Dr Guy Dr Guy

PETA: Sinking to New lows

▼

PETA: Sinking to New lows

They have hit bottom and started to dig

http://www.peta.org/AnimalLiberation/display.asp
from JoeUser Forums

In another show of callous disregard to the human race or anything approaching humanity, PETA has a new Ad Campaign against people.  Except this time they really have gone too far!  Instead of enobling their cause, which I am sure was their aim, they just demonstrate how callous and inhumane they are.

In the latest Ad campaign, they are equating selling breeding cattle and horses to the horror of the slave trade 200 years ago!  They are not enobling their cause, they are cheapening the plight of the blacks of that age!  And that is just plain sickening!

If there was any shred of humanity or compassion in those clowns before, it is apparent that they have none now.  It is too bad that they take what is arguably one of the most tragic times in American history and belittling it by comparing it to the selling of Cattle!

They are beneath contempt!  They do not deserve even the effort for spitting on them, for that would be to acknowledge them as contemptable, and that is too good for those creeps.

17,887 views 181 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

Still more believe that no one has a soul but that animals and humans are equal because of their capacity to feel pain and emotion. PETA sees animals and humans as equals.

Then why do they euthanize 85% of the stray turned into them?  That does not sound like a caring organization, but of one who speaks with forked tongue.  Do as I say, not as I do.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

Some people believe that plants have souls, too. What do you suggest we eat, dirt? Oh, wait, don't some people believe in the Earth as an entity, too? Frankly, when respect for beliefs gets in the way of me doing something important as, oh, feeding myself, my respect ends.

Exactly!  I dont rub pork into the face of Jews and Muslims.  Why?  Because they dont (at least most of them, come are different) want me to stop eating pork just because it is against their faith.

PETA errs  when they try to convert us to their psuedo religion.  They can proclaim it wrong to torture animals, and I would agree with that, and embrace it as well.  But when they go so far overboard and equate selling cattle with slavery of the 18th and 19th centuries, or accuse parents of child abuse for feeding meat to their children, then I will fight them tooth and nail.  For then they are no better than Muslims who want to convert or kill all infidels.  And their tactics, while not as violent at times, are no less abhorant.

Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Don't confuse a belief in God with spirituality.

I believe 'soul' is tightly connected with God (Big G).  I know Buddhists dont necessarily believe in a God, but then they dont believe in a soul per se either (Dharma, correct me if I am wrong).

But that would be an excellent concept for another blog.  You up to it Philomedy?

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
But that would be an excellent concept for another blog. You up to it Philomedy?


Always...it'll be up as soon as I can get my ideas together.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Don't confuse a belief in God with spirituality."


Sorry, perhaps it is the numerous times I've seen Christians derided for picking and choosing. It is, of course, someone's right to reject the possiblility of a God and accept the existance of a soul. Granting souls to puppies and kittens and then tossing 85% of them in the dumpster seems to, well, betray a small amount of hypocricy.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wonder how many cattle would survive if the cattle industry was dismantled overnight and PETA placed in charge of their welfare? Would 85% of them be put in dumpsters and left to rot just like the puppies?

That's the argument I always take with my vegan housemate - we've bred them into a life of captivity, so we can hardly just let them go. It would be inhumane to simply let them starve to death, and if you're going to euthanise you may as well eat them anyway. So you're back at square one.

Not that it's ever persuaded her of course...
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
They would of course become our bovine masters, and we would serve them or feel their hoofy wrath.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
They would of course become our bovine masters, and we would serve them or feel their hoofy wrath.


Ah, of course! Why didn't I realise that? Although come to think of it, giving them food everyday, plenty of water, free sex... it sounds a lot like their lives today except they'll have to grow old when they come to power...

You know what, I think they'd rather die young and leave a nice tasty corpse! Circle of life and all that, yeah.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
tHROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY, ANIMALS HAVE ENDURED ENORMOUS SUFFERING AS WAR ANIMALS, FARM ANIMANLS AND RESEARCH PURPOSES. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO SPEAK AND EXPRESS THEIR SUFFERING. JUST IMAGINE THE SUFFERING CAUSED BY A MINK COAT OR THE PERFUME ONE USES. FOR A SINGLE MINK CAOT 9 animals a
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you look at animals in this way, though, pets are just 'slaves'. Keeping a leash on a dog would be cruel. I mean, did technology suddenly make wearing animal skins wrong? Did we commit heinous crimes for tens of thousands of years? Was it a necessary evil?

I'd like to see what the ideal world would be like to one of these people. I'm thinking such a view wouldn't, honestly, have many animals in it. In reality, we're all animals. We eat them in the same way many of them would happily eat us.

