PETA Bashing On DU

[K8-EEE]

I was really surprised that the Atkins story generated so many "FRONT GROUP FOR PETA!" type comments here on DU. I am not an active member of PETA and certainly take issue with some (not all) of their tactics, but I certainly am sympathetic to their cause.

Do we have any DU-ers who are concerned with the ethical treatment of animals? The things that have come out in regards to Mad Cow, Bird Flu etc. definitely shine a light on the kind of horrors that are behind the little syrofoam packages at the meat counter.

Question: are you willing to pay more for animal products in order to have more humane and healthy conditions for animals raised for food?

[Viking12]

1. I pay more

not necessarily because the animals are treated better but because the product is healthier for me, creates sustainable agriculture practices, and local sustainable economies.

[MoonAndSun]

2. Just typing PETA on a DU thread brings out the bashers...

PETA does good things and just like any other group trying for a radical change, PETA does go overboard at times, but I applaud them for trying. Some of their tactics are disgusting, but what the food industry does to animals is even worse, so I say go for it.

[Snow]

50. Absolutely wrong!

I have been in on several of those threads. The attititude you just expressed, and that of PETA, is that the high and moral ends they seek justify any means to accomplish them, especially given the dirty tactics of the opponents. Come on, people, this is ethics 101! The means shape the end, how you get there is enormously important, more important than where you're going IMHO. Is this not obvious?

and on an unrelated topic - certainly, I will and do pay higher prices for eggs & meat that I hope came from better conditions. Trader Joe's is a pretty good place to find that. However, this is all unrelated to the main point of:

- - - No End Justifies Any Means!!!! - - - -

[Brian Sweat]

I am concerned about the humane treatment of animals,

but I detest PETA and their tactics.

[Donkeyboy75]

39. I pay extra for it, but

agree with Sweat. If you want to attract people to your cause, you can't look like a bunch of dipshit uber-radical college students (throwing paint on fur coats being one example).

By the way, I hate fur coats, so don't flame me for "supporting fur coats"

[theoceansnerves]

3. watch out

don't mention peta on here unless you're prepared for an onslaught of anti-peta and general anti animal rights comments.

[Brian Sweat]

5. You can pretty much expect such on onslaught anywhere you go.

Short of a PETA rally or maybe a Green convention, you are not going to find a place more hospitable to PETA than DU.

[jedicord]

4. Animals are People Too

Yes, I believe in ethical and humane treatment of animals. PETA stands for this, but unfortunately goes too far in many ways. Throwing paint on people with fur coats, for instance. All that manages to do is shine an extremely negative light on PETA, and cause these fur coat wearers to go buy another one. There are better ways to get the message across.

I personally donate to the HSPCA, a saner version of the same theory.

[K8-EEE]

18. HSPCA?

I will check that one out.

[tarheel]

6. I say why should we

have to pay more for animal products to be produced in a more humane way. The only thing the inhumane practices add to the said animal products is "more profits".

I know it is kind of foolish to think that people will actually do it, but we could change things if we refused to buy products that are produced through animal cruelty and also let the companies know that we are not going to support the exhorbitant profits via the suffering of animals.

That being said, I am not a vegetarian, vegan, or a member of PETA, and I am just as guilty as anyone else of not being aware of the treatment of the animals that produce the animal products I consume.

I do not have a problem with consuming animal products, but I also think they should be treated as humanely as possible until the time of their demise. I simply detest the fact the manufacturers/growers could raise and house and slaughter the animals in humane ways, but they won't simply to raise profits. Another example of the inherrant greed in capitalism.

[K8-EEE]

33. Inhumane = Cheap

Obviously, if you stack animals in cages in a warehouse and pump them full of hormones, it is cheaper than having them graze on a ranch.

[outinforce]

7. I Put PETA and Operation Rescue

in the same category.

Both organizations are on the extreme fringes of the causes they both espouse.

[K8-EEE]

17. Operation Rescue...

anti-abortion? Haven't they killed doctors, or advocated it? If so then I wouldn't put them in the same category.

[outinforce]

20. How Many People Would PETA Have Die

because of their extreme opposition to using animals to research possible cures for things like AIDS or cancer?

Both OR and PETA are little more than extremists who are so blind to their "causes" that they end up justifying killing people.

[K8-EEE]

26. But Many Diseases...

AIDS and SARS and MadCow....weren't they examples of things that started because of misuse of animals?

