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.

17,883 views 181 replies
Reply #126 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's a "consumer" driven industry. Ya know, supply and demand? We demand and they have to supply!

I dont think that is what she is saying.  I think she is saying that given responsible rules for slaughtering, and the American population willing to accept the additional cost, it would not be an issue.

Given beef at 10+ bucks a pound, it is a treat, not a meal for us.  And yes, I would support it.

Reply #127 from JoeUser Forums Top

Lets not forget, folks, that there are areas in the world where it would have been completely, totally impossible to be a vegetarian up until the last hundred years. I dare anyone here to blame someone in Iceland 100 years ago for not being a vegetarian.

No Baker, those areas still exist today.  Protein can be substituted.  But most areas cant do that.  It is still necessary in most of the world.  That we can is just an indication of our varied resources.  But even if America decided tomorrow to become a Veggie nation, it would not survive as there is not enough of it.

Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #128 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is an argument between theory and practice. I hear a lot of vegan theory, but I don't see much reality. When I do, it usually comes from people who happen to be well-positioned enough to undertake it.

And my point.  Sorry I did not read further.

Reply #129 from JoeUser Forums Top

I called meat a food choice. And, it is. How many pounds of grain are needed to raise a cow to slaughter? If you planted soy instead, how much soy protein would you have without the need to feed it to something that you slaughtered?

That is what I said, but the truth is there is not enough raised.  SO meat will be a part of the human diet for a long time to come.  And yes, we do enjoy it.  But it is also necesary as most of the world does not plant soy.

Reply #130 from JoeUser Forums Top

Otherwise, economics would have sent us in the other direction.

And evolution.

Reply #131 from JoeUser Forums Top

When was the last time you looked at an asian cookbook? You'll see far more recipes for chicken and pork than you will pure vegtable recipes. Chicken being the big one over there followed by pork. They don't eat a lot of beef because they don't have the required room to raise it. And don't try to tell me about raising chickens compared to veggies. It ain't flying.

Exactly!  They eat what they have!  Asian cuisine is not really about beef as that is american and they just adopt soe recipes for it.  But anyone that eats it knows that Chicken and seafood (followed by pork) is what they are really talking about.

Reply #132 from JoeUser Forums Top

What is America's excuse now, though? We have automated farms, and all sorts of ways of efficiently raising produce. Any land that grows grain for cows can grow grain for humans. The same lands can alternate grain and soy to maintain soil quality (soy grows in the same climates and conditions as grain).

Um, no.  For most of the cattle are range fed and that is not conducive to raising crops as the rain is too little.

Reply #133 from JoeUser Forums Top

Only 25% of the recipes in any given book were veg only. So where does that leave your theory now?

I dont think she was saying they were veggies only.  Only that they were not beef.  And if you do eat asian cooking (I do love it), the best dishes (i.e. the ones they really know) do not contain beef.  But do contain fish, chicken and pork.  I hate asian dishes with beef!  They really dont know how to cook it.

Reply #134 from JoeUser Forums Top
WITHOUT fail EVERY book contained at least 75% of the recipes that had some kind of meat in them whether it was fish, chicken, beef, pork or some type of seafood. Only 25% of the recipes in any given book were veg only. So where does that leave your theory now?


I'm gonna venture a guess that the cookbooks you looked were purchased in, marketed to, and therefore written to appeal to Americans, who happen to eat a lot of meat. The numbers may even out, or even skew in the other direction, when you look at cookbooks written in Asian countries for Asian consumers.

If I'm wrong about where the cookbooks were from, disregard the comment.
Reply #135 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, we eat meat to survive as we are omnivors. It is only recently that science has come up with alternatives to replace the meat in our diet. Howver our ancestors did not have the benefit of that science.


My point was meant to refer specifically to the day and age in which we live. In the past, certainly we would have died.
Reply #136 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm gonna venture a guess that the cookbooks you looked were purchased in, marketed to, and therefore written to appeal to Americans, who happen to eat a lot of meat. The numbers may even out, or even skew in the other direction, when you look at cookbooks written in Asian countries for Asian consumers.

If I'm wrong about where the cookbooks were from, disregard the comment.


No, just in your assumption that all the world knows how to substitute veggies for meat. They had meat in all their recipes, just maybe not beef.
Reply #137 from JoeUser Forums Top
My point was meant to refer specifically to the day and age in which we live. In the past, certainly we would have died.


I agree, but you do not take into consideration that most people do not have access to meat substitutes. We do, they dont.
Reply #138 from JoeUser Forums Top
"My point was meant to refer specifically to the day and age in which we live. In the past, certainly we would have died."


