only someone like him would know what to compare it to. Ignoring that fact kind of kills your argument. Also, what was the point of defining "holocaust"...are you saying that the victims wanted it?

And just to let you know...Anne Frank also compared the plight of her fellow Jews to animals, and she was an animal lover.

 

i find it interesting that the person you quote in your signature was outraged to find that he was usedi n one of the pictures...

"Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel was angered to find himself in one of the photos used in the campaign. He and his father were sent to Buchenwald, where Wiesel's father died before the camp was liberated in 1945. Viewing pictures at a PETA display in Thousand Oaks, the now 74-year old Wiesel confirmed he was the boy shown in one of them."

http://www.mofed.org/PETA-Looneys.htm


another jewish holocaust survivor speaks out...



Jack Welner, a survivor of the Lodz Ghetto, Dachau and a forced death march, is furious to the point of speechlessness when he learns of the PETA campaign.

"I wish I could have been treated and fed as well as an animal during the war. Whoever tries to compare Holocaust survivors and animals is crazy. "It makes me mad. Too mad to even talk about it."

http://www.ijn.com/stories.htm#story4

"Abraham H Foxman, a Holocaust survivor and the civil rights group's national director, said linking the deliberate, systematic murder of millions of Jews to the issue of animal rights was "abhorrent"

"The uniqueness of human life is the moral underpinning for those who resisted the hatred of Nazis and others ready to commit genocide even today," he said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2810031.stm



"On the opposite end of the plaza, at the New England Holocaust Memorial, a Holocaust survivor, Stephan Ross, told reporters how hurtful he found the exhibit. In the camps, Ross said, the Nazis called him "Hund" (German for dog) and referred to their guard dog as "Mensch" (German for man)."


http://www.jcrcboston.org/peta.htm

you make it sound ilke holocaust survivors were for it. Sure some were...but not nearly all or even most.

It was condemned by the ADL in the US...they were fined in Germany for using the comaprison.

This was pretty much a univerally deplored event.

BTW...i hope you know that isaac singer quote "to animals, we are all nazis." was not a quote by him, but a character in his book.

Most people deplore their use of the holocaust as gross and disgusting..but some animal rights people think its justified..oh well.

As for why i said the definition of the word? Because thats what it means literally. Of course the jews and the other 6 million didnt want to die. I just said itw as an interesting word...especially why a word that means sacrifice was used to describe the death of 12 million people.

So why against am i anti jewish?


Oh, please dont try and trivialize PETA's terrorist connections to something like people being labeled BY HITLER(i cantbelieve someone would even say this!) as terrorists because they helped jews escape. If you cant see the difference between helping HUMAN BEINGS escape from a tyrant who wants to kill them to people who bomb research facilities and factories..thenw ell..we have serious problems...

look, this got old several pages ago...we'll have to agree to disagree on this..

 

Will all of you please shut the hell up.

 

Being a rural white American myself, I resent your use of the racial slur "Redneck". Furthermore, saying Consumer Freedom is run by rednecks in no way refutes the claims it makes. Today's modern rural Americans are as well educated as urban americans.

 

www.animal-rights.com is a good site to get an insight into the animal rights philosophy. Here's what it says about this question:
Question 50: But cattle can't be factory-farmed, so I can eat them, right?
At this time, cattle farming has not progressed to the extremes inflicted
on some other animals--cows still have to graze. However, the proponents of
factory farming are always considering the possibilities of extending their
techniques, as the old-style small farm becomes a faded memory and farming
becomes a larger and more complex industry, competing for finance from
consumers and lenders. Cattle farming practices such as increasing cattle
densities on feedlots, diet supplementation, and controlled breeding are
already being implemented. Other developments will be introduced.
However, as discussed in question #49, it is not only the method of
farming that is of concern. Transport to the slaughterhouse, often a long
journey in crowded conditions without access to food and water, and the wait
at the slaughterhouse followed by the slaughtering process are themselves
brutal and harmful. And the actual killing process is itself not necessarily
clean or painless (see question #48).
JK

We can challenge the claim that cattle cannot be factory-farmed; it just
isn't true. We can also challenge the claim that if it were true, it would
justify killing and eating cattle.
A broad view of factory farming includes practices that force adaptations
(often through breeding) that increase the "productivity" of animal farming.
Such increases in productivity are invariably achieved at the expense of
increased suffering of the animals concerned. This broader view definitely
includes cattle, both that raised for meat and for dairy production.
Veal production is paradigmatic factory farming. David Cowles-Hamar
describes it as follows: "Veal calves are kept in isolation in 5'x2' crates
in which they are unable even to turn around. They are kept in darkness much
of the time. They are given no bedding (in case they try to eat it) and are
fed only a liquid diet devoid of iron and fiber to keep their flesh anemic
and pale. After 3-5 months they are slaughtered."

Dairy farming also qualifies as factory-farming. Here are some salient
facts:
* Calves are taken away at 1-3 days causing terrible distress to both
the cows and the calves; many calves go for veal production.
* Over 170,000 calves die each year due to poor husbandry and appalling
treatment at markets.
* Cows are milked for 10 months and produce 10 times the milk a calf
would take naturally. Mastitis (udder inflammation) frequently results.
* Cows are fed a high-protein diet to increase yield; often even this is
not enough and the cow is forced to break down body tissues, leading
to acidosis and consequent lameness. About 25 percent of cows are
afflicted.
* At about 5 years of age, the cow is spent and exhausted and is
slaughtered. The normal life span is about 20 years.

Finally, we cannot accept that even if it were not possible to factory-farm
cattle, that therefore it is morally acceptable to kill and eat them. David
Cowles-Hamar puts it this way: "The suggestion that animals should pay for
their freedom with their lives is moral nonsense."
DG
See www.animal-rights.com for more information.
Say, megara, are you against the organization mothers against drunk driving (MADD)? Because the center for consumer freedom is. The center for consumer freedom has also attacked the organizations action on smoking and health (ASH), the american medical association, the arthritis foundation, the center for food safety, the harvard school of public health, the national safety council, the national association of high school principals, the surgeon general and many more. And they are funded by tyson foods, perdue farms inc., outback steakhouse, coca-cola and applebees. (and even more than that) They are biased and have very vested interests. Did you or did you not look at this site www.consumerdeception.com ??? Have you also seen this? http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

aidos

 

i cant get the animal rights one to load....i've looked at the other two though. I'm aware that coke and others donate to the CCF. I dont disregard their information right off the bat because of that though. These large corporations are under attack by a lot of tort lawyers who are hoping to do to mcdonalds and coke what others did to the tobacco industry. Most groups that do statistics have an agenda, be it pro or anti a product. I dont know enough science to say which one are right or which ones are wrong, so i try to be skeptical of both.

Tort lawyers are pushing a lot of statistics, especially a lot of the obese ones. How many normal people are considered obese because of this BMI BS? Just about every athlete and lots of actors. Did you know michael jordan was overweight? Tom cruise is obese. Its sad that our congress had to pass a law to protect the food industry from people like john banzhof....a lot of people are pushing shitty statistics....not just the big corporations.

the BMI and obese shit is the biggest farce ever. Lts test people for body fat and THEN do a statistic on body fat.....not some height/weight ratio that doesnt know the difference between muscle and fat.