Animal experiments are the same type of thing....if they are done humanely and if they are necessary it is different that doing pointless and inhumane testing on animals for cosmetics etc.

It's a question of: should we have standards of humane treatments for animals used for food or medical reasons or not?

You can BET that the beef industry, good GWB supporters that they are, say...NOT!

[outinforce]

35. I Think That PETA's Position Is

I may be wrong, but I think that PETA's definition of "ethical treatment" of animals is that animals should never be used for medical research.

THAT is, I submit, an extremist position -- right up there with OR's position regarding abortion.

We can certainly discuss "standards of humane treatments for animals used for medical reasons".

But I believe I am correct when I say that PETA would think such a discussion ghastly -- because having such a discussion would acknowledge something that PETA thinks is just awful -- using animals in medical research.

[bahrbearian]

8. After 9-11 a friend of mine said

that they were going to poison our food and water supplies, I asked him if he meant the USDA and chimpy, no he said the "Terriorist". I was right again.

[bambo53]

9. Yes

Question: are you willing to pay more for animal products in order to have more humane and healthy conditions for animals raised for food?

Yes. And I'm also willing to pay more for mental health problems that seem to pervade our society.

[DrWeird]

10. PETA has some pretty nutty followers.

But only half as nutty as some Atkins supporters.

When they butt heads I just sit back and laugh.

but to answer your question, yes I wilingly pay more for organically grown beef.

[Terwilliger]

14. You should see Democrats

:eyes:

[judge_smales]

11. Yeah, I think I would,

but it would depend on the premium.

And for the record, I *HATE* PETA. Mainly because they have made themselves into a nice, stout club for the right to use on anybody to left of Noam Chomsky, as in "Go back to your PETA meeting, lefty!"

Just bugs me.

[Teaser]

12. OF course we're concerned with the humane use of animals.

But that is "humane use" not "complete non-use" which many Peta-ists seem to advocate.

I believe there are humane ways to raise and kill animals for food, research, etc. I do not believe we need to stop all use and killing of animals.

[K8-EEE]

16. Okay So, What Should We Do To Stop The Inhmane Treatment

of animals raised for food?

I agree that we will never stop people from eating meat. In the same way that we will never stop abortion and other things that some people find immoral. But it seems that the treatment of these animals has gotten SO horrendous in just the last 20 years as family owned ranches are more and more replaced with "warehousing" corporations.

My friend who is an insurance adjuster visited the processing plant of Oscar Meyer and that was it....he immediately switched to grain fed, range raised mail order beef, no more supermarket stuff.

[Teaser]

31. Research vat grown meat for one!

1) Figure out how to grow muscle tissue without a skeletal host.

Barring that, there are ways of killing animals painlessly. Certain drugs can do it, but one must be sure that the drug delivered breaks down so as not to kill the human consumer. Some kind of drug delivered epidurally, that wouldn't get into the remainder of the animal's systems...

Failing that, even a shotgun blast, if carefully delivered can do the trick. But we'd have to have inspectors make sure that people were actually doing it properly. Which would cost money. But I'm cool with that.

A bigger problem with humane treatment is the raising of animals. Getting rid of cattle factory farms...etc. Which I'm also all for. But the political will has got to be there, and it ain't yet.

But if we want to advance animal rights...we have to start educating the public about factory farms. They can and will care about stuff like that, if approached properly.

[EstimatedProphet]

13. Yes

I am absolutely willing to pay more for better-raised meat.
That is not my issue with PETA.
My issue with PETA is their tendency to see any kind of animal use as slavery and pseudo-cannibalism. Their organization is focused around the idea that animals are equal to people, so any use of an animal for food or work is equivalent to use of a person for the same thing. This is simply not true. Animals are not equal to people because they are not capable of self-control. Animals operate on instinct, not intellect. You cannot argue an animal out of acting on instinct, which means that they will follow their instincts even when it is damaging to them, and overbreed, chase prey, overeat to the point of sickness when food is unlimited, etc.
PETA's ideas of no animal use are destructive and will lead to mass overpopulation, followed by mass starvation and environmental degradation if adopted, and frankly, we humans have enough of those kind of problems ourselves without bringing animals into it.