Either we're part of the ecosystem, or we aren't. It isn't any less moral for me to eat a cow, than a lion to eat a gazelle. They pretend that we are 'more evolved' than a lion, but in reality we aren't. We ended up more capable, sure, but they are as 'perfected' as we are. If it is okay for them to do what they do, I think it is okay for me to wear leather and have a steak.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are all certainly entitled to your beliefs about the circle of life and everything, but surely they are entitled to their opposition to your arguments. They happen to have a habit of expressing their opinions in a way that annoys people, but if you are a half rational person you would demonstrate that you are above that, and engage them in a proper rational debate about the logic of their arguments. In the end you will probably agree to disagree, just as I choose to agree to disagree with both PETA and people who eat meat. Whether or not you have the same belief as they do is not relevant. Whether you think their beliefs make sense or not is also irrelevant (otherwise Christians would never be able to express viewpoints either because of the contradictions in the Bible). What I am saying is you have to take their views into account when they say something like this. I don't find their statements any more offensive than a Christian describing abortion as murder. In their beliefs, that makes sense. It's an inflammatory way of putting it that doesn't serve the purpose of convincing anyone, but personally I don't get bupset about it.

Well cacto, I'm not surprised she doesn't accept your argument because it only makes sense if you believe the things you do and not the things she does. It'd be like a Jew trying to convince a Christian that the crucifixion was a good idea. You are also speaking in an extremely hypothetical situation that neither you or her can really predict the outcomes of. Even if you could, you are assuming a certain view of how the world should be.

Not that it's relevant, but I don't believe in a God but I do believe in a soul.

"For then they are no better than Muslims who want to convert or kill all infidels."

That's hyperbole Dr Guy. Sure people who try to convert you to their religion are annoying. I've never converted to Christianity in spite of all the people on street corners with megaphones and leaflets. But I would hardly equate them with terrorists. They're just people exercising a right to free speech. I have the choice to consider what they have to say and then disagree.

"Some people believe that plants have souls, too. What do you suggest we eat, dirt? "

Well I believe that the small portion of the world's population who believe that live in India and only eat plants that are already dead. I don't agree with their beliefes but I'm not going to start mocking them because it's no more ridiculous than any other mainstream belief.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

PETA isn't actually against killing animals.  They promote vegetarianism, but they stand for: People for the ETHICAL Treatment of Animals.

Most animal activists do not find humane euthanizing as unethical.  (Hell, I wish euthanizing was available to suffering people who want to end it....but that, too, is another discussion). 

PETA uses extreme tactics to get their point across.  Their ad worked- people are talking about it.

I don't agree with 99.9% of what PETA says, even though I am an animal lover as well as a 99% vegetarian (not fanatically- and I do it for health reasons, not an ethical choice).  However, I do think that we have real issues with our meat industry.  America eats *so* much meat that production is at a crazy pace.  With that, care is not taken during the slaughter process to make sure that the animals are killed in as much of a humane way as possible.  I also believe that the people who do this type of slaughter become desensitized to what they are doing.

I also believe that our sloppiness with slaughter leads to food borne illness.  If they are pushing through so many cows just to keep up with production, how can they possibly be keeping it all clean?  It's really quite nasty when you think about it.  Of course, I'm sure that beef isn't as bad as chickens......

I read a book called "slaughterhouse" by Gail Eisnitz awhile ago.  She interviewed a bunch of people from the meat industry, as well as some former inspectors.  Even if you take out the cruelty bits (which is really what the book is about) and look at the health code violations, a lot of what is in that book will make you look at meat differently.  (It will at least make you look for meat that comes from smaller farms, or even from private butchers).

 

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Well I believe that the small portion of the world's population who believe that live in India and only eat plants that are already dead. I don't agree with their beliefes but I'm not going to start mocking them because it's no more ridiculous than any other mainstream belief."


Wait, wait. The mocking begins when people stand around and chant "meat is murder". Don't try to pretend for a second that the mocking starts on the carnivorous side. No one here is telling vegitarians how to live. PETA, on the other hand, is telling us what to eat, and what to wear.

If PETA has been anything, it hasn't been "respectful" to people who differ with them.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wait, wait. The mocking begins when people stand around and chant "meat is murder". Don't try to pretend for a second that the mocking starts on the carnivorous side. No one here is telling vegitarians how to live. PETA, on the other hand, is telling us what to eat, and what to wear.

If PETA has been anything, it hasn't been "respectful" to people who differ with them.


They exercise their right to free speech just like you exercise your right to disagree with them. They're not disrespecting anyone by saying "meat is murder." They're expressing their beliefs, as is their right. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
"They exercise their right to free speech just like you exercise your right to disagree with them. They're not disrespecting anyone by saying "meat is murder." They're expressing their beliefs, as is their right. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant."


