NationStates Jolt Archive

PETA ads excluded because the Super Bowl thinks they're too sexy? WTF?

http://news.aol.com/article/peta-ad-super-bowl/321302?icid=200100397x1217515643x1201120902

PETA should be excluded on the basis of being hypocritical, insensitive attention-whoring terrorist supporters.

Their celebrity endorsers are either clueless dupes or complicit in their stark hypocrisy.

A bit prudish, I think. But PETA had it comming. What with telling kids fish are sea kittens and all that... That organisation's crazy.

Figured they'd ban PETA because they're too damn stupid.

Figured they'd ban PETA because they're too damn stupid.I would have fell out of my chair laughing if that was the reason given. :D

The Super Bowl has to be like this, in light of Janet Jackson's boob.

PETA ads excluded because the Super Bowl thinks they're too sexy? WTF?

http://news.aol.com/article/peta-ad-super-bowl/321302?icid=200100397x1217515643x1201120902

That's a load of crap. The ad is far from the most extreme thing I've seen.

NBC should at least be honest.

PETA should be excluded on the basis of being hypocritical, insensitive attention-whoring terrorist supporters.

Their celebrity endorsers are either clueless dupes or complicit in their stark hypocrisy.

ALL of which is entirely irrelevent. Way to hijack on the very first response.

PETA ads excluded because the Super Bowl thinks they're too sexy? WTF?

http://news.aol.com/article/peta-ad-super-bowl/321302?icid=200100397x1217515643x1201120902

wtf does PETA want us to do with those veggies? :eek:

obviously not eat them!!!! :D

...What with telling kids fish are sea kittens and all that...

What's actually wrong with that?

wtf does PETA want us to do with those veggies? :eek:

obviously not eat them!!!! :D

Adds to the flavour...

That's a load of crap. The ad is far from the most extreme thing I've seen.

NBC should at least be honest.

On the other hand, this is just symptomatic of how the NFL and its broadcasters are still cringing at the prospect of another wardrobe malfunction level brouhaha tainting the Super Bowl.

My beliefs on PETA still stands.

What's actually wrong with that?

BSing kids is wrong. If PETA doesn't want them to eat fish, tell them the reason why. Don't go on telling them that fish are kitties and cuddly, and that that's the reason they shouldn't eat them.

That's a load of crap. The ad is far from the most extreme thing I've seen.

NBC should at least be honest.

But PETA is also a load of crap, so what did you expect?

That's a load of crap. The ad is far from the most extreme thing I've seen.

NBC should at least be honest.

They are being honest. The FCC drilled them in the ass for a split second shot of a boob from 200 yards away. Why should they take any chances with advertisers when they have companies lining up around the block to fork over $3 million per 30 seconds?

*deleted*

Nonetheless, the claim that they are "too sexy" is pathetic given what other advertisements are routinely shown. Victoria Secrets ring any bells?

I think if this didn't involve the much-hated PETA more people would be upset. But PETA-bashing verges on the sacred around here, so I am not surprised.

That said, this part is telling:

PETA said NBC asked it to edit some of the sexy scenes out of the ad but the organization refused.

I think, as is often the case, PETA is milking the controversy as its own source of publicity.

When browsing thru the pics, it's all sexy until you come across the moron dressed in a cow suit. Damn PETA and their meta-furry shit. Oh, and the ridiculous expression of their ideology too..

wow, that's actually a pretty good ad. silly, but memorable. which part of it is objectionable?

PETA should be excluded on the basis of being hypocritical, insensitive attention-whoring terrorist supporters.

Their celebrity endorsers are either clueless dupes or complicit in their stark hypocrisy.

ALL of which is entirely irrelevent. Way to hijack on the very first response.

That said, this part is telling:

PETA said NBC asked it to edit some of the sexy scenes out of the ad but the organization refused.

I think, as is often the case, PETA is milking the controversy as its own source of publicity.

My point is very relevant and stands.

BSing kids is wrong. If PETA doesn't want them to eat fish, tell them the reason why. Don't go on telling them that fish are kitties and cuddly, and that that's the reason they shouldn't eat them.

I've always wanted to cuddle a piranha named Fluffy. And a cute little great white shark would be just adorable!

I've always wanted to cuddle a piranha named Fluffy. And a cute little great white shark would be just adorable!

With a frickin' laser beam on his head?

:D

wow, that's actually a pretty good ad. silly, but memorable. which part of it is objectionable?

The part where it is made by PETA, apparently. :wink:

These ads are stupid and don't make a coherent point.

i think peta has enough presence that merely putting their name out somewhere counts as a point. they sort of gave up making arguments a while ago, and now just want converts.

Having read NBC's actual letter (http://blog.peta.org/archives/veggie_love.pdf), NBC's objections are staggeringly stupid and the edits they requested are mind-boggling. For those who can't be bothered to read the letter, here is the list of shots NBC requested PETA cut before they’d reconsider:


licking pumpkin


touching her breast with her hand while eating broccoli


pumpkin from behind between legs


rubbing pelvic region with pumpkin


screwing herself with broccoli (fuzzy)


asparagus on her lap appearing as if it is ready to be inserted into vagina


licking eggplant


rubbing asparagus on breast

:rolleyes:

EDIT: I should add that after watching the actual video (as opposed to stills), I think the ad is pretty funny and could be effective -- even if the images of women fondling produce are a bit nonsensical.

Having read NBC's actual letter (http://blog.peta.org/archives/veggie_love.pdf), NBC's objections are staggeringly stupid and the edits they requested are mind-boggling. For those who can't be bothered to read the letter, here is the list of shots NBC requested PETA cut before they’d reconsider:


licking pumpkin


touching her breast with her hand while eating broccoli


pumpkin from behind between legs


rubbing pelvic region with pumpkin


screwing herself with broccoli (fuzzy)


asparagus on her lap appearing as if it is ready to be inserted into vagina


licking eggplant


rubbing asparagus on breast

:rolleyes:

NBC wouldn't be so uptight and scrabbling for pretenses if the spectre of the FCC's Nipple Twister wasn't hanging over their heads.