Given that we have to spray green tomatos with chemicals to make them red, in order to get them to people without them being too ripe, I tend to disagree. Maybe, MAYBE if you consider first world countries these ideas about "automated farms" might pan out, but we can't feed the world now as it is. I tend to think if we did away with meat a large percent of the world would starve.
Reply #139 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree, but you do not take into consideration that most people do not have access to meat substitutes. We do, they dont.


It isn't necessary to have meat subsitutes in order to be a vegetarian and healthy. I don't think that people in India have access to the meat substitutes we do, but there they are.
Reply #140 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe, MAYBE if you consider first world countries these ideas about "automated farms" might pan out, but we can't feed the world now as it is. I tend to think if we did away with meat a large percent of the world would starve.


You can't use that argument to say that we eat meat to survive, though. When you decide to have a steak for dinner, does your thought process go "If I don't eat this steak, I'll die", or does it go "I want a steak"?

I know which one I think of, and having the steak is my choice.
Reply #141 from JoeUser Forums Top
"It isn't necessary to have meat subsitutes in order to be a vegetarian and healthy. I don't think that people in India have access to the meat substitutes we do, but there they are."


Again, look at the climate. Make that same claim about Iceland, or a large part of Africa.

"You can't use that argument to say that we eat meat to survive, though. When you decide to have a steak for dinner, does your thought process go "If I don't eat this steak, I'll die", or does it go "I want a steak"? "


Well, actually, that isn't true for me, given a physical problem that I'll grant doesn't effect the universal argument here. I couldn't possibly live on vegetables, or I would die.

The real discussion about survival, though, is based on the number of people we need to get protien-rich food to, as opposed to our ability to do it. Now, maybe there will be advances in farming techniques eventually, but I think it is pretty wide-eyed to say that we could just convert all the feed farming to fresh fruits and vegetables and end the world's need for meat.
Reply #142 from JoeUser Forums Top
Again, look at the climate. Make that same claim about Iceland, or a large part of Africa.


I can't, which is why I used India Anyways, I was not trying to put forth some universal truth, just to refute drguy's point that I had not considered people with no access to meat sustitutes.

Well, actually, that isn't true for me, given a physical problem that I'll grant doesn't effect the universal argument here. I couldn't possibly live on vegetables, or I would die.


Well, then...my argument falls flat on its face then, doesn't it?

The real discussion about survival, though, is based on the number of people we need to get protien-rich food to, as opposed to our ability to do it. Now, maybe there will be advances in farming techniques eventually, but I think it is pretty wide-eyed to say that we could just convert all the feed farming to fresh fruits and vegetables and end the world's need for meat.


I agree...nothing ever happens overnight.
Reply #143 from JoeUser Forums Top

Non-sentient life shouldn't have rights.

We live in a world in which we just got done terminating a woman because she couldn't prove consciousness (sentience).  Yet there are hope swaths of people sweating the rights of cows or chickens who are certainly not sentient.

In my view, it only gets iffy when you start getting into primates.

Reply #144 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Well, then...my argument falls flat on its face then, doesn't it?"


Not really, i'm an exception, not the rule. I even eat my steaks rare so they won't go down like nasty fibrous planty flesh...
Reply #145 from JoeUser Forums Top

I tend to think if we did away with meat a large percent of the world would starve.

Maybe not starve, but at the least they would suffer from a lack of nutrition.

Reply #146 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't think that people in India have access to the meat substitutes we do, but there they are.

No, they dont eat beef.  But they do chicken and pork.  Hardly a veggie diet.

Reply #147 from JoeUser Forums Top

You can't use that argument to say that we eat meat to survive, though. When you decide to have a steak for dinner, does your thought process go "If I don't eat this steak, I'll die", or does it go "I want a steak"?

meat provides essential nutrients.  you can get it from Chicken, pork and even sea food. And SOME veggies.  But in the end, most of the world does not have access to those veggies and MUST eat meat.

Reply #148 from JoeUser Forums Top

but I think it is pretty wide-eyed to say that we could just convert all the feed farming to fresh fruits and vegetables and end the world's need for meat.

And totally wrong as well.

Reply #149 from JoeUser Forums Top

Anyways, I was not trying to put forth some universal truth, just to refute drguy's point that I had not considered people with no access to meat sustitutes.

But you have.  WE (america) have that opprtunity.  But MOST of the world does not.  You have not refuted it yet.

Reply #150 from JoeUser Forums Top

Non-sentient life shouldn't have rights.
We live in a world in which we just got done terminating a woman because she couldn't prove consciousness (sentience). Yet there are hope swaths of people sweating the rights of cows or chickens who are certainly not sentient.
In my view, it only gets iffy when you start getting into primates.

What a connection!  I will not argue with that one.  Only to say we treat non sentient life that is not human better than we do that we consider once human.