NationStates Jolt Archive

In the USA recently, PETA (People for the Ethical Treament of Animals) has been on a campaign saying the way animals like chickens, cattle and pigs are treated before and during their time at the slaughter house is comparable to the way the Jews were treated by the Nazis during the Holocaust. When I heard about this, I laughed. How could these dumbass hippies think that the life of a dirty chicken is equal to that of a human being? Jewish groups are of course offended and are putting pressure on PETA to end that campaign. The very fact they think it's cruel to eat animals, when I think the sole purpose of some animals like chickens or cows is to be eaten or to produce eggs or milk. These animals would surely go extinct in the wild due to the fact chickens can't fly and can't run all that fast and that cows are incredibly stupid and with a couple of hungry wolves could be taken down easily. We keep them alive and when I think about, they have a pretty damn good life. They get fed well and live in fairly comfortable living spaces and then have a fairly quick, painless death. Now, I will admitt that certain animals are treated pretty bad before they are slaughtered, although they're gonna die anyways. I now truely believe that people should altogether ignore the message PETA is sending out and continue to enjoy a steak or a chicken breast. I know the Socialists and maybe some Liberals will go after me but I see the life of a human much higher than the life of my dinner, oh sorry I mean a chicken.

this is so last year.

and yeah, if you think that chickens have nice spaces to live in and cows don't have painful deaths, then you're slightly misinformed. the cows are supposed to have painless deaths, except the times when they don't get knocked out and they end up bleedign to death on a hook while still conscious. inspectors have gone in to inspect slaughterhouses and found them squirming on a hook.

Oh dear, I must don a Nazi soldier outfit as I eat chicken tonight...

seriously, these PETA people need some time off to cool off...I mean, seriously!

The very fact they think it's cruel to eat animals, when I think the sole purpose of some animals like chickens or cows is to be eaten or to produce eggs or milk. These animals would surely go extinct in the wild due to the fact chickens can't fly and can't run all that fast and that cows are incredibly stupid and with a couple of hungry wolves could be taken down easily.

Actually domesticated farm animals can easily adapt to wilderness environments and revert to a feral state... Southeast Asian jungles are full of feral chickens descended from stray farm chickens. The Spaniards brought over domesticated cattle to America in the 16th century but a few escaped and their offspring evolved into the wild longhorn which at one time numbered in the hundreds of thousands and roamed what is today the Southwestern US. The wild razorback boar in the Southern US evolved from a herd of 13 farm pigs, also brought over by the Spanish.

oh, and also, i find it offensive that you're equating all vegetarians with nutcases like peta.

dont' get me wrong, some things they say are alright, but a lot of it is way the hell out there. and i'm a vegetarian who thinks so.

Stupid hippies. Actually, animals don't have a very good life, but I don't give a damn. Mother Nature wants us to be rulers of the world, so every other species can... um.. I got writers block. Anyway, we should release a deadly bug into the PETA.. hehe he.

I say we start a new PETA: People for the Eating of Tasty Animals

this is so last year.

and yeah, if you think that chickens have nice spaces to live in and cows don't have painful deaths, then you're slightly misinformed. the cows are supposed to have painless deaths, except the times when they don't get knocked out and they end up bleedign to death on a hook while still conscious. inspectors have gone in to inspect slaughterhouses and found them squirming on a hook.


You're ignoring my point. Which is more important, a humans life or a chickens life?

In the USA recently, PETA (People for the Ethical Treament of Animals) has been on a campaign saying the way animals like chickens, cattle and pigs are treated before and during their time at the slaughter house is comparable to the way the Jews were treated by the Nazis during the Holocaust. When I heard about this, I laughed. How could these dumbass hippies think that the life of a dirty chicken is equal to that of a human being? Jewish groups are of course offended and are putting pressure on PETA to end that campaign. The very fact they think it's cruel to eat animals, when I think the sole purpose of some animals like chickens or cows is to be eaten or to produce eggs or milk. These animals would surely go extinct in the wild due to the fact chickens can't fly and can't run all that fast and that cows are incredibly stupid and with a couple of hungry wolves could be taken down easily. We keep them alive and when I think about, they have a pretty damn good life. They get fed well and live in fairly comfortable living spaces and then have a fairly quick, painless death. Now, I will admitt that certain animals are treated pretty bad before they are slaughtered, although they're gonna die anyways. I now truely believe that people should altogether ignore the message PETA is sending out and continue to enjoy a steak or a chicken breast. I know the Socialists and maybe some Liberals will go after me but I see the life of a human much higher than the life of my dinner, oh sorry I mean a chicken.
Slow news day huh? Don't blame PETA on liberals. I am sure that many conservatives treat their pets above human status, what with all the dog grooming stores now and big box pet stores.

I like my steak medium, back bacon on a bun, and roasted chicken.

oh, and also, i find it offensive that you're equating all vegetarians with nutcases like peta.

dont' get me wrong, some things they say are alright, but a lot of it is way the hell out there. and i'm a vegetarian who thinks so.


I'm not against vegetarians given I have a cousin who is one. I'm against this kind of campaigning or when they attack people on the streat who are eating a burger.

the jewish holocaust...really...wow, to compare something to the jewish holocaust takes nerve, and i will give PETA credit for having some nerve...

but i like to keep my options open to delightfully tasty muscle tissue...

PETA's jewish holocaust comparison is a weak way to try and get attention from messageboards from around the world. that's all i have to say...

You're ignoring my point. Which is more important, a humans life or a chickens life?

you're ignoring the fact that not all vegetarians agree with everything peta does as you suggested in your poll. you also ignored the fact that farm animals don't have nice lives or deaths to become your dinner, unless you're eating organic meat at least.

and the suffering of any species is deplorable especially when it can be prevented. why is it that you assume the suffering of another human being is more important than the suffering of a chicken or a cow? they both feel pain, don't they?

and also, as i said earlier. this is a campaign from last year.

Slow news day huh? Don't blame PETA on liberals. I am sure that many conservatives treat their pets above human status, what with all the dog grooming stores now and big box pet stores.

I like my steak medium, back bacon on a bun, and roasted chicken.


I'm not blaming it on Liberals, I'm saying some may disagree with me. And you just had to point out the conservative thing to me, didn't you? lol.

you're ignoring the fact that not all vegetarians agree with everything peta does as you suggested in your poll. you also ignored the fact that farm animals don't have nice lives or deaths to become your dinner, unless you're eating organic meat at least.

and the suffering of any species is deplorable especially when it can be prevented. why is it that you assume the suffering of another human being is more important than the suffering of a chicken or a cow? they both feel pain, don't they?


True, they both feel pain. Now, slaughter houses actually do a poor job of killing them painlessly, I'll give you that but I see a human life as higher than an animals. I have a dog whom I love dearly but if the dog and my brother died at the same time, I'd feel worse about my brother.

They're so much idiocy in your post and your poll that I'm not even sure you merit my time. But, I'll try anyway.

First of all, your poll is ridiculous. One does not need to be a vegetarian in order to see the validity of the comparison they are making. You do not need to agree that animal life is equivalent to human life to understand that the way animals are treated is VERY similar to the Holocaust. So, basically, your poll is a one-sided piece of garbage that is there only for you to pat yourself on the back that other people "agree" with you -- when they are scarcely given the choice to disagree. (There was, what, one choice that was in support of the campaign? And five against? Hmm!)

Second of all, you betray your complete and pervasive ignorance in your branding of all PETA members, or animal rights activists, as "dumbass hippies." I don't know one hippie myself, but I know plenty of PETA members or activists. I myself am a vegetarian since birth, and I'm anything but a hippie.
When you use such a broad, over-generalizing brush to paint people who disagree with you, you reveal yourself to be nothing more than an infant who cannot tolerate dissent and who cannot understand that there are shades of gray in EVERY issue and EVERY opinion.

Thirdly, you have a massive misconception of the treatment of animals before they are killed. Get real. Less than 1% of all animals that wind up on people's dinner plates today are raised in an "Old McDonald"-like environment. They are crammed from birth into tiny pens that do not allow them to lie down, turn around, or walk. Their life is a hellish torture from the instant they are born to the moment they are murdered. Often, the stun gun misses and the cow is still fully conscious and feeling pain as its throat is slit and its body is carved up.

Fourth, farm animals would NOT go extinct if meat eating were to stop. They are still useful for providing eggs, milk, wool, etc., and there will always be animal lovers or enthusiasts of a particular breed who will keep them as companions.

If you're going to insist on continuing to support the murder of innocent creatures for your own selfishness, which I imagine you are, at least educate yourself about what you are doing to these animals, and to the earth.

It truly is sad how little regard you have for any form of life besides your own. It is pathetic to me how arrogant humans are, thinking they are somehow "above" other species because of their intelligence. Personally, I would rather be ignorant than heartless, and I am often ashamed to belong to this race.

By the way, I know this is a campaign from 2003 but I needed a topic that would get some people talking and I'm bored since the party ended at my house.

True, they both feel pain. Now, slaughter houses actually do a poor job of killing them painlessly, I'll give you that but I see a human life as higher than an animals. I have a dog whom I love dearly but if the dog and my brother died at the same time, I'd feel worse about my brother.

well, of course, he's your brother, you can always get another dog, but it's highly unlikely your parents are going to make another brother for you. well, that woudl depend on their age.

i don't really see it as one being more important than the other, as if it weren't for other animal species, we'd pretty much be fucked and well, i like my species despite all the idiots that belong to it. i don't think that any animal is more important than any other animal (humans included)

Ok, I'm very sorry to any vegetarians that I offended by my broad generalization. Looking back at my poll and my orignial post, I was wrong and I'm sorry. I still do stand by my beliefs though (that humans can eat meat) and yes, I have seen PETA's videos of how the KFC chickens are treated but I thought that place was disgusting before that. When I was younger, I was fairly close to being a vegetarian myself because I hated the taste of pork, chicken and steak and would often take larger servings of vegtables so I could have as little meat as possible. Since then, I've gotten more used to meat but I still don't mind having an all vegetarian meal once and a while.

Animals have feelings. Yes, it is true, they do. Now lets consider a few other points.

1) The vast majority of animal are neither sentient, nor have the capacity to become so (there are some other primatets that can pass the "mirror" test, but that may not be full sentience). This means they can neither realize the difference between living in a pin and "living free", nor the fact that they are bred to slaughter. The point is, it doesn't really matter to them because they don't and can't know any better.

2) Life in the wild isn't all that great either. There is disease to contend with, nasty weather, lack of food, natural preditors, and for some, the lingering pain and eventual death that follows an injury...like a broken wing or leg. I don't care who you are, if you tell me that being mauled to death by a tiger, eaten alive by paranah, infected and chewed on by monitor, constricted by a python, or starving/freezing/etc. to death in the natural elements is a LESS PAINFULL death then a spike through the brain, I'm going to look at you funny.