On the other hand, this is just symptomatic of how the NFL and its broadcasters are still cringing at the prospect of another wardrobe malfunction level brouhaha tainting the Super Bowl.


I don't think it's JUST that - I expect that special exception has played a part here, and that the 'sexy' value of the ad is being overblown.


My beliefs on PETA still stands.

Which is fine, but not the topic.

Having read NBC's actual letter (http://blog.peta.org/archives/veggie_love.pdf), NBC's objections are staggeringly stupid and the edits they requested are mind-boggling. For those who can't be bothered to read the letter, here is the list of shots NBC requested PETA cut before they’d reconsider:

EDIT: I should add that after watching the actual video (as opposed to stills), I think the ad is pretty funny and could be effective -- even if the images of women fondling produce are a bit nonsensical.

Remember the flak about the candy commercial when two men share a kiss?
or about the Robotic arm that 'dreams' it gets fired and ends up committing suicide?
Heck, Even the GoDADDY comercial that poked fun at Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction' got angry calls.

Don't blame NBC, but blame the stupid groups that get worked up over nothing and call to complain.

BSing kids is wrong. If PETA doesn't want them to eat fish, tell them the reason why. Don't go on telling them that fish are kitties and cuddly, and that that's the reason they shouldn't eat them.

Why?

Why is it BS? Because Nirvana said "It's okay to eat fish, 'cause they don't have any feelings'?

'Animal rights' as a collective movement has consistently run into one problem. People are okay with saving kittens, and baby seals, and even whales... because they're kind of cute. But when you try to explain that Mako sharks are almost extinct, or that certain less-than-environmental policies have destroyed the habitat of such-and-such a carrion eater... you just can't seem to conjure up the same level of support.

So... why does this:

http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/index.asp

engender cries of rage, while this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dymD_xplYnA&feature=related

get's a giggle?

But PETA is also a load of crap, so what did you expect?

It seems like a lot of the responses here are based - not on content - but upon opinions regarding who made the video.

The video was fairly amusing, and certainly not 'banned from tv' worthy.

They are being honest. The FCC drilled them in the ass for a split second shot of a boob from 200 yards away. Why should they take any chances with advertisers when they have companies lining up around the block to fork over $3 million per 30 seconds?

I don't buy it. I think they're USING the FCC as a smokescreen on this one.

Lets examine them.

So... why does this:

http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/index.asp
"Tara the Tuna is fisky and playful, and she loves to squeeze herself into tight spaces and snuggle up close to her sea kitten pals. But the conditions on the sea kitten factory farm where she lives are too cramped even for tara. With no room to swim and no chance to escape, Tara looks forward to the end."

"Tony the Trout is the smartest Sea Kitten in his school. Already litter trained at 2 months old, Tony went on to double major in neuroscience and Evironmental studies at Clamford University, Eventually Graduating with Honors. when Tony is caught and fed to a Precocious young child, who having eaten one mercury-filled sea kitten too many, falls to the bottom of his class, the irony is not lost on him."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dymD_xplYnA&feature=related

get's a giggle?
hmmm... a slightly overweight young woman is 'sucking in her gut' to impress others.

you honestly don't see the difference?

Lets examine them.


"Tara the Tuna is fisky and playful, and she loves to squeeze herself into tight spaces and snuggle up close to her sea kitten pals. But the conditions on the sea kitten factory farm where she lives are too cramped even for tara. With no room to swim and no chance to escape, Tara looks forward to the end."

"Tony the Trout is the smartest Sea Kitten in his school. Already litter trained at 2 months old, Tony went on to double major in neuroscience and Evironmental studies at Clamford University, Eventually Graduating with Honors. when Tony is caught and fed to a Precocious young child, who having eaten one mercury-filled sea kitten too many, falls to the bottom of his class, the irony is not lost on him."


hmmm... a slightly overweight young woman is 'sucking in her gut' to impress others.

you honestly don't see the difference?

Yeah - the Sea Kitten thing is funny.

I liked the 'sea kitten facts':

"A University of Edinburgh study found that sea kittens can retain information that they learned up to 11 months earlier, which makes them cuter and smarter than the president of the United States!"

Come on, tell me that didn't make you smile?


But, what I was really refering to there, is that 'chicken of the sea' (i.e. 'battery-farmed animal' of the sea) doesn't offend sensibilities - because it identifies fish as food, which is how we apparently like it. But 'kittens of the sea' (i.e. 'cute critters' of the sea') engenders rage - because it confronts our usual food dynamic.

It's done tongue-in-cheek. It's a semi-serious thing, you only have to look. And it makes a good point, not wasted on us after decades of campaigns against seal-hunting and fur trade. We like cute stuff.

Yeah - the Sea Kitten thing is funny.

So you find indoctrinating kids to believe retarded scaly animals can get degrees and love snuggling up to their mates funny?

So you find indoctrinating kids to believe retarded scaly animals can get degrees and love snuggling up to their mates funny?

I don't.
Then again, I do not find indoctrinating them with the idea that all life exists only to pleasure mankind funny either - yet that seems to be the norm.

Forget the Homosexual Agenda: Its the Veggiesexuals that are the real threat to our moral society.

Yeah - the Sea Kitten thing is funny.

I liked the 'sea kitten facts':

Come on, tell me that didn't make you smile?

But, what I was really refering to there, is that 'chicken of the sea' (i.e. 'battery-farmed animal' of the sea) doesn't offend sensibilities - because it identifies fish as food, which is how we apparently like it. But 'kittens of the sea' (i.e. 'cute critters' of the sea') engenders rage - because it confronts our usual food dynamic.

It's done tongue-in-cheek. It's a semi-serious thing, you only have to look. And it makes a good point, not wasted on us after decades of campaigns against seal-hunting and fur trade. We like cute stuff.
no. it's the purpose behind the campaign. Chicken of the Sea refers to Tuna which was viewed like the avian chicken. plentiful and abundant as well as edible.

kittens of the sea is nothing but an attempt to frighten children into their way of thinking.

similar with "war on terror" and "[whatever] is a sin/going to hell." a scare tactic pure and simple.

the avian chicken.