[outinforce]

15. Washington's METRO Has an Ad

Metro, the Washington, DC, subway system, has a puiblic service ad which quotes a PETA higher-up as saying that even if a cure for AIDS could be found using animal research, she would still not support the research.

THAT is just one of my issues with PETA.

[Brian Sweat]

21. Who the hell sponsered that "public service anouncement?"

[outinforce]

24. I'll See If....

If I happen to see the ad on the way home tonight, I'll let you know who sponsored it.

By the way, it shows two pictures -- one is of a rat; the other is of a baby.

The inference that the ad apparently wants to viewer to draw is that PETA is more concerned about saving the lives of rats than baout saving the lives of babies.

The ad also does have a quotation from someone pretty high up in PETA that tends to make one think that PETA would care more about rats than human children.

[K8-EEE]

28. Sounds Like RW Propaganda...

and not at all indicative of any of the PETA supporters I know.

[outinforce]

36. From PETA Itself

Here is how Carla Bennett, PETA’s Kindness Consultant, who "is here to answer all your questions" responds to the following question:

"Would you approve an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?"

Carla says:

"Suppose that the on;ly way to save those 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally challenge orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn't that be worth it? Most people will agree that it is wrong to sacrifice one human life for the "greater good" of others because it would violate that individual's rights. There is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good"

Links:

www.askcarla.com
http://www.askcarla.com/ac/tempfaq/FAQ.asp?CategoryID=6&Category=Experimentation

Still think it sounds like "RW Propoganda"?

[ret5hd]

34. oh, that is rich...

<snip>
...Animals operate on instinct, not intellect...which means that they will follow their instincts even when it is damaging to them
</snip>
like people having unprotected sex, or people exhibiting the tribal/pack instinct by rioting, etc, etc, etc.


<snip>
, and overbreed,
</snip>
how many people populate the earth now?

<snip>
overeat to the point of sickness when food is unlimited, etc.
</snip>
how many people die of obesity related illness each year?

disclaimer: no, i am not a member of peta. i do try to follow a mostly vegetarian diet (with the occasional burger when my resolve weakens), but i do not identify myself as vegetarian or vegan. yes, i would pay more for meat that was raised humanely.

[EstimatedProphet]

38. You didn't read my last line, did you?

WE do the same behavior, yes. Why should you think that animals would do any different, if we can see what we're doing and still don't change?

[ret5hd]

40. my point is that your statement...

<snip>
Animals are not equal to people because they are not capable of self-control
</snip>

doesn't prove anything.
we humans seem not too capable of self-control either.

[EstimatedProphet]

43. I grant you that.

We don't act as if we are capable of self control at all, most of the time. We are capable of doing so though. the world would be a better place if we did more often.
BUT, were we to adopt the PETA line that all animal use should be stopped, we would see mass overpopulation of animals in a matter of a few years, followed by massive die-offs. Cases such as that have been documented already, for example:
the Kaibab population of deer (Kaibab plateau borders the Grand Canyon) exploded following wolf removal in the 1910s-1920s. Within 5 years of the program, there was overpopulation of deer, followed by a mass starvation.
Populations of deer, elk, and bison have hit record high numbers in Yellowstone Park, following the fires that swept the park in 1989. The fires cleared out a lot of space for new greenery, and the animal populations expanded in response. After secondary succession sets in, and there's less leafy green plants left over, what's going to happen to the animal populations that are as large as they are because of the food there now? A massive die-off is almost certain.
There are other examples of course-exotic species,pets going feral, etc. These things are part of the natural environment of course. I don't look on them as tragedies or horrors either. But I do take exception to people who think that human animal use can be stopped just by wishing it so. This is a much more complex issue than I have heard argued from most of the PETA supporters I have known. There will be consequences. To believe otherwise is naive.

[brainwashed_youth]

19. I think PETA is awright

but, like the NRA and Islam, it has been hijacked by extremist lunatics. These people bitch and moan and cry about animals, but do they care about all the loss of life in Iraq?

Animals do not have rights. Ya, some of the food companies have realy disgusting procedures, but any time I hear PETA it makes me wanna go out and kill a cute, fluffy woodland creature

[K8-EEE]

22. Why Can't You Care About Animals AND People?

I volunteer in an animal shelter and one thing that really annoys me is comments like, how can you do (whatever) for animals with there are so many people (whatever.)

This makes no sense at all to me. I also protested the Iraq war, I also volunteer at a center for battered women & their kids.