3) I'm a very scientific person, I believe firmly in evolution. Evolution is a process that includes humans, we are a part of nature. We are in fact natures greatest hunters, and our bodies are set up to digest both plant and animal foods. Indeed, they are both important to our growth and survival. Like it or not, we are omnivores. And those cows, chickens, pigs, and others? Prey.

4) Were I religious man, I may likely firmly believe in creationism (though, there are many religious people who believe in evolution). And if that were the case, then I truely would believe that animals were set down on this Earth by God, for us. I would also recall that the apple was the forbidden food, not meat, and while some religions have restrictions on what types of meat can be eaten when, the vast majority believe that meat can and should be eaten.

So in my view, no matter if we are religious or scientific, there is a basis for eating meat. And in my view, no matter what nut tells me otherwise, there are many ways I would prefer to die then breaking a leg and not being able to get away from the ants, or falling in a freezing river, or being drowned and ripped apart by alligators.

PETA members should eat more fish...it is good brain food.

Personally, I think the wording in the 3rd option should read "side of beef" instead of "piece of steak"...

"I choose to exercise my right as apex predator."

1) The vast majority of animal are neither sentient, nor have the capacity to become so (there are some other primatets that can pass the "mirror" test, but that may not be full sentience). This means they can neither realize the difference between living in a pin and "living free", nor the fact that they are bred to slaughter. The point is, it doesn't really matter to them because they don't and can't know any better.

do they have pain receptors?

yes, they do. they can feel pain. have you ever heard a cat freak out because you stepped on its tail? and that's like if someone stepped on your toe.

and also, the cows know when they're being lead to slaughter. they can smell the blood of the other cows and this terrifies them, releasing hormones for fear and anger which stay in the bloodstream after they're dead. oddly enough, these hormones are similar to the fear and anger hormones that humans have.

3) I'm a very scientific person, I believe firmly in evolution. Evolution is a process that includes humans, we are a part of nature. We are in fact natures greatest hunters, and our bodies are set up to digest both plant and animal foods. Indeed, they are both important to our growth and survival. Like it or not, we are omnivores. And those cows, chickens, pigs, and others? Prey.

actually, we're not very good hunters naturally. without the use of tools i would say that the large cats are much better at it.
and at any rate, the cows bred in pens aren't hunted, they aren't prey, they are bred for eating. you're not hunting them because they aren't going anywhere. they're forced onto a conveyor belt and if they're lucky, they're stunned before they're cut open and hung on a hook to bleed to death.

also, we aren't adapted to eat as much meat as is in the average north american diet. you need like one serving a day if that, not two or three. too much protein is quite bad for you.

4) Were I religious man, I may likely firmly believe in creationism (though, there are many religious people who believe in evolution). And if that were the case, then I truely would believe that animals were set down on this Earth by God, for us. I would also recall that the apple was the forbidden food, not meat, and while some religions have restrictions on what types of meat can be eaten when, the vast majority believe that meat can and should be eaten.

actually, the bible does say with regard to the fruits and vegtables "let this be your meat" though how can one depend on translations anymore?
and it's highly unlikely that it was actually an apple that was the forbidden fruit...

So in my view, no matter if we are religious or scientific, there is a basis for eating meat. And in my view, no matter what nut tells me otherwise, there are many ways I would prefer to die then breaking a leg and not being able to get away from the ants, or falling in a freezing river, or being drowned and ripped apart by alligators.

so you would prefer being cut open throat to stomach and suspended on a hook?

PETA members should eat more fish...it is good brain food.

actually, with the amount of mercury in the oceans nowadays, i wouldn't trust the fish for brain food... those heavy metals aren't too good for you.

I did not get to the top of the food chain to eat grass.
-Ron White


Honestly, Peta was passing out brochures at my school the other day, and the best way to describe it is, "Our focus group tells us swearing is edgy, lets use 'Shit' alot!"

EDIT: And who says grass doesn't have feelings!

For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat THREE

Wow, no reply to my apology. Did I piss you guys off that much? I WAS BIAS OK! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT (and don't say me become a vegetarian because I was pretty close to one once but that was 5 years ago)?

I don't actually care. I just hate people who protest eating meat and cause traffic jams saying I'm going to hell because I ate a peice of meat.

Wow, no reply to my apology. Did I piss you guys off that much? I WAS BIAS OK! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT (and don't say me become a vegetarian because I was pretty close to one once but that was 5 years ago)?

sorry, apology accepted...

somethign i don't like to say, actually it always makes me feel like i'm beign self-righteous or something..

but meh, we all say stupid things from time to time.

By the way, Adam and Eve were vegetarians until they left Eden. Then they began to eat small amounts of meat. In Eden there was no death, so being a carnivore was impossible and this is coming from me.

Animals have feelings. Yes, it is true, they do. Now lets consider a few other points.

1) The vast majority of animal are neither sentient, nor have the capacity to become so (there are some other primatets that can pass the "mirror" test, but that may not be full sentience). This means they can neither realize the difference between living in a pin and "living free", nor the fact that they are bred to slaughter. The point is, it doesn't really matter to them because they don't and can't know any better.

2) Life in the wild isn't all that great either. There is disease to contend with, nasty weather, lack of food, natural preditors, and for some, the lingering pain and eventual death that follows an injury...like a broken wing or leg. I don't care who you are, if you tell me that being mauled to death by a tiger, eaten alive by paranah, infected and chewed on by monitor, constricted by a python, or starving/freezing/etc. to death in the natural elements is a LESS PAINFULL death then a spike through the brain, I'm going to look at you funny.

3) I'm a very scientific person, I believe firmly in evolution. Evolution is a process that includes humans, we are a part of nature. We are in fact natures greatest hunters, and our bodies are set up to digest both plant and animal foods. Indeed, they are both important to our growth and survival. Like it or not, we are omnivores. And those cows, chickens, pigs, and others? Prey.

4) Were I religious man, I may likely firmly believe in creationism (though, there are many religious people who believe in evolution). And if that were the case, then I truely would believe that animals were set down on this Earth by God, for us. I would also recall that the apple was the forbidden food, not meat, and while some religions have restrictions on what types of meat can be eaten when, the vast majority believe that meat can and should be eaten.

So in my view, no matter if we are religious or scientific, there is a basis for eating meat. And in my view, no matter what nut tells me otherwise, there are many ways I would prefer to die then breaking a leg and not being able to get away from the ants, or falling in a freezing river, or being drowned and ripped apart by alligators.

PETA members should eat more fish...it is good brain food.


1.) The fact that most animals will not recognize these facts means nothing. They still deserve at least some amount of physical comfort while they are in our care, be they as companions or as slaughterhouse animals. Their lack of sentience does not give us a right to torture them or cause them undue suffering. Just like we don't beat up a retarded kid because he doesn't know he deserves better treatment.
2.) There's a lot to be said for life in the wild. While the suffering may be the same or worse, it's how things are meant to be. In the wild, animals do not die due to human greed. They die due to natural causes, or they fall prey to the predators who need the animals to survive. Humans, obviously, do not need meat to survive.
3.) I don't buy the evolution thing for a second. We are not slaves to our biology. We have evolved so far from our "natural states" that we are able to give hearing to the deaf, mobility to amputees, and many useful years to the elderly. If you're arguing for what's natural for humans to do, then I dare you to try and get your meat with a spear or a stick you make yourself. Go on, face down that bull.
4.) Religion does not play into this in the slightest, and often is NOT a good indicator of what is morally correct.

It's hardly comparable... the reasons behind them were completely different.

Our society treats animals in cruel conditions and slaughters them because of money and because people like eating meat. The Nazi's treated the Jews in cruel conditions and slaughtered them because they believed Jews were the destroyers of culture (at least that's how Hitler put it).

If you mean purely on how they are treated, we actually treat these animals (the ones in the large factory farms, not like the family owned ranch type things) far worse than the Nazis treated the Jews....

Anyways, I think that cruel treatment of these animals is wrong, and it should be a VERY high crime to do so. However, if you humanely raise and then kill for food, then it is okay, or if you hunt your food.

As to whether the life of a chicken is the same as the life of a human? Depends mostly on who the person is really. 1 human can affect the world far more than 1 chicken can, so it depends mostly on whether that human is a good person or a bad person... so actually depending on the person, it's quite possible I would value the life of that chicken over that person.

It's hardly comparable... the reasons behind them were completely different.

Our society treats animals in cruel conditions and slaughters them because of money and because people like eating meat. The Nazi's treated the Jews in cruel conditions and slaughtered them because they believed Jews were the destroyers of culture (at least that's how Hitler put it).

If you mean purely on how they are treated, we actually treat these animals (the ones in the large factory farms, not like the family owned ranch type things) far worse than the Nazis treated the Jews....

Anyways, I think that cruel treatment of these animals is wrong, and it should be a VERY high crime to do so. However, if you humanely raise and then kill for food, then it is okay, or if you hunt your food.

As to whether the life of a chicken is the same as the life of a human? Depends mostly on who the person is really. 1 human can affect the world far more than 1 chicken can, so it depends mostly on whether that human is a good person or a bad person... so actually depending on the person, it's quite possible I would value the life of that chicken over that person.


Wow. I have rarely run into someone with such progressive views as you. It's mightily refreshing.
I know I would be FAR less militant about people eating meat if they raised the animals themselves in humane, caring conditions, and made their deaths swift and painless. I still wouldn't like it, but it's nothing like the institutionalized mass murder we have now.
I don't think of hunting in the same way, though -- there's nothing "noble" about it. The animal has no chance. Again, I say, make a spear or use a rock and kill the animal yourself. At least then the animal has a sporting chance. Right now, hunting for "sport" is a mockery of sport; it's one of the reasons I applaud when the matador is gored. Kind of evens the odds, huh, you little shit "athlete"?
Anyway.
Thank you for your post.

Hehe, thank you :)

I don't mean hunting for sport, that is extremely wrong IMO.

I mean if you like live out in a cabin in the woods or something, and you hunt your food... I would see no problem with that.

I do like your thing with like a spear though :) Hehe. However, if I ever needed to "hunt" for food (although that isn't happening, but if for some odd reason I needed to), I'd probably use a bow.

You're ignoring my point. Which is more important, a humans life or a chickens life?

When a chicken goes on to cure AIDs, stops world hunger, discover faster-then-light travel, creates affordable superconductors or invents cold fushion, then the chicken's life will be more important. Until then, it's either lunch or dinner.

Wow. I have rarely run into someone with such progressive views as you. It's mightily refreshing.
I know I would be FAR less militant about people eating meat if they raised the animals themselves in humane, caring conditions, and made their deaths swift and painless. I still wouldn't like it, but it's nothing like the institutionalized mass murder we have now.
I don't think of hunting in the same way, though -- there's nothing "noble" about it. The animal has no chance. Again, I say, make a spear or use a rock and kill the animal yourself. At least then the animal has a sporting chance. Right now, hunting for "sport" is a mockery of sport; it's one of the reasons I applaud when the matador is gored. Kind of evens the odds, huh, you little shit "athlete"?
Anyway.
Thank you for your post.