Umm... chickens are avian, seeing as they're birds and all that.

So you find indoctrinating kids to believe retarded scaly animals can get degrees and love snuggling up to their mates funny?

Sure.

Curse you, biblical Jehovah, with your talking snakes and donkeys. Curse you, Aesop, with your interacting animals. Go to hell, Dr Doolittle, with your conversing critters. Be damned, Disney, with your anthropomorphic Mouse. Purge our bookshelves of Charlotte's Insidious Web of LIES.

kittens of the sea is nothing but an attempt to frighten children into their way of thinking.


Frighten them... by making them think they are cute?

Are kids often terrified of cuteness?

Curse you, biblical Jehovah, with your talking snakes and donkeys. Curse you, Aesop, with your interacting animals. Go to hell, Dr Doolittle, with your conversing critters. Be damned, Disney, with your anthropomorphic Mouse. Purge our bookshelves of Charlotte's Insidious Web of LIES.

It's got fuck all to do with that and you know it.

Frighten them... by making them think they are cute?

Are kids often terrified of cuteness?

nah, just the idea that the thing on their plate was once cute and cuddly.

I wonder if PETA wanted to happen. Get themselves back in the news now that the "sea kitten" silliness is dying down.

I wonder if PETA wanted to happen. Get themselves back in the news now that the "sea kitten" silliness is dying down.

Meh, I am still wating for the story of a PETA member getting eaten by the shark they were attempting to protect.

I'd say that the most accurate comparison to the 'Sea Kitten' thing would be those anti-piracy adverts. The 'you wouldn't steal a car' ones. Both miss the point somewhat.

As for this new ad, the fruitarians must be up in arms about this sexual abuse of plant life.

Meh, I am still wating for the story of a PETA member getting eaten by the shark they were attempting to protect.

If the animals we ate regularly were a bit more dangerous and accessible then it would have happened already. Like if we started farming lions or something.

It's got fuck all to do with that and you know it.

You couldn't be more right.

Giving animals cute personas has fuck all to do with indoctrinating kids, and I know it. Just like you.

If the animals we ate regularly were a bit more dangerous and accessible then it would have happened already. Like if we started farming lions or something.

Sadly, we prefer not to eat carnivores for the most part.

Edit: and people do eat shark, although I do not recommend it.

*digs into his plate of Land Fish*

Yeeeeeah you dig into that tofurkey...do it slow baby, do it slow....

nah, just the idea that the thing on their plate was once cute and cuddly.

Which isn't 'frightening them'.

Why don't we eat kittens?

Which isn't 'frightening them'.

Why don't we eat kittens?

Because we keep them as pets, I believe.


That and they wouldn't have much meat till they grow up.

Which isn't 'frightening them'.

Why don't we eat kittens?

Most of them are pets and its usually considered rather rude to eat someone else's pet.

Because we keep them as pets, I believe.

Alot of people keep Pigs and Chickens...Fish too I hear, lol...

Which isn't 'frightening them'.

Why don't we eat kittens?

Because those of us who can afford internet access will rarely if ever get hungry enough.

nah, just the idea that the thing on their plate was once cute and cuddly.

what of it?

Because those of us who can afford internet access will rarely if ever get hungry enough.

and why are kittens a lesser-value food choice?

PETA ads excluded because the Super Bowl thinks they're too sexy? WTF?

http://news.aol.com/article/peta-ad-super-bowl/321302?icid=200100397x1217515643x1201120902

*sings*
"I'm too sexy for the Superbowl, too sexy for the Superbowl..."

Someone had to.:D

In all seriousness, I don't care. From what I could tell, the commercial looks kinda stupid.

*sings*
"I'm too sexy for the Superbowl, too sexy for the Superbowl..."

Someone had to.:D

In all seriousness, I don't care. From what I could tell, the commercial looks kinda stupid.

lmao, I thought the same thing...

and why are kittens a lesser-value food choice?

I have heard that most carnivores aren't that tasty, and anyway, to farm them we need to feed them meat. If all else fails, herbivores will graze.

I have heard that most carnivores aren't that tasty, and anyway, to farm them we need to feed them meat. If all else fails, herbivores will graze.

I have heard from such reliable sources as Mel Gibson that Dogs are a fine meal however, lol...


On the other hand though, regardless of the ad's content, and the stupidity of the group itself, It does seem a little off that amidst complaints that they cant sell all the ad space for the Super Bowl, they would deny a paying customer...

Giving animals cute personas has fuck all to do with indoctrinating kids, and I know it. Just like you.

No, I meant that Disney films etc are nothing like telling kids straight out that fish are sweet cuddly "sea-kittens" who can get fucking degrees.

I'm still hung up on Peta saying they want to treat animals etically when a few years ago some guy from peta shot kittens thinking they would not get a proper home.

Anyway the super bowl is a family thing. Stuff like this and godaddy stuff should be allowed on TV, just at a different time. Like after the watershed time.

No, I meant that Disney films etc are nothing like telling kids straight out that fish are sweet cuddly "sea-kittens" who can get fucking degrees.

http://users.cwnet.com/xephyr/rich/dzone/hoozoo/images/sebastian2.gif


I think you underestimate him greatly, lol...

I think you underestimate him greatly, lol...

But Disney aren't trying to put that across as fact.

No, I meant that Disney films etc are nothing like telling kids straight out that fish are sweet cuddly "sea-kittens" who can get fucking degrees.

Obviously.

Because Mice really can pilot steamboats.

But Disney aren't trying to put that across as fact.

You mean Disney movies arent real!? :eek:

THE ONE CONSTANT IN MY LIFE IS RUINED!!! :(:eek2:

Obviously.

Because Mice really can pilot steamboats.

Like I said, Disney aren't trying to present their films as fact, whereas the PETA are.

You mean Disney movies arent real!? :eek:

THE ONE CONSTANT IN MY LIFE IS RUINED!!! :(:eek2:

Of course they're real. Now go and have a lie down.

why are my comments thrown by the wayside? :(

why are my comments thrown by the wayside? :(

Story of my life, lol...