[EstimatedProphet]

23. The difference

NRA started as a fairly moderate organization. It has been hijacked by freepers, yes.
PETA started as an extremist organization, as I understand it. It's always been their driving force to see animals as equal to humans.
I do believe in animal welfare, yes. I don't believe in "animal rights". 2 entirely different things. And I cetainly don't believe that animals are equal to humans.

[ret5hd]

37. peta peta peta peta peta peta

that's 5. on edit: i mean 6.
get back to me when you're done and tell me how you feel.

[shance]

25. Without a doubt. I truly admire the supporters of PETA

Animals cannot speak, but they understand so much more than so many of us consciously want to realize. Because if we realize how much they do understand, it would be too painful for many people.

People to awaken to the truth. That animals are smart, some much more intuitive than humans, and yet we objectify them because it makes us easier to dismiss the cruelty inflicted upon them.

[Butterflies]

46. Thankyou, that was very well said

I am a member of PETA and I'm not a crazy extremist. I have close relationships with some other animal species (my dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pig) and those members of my family caused me realize how much they (and all animals)deserve protection and respect from humans.

[amazona]

27. i can't pay more

With my income in the high four figures I am already having to make a choice between food and medicine as it is.

There is no way to have 100 percent humane treatment of animals and also to be able to provide enough food for a population of 6 billion people. Agriculture -- the growing of grain -- is responsible for the overwhelming majority of the habitat loss and also the extinction of our plants and animals. People who eat soy are supporters of Monsanto and are directly responsible for the extinction of hundreds of species of plants, butterflies, etc. PETA is a big lie where distractors and disruptors -- I would not be surprised if they were actually black ops from the other side -- can make a big pretense of caring about animals while promoting untold harm against the environment and our future.

I am not willing to die, nor are 6 billion other people willing to die, so that the tiny minority of elites who can live on nuts and berries can have the world to themselves. Sorry. And I have to admit to getting a cruel chuckle out of the knowledge that quite a few of the elites CAN'T live on these diets and are killing themselves with anorexia, addiction, etc. But I deeply resent them spreading their disease and the fear of food to women (and men) at every level of society.


Food hysteria kills people, make no mistake, and it preferentially kills young and middle-aged women. PETA is evil. Period. I'm tired of humoring them because they pretend to be on the left. The left is about TOLERANCE, hello, not about taking the food out of my mouth!

I've had it with PETA. And people who say they support PETA's goals mostly don't even know what PETA's goals are.

[K8-EEE]

32. Nuts And Berries, Are Not So Bad

When you look at what goes into cheap meat!

.

[mmm]

29. PETA has done plenty of good as well

I think they are great

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[MrsMatt]

41. Most livestock producers I'm acquainted with

are ethical in their treatment of animals. These smaller farm operations consider their stock a real investment, and it makes little sense to mistreat them. I grew up on a farm, and those animals were of great importance to us.

Even the slaughterhouses are beginning to pay attention this issue - a stressed animal when processed will bring a lower quality of meat. Many processors are applying the research by Dr. Temple Grandin regarding the treatment of animals. She developed the "Stairway to Heaven" in meat packing plants, which helps mimic the natural herding behaviors in animals, thus reducing stress.


I personally feel that the sector that deserves the largest part of the blame is the huge agribusinesses. They are the equivalent of the pharmaseutical lobby.

[K8-EEE]

47. Exactly, Why Does PETA Inspire More Ire Than Huge Agri-biz?

Besides cruelty they impede on family businesses and traditional methods of farming which are obviously better for the animals AND us...

[EstimatedProphet]

48. It's their methods

I think the extremism they show in their advertizing and publicity stunts does more to turn people away than make them pay attention.
You are very right to be concerned about factory farming, but people will never get enraged at the factory farming issue because they stay in the background, and enough people don't think about issues in sufficient depth to see the problem. So, even if PETA shows people what goes on, they turn their head because all the factory farm is offering them is a choice cut in styrofoam, vs. a gross picture.

[MISSDem]

55. Because people can rationalize ANYTHING in order to keep doing

what they want to do, ie, eat meat.

[Skip Intro]

42. Very much support PETA and the rights of animals

But I know what you mean about PETA bashers on DU. Its goes beyond disagreement, for some, to downright hostility against PETA and the idea of animal rights. Finding that attitude here was the biggest shock for me, and it still baffles me.