Doesn't the bull get killed either way though? Seems unfair, let the bull go if he can kill that bitch with the red flag. How are you militant towards meat eaters?

Hehe, thank you :)

I don't mean hunting for sport, that is extremely wrong IMO.

I mean if you like live out in a cabin in the woods or something, and you hunt your food... I would see no problem with that.

I do like your thing with like a spear though :) Hehe. However, if I ever needed to "hunt" for food (although that isn't happening, but if for some odd reason I needed to), I'd probably use a bow.

I think it's problematic because, even then, meat is not a necessity. There is only a minute amount of people who NEED meat to survive. Even that dude in the cabin probably has a car, and he can drive to a store to buy his food.

Last time I checked, there's something called a food chain, where animals eat other animals.

When a chicken goes on to cure AIDs, stops world hunger, discover faster-then-light travel, creates affordable superconductors or invents cold fushion, then the chicken's life will be more important. Until then, it's either lunch or dinner.

The chicken does none of those things.
The chicken also does not murder, steal, rape, destroy families, invent or build nuclear weapons, find joy in others' suffering, pillage the earth of its precious natural resources, or pollute.
I can't imagine you're contributing all that usefully to the world; may I eat you? No? Why not? What have you done to advance humanity or life in general? If that's your prerequisite, then most of us are going to wind up on the menu.

Last time I checked, there's something called a food chain, where animals eat other animals.

And? Your point is? Aren't most of you speciesists convinced that humans are "above" animals somehow?
If we're not, how come lions aren't roaming free to pick off the humans it desires to eat? If you're in favor of the food chain, then make it a fucking food chain. Let loose the natural predators, and we'll see how much you like it then, okay?

Whoa, Hellic, why are you going savage on people who just wanna have a chicken breast for dinner? I'll admit meat isn't always the best thing to eat but still, you get iron and meat fills you up. It takes alot of veggies to and I would know because of when I tried to avoid meat, I ended eating alot of veggies and was often annoyed at just how much.

And? Your point is? Aren't most of you speciesists convinced that humans are "above" animals somehow?
If we're not, how come lions aren't roaming free to pick off the humans it desires to eat? If you're in favor of the food chain, then make it a fucking food chain. Let loose the natural predators, and we'll see how much you like it then, okay?

Lions have trouble eating me because I would have a bow, spear, or gun. We are at the top of the food chain. If Lions develop methods of dodging bullets then they'll be at the top of the food chain.

I don't support the needless torture of animals. But killing them for meat isn't torture.

The chicken does none of those things.
Of course it doesn't, that why it's always going to be Humans>Chickens
The chicken also does not murder, steal, rape, destroy families, invent or build nuclear weapons, find joy in others' suffering, pillage the earth of its precious natural resources, or pollute.
And that has to do with eating animals because........?
I can't imagine you're contributing all that usefully to the world;
How would you know?
may I eat you? No? Why not?
Because cannibalism is not natural, and I'd probably cause you to choke :D
What have you done to advance humanity or life in general?
Contributed to the growth of the economic system, payed a tax on a portion of my earnings towards governmental welfare programs, donated to a local food bank, volunteered at an elementary school, ect ect.
If that's your prerequisite, then most of us are going to wind up on the menu.
Of course it's not my only prerequisite

And? Your point is? Aren't most of you speciesists convinced that humans are "above" animals somehow?
If we're not, how come lions aren't roaming free to pick off the humans it desires to eat? If you're in favor of the food chain, then make it a fucking food chain. Let loose the natural predators, and we'll see how much you like it then, okay?

They have been loose for a long time now, the only thing is while they may be stronger/faster/quicker then us, our natural ability allows us to outhink them. That's why we're at the top.

Animals fight and kill each other all the time, over food, mates, and territory, sounds a lot like us "evil" humans.

They have been loose for a long time now, the only thing is while they may be stronger/faster/quicker then us, our natural ability allows us to outhink them. That's why we're at the top.
actually, we'd be pretty fucked without opposable thumbs...

i mean, it's quite possible that dolphins are smarter than us, but they're not at the top of the food chain in their environment... they can't fashion tools due to a lack of thumbs.

I say when chickens evolve opposable digits and invent shotguns we'll deserve whats coming.

Whoa, Hellic, why are you going savage on people who just wanna have a chicken breast for dinner? I'll admit meat isn't always the best thing to eat but still, you get iron and meat fills you up. It takes alot of veggies to and I would know because of when I tried to avoid meat, I ended eating alot of veggies and was often annoyed at just how much.

I go savage on people who I perceive to either be idiots, morally bereft, or both.
As for your comment, what you're essentially saying is, you support the suffering of animals financially because . . . you're too lazy to put in the effort required to have a vegetarian or vegan diet?
Jesus. Take a vitamin. Yay iron.

Lions have trouble eating me because I would have a bow, spear, or gun. We are at the top of the food chain. If Lions develop methods of dodging bullets then they'll be at the top of the food chain.

I don't support the needless torture of animals. But killing them for meat isn't torture.

Killing them for meat IS torture because of the lives they lead before their deaths, and because of the statistical likelihood that they are alive as they are being dismembered.
If you're all about "natural" stuff and "food chains," you're not going to have a bow or a spear or a gun unless you make it yourself. Chimps use sticks as simple tools to poke in anthills so they ants come out and make for easy pickings.
Go on and make your spear, and kill that lion when it's hunting you. But don't give me garbage about how since we have these advanced tools at our disposal, it's okay to use them against animals. I mean, I've got this baseball bat here with me, does that mean I'm allowed to beat up a kid with it? After all, I'm more advanced than that kid, and I know how to use a bat and they don't.

Of course it doesn't, that why it's always going to be Humans>Chickens

And that has to do with eating animals because........?

How would you know?

Because cannibalism is not natural, and I'd probably cause you to choke :D

Contributed to the growth of the economic system, payed a tax on a portion of my earnings towards governmental welfare programs, donated to a local food bank, volunteered at an elementary school, ect ect.

Of course it's not my only prerequisite

It's got the same amount to do with eating animals that your examples do. Chickens don't do wonderful things for humanity. They also don't do bad things. They are neutral. The conclusion that it is okay to eat them does not follow logically.
I don't KNOW, of course, but I imagine you have not created semiconductors, cured world hunger, etc. Your original post suggested that since animals can't do these things, they have less of a right to live than humans. Well, you probably can't do them either, and neither can I. I guess that means we're as useless as animals are.
As for your alleged "benefits" that you have provided society, animals provide benefits, too. They are wonderful companions. They provide company to people who are lonely. They lower the blood pressure of the elderly. They help us move heavy things. They provide us with clothing. They make us laugh.
Either you're as useless as animals, according to your definition, or you're as useful as animals, according to mine. You can't have it both ways.
And, as for cannibalism, nope, it's not natural. Neither is mechanized death. Be consistent.

I go savage on people who I perceive to either be idiots, morally bereft, or both.
As for your comment, what you're essentially saying is, you support the suffering of animals financially because . . . you're too lazy to put in the effort required to have a vegetarian or vegan diet?
Jesus. Take a vitamin. Yay iron.


No, I'm not too lazy. I just didn't see the point in becoming a vegetarian because eventually I got used to the taste of meat and began to find the taste of veggies to be bland. And why does everyone who eats meat become an evil monster who supports touture of animals? True, I am too lazy to take vitamens because I see it as a waste of money if I'm eating something that will give me what I need (meat=iron).

Mmmmm I had a delicious baked chicken tonight. Last night it was beef and lamb. I wonder what tommorow holds? Turkey perhaps?

No, I'm not too lazy. I just didn't see the point in becoming a vegetarian because eventually I got used to the taste of meat and began to find the taste of veggies to be bland. And why does everyone who eats meat become an evil monster who supports touture of animals? True, I am too lazy to take vitamens because I see it as a waste of money if I'm eating something that will give me what I need (meat=iron).

I don't recall anything about evil monsters. Would you mind pointing out where I said that? Thanks.
As for the contention, though, anyone who eats meat is, at the VERY LEAST, financially supporting the torture of animals. They are knowingly giving their money over to corporations who profit off of animals' suffering.
With most people, however, it goes beyond that. They think it's okay to eat meat, like it is some kind of right that they have. They think there are no moral problems that go along with it. These are usually the types that argue that animals cannot feel pain, their lives prior to death aren't so bad, etc. A gross insensitivity towards other living creatures. These people actually do support the torture of animals; they recognize no moral issue in the conduction of such.

Mmmmm I had a delicious baked chicken tonight. Last night it was beef and lamb. I wonder what tommorow holds? Turkey perhaps?

How does it feel to know you are a troll and have nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion? Must feel pretty crappy.

I don't recall anything about evil monsters. Would you mind pointing out where I said that? Thanks.
As for the contention, though, anyone who eats meat is, at the VERY LEAST, financially supporting the torture of animals. They are knowingly giving their money over to corporations who profit off of animals' suffering.
With most people, however, it goes beyond that. They think it's okay to eat meat, like it is some kind of right that they have. They think there are no moral problems that go along with it. These are usually the types that argue that animals cannot feel pain, their lives prior to death aren't so bad, etc. A gross insensitivity towards other living creatures. These people actually do support the torture of animals; they recognize no moral issue in the conduction of such.


You didn't say they were evil but you said they were idiots and therefore ,judging by this post, evil for giving corporations money for animal meat from animals that suffered during death. You don't outrightly say it, but it seems you might be hinting at it.

You didn't say they were evil but you said they were idiots and therefore ,judging by this post, evil for giving corporations money for animal meat from animals that suffered during death. You don't outrightly say it, but it seems you might be hinting at it.

I said I go savage on people who I perceive to be idiots or to have no morals. I didn't say everyone who eats meat is an idiot. My boyfriend who I love very much enjoys his meat quite a bit, as a matter of fact. I put a lot of restrictions on him, but he takes it in stride.
I might be hinting at it, you're right. But I might not be. It's up to you to make that interpretation, since you're the one who is reading what I say.
But the fact that you equate the things I have said about meat eaters to mean that I feel they are evil is actually somewhat indicative of YOUR thinking.

I don't recall anything about evil monsters. Would you mind pointing out where I said that? Thanks.
As for the contention, though, anyone who eats meat is, at the VERY LEAST, financially supporting the torture of animals. They are knowingly giving their money over to corporations who profit off of animals' suffering.
With most people, however, it goes beyond that. They think it's okay to eat meat, like it is some kind of right that they have. They think there are no moral problems that go along with it. These are usually the types that argue that animals cannot feel pain, their lives prior to death aren't so bad, etc. A gross insensitivity towards other living creatures. These people actually do support the torture of animals; they recognize no moral issue in the conduction of such.
Your making no sense.
Who are you to judge whats "right and wrong" Sure we can live without meat But DO WE HAVE TOO!? The answer is simple, NO.