Like I said, Disney aren't trying to present their films as fact, whereas the PETA are.

Did you actually read the material on the PETA website?

Look, if it poisons you dont eat it, its nature's way of telling you what to eat and not eat, lol...

and why are kittens a lesser-value food choice?

Too small and stringy.

I'm still hung up on Peta saying they want to treat animals etically when a few years ago some guy from peta shot kittens thinking they would not get a proper home.

Anyway the super bowl is a family thing. Stuff like this and godaddy stuff should be allowed on TV, just at a different time. Like after the watershed time.

Just like to add on. It seems that Peta has changed their views on kittens seeing as they want to associate fish with them and therefore save them.

what is it about peta that drives you all insane and incapable of arguing in an intellectually honest way?

Did you actually read the material on the PETA website?

of course not. who does things like that?

what is it about peta that drives you all insane and incapable of arguing in an intellectually honest way?

If I say that I want to eat meat/wear fur/get my products cheap at the expense of animals then everyone will think I am cruel and heartless. So instead I make crap up.

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

I think I should join that group.

what is it about peta that drives you all insane and incapable of arguing in an intellectually honest way?

One could ask, what is it about eating meat that keeps PETA from arguing in an intellectually honest way? Rather than resorting to things like "Sea-Kittens"

One could ask, what is it about eating meat that keeps PETA from arguing in an intellectually honest way? Rather than resorting to things like "Sea-Kittens"

i fail to see the relevance, even if it was true

i fail to see the relevance, even if it was true

The relevance being that if they are going to make Ludicrous statements, why shouldnt we respond with ludicrous statements?

I think I should join that group.

Already there, and yes, you should join.

Also, the commercial doesn't mention which "studies" show that veggies have better sex. I think it's crap.

The relevance being that if they are going to make Ludicrous statements, why shouldnt we respond with ludicrous statements?

because the fact that somebody else does something doesn't mean we get to do it too?

because the fact that somebody else does something doesn't mean we get to do it too?

Well, if the argument pertains to an Organization, then the Organization's actions and statements are obviously going to play a role in how the argument is conducted...

hence one that makes ludicrous statements, is going to be responded to in a similar fashion..

Also, the commercial doesn't mention which "studies" show that veggies have better sex. I think it's crap.

apparently they are playing statistical leapfrog across a number of studies, none of which are particularly controversial. basically, vegetarians and vegans are, on average, in better shape than meat eaters (at least among USians), and people in better shape have more and better sex.

apparently they are playing statistical leapfrog across a number of studies, none of which are particularly controversial. basically, vegetarians and vegans are, on average, in better shape than meat eaters (at least among USians), and people in better shape have more and better sex.

That's a lot of assumptions, then. Also, I know lots of veggies, and at least half of them are pale, skinny and not terribly energetic. Like any other lifestyle, it's only beneficial if done well.

people in better shape have more and better sex.

Psh, says them, lol ;)

what is it about peta that drives you all insane and incapable of arguing in an intellectually honest way?

On the one hand, some of what PETA believes and does is batshit insane and rightfully scorned.

On the other hand, it seems to me there are two groups that have trouble being intellectually honest when it comes to issues of animal rights. One group is simply oblivious or uncaring of the ethical issues regarding our eating of meat, wearing of fur, etc. The other group is aware of the ethical issues but doesn't like being confronted about their own actions, so would like the issue to go away. Both groups are willing to deflect serious discussion by making accusations of hypocrisy, terrorism, etc., rather than honestly debate PETA's actions or beliefs.

The "sea kitten" thing is a wonderful example (and we had a whole thread -- which turned mainly into people taking issue with my suggesting PETA had even the vaguest whiff of a point). I stand by my comments then that people are outraged over the sea kitten thing precisely because it points out the difficult to justify distinctions that we make between animals that are "cute" or "pets" and those we slaughter for meat.

Regardless, it does seem the mere letters PETA make many members of this forum foam at the mouth.

Also, the commercial doesn't mention which "studies" show that veggies have better sex. I think it's crap.

Because most commercials back up their claims with detailed expositions on the supporting studies. :rolleyes:

Because most commercials back up their claims with detailed expositions on the supporting studies. :rolleyes:

In the small print, yes they do. They kinda have to.

some of what PETA believes and does is batshit insane

indeed, though it must be admitted that it does seem to work pretty well. way better than one would expect out of the actually bugfuck crazy. which makes me think that at least at the strategy levels, this shit is all just tactics.

One could ask, what is it about eating meat that keeps PETA from arguing in an intellectually honest way? Rather than resorting to things like "Sea-Kittens"

Rather begs the question of whether "resorting to things like 'Sea-Kittens'" is intellectually dishonest.

It seems to me PETA's explanation of what they are trying to do is rather straight-foward:

People don't seem to like fish. They're slithery and slimy, and they have eyes on either side of their pointy little heads—which is weird, to say the least. Plus, the small ones nibble at your feet when you're swimming, and the big ones—well, the big ones will bite your face off if Jaws is anything to go by.

Of course, if you look at it another way, what all this really means is that fish need to fire their PR guy—stat. Whoever was in charge of creating a positive image for fish needs to go right back to working on the Britney Spears account and leave our scaly little friends alone. You've done enough damage, buddy. We've got it from here. And we're going to start by retiring the old name for good. When your name can also be used as a verb that means driving a hook through your head, it's time for a serious image makeover. And who could possibly want to put a hook through a sea kitten?


Just because people generally have no difficulty eating fish but would not eat kittens doesn't make pointing out the moral ambiguity and dishonesty involved in those predilections intellectually dishonest.

Mmmm... Pacific Sea Kitten.

OMNOMNOM

In the small print, yes they do. They kinda have to.

which studies 'proved' the effectiveness of levitra?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jqx4dRThRg

In the small print, yes they do. They kinda have to.