Few issues demand the level of activism and immediate solution than does ending the mind-boggling, widespread cruelty inflicted upon our fellow creatures.

In the case of PETA, to the best of my knowledge of their activities, the ends absolutely justify the means.

[outinforce]

44. Ends and Means

I'm Curious, nu_duer.

You say that in the case of PETA, the "ends absolutely justify the means".

You also say that "Few issues demand the level of activism and immediate solution than does ending the mind-boggling, widespread cruelty inflicted upon our fellow creatures."

While I can think of a few issues that do demand the level of activism and immediate solution than does ending cruelty to animals, one such issue that comes to my mind is the eradication of terrible diseases -- such as HIV/AIDS and cancer -- that afflict great numbers of human beings.

I'm curious as to whether you think the "end" -- eradication of such terrible diseases -- woud justify the "means" of using animals (in a humane way) in conducting research into possible cures for those diseases?

[MadHound]

49. In many many ways it is foolish to use animal for human disease research

For instance, their reaction to various drugs and foods. A sheep can eat bushels and bushels of belladona, whereas it is a deadly poison for humans. You and I can eat all of the chocolate in the world, however it makes dogs violently ill, and in some cases kills them. And the height of foolishness is having student doctors practice their skills on dogs, since the thoracic cavity is of a radically different shape and the organ placement is different from humans.

One example of these differences adversely effecting humans are the thalidomide babies from the '50s and early '60s. Thalidomide was a mild sedative developed during the mid '50s. Tested on various animals, no harmful effects were noted. However once given to women the drug started to effect the children born to these women after they started taking the drug. Strange and odd physical deformities appeared, like flippers and stunted limbs. The drug was pulled after it became obvious what was happening, but not before tens of thousands of deformed children were born world wide.

In many ways medical testing on animals is foolish. The data is suspect because one can never predict what will happen when you apply principles across species. And the vast majority of medical research is inherently inhumane to animals. So if the information gleaned from animal experiments is suspect at best, tell me, what is the purpose of proceding with such research?

[outinforce]

51. I'm Not Sure What You Are Saying

Are you stating as a fact that using animals in medical research is never justified because the data would always be suspect? Are you saying that medical research using animals is by its very nature inhumane and that no means could ever be devised to conduct meidcal experiments on animals that would not be inhumane?

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were an experiment that would involve the sacrifice of 10 animals. Would you approve an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?

[MadHound]

59. Yes, yes and maybe

Yes, using data from animals is always suspect, cross species application of results and data is very tricky and complex. That is why the final step in drug testing is always done with human volunteers. Yes, medical use of animals is always inhumane. We consider performing experiments of any kind on unconsenting humans to be the height of immorality, the said can be said of animals. Isn't it interesting that one of the sure pyschological signs of an abusive human is their interaction with animals. Says something about vivisectionists now doesn't it?

As far as you hypothetical goes, probably the only animals that I would approve of sacrificing in that situation would be humans. Better quality control, more applicable results. Besides, wouldn't you have to try this miracle cure out on humans anyway? That's what the FDA requires.

[outinforce]

63. If I Understand You Correctly,

If I am understanding you correctly, you ae saying that the medical use of animals is always inhumane. And I think I hear you saying that it is inhumane because we do not first obtain the consent of the animals involved.

Now I don't mean to be absurd here, but just how would you suggest that we obtain the consent of the animals? You seem to be perfectly OK with using human subjects -- as long as their consent is obtained.

So I'm wondering what it would take, exactly, in order for us to obtain the consent of animals to be used in medical research, in your view? And, if animals are unable to give their consent, does that really suggest that they are qualitatively different from human beings?

Oh, and by the way -- you suggest that performing experiments on unconsenting human beings is "the height of immorality". In my view, also at that same "height of immorality" is comdemning other human beings to slow painful deaths because of concerns for laboratory rats.

But, hey, that's just me.

[EstimatedProphet]

53. Define inhumane

It is very difficult in research institutions in North America to get a grant for animal research without strict adherence to animal research guidelines. IACUC (http://www.iacuc.org/) oversees every land-grant university animal research program in the United States. Their guidelines are strict: full disclosure of animal uses beforehand, euthanasia of all animals to be used, ultimate fate of all animals, etc. The "vast majority" of medical research is being overseen for humane actions.
I disagree on your statement that animal research is suspect at best too; there have been cases where conclusions were terribly wrong, such as thalidomide, but there are far more cases where animal research has given us needed medical principles and treatments.