I said I go savage on people who I perceive to be idiots or to have no morals. I didn't say everyone who eats meat is an idiot. My boyfriend who I love very much enjoys his meat quite a bit, as a matter of fact. I put a lot of restrictions on him, but he takes it in stride.
I might be hinting at it, you're right. But I might not be. It's up to you to make that interpretation, since you're the one who is reading what I say.
But the fact that you equate the things I have said about meat eaters to mean that I feel they are evil is actually somewhat indicative of YOUR thinking.

Given I don't think meat eaters are evil given I am one, I simply interpreted it that you saw both consumer and coporation as evil for doing these things to animals.

I don't recall anything about evil monsters. Would you mind pointing out where I said that? Thanks.
As for the contention, though, anyone who eats meat is, at the VERY LEAST, financially supporting the torture of animals. They are knowingly giving their money over to corporations who profit off of animals' suffering.
With most people, however, it goes beyond that. They think it's okay to eat meat, like it is some kind of right that they have. They think there are no moral problems that go along with it. These are usually the types that argue that animals cannot feel pain, their lives prior to death aren't so bad, etc. A gross insensitivity towards other living creatures. These people actually do support the torture of animals; they recognize no moral issue in the conduction of such.
I don't believe in the existence of a universal moral code... everyone has their own opinions and I respect your right to believe what you want but personally I have no problem with the meat packing industry, besides the fact that I think they pollute too much. I also am not bothered by the pain suffered by farm animals because to me a human is worth infinitely more than a non-human organism. On these questions of personal value systems there is no definite "right" and "wrong" approach... for example many people believe that women who do not cover their heads are evil and I see no reason to interfere with their personal opinion and preference.

Your making no sense.
Who are you to judge whats "right and wrong" Sure we can live without meat But DO WE HAVE TOO!? The answer is simple, NO.

I'm making no sense, huh? Your saying so does not make it so. Back up your assertions. Where am I making no sense? Are you sure it's me, or do you just not understand what I say? I will be happy to clarify any points you're unsure of.
I see needless suffering of ANY innocent as wrong. Call me crazy.
We don't have to maintain vegetarian lifestyles. We also don't have to eat meat. One causes immense suffering and environmental destruction; the other does not. Therefore the burden of proof is on you, not me.

In the USA recently, PETA (People for the Ethical Treament of Animals) has been on a campaign saying the way animals like chickens, cattle and pigs are treated before and during their time at the slaughter house is comparable to the way the Jews were treated by the Nazis during the Holocaust. When I heard about this, I laughed. How could these dumbass hippies think that the life of a dirty chicken is equal to that of a human being? Jewish groups are of course offended and are putting pressure on PETA to end that campaign. The very fact they think it's cruel to eat animals, when I think the sole purpose of some animals like chickens or cows is to be eaten or to produce eggs or milk. These animals would surely go extinct in the wild due to the fact chickens can't fly and can't run all that fast and that cows are incredibly stupid and with a couple of hungry wolves could be taken down easily. We keep them alive and when I think about, they have a pretty damn good life. They get fed well and live in fairly comfortable living spaces and then have a fairly quick, painless death. Now, I will admitt that certain animals are treated pretty bad before they are slaughtered, although they're gonna die anyways.

--It is routine practice to castrate male piglets while they are fully conscious.
--Confined pigs often resort to tail biting. It is routine to cut pigs' tails to prevent this, with no anesthetic.
--It is accepted practice to club to death piglets who are sick, injured, or not growing properly.
--Confining breeding female pigs in gestation and farrowing crates which do not allow them to turn around is standard.
-forced molting and tethering veal calves.
-debeaking of chickens
-Starvation to promote renewed laying and beak trimming at 10 days or younger still are allowed.
-Each hen is required to have a cage area at least the size of a sheet of notebook paper. That's after the industry standards were set.

Watch this video, listen to the sounds the pigs make and then tell me they live 'pretty damn good' lives and that they don't feel pain.
(warning it's pretty disturbing vid, especially when they skin a pig that's still alive)
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=pigfarminv

http://www.peta.org/feat/moorefield/
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=pilgrims_web

And don't say cause it's on the PETA site, it can be ignored. They didn't make these videos up. They secretly filmed what is common practise. After the chicken vid, KFC came out saying that it's appalling and opened an investigation. Pilgrim foods (the owner of the factory) also apologised and had an investigation.

BTW you realise that cows and chickens have been around for a long long time, so why would they become extinct in the wild? Given a couple of generations, they'd revert back to their natural instincts. Cows aren't that dumb either (unlike sheep say) and can adapt to their environment quickly. There were some left on an island in the sub-Antartica last century and they had adapted to life there by becoming heavy, having thicker coats and were living off the seaweed. Unfortunately the NZ conservation dept (DoC) wiped them out (to restore the island to it's natural state) before realising how unique they were.

I don't believe in the existence of a universal moral code... everyone has their own opinions and I respect your right to believe what you want but personally I have no problem with the meat packing industry, besides the fact that I think they pollute too much. I also am not bothered by the pain suffered by farm animals because to me a human is worth infinitely more than a non-human organism. On these questions of personal value systems there is no definite "right" and "wrong" approach... for example many people believe that women who do not cover their heads are evil and I see no reason to interfere with their personal opinion and preference.

I understand what you're saying, however, your comparison is not valid. The meatpacking industry does not involve issues of putting the life of an animal against the life of a human. These disputes do not take place. Therefore, you can still hold your opinion, that humans are intrinsically worth more, without supporting the needless harming of animals.
I also agree with your last assertion, but again, I question its salience to the discussion. I don't give a crap about people who think that women who don't cover their heads are evil. I think that's stupid, but, whatever. But when people harm women who do not cover their heads, then, we have a different situation, and that situation is more parallel to the factory farming bit than just those people holding their opinions.

I've already seen all those PETA tv videos before such as the KFC one. But, not everywhere is like that. My friends own a farm and when a neighbours dog when into their chicken hut and killed 30 chickens, they shot the dog. They take very good care of their chickens and do whatever they can to make sure they are healthy and safe. They are egg laying hens though.

I've already seen all those PETA tv videos before such as the KFC one. But, not everywhere is like that. My friends own a farm and when a neighbours dog when into their chicken hut and killed 30 chickens, they shot the dog. They take very good care of their chickens and do whatever they can to make sure they are healthy and safe. They are egg laying hens though.

Like I said previously, if this was the state of animals destined for meat today, I would have much less of a problem.
Sadly, VERY FEW animals live in such idyllic conditions.
That's also ridiculous that the dog was shot for being a dog. It should have been confined where it could not get at the chickens.

The dog had rabbies or how ever you spell it.

The dog had rabbies or how ever you spell it.

Oh.
Why wasn't it immunized?

I think the PETA campaign is ridiculous for three reasons:

1) Animals aren't sentient, so they don't know what's happening to them.

2) Hitler began killing the Jews in order to eradicate them out of hatred. We kill animals so we can use the remains for some purpose, and when you get down to it the killing of animals is "nothing personal" in the agricultural business.

3) Cows, pigs and chickens taste better than Jews.

I've already seen all those PETA tv videos before such as the KFC one. But, not everywhere is like that. My friends own a farm and when a neighbours dog when into their chicken hut and killed 30 chickens, they shot the dog. They take very good care of their chickens and do whatever they can to make sure they are healthy and safe. They are egg laying hens though.
Oh course they shot the dog. It had killed part of his livelihood! Also once a dog gets the taste of that, it won't ever stop going there.
I know not all farms are like that. I grew up and worked on farms. However I was just pointing out how asinine La Terra di Liberta statements were about animals living good lives and dying painlessly. Because of the population growth and demand for meat and animal products, factory farming is becoming accepted practised. Which I believe it doesn't have to be.
And b4 anyone says anything, yes I do eat meat and enjoy it. But then I grew up in NZ where Beef and Lamb are't raised in such conditons.

Oh.
Why wasn't it immunized?


Ok, I live in a rural area with a few vet clinics but many farmers let their dogs run freely and may not know if a dog is ill for days.

I think the PETA campaign is ridiculous for three reasons:

1) Animals aren't sentient, so they don't know what's happening to them.

2) Hitler began killing the Jews in order to eradicate them out of hatred. We kill animals so we can use the remains for some purpose, and when you get down to it the killing of animals is "nothing personal" in the agricultural business.

3) Cows, pigs and chickens taste better than Jews.

1.) Actually, as was pointed out by another poster earlier, they DO know what is happening to them. They sense the terror of the animals ahead of them in the killing line, and they panic. They are also sentient in that they have nerve endings and feel pain just as clearly as you and I do.
2.) The PETA campaign is not talking about the intentions of the Holocaust versus factory farms, it is talking about the methods. In that sense, there is a striking, and very accurate parallel. You have constructed a straw man by attacking them on contentions that they do not make.
Also, being run over by a drunk driver is as painful as being run over by someone who was aiming for you.
3.) This does not in any way, shape, or form justify the murder of the Jews OR of the animals.

Oh course they shot the dog. It had killed part of his livelihood! Also once a dog gets the taste of that, it won't ever stop going there.
I know not all farms are like that. I grew up and worked on farms. However I was just pointing out how asinine La Terra di Liberta statements were about animals living good lives and dying painlessly. Because of the population growth and demand for meat and animal products, factory farming is becoming accepted practised. Which I believe it doesn't have to be.
And b4 anyone says anything, yes I do eat meat and enjoy it. But then I grew up in NZ where Beef and Lamb are't raised in such conditons.


In an earlier post, I mentioned my errors. Just thought I'd mention that.

Stupid hippies. Actually, animals don't have a very good life, but I don't give a damn. Mother Nature wants us to be rulers of the world, so every other species can... um.. I got writers block. Anyway, we should release a deadly bug into the PETA.. hehe he.

I say we start a new PETA: People for the Eating of Tasty Animals


why, hello Mrs. Coulter, I am so glad to meeet you, now please dont eat my head, I just stopped at that nader rally to ask for directions and...LOOK, BEHIND YOU, ITS A BUNCH OF JEWS AND MUSLIMS! *runs off *

1.) Actually, as was pointed out by another poster earlier, they DO know what is happening to them. They sense the terror of the animals ahead of them in the killing line, and they panic. They are also sentient in that they have nerve endings and feel pain just as clearly as you and I do.
2.) The PETA campaign is not talking about the intentions of the Holocaust versus factory farms, it is talking about the methods. In that sense, there is a striking, and very accurate parallel. You have constructed a straw man by attacking them on contentions that they do not make.
Also, being run over by a drunk driver is as painful as being run over by someone who was aiming for you.
3.) This does not in any way, shape, or form justify the murder of the Jews OR of the animals.

1) They sense death. They know they are headed towards an area where death is occurring. There is no way, however, that they know what is going to happen - the hormones are an instinctual fear reaction.