Really? So I can expect detailed studies to back up the claims that drinking certain beers (or bourbon) will get me laid?

vegetarians have better sex because the rest of us are too busy eating delicious, delicious meat. mmmm, meat.

then we have sex.




and chicken wings >.>

In the small print, yes they do. They kinda have to.

Or at least give a disclaimer saying they havent...

which studies 'proved' the effectiveness of levitra?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jqx4dRThRg

:rolleyes:

They don't have to prove anything, they have to mention the source for their claim. Jesus, when did NSG get so touchy?

Really? So I can expect detailed studies to back up the claims that drinking certain beers (or bourbon) will get me laid?

Only if they tell you that there was a Scientific Study saying so...

If I say that I want to eat meat/wear fur/get my products cheap at the expense of animals then everyone will think I am cruel and heartless. So instead I make crap up.

Honest of you.

I admit that I eat meat and wear products like leather. I don't wear fur. I try to avoid excess cruelty to animals, but I know that is partially kidding myself.

Being willing to admit your conduct is ethically ambiguous or even wrong is a good thing.

:rolleyes:

They don't have to prove anything, they have to mention the source for their claim. Jesus, when did NSG get so touchy?

what was the source for levitra's claim of 'proven effectiveness'?

the big ones—well, the big ones will bite your face off


There would be my argument against PETA in a nutshell...

Really? So I can expect detailed studies to back up the claims that drinking certain beers (or bourbon) will get me laid?

Look, I understand you're looking for clarification, but there's no need to inject the jackass quotient into your tone to get your point across. I don't recall offering any such snark to you.

Beer commercials rarely make specific claims, and when they do (such as "X% fewer calories than..."), they have to show, in the ridiculoulsy fine print on the bottom of the screen, how they back that claim up. The unspecific claims of "looking cool" or other implications like "getting you laid" aren't specific, direct claims.

That's why most claims by ads on TV say things like "better" without saying what they're "better than" unless it's something also unprovable like "better than the 'leading brand'".

what was the source for levitra's claim of 'proven effectiveness'?

What is at all "specific" about using the word "proven"? The ad isn't saying "proven more effective than watching porn", is it? No. So, no specific claim, no fine print needed.

Honest of you.

I admit that I eat meat and wear products like leather. I don't wear fur. I try to avoid excess cruelty to animals, but I know that is partially kidding myself.

Being willing to admit your conduct is ethically ambiguous or even wrong is a good thing.

Leather's not ambiguous. The cow's dead for meat anyway, why waste the hide? Now, if it were like the scene in Dances With Wolves, where thousands of buffalo were skinned and left to rot just for those skins, you'd be in some ethical doo-doo.

What is at all "specific" about using the word "proven"? The ad isn't saying "proven more effective than watching porn", is it? No. So, no specific claim, no fine print needed.

presumably, they must at least be saying it works better than a placebo. and presumably there actually has been such a study.

you are just making shit up. stop it.

Honest of you.

I admit that I eat meat and wear products like leather. I don't wear fur. I try to avoid excess cruelty to animals, but I know that is partially kidding myself.

Being willing to admit your conduct is ethically ambiguous or even wrong is a good thing.

Im not going to say its not, But, being that a great deal other animals do the same, I just consider it a fact of life...

Leather's not ambiguous. The cow's dead for meat anyway, why waste the hide?

I mostly agree, but, by that same argument, we should all wear human skin from cadavers rather than letting it go to waste.

presumably, they must at least be saying it works better than a placebo. and presumably there actually has been such a study.

you are just making shit up. stop it.

You need to back off. I'm not saying anything offensive to you, so please lay off the snark.

How is it I'm "making shit up" when YOU use the word "presumably" in your own post? Look, a specific claim MUST be backed up. It's the law, and one of the few enforced FCC statutes that I actually agree with. Your contniued flogging of the Levitra ad has been refuted. It makes no specific claim.

Im not going to say its not, But, being that a great deal other animals do the same, I just consider it a fact of life...

1. We generally don't go by the "It's OK if some animals do it" standard of ethics.

2. Animals don't force-feed other animals or cage them, etc...

I mostly agree, but, by that same argument, we should all wear human skin from cadavers rather than letting it go to waste.

Well, is human skin good for clothing? I can't imagine it would be, in comparison to bovine hide, given that they live mostly outside, and we don't.

You need to back off. I'm not saying anything offensive to you, so please lay off the snark.

How is it I'm "making shit up" when YOU use the word "presumably" in your own post? Look, a specific claim MUST be backed up. It's the law, and one of the few enforced FCC statutes that I actually agree with. Your contniued flogging of the Levitra ad has been refuted. It makes no specific claim.

Are you honestly trying to claim that the FCC would punish PETA on the grounds that the "Veggie Love" ad doesn't adequately support specific claims?

And can you please cite this law to which you are referring?

On the one hand, some of what PETA believes and does is batshit insane and rightfully scorned.

On the other hand, it seems to me there are two groups that have trouble being intellectually honest when it comes to issues of animal rights. One group is simply oblivious or uncaring of the ethical issues regarding our eating of meat, wearing of fur, etc. The other group is aware of the ethical issues but doesn't like being confronted about their own actions, so would like the issue to go away. Both groups are willing to deflect serious discussion by making accusations of hypocrisy, terrorism, etc., rather than honestly debate PETA's actions or beliefs.

The "sea kitten" thing is a wonderful example (and we had a whole thread -- which turned mainly into people taking issue with my suggesting PETA had even the vaguest whiff of a point). I stand by my comments then that people are outraged over the sea kitten thing precisely because it points out the difficult to justify distinctions that we make between animals that are "cute" or "pets" and those we slaughter for meat.

Regardless, it does seem the mere letters PETA make many members of this forum foam at the mouth.

I should have caught that thread... apparently, I'm making the same basic arguments, here.

Well, is human skin good for clothing? I can't imagine it would be, in comparison to bovine hide, given that they live mostly outside, and we don't.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2006/01/07/some_of_nations_best_libraries_have_books_bound_in_human_skin/

Well, is human skin good for clothing? I can't imagine it would be, in comparison to bovine hide, given that they live mostly outside, and we don't.