[MISSDem]

56. What cases were those?

[EstimatedProphet]

60. Most medical research

The FDA drug approval program, for example, doesn't even allow a new drug to be tested on humans until it is shown to have minimal reactions in animal testing.
There have been cases in the past, like the Thalidomide approval, that were an error and had tragic results. The FDA has typically re-evaluated its procedures in these cases, and strengthened the approval procedures. The system isn't perfect. There's a number of flaws, and like all government agencies it seems these days, there's cronyism in what gets selected to test. But it is far better than just abandoning animal research altogether.

[MadHound]

61. Well, injecting animals with diseases and drugs is inherently inhumane

It is something that we wouldn't do to humans without their consent, and when it has happened it created a huge uproar and backlash to those who performed human experiments. As time goes along we continue to find out just how "human" many animals are. They feel pain and emotions, they have intelligence and personalities. How can you justify putting them through agony just so you can where the latest shade of lipstick?

[outinforce]

65. I Don't Think We Are Talking About Lipsticks

I think we are talking about the development of new medicines that can alleviate human suffering and cure diseases that afflict millions of human beings.

[EstimatedProphet]

66. Well, for starters, I don't wear lipstick

:)
I will agree that there is some animal research that is unimportant, and the makeup industry comes screaming to mind.
But is exposing animals to disease inherently inhumane? If they are treated well as study animals, and euthanized at the end of the study, then what else can we do? Should we let people die to save laboratory animals?
I'm not opposed to animal research, and I'm not going to be. It's necessary in too many cases. If it isn't necessary, or is for a frivolous reason, then I oppose it, but not just because it's animal research.
And I also don't beleive in the equality of animals and humans.

[JCMach1]

45. I enjoy eating meat, but the Atkins stuff is just

STUPID~!!!!!

Humans are OMNIVORES now quit crying into your teacups....

[MISSDem]

52. I support PETA, proudly I might add, financially and otherwise.

Sure they are somewhat radical but you never got anything done being miss nice girl. They almost single handedly forced Proctor & Gamble, McDonalds, et al, to change their ways. I am also a vegetarian who believes that if one can know that animals are abused so horribly , ie, cows are routinely skinned and/or cut up while they are still conscious and pigs are dumped into boiling water while they are still alive(the stun gun misses them and they have to just keep on walking in their place in the line on the way to the killing place)and continue to eat their flesh then you are thicker skinned that am I. If people would all be responsible for their actions and have a tiny bit of compassion then PETA would not be needed. Personally, if I were going to eat meat I would want to go hunting and kill me own or raise the animals and have someone with a conscience slaughter it for me.

[EstimatedProphet]

62. Good-

I agree with your stance. I agree with your issues about animal treatment. And I agree with your statements about raising and hunting animals as responsible.

[Snow]

54. Since there are some vegetarian types following this thread,

I'm curious to know, apart from the ends-justifying-any-means problem of PETA's behavior, what a vegetarian position is on animals who are carnivores? Without wanting to be condescending, I would think we could get into "big bad wolf" country pretty easily.

Second thought, and again, I'm seriously curious here, while I agree that many of the big ag-business meat farms and factories are a blight, what about the mis-treatment of commercially raised plant life? That is in my opinion an even worse abuse than what happens to the animals. How does the non-carnivorous community address this?

[MISSDem]

57. Using humor to deflect something unpleasant?

Many people do that.

[Snow]

58. *chuckle* Well, maybe a little, but in all honesty,

I would like that explained. Have you ever traveled through California's central valley? I used to have a job that included a bit of flying in a smallish state airplane, 10 - 40k feet up, across a corn-and-soy state. Holy crap, you should see the brown layer in the air, from about 9 to 11k ft up. Especially during spring plowing and fall harvest. Irrelevant to agricultural plant abuse, really, but the people living there loved to bash the bad air in LA.

[K8-EEE]

67. I Am For Clean And Humanely Produced Food

I do not believe it is impossible. I believe that the giant corps who run most of the agri-biz think that it is, because they benefit from the status quo.

About your question about animals who are carnivores, a question of the same relevance: what about animals who are vegetarians?