2) The wording of this campaign makes it sound like they are comparing all facets of the holocaust to the treatment of animals in this situation.

3) It's a joke. You have constructed a strawman by having no sense of humor.

I understand what you're saying, however, your comparison is not valid. The meatpacking industry does not involve issues of putting the life of an animal against the life of a human. These disputes do not take place. Therefore, you can still hold your opinion, that humans are intrinsically worth more, without supporting the needless harming of animals.
Actually in the context of a discussion about animal rights the whole premise of the meatpacking industry - the systematic killing of creatures - raises questions about the life of an animal compared with the life of a human. You realize this, as you yourself have been describing pain and suffering in the lives of farm animals in an effort to convert people, who themselves would never consent to be handled as a farm animal would, to your side of the argument. Anyways you are correct that I don't have to support the "needless harming" of animals but because I don't value farm animals' lives my personal moral code would not be compromised if I do support "needless harming," and it also wouldn't be compromised if I don't have any opinion whatsoever about whether farm animals should be treated in the way they are or not.

I also agree with your last assertion, but again, I question its salience to the discussion. I don't give a crap about people who think that women who don't cover their heads are evil. I think that's stupid, but, whatever. But when people harm women who do not cover their heads, then, we have a different situation, and that situation is more parallel to the factory farming bit than just those people holding their opinions.
The only reason I mentioned the meat packing industry is to demonstrate the opinion I hold about animal rights... to me farm animals are just slightly above inanimate objects and therefore I don't care if they experience bad lives in a factory farm. And the thing about women covering their heads is an example of a value-judgment opinion that I say is on the same moral level as my opinion about farm animals being worthless and on the same level as your opinion about all living things being equal. I am saying that all of our viewpoints are equally valid.

The only reason I mentioned the meat packing industry is to demonstrate the opinion I hold about animal rights... to me farm animals are just slightly above inanimate objects and therefore I don't care if they experience bad lives in a factory farm.

This seems to be the only workable wordlview expressed in this thread so far.

1) They sense death. They know they are headed towards an area where death is occurring. There is no way, however, that they know what is going to happen - the hormones are an instinctual fear reaction.

2) The wording of this campaign makes it sound like they are comparing all facets of the holocaust to the treatment of animals in this situation.

3) It's a joke. You have constructed a strawman by having no sense of humor.

1.) So, what you're saying is, they sense death, and know they're headed towards a place of death, and . . . they have no idea what's going on? Okay.
Anyway, you did acknowledge that they DO have a fear reaction. They sense death nearby, possibly even the suffering of their comrades, and they feel fear. What more do they need to know?
2.) I don't have the text of the ads, although I did see them a long while ago, when they first came out. Would you mind posting the text of the ads so that I might see how they are worded? I don't recall from when I did see them, however, that there was any comparison being drawn between the intentions or motivations of either.
3.) I constructed no straw man; I addressed something you said. I did not make up arguments out of thin air like you did if, as I assume and recall, the ads did not mention intentions or motivations.
I save my jokes for when I'm not debating. When other people are debating me, I take them seriously, as well.

[QUOTE=Antebellum South]Actually in the context of a discussion about animal rights the whole premise of the meatpacking industry - the systematic killing of creatures - raises questions about the life of an animal compared with the life of a human. You realize this, as you yourself have been describing pain and suffering in the lives of farm animals in an effort to convert people, who themselves would never consent to be handled as a farm animal would, to your side of the argument. Anyways you are correct that I don't have to support the "needless harming" of animals but because I don't value farm animals' lives my personal moral code would not be compromised if I do support "needless harming," and it also wouldn't be compromised if I don't have any opinion whatsoever about whether farm animals should be treated in the way they are or not.

I'm not sure I understand.
The systematic killing of creatures raises questions about the life of an animal compared to the life of a human in a sense that I have tried to draw similarities between them. We are both capable of suffering, we are both capable of feeling pain, etc.
What I understood you to be saying is that there is somehow an intrinsic dilemma that pits the welfare of an animal against the welfare of a human; by this I mean, if the animal lives, the human dies, or if the human lives, the animal dies. I replied that there is no such battle involved in the meat industry; not killing the animals does not then lead to the killing of humans.
Could you please try to clarify what you mean?

1.) So, what you're saying is, they sense death, and know they're headed towards a place of death, and . . . they have no idea what's going on? Okay.
Anyway, you did acknowledge that they DO have a fear reaction. They sense death nearby, possibly even the suffering of their comrades, and they feel fear. What more do they need to know?
2.) I don't have the text of the ads, although I did see them a long while ago, when they first came out. Would you mind posting the text of the ads so that I might see how they are worded? I don't recall from when I did see them, however, that there was any comparison being drawn between the intentions or motivations of either.
3.) I constructed no straw man; I addressed something you said. I did not make up arguments out of thin air like you did if, as I assume and recall, the ads did not mention intentions or motivations.
I save my jokes for when I'm not debating. When other people are debating me, I take them seriously, as well.

1) They can't think about the future. So, they don't realize that they are going to die.

2) PETA believes animals are people, too. For them to say that animals are going through holocaust-like conditions means for them to also imply that such action is genocide. Looking up the text isn't worth my time. Even if they did not intend to say that, that's what their horrendously loaded statement says when one takes into account their ideology at large.

3) I made a joke as part of my post. I did not begin debating you; you began debating me. Since you accused me of creating a strawman through my use of logic, I accused you of creating a strawman through disuse of logic.

This seems to be the only workable wordlview expressed in this thread so far.

Not at all. If you're looking for workable world views, large-scale factory farming is not it. It destroys the environment and squanders precious resources. The amount of grain a cow eats as it grows, for example, is an astronomical amount of food compared to the amount of meat that cow will eventually yield. That grain could be diverted towards other sources, such as the hungry.
Furthermore, the amount of water and land needed to grow all that grain could be put to more efficient use. And let's not get into the pesticides needed for that grain which pollute the groundwater and soil, as well as the hormones and antibiotics fed to the animals which produce super-bacteria that are then resistant to those antibiotics.
Then we get on to the diseases animals can spread to humans because the animals are, in effect, forced to become cannibals (the food they eat often includes the blood, bones, flesh, or excrement of animals that had come before) and allow the germs to enjoy a wonderful, uninterrupted chain from chicken shit to the dinner table.
Or the widespread destruction of the rainforests to provide grazing land for the beef cattle.
Or the problem of getting rid of the waste all of these animals create, which is usually left to sit in massive rancid piles and pools, which then seeps into the groundwater, again polluting it.
Workable? Not by a long shot.

Not at all. If you're looking for workable world views, large-scale factory farming is not it. It destroys the environment and squanders precious resources. The amount of grain a cow eats as it grows, for example, is an astronomical amount of food compared to the amount of meat that cow will eventually yield. That grain could be diverted towards other sources, such as the hungry.
Furthermore, the amount of water and land needed to grow all that grain could be put to more efficient use. And let's not get into the pesticides needed for that grain which pollute the groundwater and soil, as well as the hormones and antibiotics fed to the animals which produce super-bacteria that are then resistant to those antibiotics.
Then we get on to the diseases animals can spread to humans because the animals are, in effect, forced to become cannibals (the food they eat often includes the blood, bones, flesh, or excrement of animals that had come before) and allow the germs to enjoy a wonderful, uninterrupted chain from chicken shit to the dinner table.
Or the widespread destruction of the rainforests to provide grazing land for the beef cattle.
Or the problem of getting rid of the waste all of these animals create, which is usually left to sit in massive rancid piles and pools, which then seeps into the groundwater, again polluting it.
Workable? Not by a long shot.

I guess you can win any argument by putting words into someone's mouth, then responding with why those words are wrong.

I meant that being dispassionate and impersonal about the handling of utilitarian property - which is what farm animals are - is a good way to do things.

1) They can't think about the future. So, they don't realize that they are going to die.

2) PETA believes animals are people, too. For them to say that animals are going through holocaust-like conditions means for them to also imply that such action is genocide. Looking up the text isn't worth my time. Even if they did not intend to say that, that's what their horrendously loaded statement says when one takes into account their ideology at large.

3) I made a joke as part of my post. I did not begin debating you; you began debating me. Since you accused me of creating a strawman through my use of logic, I accused you of creating a strawman through disuse of logic.

1.) I wasn't aware you had cold, hard, provable facts on what animals are and are not capable of sensing or thinking. One can look at their reactions to their environment, however, and infer a lot. The panic they exhibit would indicate that they sense they are somehow in danger. If they sense that they are in danger, it logically follows that they are predicting a possibility of imminent pain or death, and they decide that they must avoid it. Thus, they are "predicting" the future in that they are unconsciously supposing that trouble lies ahead.
2.) Of course it's a loaded statement, and it works. But you are reading implications into the statement that may not be there. If they are saying that the animals are existing in Holocaust-like conditions, then they are making a statement about how the animals are living. I don't think PETA has ever suggested that animals are people. They do suggest, however, and stand for, that animals should be accorded the same basic "human" rights that we tend to afford one another most of the time.
If someone assumed that their Holocaust ad was a statement about genocide or about Hitler's intentions because of what they "knew" about PETA's ideology, they would be making that conclusion based on an erroneous reading of PETA's platform.
Again, I feel that it is indicative of the thought process involved if someone leaps to this conclusion outright.
3.) I said I take people with whom I debate seriously. I do. I'm not sure why you assume that because I have accused you of creating a strawman (which you did, unless I am blatantly mistaken and PETA's ad includes text comparing intentions or motivations), that automatically makes any accusation of my strawman construction accurate. It doesn't. They're separate. I did not make up any arguments about you; I read what you wrote, and reacted to it. Thus, no straw man. The only thing I could really accurately be accused of is taking you too seriously, which is quite different from my attacking arguments of my own devising.

I guess you can win any argument by putting words into someone's mouth, then responding with why those words are wrong.

I meant that being dispassionate and impersonal about the handling of utilitarian property - which is what farm animals are - is a good way to do things.

You would be hard-pressed to find where I have put words into anyone's mouth. If you believe I have, point to where I have done so. You will have a hard time, though, because I have only reacted to the exact text people have written out for me. If it's not what you meant to say, then perhaps you should have clarified.
You said a "workable worldview." Workable means practical. Practical implies that it is the best thing to do under a given situation, with the least number of ill effects, as compared to the alternatives.
Worldview means a way of looking at things.
Essentially, you said that factory farming is a practical way of looking at certain things, which I strongly disagree with due to the reasons I outlined.
I also disagree with the contentions that farm animals are utilitarian property. They are not utilitarian property any more than slaves are. It's whether you choose to have compassion in viewing them or not.

Anyway, I think it's way past my bedtime over on the East Coast.
Anyone who wishes to continue the debate with me is more than welcome to telegram me.
You can also feel free to make up baseless accusations about me while I'm gone, as well. I don't mind, because it says more about you than it does about me.
Terra di Liberta, thank you for your apology. I appreciate that you recognize the implications of what you said. I hope you will think more on this subject.
Good night, all.

