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 9)

121

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

totally agree with you on how we treat our animals before and during slaughter, it's cruel and we should be ashamed.

You know, if PETA was sane, they would have a lot bigger following. How about we start SANE PETA.

Someone Against Negative Eedgits!

122

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

I'd say meat eating is done entirely for convenience; and I don't agree that abortion is done mostly for convenience, but that's not a discussion for this thread.

I will say that is not true. In the US, it may be now. But most of the world does not have access to our protein substitutes.

123

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

I typed a response to Baker's rambling indictment of me, but the page wouldn't load and I don't intend to retype all of it. Contrary to Baker's beliefs, my life does not revolve around him. Here's hoping he actually means it this time when he says he will never talk to me again.

I really hope neither of you mean that. And it is just the heat of the debate.

124

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

how veal bulls are treated prior to slaughter

I have, what's wrong with it? I grew up raising vealers on our family dairy farm.

Guess I am going off the farm as I will not eat veal for the very reason of how they are raised. That is my personal choice, and has been for most of my life.

125

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

One of my favorite quotes (by Paul and Linda McCartney): "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarian." Nobody wants to see what really happens in there. We just want our neat little packages of meat that we pick up at the store.

I dont agree with Paul (I am a george fan). But I do for the most part agree with you. I guess that is why PETA upsets me so much. I would love to be an advocate for humane slaughtering, but not their extremism.

126

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

127

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

128

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

129

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

130

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

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

And evolution.

131

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

132

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

133

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

134

philomedy

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

135

philomedy

on Aug 13, 2005

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.

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!