Like it was my freedom of speech when Champus accused me of mocking people who believe plants have souls? Did I refer to them by name? That is your criterea, isn't it? Why not champion my right to generalization, or is that just for people you agree with? LOL...

Champas' claim was that I was disrespecting people's religious beliefs by stating my own. Frankly, you might call accusing people of 'murder' respectful, but I don't. Wouldn't it also be my freedom of speech to express that? Or do you get to universally define 'respectful?'

Nice of you to champion PETA's freedom of speech, though. Pardon me if I find it a tad disingenuous that you always start your activism on my comments, not the one I quote.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Always...it'll be up as soon as I can get my ideas together.


Looking forward to it.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Granting souls to puppies and kittens and then tossing 85% of them in the dumpster seems to, well, betray a small amount of hypocricy.


Very well put! Thank you for making my point.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wonder how many cattle would survive if the cattle industry was dismantled overnight and PETA placed in charge of their welfare? Would 85% of them be put in dumpsters and left to rot just like the puppies?

That's the argument I always take with my vegan housemate - we've bred them into a life of captivity, so we can hardly just let them go. It would be inhumane to simply let them starve to death, and if you're going to euthanise you may as well eat them anyway. So you're back at square one.

Not that it's ever persuaded her of course...


So true. Cattle, like chickens are ill equipped to fend for themselves in the wild. Perhaps in several 100 years they can be re-adapted, but man bread them for dinner, not for Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
tHROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY, ANIMALS HAVE ENDURED ENORMOUS SUFFERING AS WAR ANIMALS, FARM ANIMANLS AND RESEARCH PURPOSES. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO SPEAK AND EXPRESS THEIR SUFFERING. JUST IMAGINE THE SUFFERING CAUSED BY A MINK COAT OR THE PERFUME ONE USES. FOR A SINGLE MINK CAOT 9 animals a


Animal suffering is not what this is all about. Selling a cow is not akin to selling a black child. The cruel or torture of animals is not even the issue here. The issue is equating the sale of animals to the sale of people. Given that animals push their young out of the nest and never think twice about them after they are gone is germaine to this article.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
If it is okay for them to do what they do, I think it is okay for me to wear leather and have a steak.


It is ok. WHere PETA goes too far is in saying that the senseless slaughter of animals (that does happen) is the same as the farming of animals for Human needs.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Like it was my freedom of speech when Champus accused me of mocking people who believe plants have souls? Did I refer to them by name? That is your criterea, isn't it? Who not champion my right to generalization, or is that just for people you agree with? LOL...

Champas' claim was that I was disrespecting people's religious beliefs by stating my own. Frankly, you might call accusing people of 'murder' respectful, but I don't. Wouldn't it also be my freedom of speech to express that? Or do you get to universally define 'respectful?'


I thought you established in our last discussion that you didn't need anyone to defend you, but since you seem to want me to come to your rescue, fine. Unfortunately, the Champ's comments were not directed at you stating your religious beliefs. So far as I can tell, the Champ was referring to this:

Some people believe that plants have souls, too. What do you suggest we eat, dirt?


Now, if your religious beliefs consist of stating what others believe, and then facetiously asking them if we should consume soil to sustain ourselves, I suggest you adopt a new doctrine.

Nice of you to champion PETA's freedom of speech, though.


Kind of like it was nice of you to champion the AFA when I posted about their boycotts. For someone who loves to throw the word "hypocrite" around, you must not have any mirrors.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
PETA isn't actually against killing animals. They promote vegetarianism, but they stand for: People for the ETHICAL Treatment of Animals.


If that was all they were about, then I would be 100% behind them. However, it has been demonstrated here and elsewhere that that is not their agenda. And that is the root of the problem.

By your example, we could claim that KKKers are effective since their tactics get talked about as well. But do they win converts with them? I dont think so, and neither will PETA. It is self defeating when they go to such disgusting lengths.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top

I dont think so, and neither will PETA. It is self defeating when they go to such disgusting lengths.

You need to lean really far to the left.  Once you do, you will find the PETA crowd.  Trust me- their ads do gain followings.  Have you ever seen some of their celebrity ads?  I'm waiting for TOm Cruise to be next.......

Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top

Kind of like it was nice of you to champion the AFA when I posted about their boycotts. For someone who loves to throw the word "hypocrite" around, you must not have any mirrors.

Philo, you are one person that I have never seen use profanity. But you get your zingers in!  Now, Baker, Philo, can we get back to the subject at hand?  PETA's stupidity? So far some "well free speech" and some "got your attention", but no one seems to be defending them in this instance.

Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

You need to lean really far to the left. Once you do, you will find the PETA crowd. Trust me- their ads do gain followings. Have you ever seen some of their celebrity ads? I'm waiting for TOm Cruise to be next.......

But aren't they just then preaching to the congregation?