1.) I wasn't aware you had cold, hard, provable facts on what animals are and are not capable of sensing or thinking. One can look at their reactions to their environment, however, and infer a lot. The panic they exhibit would indicate that they sense they are somehow in danger. If they sense that they are in danger, it logically follows that they are predicting a possibility of imminent pain or death, and they decide that they must avoid it. Thus, they are "predicting" the future in that they are unconsciously supposing that trouble lies ahead.
2.) Of course it's a loaded statement, and it works. But you are reading implications into the statement that may not be there. If they are saying that the animals are existing in Holocaust-like conditions, then they are making a statement about how the animals are living. I don't think PETA has ever suggested that animals are people. They do suggest, however, and stand for, that animals should be accorded the same basic "human" rights that we tend to afford one another most of the time.
If someone assumed that their Holocaust ad was a statement about genocide or about Hitler's intentions because of what they "knew" about PETA's ideology, they would be making that conclusion based on an erroneous reading of PETA's platform.
Again, I feel that it is indicative of the thought process involved if someone leaps to this conclusion outright.
3.) I said I take people with whom I debate seriously. I do. I'm not sure why you assume that because I have accused you of creating a strawman (which you did, unless I am blatantly mistaken and PETA's ad includes text comparing intentions or motivations), that automatically makes any accusation of my strawman construction accurate. It doesn't. They're separate. I did not make up any arguments about you; I read what you wrote, and reacted to it. Thus, no straw man. The only thing I could really accurately be accused of is taking you too seriously, which is quite different from my attacking arguments of my own devising.

1) I can't prove my opinion, and you can't prove yours. This effectively kills point 1 as a debatable point.

2) I'm not able to find it at this moment, but I saw a video at www.peta2.org filled with reasons why people (by which I mean humans) should go vegetarian. In addition to it being riddled with non-facts - they claim eating too much meat makes you fat, when in fact too much simple sugar does that - one of the reasons they state is that "Animals are people, too." I also heard that a couple times from PETA spokespeople on TV during that whole KFC debacle.

3) It was obviously a joke. And if it was true, it would mean that I would have at one point need to eat a Jew in order to see how they compare to livestock.


That being said, I didn't particularly care for Mrs. Rosenbaum. She was too stringy and had a gamey taste.

I'm not sure I understand.
The systematic killing of creatures raises questions about the life of an animal compared to the life of a human in a sense that I have tried to draw similarities between them. We are both capable of suffering, we are both capable of feeling pain, etc.
Correct

What I understood you to be saying is that there is somehow an intrinsic dilemma that pits the welfare of an animal against the welfare of a human; by this I mean, if the animal lives, the human dies, or if the human lives, the animal dies. I replied that there is no such battle involved in the meat industry; not killing the animals does not then lead to the killing of humans.
Could you please try to clarify what you mean?
Then you misunderstood what I said and I misunderstood what you meant by "issues of putting the life of an animal against the life of a human". I thought you meant comparing the worth of an animal against that of a human. I don't agree with thinking that killing animals saves humans (or vice versa) ... that would be a totally ridiculous claim. What I meant was that in the context of a discussion about animal rights, the very existence of factory farms - killing factories - compels one to answer the question of whether animal lives are morally equal to human lives, because if animals are judged to be equal to people then factory farms would be, in one's eyes, criminal establishments. Else, a factory farm is just another legitimate feature of civilization.

PETA compares animal treatment to Holocaust? How dare they? I'm Polish and in my eyes comparing one of the great human tradegys to how you treat a fucking cow is un-believable!!!

Tragedies...

2) I'm not able to find it at this moment, but I saw a video at www.peta2.org filled with reasons why people (by which I mean humans) should go vegetarian. In addition to it being riddled with non-facts - they claim eating too much meat makes you fat, when in fact too much simple sugar does that - one of the reasons they state is that "Animals are people, too." I also heard that a couple times from PETA spokespeople on TV during that whole KFC debacle.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but eating meat DOES make you fat. You're obviously been sucked into the whole Aitkens diet fad.
Meat is high in saturated fat. This raises your colestrol. That aside Dietary fat is converted to Body fat. This is because it only takes about 3% of the energy the dietary fat has to convert it to Body fat. Our body tries to be as efficient as possible. On the other hand, it takes about 25% of the energy dietary carbs supply to turn it into body fat. Also excess Protein is stripped of it's nitrogen and converted into Body fat. This nitrogen can affect your health, through excess uric acid in your blood, kidney stones and gout. And smelling awful when you sweat.
What simple carbs do is raise your blood sugar levels which can make you crave hi-fatty foods. Also carbs need a lot of water to store them (3 grams for every gram of carb), so eating a lot of simple sugars can cause water retention and make you appear fat. That's why the Aitkens diet works so well in the short-term - the lack of carbs makes you use up your stores and so you lose a lot of water, making you look like you've lost weight.
Anyway who said being vegetarian neccessitated you having to eat only simple sugars?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but eating meat DOES make you fat. You're obviously been sucked into the whole Aitkens diet fad.
Meat is high in saturated fat. This raises your colestrol. That aside Dietary fat is converted to Body fat. This is because it only takes about 3% of the energy the dietary fat has to convert it to Body fat. Our body tries to be as efficient as possible. On the other hand, it takes about 25% of the energy dietary carbs supply to turn it into body fat. Also excess Protein is stripped of it's nitrogen and converted into Body fat. This nitrogen can affect your health, through excess uric acid in your blood, kidney stones and gout. And smelling awful when you sweat.
What simple carbs do is raise your blood sugar levels which can make you crave hi-fatty foods. Also carbs need a lot of water to store them (3 grams for every gram of carb), so eating a lot of simple sugars can cause water retention and make you appear fat. That's why the Aitkens diet works so well in the short-term - the lack of carbs makes you use up your stores and so you lose a lot of water, making you look like you've lost weight.
Anyway who said being vegetarian neccessitated you having to eat only simple sugars?

No one said being vegetarian neccessitated eating only simple sugars. But all complex carbohydrates are converted into simple sugars by the body. The body in turn uses the simple sugar for energy. Any unused simple sugar is converted to fat for later use.

Dietary fat will raise cholesterol, clog arteries and raise blood pressure. Any unused protien - including that in fat - is flushed out of the body. This is because when humans eat protien the strains are broken down and re-assembled to match human protien, and sometimes everything in the strain is not usable by humans.

Comparing it to the Holocaust may be a bit harsh . . . . .

eating meat does not make you fat. well, at least it doesn't make me fat. my diet consists of mostly meat. i'm what...110 lbs? i don't think that's fat (well, it could be) and seeing as how i hardly exercise...

anyway, PETA does go a bit extreme at times. but i totally support a lot of their messages, denouncing fur coats, that kinda stuff. but equating animals w/ humans? when i was an idealistic 4th grader I had this wonderful idea that everything, including animals and bugs and whatnot were equal to humans. Then my dad presented me w/ this scenario of a squirrel on the road and me. If a car were about to run over the squirrel, would I jump out in front of the car to save the squirrel. Then compare that to a human. My answer was, yes, I’d try to save the human, but I’d just wince @ the death of the squirrel and get on w/ my life. The fact is, humans are born omnivores. We can’t just live on grass. Oh, and you’re all taking this debate a bit too seriously. There are bigger issues to worry about. Like my physics grade.

First of all, your poll is ridiculous. One does not need to be a vegetarian in order to see the validity of the comparison they are making. You do not need to agree that animal life is equivalent to human life to understand that the way animals are treated is VERY similar to the Holocaust.

How so? It seems to me like the motives, ideology, and actions of these two things differ tremendously.

PETA is a bunch of hypocrits. One of the senior members in PETA has diabetes and where does the medication come from. Animals. PETA blows up Science labs (some that maybe do bad) and teaches other wanna be PETA Members how to make bombs to blow up other science labs. IMO PETA is a terrorist organization...

It's got the same amount to do with eating animals that your examples do. Chickens don't do wonderful things for humanity. They also don't do bad things. They are neutral. The conclusion that it is okay to eat them does not follow logically.
The original question was who was more important, a human or a chicken. Seeing how, out of the six billion+ people on this earth, one of them is sure to do something for the benefit of humankind (could become the next Einstein or Abe Lincoln), whereas a chicken is pretty much destined for the dinner plate either way, given the choice I'd rather kill a random chicken then a random person.

I don't KNOW, of course, but I imagine you have not created semiconductors, cured world hunger, etc. Your original post suggested that since animals can't do these things, they have less of a right to live than humans. Well, you probably can't do them either, and neither can I. I guess that means we're as useless as animals are.
But I was not talking about you or I, I was talking about whose life was more important, a human's life or a chicken's. I would rather kill something that will probably end up in a sandwich anyways then someone who could've become the next Prime Minister.

As for your alleged "benefits" that you have provided society, animals provide benefits, too. They are wonderful companions. They provide company to people who are lonely. They lower the blood pressure of the elderly.
And we call those animals pets, which we do not eat :D

They help us move heavy things.[quote]
Last time I checked, if you didn't live out in the boondocks trucks are much better at moving things.

[quote]They provide us with clothing. They make us laugh.
Yeah, and?

Either you're as useless as animals, according to your definition, or you're as useful as animals, according to mine. You can't have it both ways.
When have I ever said I was as useless as an animal?

And, as for cannibalism, nope, it's not natural. Neither is mechanized death. Be consistent.
Natural as in it's natural to eat another species and not natural as in how you die. The two are exclusive from each other.

also, we aren't adapted to eat as much meat as is in the average north american diet. you need like one serving a day if that, not two or three. too much protein is quite bad for you.

The Inuit eat a great deal of meat. Most of their diet consists of meat, since there isn't much vegetation where they live.

I despise PETA, being a hunter, but they do have the right to free speech. If we don't let them get on with their little campaign they will go nuts and try to sue someone. I would probably be offended if I was a Jew though. That isn't as bad as when they compared animals that aren't particularly cute to mentally retarded people. I really think that PETA should shove it, if they know what is good for them, but I won't deny their right to free speech. It's only fair.

Someone mentioned in an earlier post that PETA should stand for something like People Eating Tasty Animals. Here is a link for that site: http://mtd.com/tasty/. Kind of funny I think.

I despise PETA, being a hunter, but they do have the right to free speech. If we don't let them get on with their little campaign they will go nuts and try to sue someone. I would probably be offended if I was a Jew though. That isn't as bad as when they compared animals that aren't particularly cute to mentally retarded people. I really think that PETA should shove it, if they know what is good for them, but I won't deny their right to free speech. It's only fair.
there is a difference between free speech and luniacal unrestraint

Chess Squares, you used to be a Republican, didn't you?

Chess Squares, you used to be a Republican, didn't you?
no are you?