You could layer it. I imagine it would be pretty good for things like shirts and waistcoats. Better than leather, maybe... thinking abut it.

I mostly agree, but, by that same argument, we should all wear human skin from cadavers rather than letting it go to waste.

Possibly, but we dont kill Humans for meat, at least not usually...I hear in Micro it produces a sort of Human version of Mad Cow disease if you eat Human, lol


Then again, I guess it wouldnt make a difference as far as leather goes....I wonder how much quality would be in Human Leather?

Are you honestly trying to claim that the FCC would punish PETA on the grounds that the "Veggie Love" ad doesn't adequately support specific claims?

And can you please cite this law to which you are referring?

I'm sorry I brought it up, and I'm thinking now that the disclaimer might not be necessary for the PETA ad because the claim, as I re-watch the ad, is not specific. It just said "studies show veggies have better sex", not which ones or better sex than whom.

I got my agencies mixed up. It's the Federal Trade Commission:

Comparative advertising is a popular component in many ads. There is no legal prohibition against advertisers making truthful references to competitors or competing products. However, to avoid deception, comparative advertising must be clear and, if necessary, contain appropriate disclosures. Further, an advertiser must have a reasonable basis to support its own claims, as well as the claims made about a competitor's product or services.

http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/anthony/naruc.shtm

That bit's from their truth in advertising section on telecommunications, but the principle is there.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2006/01/07/some_of_nations_best_libraries_have_books_bound_in_human_skin/

You could layer it. I imagine it would be pretty good for things like shirts and waistcoats. Better than leather, maybe... thinking abut it.

Books, I would believe, but I don't think human skin would be better for more than a shirt, like you say, G_n_i. The dermis is like suede when tanned? Yikes.

1. We generally don't go by the "It's OK if some animals do it" standard of ethics.

For one, thats not what Im saying, at least not in that sense, A classic argument for PETA is that Animals are of a higher moral caliber than Humans, Im just saying, I beg to differ, in a similar classic argument, lol...


2. Animals don't force-feed other animals or cage them, etc...

For two, Only because they cant, I think if Lions, Wolves, similar pack animals could, they most certainly would...

Afterall, these are animals that surround and systematically force off the weakest of a group of other animals and kill them with their bare claws...

Here's another one, this time about a diet book author's claims. Again, it's the FTC, not the FCC. My bad.

http://abajournal.com/news/judge_easy_diet_claim_in_tv_ads_misleading_violated_order/

PETA? Sexy? *Insert uproarious laughter*

To quote a buddy of on on Peta:

PETA should be hunted down

I agree. They are useless wastes of space AND the cause of Global Warming. Cows produce more "Greenhouse gasses" then anything else. EAT A COW! SAVE THE EARTH!

just like to add on. It seems that peta has changed their views on kittens seeing as they want to associate fish with them and therefore save them.

zing!

FWIW, PETA's explanation/justification for it's claim that vegetarians make better lovers:

We've known for years that vegetables … no, sorry … vegetarians make better lovers. Physicians agree that eating meat can clog arteries that go to all organs, not just the heart. And many veggie foods are loaded with natural aphrodisiacs—nutrients and chemicals that boost sexual arousal and performance.

*snip*

Research has shown that vegetarians enjoy greater amounts of the nutrients that help boost sexual health and performance—such as vitamins A, C, and E and potassium—than meat-eaters do. These nutrients, and others that help boost performance, are found naturally in fruits and veggies such as asparagus, bananas, berries, carrots, chili peppers, pumpkins, and more.

Whether these claims can, in turn, be supported, I don't know.

FWIW, PETA's explanation/justification for it's claim that vegetarians make better lovers:

We've known for years that vegetables … no, sorry … vegetarians make better lovers. Physicians agree that eating meat can clog arteries that go to all organs, not just the heart. And many veggie foods are loaded with natural aphrodisiacs—nutrients and chemicals that boost sexual arousal and performance.

*snip*

Research has shown that vegetarians enjoy greater amounts of the nutrients that help boost sexual health and performance—such as vitamins A, C, and E and potassium—than meat-eaters do. These nutrients, and others that help boost performance, are found naturally in fruits and veggies such as asparagus, bananas, berries, carrots, chili peppers, pumpkins, and more.


I think the real question would be, Do not Omnivores who eat meat in combination with the aforementioned items get the same effects?

I think the real question would be, Do not Omnivores who eat meat in combination with the aforementioned items get the same effects?

That is True, but remember PETA hates all those who eat meat! Even Omnivores.

That is True, but remember PETA hates all those who eat meat! Even Omnivores.

lol, Idk if its relevant, but I thought it was a little odd...

I was considering going on that Carb diet for a time, before I realized Meat isnt my primary food source, But Breads and Grains, lol...

I couldnt live without Garlic Bread, Corn Bread, and Grits, lol...

You couldn't be more right.

Giving animals cute personas has fuck all to do with indoctrinating kids, and I know it. Just like you.

It's the classic fallacy of anthromorphising animals. The kid of silly human ideals that animals can related to them, in the same manner that has people convinced chimpanzees are adorable, tame friends and companions instead of vicious and muscular bastards that they are in the wild.

Which isn't 'frightening them'.

Why don't we eat kittens?

Considering PETA gassed a bunch of kittens they took from real animal shelters looking to have them adopted so their corpses could be stored for later propaganda use, the whole Sea Kitten ideal is very cynical and disingenuous.

The cow's dead for meat anyway, why waste the hide?

Because the more revenue that can be derived from the dead cow, the more cows that will be killed.

and why are kittens a lesser-value food choice?

Taste. Very gamey. Also, they perform a useful pest control function. Chicken and fish, not so much.

Books, I would believe, but I don't think human skin would be better for more than a shirt, like you say, G_n_i. The dermis is like suede when tanned? Yikes.

I've actually treated hides, before. Not human... but various animal hides.

If you treat them right, hides can be very soft and supple - this is true even of relatively thick hides. Human hide wouldn't be nearly as thick as cow hide, I imagine, and it wouldn't be nearly as weathered... so I assume that - if treated appropriately - it would make a very soft, thin 'leather'.

