PETA: Sinking to New lows

They have hit bottom and started to dig

Published on August 1, 2005 By Dr Guy In Current Events

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.

Comments (Page 10)

136

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

137

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

138

bakerstreet

on Aug 13, 2005

"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.

139

philomedy

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

140

philomedy

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

141

bakerstreet

on Aug 13, 2005

"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.

142

philomedy

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

143

Draginol

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

144

bakerstreet

on Aug 13, 2005

"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...

145

Dr Guy

on Aug 14, 2005

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.

146

Dr Guy

on Aug 14, 2005

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.

147

Dr Guy

on Aug 14, 2005

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.

148

Dr Guy

on Aug 14, 2005

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.

149

Dr Guy

on Aug 14, 2005

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.

150

Dr Guy

on Aug 14, 2005

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.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!