No way, I've started up so many anti-bush threads it's not even funny.

You're ignoring my point. Which is more important, a humans life or a chickens life?



A chickens life. If the human species were to become extinct, it would only do good. We mass produce our food anyway, half of it probably doesn't get eaten, what a waste of a life. If we could only eat humans, maybe we would stop mass production. :)

I like the proposition put forwards by maddox a while ago. for each animal that the vegitarians dont eat, i am going to eat three. that way, when they try to lord their so-called moral superiority over me, i can tell them that they are causing more animals to suffer rather than less.

http://maddox.xmission.com/sponsor.html

Death of animal or man, it makes no difference. The robot empires shall rise. Robotistan advises that you welcome your new robot overlords.

Furthermore we question the logic of Hellic, who appears to want swift death for animals by beating them with spears and rocks as apparent by this post:

Originally Posted by Hellic
I know I would be FAR less militant about people eating meat if they raised the animals themselves in humane, caring conditions, and made their deaths swift and painless. I still wouldn't like it, but it's nothing like the institutionalized mass murder we have now.
I don't think of hunting in the same way, though -- there's nothing "noble" about it. The animal has no chance. Again, I say, make a spear or use a rock and kill the animal yourself. At least then the animal has a sporting chance.

PETA is in the business of overstatement. It's what they do--it's the only thing they do. They are outrageous so people will take notice of them, and they are certainly good at getting attention. Occasionally--more by mistake than by anything else, I think--they actually manage to accomplish something worthwhile, like getting KFC to crack down on the companies that process for them. But you've got to take them for what they are--they deliberately push the envelope in hopes of making incremental change.

In that sense, they're sort of like the NRA. The extreme end of the NRA would make it legal to own a howitzer, or even an a-bomb, which is ridiculous, but the end result is that it's still relatively easy for a law-abiding citizen to own a firearm. How good an idea that is is a topic for another thread, one I definitely will not start. :D

You know the savory flavor of beef? That's blood and urine. Yum yum.

Last time I checked, there's something called a food chain, where animals eat other animals.

and animals eat plants, and plants eat plants, and plants eat animals.

You know the savory flavor of beef? That's blood and urine. Yum yum.

Damn straight.

You know the savory flavor of beef? That's blood and urine. Yum yum.

Works for me.

Oh yeah, so what makes Top Ramen savory? Is there dried blood and urine in that powder pack? Or has Maruchan been cutting corners and screwing me AGAIN?

Correct


Then you misunderstood what I said and I misunderstood what you meant by "issues of putting the life of an animal against the life of a human". I thought you meant comparing the worth of an animal against that of a human. I don't agree with thinking that killing animals saves humans (or vice versa) ... that would be a totally ridiculous claim. What I meant was that in the context of a discussion about animal rights, the very existence of factory farms - killing factories - compels one to answer the question of whether animal lives are morally equal to human lives, because if animals are judged to be equal to people then factory farms would be, in one's eyes, criminal establishments. Else, a factory farm is just another legitimate feature of civilization.

Do you believe, then, that there is no in-between? Animals are either senseless brutes who we can abuse according to our whims, or they are accorded the full rights of human beings?
For obvious reasons, the latter is untenable, but the former is immoral. A middle ground is possible, and is not precluded by anything you have said.

How so? It seems to me like the motives, ideology, and actions of these two things differ tremendously.

The motives and ideology DO differ tremendously. Did you miss my previous posts on this thread?
Unless I am completely mistaken, and I have not yet seen evidence to suggest that I am, PETA is making a correlation between the living conditions of factory farm animals and Jews, and of the fact that both are large-scale mass murder of innocent lives.
Nowhere in the ad does it suggest that they were begun or conducted by the same reasons, or by people with similar mindsets. Although there IS a similarity in the cold calculations of how to most efficiently exterminate on both sides . . .

Death of animal or man, it makes no difference. The robot empires shall rise. Robotistan advises that you welcome your new robot overlords.

Furthermore we question the logic of Hellic, who appears to want swift death for animals by beating them with spears and rocks as apparent by this post:

You're not too swift on the uptake, are you? Perhaps your software needs an upgrade to register implications, nuance, and context. As you stand right now, your intellect is pretty embarrassing.

Unless I am completely mistaken, and I have not yet seen evidence to suggest that I am, PETA is making a correlation between the living conditions of factory farm animals and Jews, and of the fact that both are large-scale mass murder of innocent lives.

I find this to not only be a grossly inaccurate and oversimplistic view of the Holocaust, but also quite crass, disrespectful, and downright exploitative. The fact that this is being done blatantly for "shock value" only makes it worse. There's no justification for specifically selecting the Holocaust to make this comparison- the Jews weren't being killed the same way as farm animals, they weren't being killed for the same reason; the animals are not performing forced labor... there's no reason for this comparison, other than PETA knowing that anytime you say "Holocaust" you'll get a reaction.

Nowhere in the ad does it suggest that they were begun or conducted by the same reasons, or by people with similar mindsets.

I agree, which is why I don't understand their rationale for making this comparison.

I voted for their free speech. Not that I'm going to listen to them...

Heil Steak!

Now, I wouldn't compare it to the Holocaust, but some animals are treated with needless cruelty at slaughterhouses, etc. And if all PETA was doing was saying "stop all the absolutely needless cruelty" (ie. killing pigs by swinging them onto the concrete multiple times/bleeding them to death rather than giving them a painless death, growing chickens in cages that they can't move around and making them so that they can't stand up, etc.), that would be fine. It is their picketing of medical labs and their insistence that we shouldn't eat meat at all that bothers me.

A chickens life. If the human species were to become extinct, it would only do good. We mass produce our food anyway, half of it probably doesn't get eaten, what a waste of a life. If we could only eat humans, maybe we would stop mass production. :)


Hmm, the real reason I believe a human's life is more important is simple. I believe we have a soul and chicken doesn't. We both feel pain, need water and food to live, etc. The difference for me is religious.

We keep them alive and when I think about, they have a pretty damn good life. They get fed well and live in fairly comfortable living spaces and then have a fairly quick, painless death.
I wish. I have no problem with eating animals, but I do not want any to suffer on my account. Now, some of them may have a pretty good life; what may be intolerable to a human may well be bliss to a cow. (And we don't have to just guess; we can do blood tests to determine if an animal is stressed). But there is also a lot of suffering, and quite unneccessary suffering that food animals are put through.

PETA is raising their profile by being contravertial. I too am inclined to ignore them.

Do you believe, then, that there is no in-between? Animals are either senseless brutes who we can abuse according to our whims, or they are accorded the full rights of human beings?
For obvious reasons, the latter is untenable, but the former is immoral. A middle ground is possible, and is not precluded by anything you have said.
How is it "obvious" that holding all animals to be worth much less than humans is an immoral opinion? There are no universal laws of morality that makes one value system more definitively correct or incorrect. In the universe - a collection of atoms shifting around - my opinion is as good as your opinion.

Indeed a middle ground is possible, and many people judge animals on a case by case, species by species basis, and I can understand their reasoning. To me personally though, no animal species even comes close to what man is worth and therefore I am not bothered by meat eating or animal testing of any kind including scientific/industrial research on advanced mammals like monkeys.

The motives and ideology DO differ tremendously. Did you miss my previous posts on this thread?
Unless I am completely mistaken, and I have not yet seen evidence to suggest that I am, PETA is making a correlation between the living conditions of factory farm animals and Jews, and of the fact that both are large-scale mass murder of innocent lives.
Incorrect. Both the Holocaust and factory farms being sites of "large-scale murder of innocent lives" is not fact, but opinion. Murder is by definition wrong - sinful, criminal, while killing is not necessarily wrong. Killing humans is by law and culture considered murder, but most people do not consider the killing of animals to be murder. You might personally believe killing animals is murder but you cannot call your views a fact, merely opinion, because many people disagree with your moral judgment. The Holocaust and a chicken farm are both large-scale mass killing, as is when millions of krill, fish, and other microorganisms are systematically collected by a blue whale's baleen teeth, killed, and digested. Killing something is simply causing the organism to reach biological equilibrium (die) - thus if you call the Holocaust and factory farms both instances of mass killing, then you are scientifically and factually correct. But you can't say that it is an undisputed fact that the Holocaust and factory farms are both instances of mass murder, because not everyone accepts the moral premise you are working with.

factory farms, are not comparable too the holocaust,

factory farms are way worse than the holocaust could have ever been/was.


although it is a good comparision.

factory farms, are not comparable too the holocaust,

factory farms are way worse than the holocaust could have ever been/was.


although it is a good comparision.


Hmm, I'm sure if you had lived in a concentration camp during world war 2, hell would have seemed better. It's also human life vs. animal life and of course, as humans, most of us would be more sympathetic towards human life. Look at 9/11, a few thousand die and that is a huge point in history. Thousands of chickens probably die a week but besides PETA and other animal rights group, that is never talked about in the mass media.

Hmm, I'm sure if you had lived in a concentration camp during world war 2, hell would have seemed better. It's also human life vs. animal life and of course, as humans, most of us would be more sympathetic towards human life. Look at 9/11, a few thousand die and that is a huge point in history. Thousands of chickens probably die a week but besides PETA and other animal rights group, that is never talked about in the mass media.



thousands a week, no its more like millions die a week.

if you study animals enough, you begin to think we are the ones that are the lesser of the two.


but hell is just a place that can be on earth anywhere at anytime, but yes if you work in a slaughter house, it is a hell!

just look at the looning texas chainsaw masacre, thoose loonys ran a slaughter house, and they started to have not much respect for humans because of that fact, and many others, like they lived way out in the middle of nowhere.

anyway yeah.

thousands a week, no its more like millions die a week.

if you study animals enough, you begin to think we are the ones that are the lesser of the two.


but hell is just a place that can be on earth anywhere at anytime, but yes if you work in a slaughter house, it is a hell!

just look at the looning texas chainsaw masacre, thoose loonys ran a slaughter house, and they started to have not much respect for humans because of that fact, and many others, like they lived way out in the middle of nowhere.

anyway yeah.



I see we are superior in one way, we have a soul and they don't. Btw, I don't believe Hell is on earth. Hell is a place far worse than anything that ever happens on earth, to animals or humans. Now, I do oppose hunting unless it is for food because it's not really a sport, it's a waste of an afternoon.

I see we are superior in one way, we have a soul and they don't. Btw, I don't believe Hell is on earth. Hell is a place far worse than anything that ever happens on earth, to animals or humans. Now, I do oppose hunting unless it is for food because it's not really a sport, it's a waste of an afternoon.




we have a soul and they dont- how can you say that, gorillas can speak sign language you know, and live like a human, if properly trained.

what is a soul?? explain that, then why animals are different then that.