Based on lambskin, I'd say it wouldn't be un-suitable as a material for waistcoats, but it might be too frail for a jacket... unless you built up a composite of several layers.

Considering PETA gassed a bunch of kittens they took from real animal shelters looking to have them adopted so their corpses could be stored for later propaganda use, the whole Sea Kitten ideal is very cynical and disingenuous.

There's nothing intrinsically un-Ethical about euthanasia.

Considering PETA gassed a bunch of kittens they took from real animal shelters looking to have them adopted so their corpses could be stored for later propaganda use, the whole Sea Kitten ideal is very cynical and disingenuous.

and this is exactly what i mean about the intellectual dishonesty. i know you have taken part in threads where this bullshit has been debunked. is it really so hard to come up with real arguments?

There's nothing intrinsically un-Ethical about euthanasia.

Even when the euthanized animals were taken from the shelters under the lie that they were being adopted and taken to a loving home?

and this is exactly what i mean about the intellectual dishonesty. i know you have taken part in threads where this bullshit has been debunked. is it really so hard to come up with real arguments?

You're defending an organization that was built upon intellectual dishonesty and stark raving hypocrisy and you're trying to call me out on it?

You're defending an organization that was built upon intellectual dishonesty and stark raving hypocrisy and you're trying to call me out on it?

Thats kinda what I was saying earlier.....

I guess if he wanted to discuss the subject rather than the Organization, I could see his point...but, really, PETA's intellectual honesty doesnt buy much these days...

I've actually treated hides, before. Not human... but various animal hides.

If you treat them right, hides can be very soft and supple - this is true even of relatively thick hides. Human hide wouldn't be nearly as thick as cow hide, I imagine, and it wouldn't be nearly as weathered... so I assume that - if treated appropriately - it would make a very soft, thin 'leather'.

Based on lambskin, I'd say it wouldn't be un-suitable as a material for waistcoats, but it might be too frail for a jacket... unless you built up a composite of several layers.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I cannot leave NSG.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I cannot leave NSG.

Because, if you do, people might make clothes out of you?

;)

You're defending an organization that was built upon intellectual dishonesty and stark raving hypocrisy and you're trying to call me out on it?

fine, when you stop molesting children, we can discuss things again.

Because, if you do, people might make clothes out of you?

;)

Well, there is that.

However, I was just thinking the other day "You know, I wonder if it's possible to make leather out of human skin, and what would it be like?" Now, thanks to you, I know.

fine, when you stop molesting children, we can discuss things again.

You'll have to kill me first!!!!!@ :p

PETA ads excluded because the Super Bowl thinks they're too sexy? WTF?

http://news.aol.com/article/peta-ad-super-bowl/321302?icid=200100397x1217515643x1201120902

If I was going to ask them to change anything about that ad, I'd ask them to change the music. That music is awful.

FWIW, PETA's explanation/justification for it's claim that vegetarians make better lovers:

We've known for years that vegetables … no, sorry … vegetarians make better lovers. Physicians agree that eating meat can clog arteries that go to all organs, not just the heart. And many veggie foods are loaded with natural aphrodisiacs—nutrients and chemicals that boost sexual arousal and performance.

*snip*

Research has shown that vegetarians enjoy greater amounts of the nutrients that help boost sexual health and performance—such as vitamins A, C, and E and potassium—than meat-eaters do. These nutrients, and others that help boost performance, are found naturally in fruits and veggies such as asparagus, bananas, berries, carrots, chili peppers, pumpkins, and more.

Whether these claims can, in turn, be supported, I don't know.
I've heard them before in the oddest places. And of course, since I've been a vegetarian from an early age, I must be a sexual endurance athlete.

*checks chart* How many hours does the average man last again?

Because the more revenue that can be derived from the dead cow, the more cows that will be killed.

You do realize that if we stopped killing cows at this point they'd probably go extinct very very quickly right? No need for cattle ranches= no more cattle ranches and cows really aren't wild animals any more. I'm betting they wouldn't survive long in the wild.

The cow's dead for meat anyway, why waste the hide?

Okay, that's what I said. Maybe it's the martini talking, but how does this--

Because the more revenue that can be derived from the dead cow, the more cows that will be killed.

-- make any sense? Not wasting the hide = more revenue.

and this is exactly what i mean about the intellectual dishonesty. i know you have taken part in threads where this bullshit has been debunked. is it really so hard to come up with real arguments?

You mean like the one I used that you railed against and yet haven't managed to address without getting unnecessarily nasty?

fine, when you stop molesting children, we can discuss things again.

Like this?

A PETA site:

http://www.seakittens.com/seakittens.html

Was that few steaks to go?


(yes, yes, probably a hoax but who cares?)

fine, when you stop molesting children, we can discuss things again.

Exaggerating an argument to the point of absurdity is an accepted debating trick. However, the absurdity must not include personal insult. Red card.

Exaggerating an argument to the point of absurdity is an accepted debating trick. However, the absurdity must not include personal insult. Red card.

sorry guv'nor

You mean like the one I used that you railed against and yet haven't managed to address without getting unnecessarily nasty?

which would that be? your mistaken claim that commercials had to cite sources within the commercial, which, even if true is expressly not among the reasons offered for blocking this ad?

The Super Bowl has to be like this, in light of Janet Jackson's boob.

Oh, so they won't have women prancing around in tiny bikinis selling beer?

It's total hypocrisy.

They are useless wastes of space AND the cause of Global Warming. Cows produce more "Greenhouse gasses" then anything else. EAT A COW! SAVE THE EARTH!

The reason we have so many cows is that people raise them to eat them. Fewer people eat cows = fewer cows are raised = fewer greenhouse gas emissions from cows (and also fewer acres of rainforest cleared to make way for ranches).

You're defending an organization that was built upon intellectual dishonesty and stark raving hypocrisy and you're trying to call me out on it?
It seemed like he was looking for a source. No matter how dishonest a group is, how does it help your argument to make up things about them (or repeat things which have previously been made up).