I am not a vegetarian really although since I only eat the good (free range, grain fed) stuff and can't afford it often, I probably am about 80% of the time.

I know too many MEGA healthy vegetarians to think that it is necessary to eat meat. Have you ever heard a doctor say, "What a tragedy, he was only a hamburger away from surviving?" The converse is true though; it's not lentils and tofu that are leading to bypass operations and high cholestrol etc.

Also it is weird that the Atkins fans, who sort of act cultish sometimes, immediately assume you eat white flour and sugar etc. just because you don't eat flesh food all day.

[Snow]

73. I'm not real clear on your question....

"About your question about animals who are carnivores, a question of the same relevance: what about animals who are vegetarians? "

So you're suggesting that by my logic, if animals who eat other animals are 'bad', then using my argument that plants likewise should be respected and preserved, herbivores are 'bad' as well? Okay, I suppose that follows, although I had posed them as separate issues. Wanna take a swipe at anwering them from the vegetarian pespective?

[geniph]

64. I differentiate between "animal rights" and "animal welfare"

I am wholeheartedly a supporter of animal welfare. Animal rights - there's a touchier issue.

Here's some links on the differences between them:

http://www.sover.net/~lsudlow/ARvsAW.htm

http://www.furcommission.com/debate/

http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/animalright.htm

http://www.netcat.org/ar-vs-aw.html

[Hippo_Tron]

68. Why doesn't PETA support family farms?

I have always wondered why they only encourage people to be vegetarians instead of encouraging people to buy their meat and dairy products from family farms or organic food stores, should they decide that they don't want to be vegetarians.

[outinforce]

69. Easy

PETA thinks animals have rights.

PETA equate eating meat with cannibalism.

See:

http://www.askcarla.com/ac/tempfaq/FAQ.asp?CategoryID=5&Category=Veg

See, especially, the question: "I believe in protecting animals, but do you have to focus so much on vegetarianism?"

The answer to that question will, I think, answer your question concerning why PETA does not support family farms that grow livestock for food.

[EstimatedProphet]

71. Why doesn't PETA support hunting?

For the same reason that they don't support family farms-they are opposed to all animal use. The organic/free-range things they do are just a means to an end.
Therein lies why I don't support them. They are unrealistic.

[Mrs. Overall]

70. My encounter with PETA--

I went to pick up my wedding dress at a dress alteration business run by two old ladies. This particular morning there was crime ribbon surrounding the store, the windows were broken out and PETA had thrown red paint bombs inside, which had detonated, leaving all of the dresses covered in dripping red paint that looked like blood. My dress was one of five dresses which had been left in a back room the night before, so it had survived unscathed/unbloodied. The reason for this attack was because these old ladies occasionally did alterations for people who brought in fur coats.
I agree with some of PETA's principles, but I saw this "attack" as kind of stupid, considering some of the other cruel things that were happening to animals in our particular area.
And yes, I would and do pay more for meat--we only eat organic chicken, eggs and dairy products--free-range and vegetarian fed.

[outinforce]

72. I'm Glad Your Dress Wasn't Ruined

But I think your encounter with PETA points out what I was suggesting earlier in this thread -- that PETA is very much like Operation Rescue.

OR thinks that their "end" -- the complete abolition of abortion -- justifies their means -- putting abortionists out of business by any means necessary.

Similarly, PETA seems to feel that their "end" -- assuring that animals and human beings have the same rights, and that the rights of animals are recognized and respected, in law if necessary, by all human beings -- justify their means -- destroying the business of two old women who alter fur coats and destroying the dresses of innocent people.

Both of these organizations disgust me.

Both are little more than what George Santyana called fanatics -- People who redouble their efforts when they have forgotten their aims.

[Don_G]

74. What's The Difference In Fur Coats And Well-Cared For Leather?

I have three leather jackets; one dating from before I was born that my father wore during the Korean War. I prefer leather because they'll last if you take care of it, water resistant and a lot kinder on the limited resources of the world if one has to buy an new chemical-based "Thinsulate" coat and jacket every year.

I also do some hunting but I never go out with the intention to "kill" without harvesting what nature provided and a lot less since BSE and "wasting deer disease" has been prominent in the news.

Until PETA reorganizes some of their priorities and manage lose the paint and bolt-cutters, I'll stick with supporting animal shelters in my area.