Also i think it is extremly useless to beleave in things like hell, a soul, and


that there are no proof of these things, so its just completly imaginary, and obsurd to think of.

that doesnt mean that i wont here a description of what you beleave it is thats just the way i and many other feel.

we have a soul and they dont- how can you say that, gorillas can speak sign language you know, and live like a human, if properly trained.

what is a soul?? explain that, then why animals are different then that.


A parrot can mimic a humans sound, dolphins can communicate through clicking noises. A gorilla isn't human though, it can act like one and do similar things but even though we are closesly related, we are not the same thing. While animals can do remakrable things, that does not mean they have a soul. A soul is defined in many ways, although as a Christian, I take it as something reserved for humans and having a spiritual side. Even athiests have a soul because in one way or another, you "worship" something in your life. It could be a band, a sport, a hobby, a God(s), anything. Animals don't worship anything. They have respect like when there is a dominating male lion over the females or in a group of dogs, there is an alfa dog. They rely on people to feed them if they are domesticated or if they are wild, parents to feed them (if they are young). They have a need to survive and depend on things like water, food and shelter but they don't worship those, they simply naturally know they need those to stay alive. A definition www.dictionary.com was "The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity." Several others make references to it being in humans. Look it up for yourself at that site or just in a regular dictionary. They aren't bias, given there are things that they acknowledge both animals and humans can do.

Also i think it is extremly useless to beleave in things like hell, a soul, and


that there are no proof of these things, so its just completly imaginary, and obsurd to think of.

that doesnt mean that i wont here a description of what you beleave it is thats just the way i and many other feel.


Hmm, dismissing a set of beliefs because you disagree with them. Wow, that really makes me want to prove a point. Respect the fact that billions of people believe in those.

Hmm, dismissing a set of beliefs because you disagree with them. Wow, that really makes me want to prove a point. Respect the fact that billions of people believe in those.


oh i do, maybe i misinterparated what i meant to say, or you misunderstood.

but animals can worship, but worshiping is a thing not all animals, or humans do.
i dont worship anything, i like many/most things.

oh i do, maybe i misinterparated what i meant to say, or you misunderstood.

but animals can worship, but worshiping is a thing not all animals, or humans do.
i dont worship anything, i like many/most things.



Do animals love each other? Like when two animals mate, is it love or is it instinct for survival? What do animals worship? I have a dog and as far as I can see, she doesn't worship any of us even though we are neccessary for her survival. Btw, I think I misunderstood what you said.

Do animals love each other? Like when two animals mate, is it love or is it instinct for survival? What do animals worship? I have a dog and as far as I can see, she doesn't worship any of us even though we are neccessary for her survival. Btw, I think I misunderstood what you said.


ok but how do you know he doesnt warship anything, can you talk to your dog?

wolves howl at the moon, and moslty all animals live off of the earth.

that could be a way of warshiping the earth, which gave them life.

all animals have certain traits or things they do that, could be a called a worshiping activity or routine.

like when animals play, they are playing to gain skill, but also because they love the skill they are practicing.

Thought I'd throw my two cents in.

Unusually cruel treatment of animals is wrong. I have no idea if some of the claims here are legit, but I don't doubt that mistreatment, even cruelty, happens.

But I also am confused as to the basis upon which one might call something "wrong". Isn't morality opinion and feeling? How can one assert morality without having some kind of standard by which one can judge an act? If I kick a dog for the pure joy of kicking a dog, most people would object, but why? No one deserves anything. Right? Aren't we just complex animals?

Some might say, "no, I'm religious, I don't believe that." That's wonderful. But just believing something doesn't make it right. Just right for you? Correct? Isn't that what they're teaching these days?

This discussion is pointless. If you don't have a common scale, a common standard of judgement, how can you ever sucessfully argue a position? You have absolutely no common ground with your opponent or audience, all you have is your own experience, which is totally subjective.

ok but how do you know he doesnt warship anything, can you talk to your dog?

wolves howl at the moon, and moslty all animals live off of the earth.

that could be a way of warshiping the earth, which gave them life.

all animals have certain traits or things they do that, could be a called a worshiping activity or routine.

like when animals play, they are playing to gain skill, but also because they love the skill they are practicing.


Animals do everything for a reason. Animals don't have the same greed or evilness humans do and therefore they do things for survival. Some, such as yourself, may interpret that as worship or love. I see it as survival and that they wish to be as strong at it as possible so they can catch the biggest deer if they are a wolf or whatever. Each to his own.

Animals do everything for a reason. Animals don't have the same greed or evilness humans do and therefore they do things for survival. Some, such as yourself, may interpret that as worship or love. I see it as survival and that they wish to be as strong at it as possible so they can catch the biggest deer if they are a wolf or whatever. Each to his own.

scientist have studied animals, they have the same emotions humans do.

scientist have studied animals, they have the same emotions humans do.


Humans think differently though. When looking for a mate, we look for attractiveness, sense of humour, intellegence, personality, etc. When animals look for a mate, they want a mate that will produce the best offspring possible, big, strong, dominant, etc. They look at it for survival. We look at it for more selfish reasons.

Humans think differently though. When looking for a mate, we look for attractiveness, sense of humour, intellegence, personality, etc. When animals look for a mate, they want a mate that will produce the best offspring possible, big, strong, dominant, etc. They look at it for survival. We look at it for more selfish reasons.



no animals look for mates they can be compatable with, ones who have the same feelings as themselves.

You know, its funny: PETA goes & raises hell about colt's being slaughtered while at the same time supports a terrorist organization (ELF) that burned down a food depot for the government's mustang project. Then they raise hell about people not sterilizing their pets while they go killing off animals themselves for their anti-animal cruelty shorts.

I'll admit right now I tend to have a different aspect to animal rights, but I don't agree at all with PETA and its nonsense. I will admit though: Our corperate run livestock facilities are in need of reform.

I am suprised that when the Nazis and PETA are put on the same thread, someone does not mention somewhere (until now) that Hitler and the Nazis were vegetarians. They even had many laws protecting animals from experimentation, while doing it on humans. Some time ago, a couple of doctors from the National Institute of Health, argued on the McNeil-Lehrer show that "The only people in modern society that have not used animals for research were the Nazis". Many of our other "progressive" or "liberal" ideas also come from the Nazis, like environmentalism and public smoking bans.
Where do the PETA people think those animals would be if humans did not raise them? Cows and chickens are so stupid that natural selection would have killed them off by now.
One last thing, addressed to the person who suggested an organisation called "People Eating Tasty Animals": there already is one. http://mtd.com/tasty/
Here it is.

no animals look for mates they can be compatable with, ones who have the same feelings as themselves.


Then why do female lions always look for the dominant male, even when there are others in the clan?

I'd just like to add my two cents to the arguement. Personally, I eat meat, I hunt, and I am a firm opponent of PETA. I value the life of the chicken less than the life of the human. While I don't support the torture of animals solely for the sake of sadistic pleasure, I enjoy my beef and chicken and pork and especially my lamb. I acknowledge that animals may undergo less than pleasant, even horrible conditions for me to enjoy this, and I'm willing to accept that. I do find it unexcusable for PETA to create an ad in such poor taste that cheapens what happened to all the Jews and others who were killed in the Holocaust. Another problem I've been having reading all of these posts is the number of people who seem to assume that their vegan and vegetarian diets are bloodless and therefore superioir. This website, http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html makes a very convincing arguement, at least in my eyes, on the equal bloodiness of a meatless diet and therefore using the arguements held by those who oppose the killing of animals proves that a vegan diet is no better than a omnivorous one, regardless of whetehr or not they apply the Least Harm Principle or abhor the killing of one animal as much as a thousand. Why aren't PETA and all the animal rights activits screaming about this? Is it because while cows, chickens and people are all equal they are all better than voles and snakes? Or is it simply because it is easier to become sentimentally enamored with animals that have big, sad eyes that seem to stare back at you full of emotion? I welcome any and all sensible responses and will ignore pointless vitriolic statements attacking my views and not my arguements.

I'm a Jew and that pisses me off, they are in a way calling Jews animals or if they don't mean harm they are belittleing the greatest tragedy of our time. FUCK PETA!

I'm a Jew and that pisses me off, they are in a way calling Jews animals or if they don't mean harm they are belittleing the greatest tragedy of our time. FUCK PETA!


My cousin's Jewish, so I thought of it as a bit of a slap in the face too.

If you still think vegetarianism is good then you need to pull your head out of your ass and read this two articles from the best page in the universe:

http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html

http://maddox.xmission.com/sponsor.html

Seriously, if you are a vegetarian you need to step back and reevaluate your life right now.

WHEAT IS MURDER

I'm a Jew and that pisses me off, they are in a way calling Jews animals or if they don't mean harm they are belittleing the greatest tragedy of our time. FUCK PETA!

I don't see it as calling Jews animals, but I do see it as an attempt by PETA to "lift up" the importance of animal conditions by simultaneously "downgrading" the seriousness and general moral revulsion most members of society have concerning the Holocaust. Comparing the Holocaust to a chicken slaughterhouse, IMO, sets a very dangerous precedent for someone to argue that the Holocaust was insignificant- the fact that PETA not only compared the two but also has CO-OPTED the use of the term- "Holocaust on your plate"- demonstrates, to me, a conscious decision to try to minimize the actual importance- and horror- of the Holocaust, by trying to make it and chicken slaughterhouses somehow equivalent evils.

As a Jew who had over 40 relatives shot, gassed, beaten, starved, poisoned, and systematically worked to death, I find this apalling.

My family's MURDER is not, in my eyes, comparable with a chicken slaughterhouse. The murder of millions of PEOPLE, then or now, does not- and I feel, should not- resonate with me, or many others, on the same level that the killing of millions of chickens a week does.

Animal rights are important, in fact a central principle in Judaism is kindness to animals, but they are not the same as people. PETA can decry the deaths of animals all they want, but by making the comparison between the two, they de-value the importance of people's lives, thereby disrespecting them, as well as treating their deaths as being somehow less important or outrageous- after all, it's no worse than killing chickens, right?

And that to me is inexcusable.

Lastly, I would like to point out that I am offended when ANYONE, left, right, Gentile, or Jew, exploits the Holocaust for personal gain. I have just as much rancor (well, almost as much) for Pat Robertson when he shoes pictures of aborted fetuses side-by-side with pictures of Jewish corpses at Auschwitz stacked like firewood, and calls it a "modern Holocaust".

This is my FAMILY we're talking about. I shouldn't have to ASK people not to exploit their deaths for cheap political points. The "Holocaust" is not a buzzword people can toss around casually. It is- and should be- reserved for specific historical incidents. To do otherwise is to cheapen it to the point where it no longer carries any meaning, thereby further insulting all people that have been the victims of the various Holocausts throughout history.

I don't see it as calling the Jews animals, I was just throwing that out for discussion, but I do however object to them belittleing a serious tragedy as the Holocaust

Personally, I think PETA's too extreme with this.

A human's life is more important than a animal's life, but not a human's pocketbook. Although I agree with their point about conditions, I don't think they should compare it to the holocaust.