Oh, so they won't have women prancing around in tiny bikinis selling beer?

It's total hypocrisy.

ah, but none of them will lick a pumpkin. totally different.

ah, but none of them will lick a pumpkin. totally different.
No, they might lick the length of a beer or fall all over some random guy with strong implications that she'll be licking another phallic object later on... that's so much more appropriate.

Either the message is that you're not allowed to promote something that goes against the stereotype of the average American male during the football game, or that female masturbation (and/or pleasure) is wrong, but promiscuous, drunken sex is fine. Maybe if she had licked a carrot the ad would have been allowed...

which would that be? your mistaken claim that commercials had to cite sources within the commercial, which, even if true is expressly not among the reasons offered for blocking this ad?

*sigh*

I said commercials had to cite sources for ANY SPECIFIC CLAIM they make. THEN I posted two FTC-related links showing that there are, in fact, laws that demand disclaimers for boasts by commercials. I also admitted that I was wrong when I said it was the FCC. Even Cat-Tribe is apparently okay with the links I posted. You, apparently, aren't. That's your problem.

Then, had you been actually READING what I posted instead of just biting the heads off those who weren't agreeing with you, I backed off my claim about the PETA ad because, on second viewing, I noticed that the claim wasn't as specific as I thought it was. It says "studies show veggies have better sex" -- it doesn't say better than whom, so it's not a claim by comparison, and doesn't need to be disclaimed in small print.

No, they might lick the length of a beer or fall all over some random guy with strong implications that she'll be licking another phallic object later on... that's so much more appropriate.

Either the message is that you're not allowed to promote something that goes against the stereotype of the average American male during the football game, or that female masturbation (and/or pleasure) is wrong, but promiscuous, drunken sex is fine. Maybe if she had licked a carrot the ad would have been allowed...

Sad, but true.

*sigh*

I said commercials had to cite sources for ANY SPECIFIC CLAIM they make. THEN I posted two FTC-related links showing that there are, in fact, laws that demand disclaimers for boasts by commercials. I also admitted that I was wrong when I said it was the FCC. Even Cat-Tribe is apparently okay with the links I posted. You, apparently, aren't. That's your problem.

Then, had you been actually READING what I posted instead of just biting the heads off those who weren't agreeing with you, I backed off my claim about the PETA ad because, on second viewing, I noticed that the claim wasn't as specific as I thought it was. It says "studies show veggies have better sex" -- it doesn't say better than whom, so it's not a claim by comparison, and doesn't need to be disclaimed in small print.

ok, so not that argument? then which?

ok, so not that argument? then which?

Which what? That was my only argument, and as I mentioned, it evolved over time as I figured out things like which agency has authority, what the commercial said, etc.

I stand by my desire to see these "studies" and how they're being interpreted, but I've abandoned the charge that the ad would need to cite any.

Here's another one, this time about a diet book author's claims. Again, it's the FTC, not the FCC. My bad.

http://abajournal.com/news/judge_easy_diet_claim_in_tv_ads_misleading_violated_order/
He wasn't being prosecuted because his ads didn't have fine print at the bottom, he was prosecuted because his ads were misleading (though if he had included fine print along the lines of "easy = maybe not for you" then he'd probably be in the clear). You don't have to cite the source of your ads and cereal companies have shown that even when you do cite the source, you can use it in a dishonest way and still get away with it (some cereal was stating that studies had shown that children who ate this cereal for breakfast did better than other children in school... the study they mentioned in the fine print actually considered eating breakfast at all vs not eating breakfast).

Also, maybe there is supposed to be fine print in the ad referring to a study, it just isn't in the online version of it (otherwise the superbowl halftime ad guys could have used that as an excuse instead of making up a bullshit excuse).

Which what? That was my only argument, and as I mentioned, it evolved over time as I figured out things like which agency has authority, what the commercial said, etc.

I stand by my desire to see these "studies" and how they're being interpreted, but I've abandoned the charge that the ad would need to cite any.

right...

so the intellectually honest argument against peta that i haven't addressed is the one that has been addressed? namely the double correlation of healthier people having more and better sex, and vegans and vegetarians being, on average, healthier than the public as a whole. these are very standard findings, and unless we have reason to believe that of fit people, vegetarians occupy the 'still has terrible sex' end of the spectrum, it doesn't really strike me as controversial.

right...

so the intellectually honest argument against peta that i haven't addressed is the one that has been addressed? namely the double correlation of healthier people having more and better sex, and vegans and vegetarians being, on average, healthier than the public as a whole. these are very standard findings, and unless we have reason to believe that of fit people, vegetarians occupy the 'still has terrible sex' end of the spectrum, it doesn't really strike me as controversial.

I don't know who pissed in your soy-soaked Wheaties this morning, but I'm already on record as to what point I was making. I've even adjusted my viewpoint when shown I was wrong. I don't buy either of your double-correlated claims. Perhaps you've not seen any emaciated veggies, but they seem to be the rule rather the exception in my experience. I know that my experience doesn't make a valid argument, and I can't back up by non-buying of your claims, so I'm not arguing the point. I have no idea why you still are.

He wasn't being prosecuted because his ads didn't have fine print at the bottom, he was prosecuted because his ads were misleading (though if he had included fine print along the lines of "easy = maybe not for you" then he'd probably be in the clear). You don't have to cite the source of your ads and cereal companies have shown that even when you do cite the source, you can use it in a dishonest way and still get away with it (some cereal was stating that studies had shown that children who ate this cereal for breakfast did better than other children in school... the study they mentioned in the fine print actually considered eating breakfast at all vs not eating breakfast).

Also, maybe there is supposed to be fine print in the ad referring to a study, it just isn't in the online version of it (otherwise the superbowl halftime ad guys could have used that as an excuse instead of making up a bullshit excuse).

The point being that any specific claim must be backed up or explained.

Sooooooo.......How sexy was that commercial exactly?

The point being that any specific claim must be backed up or explained.

So you pointed out a guy who lied and didn't include any disclaimers to indicate that he's lying?

And it's beside the point anyway. We don't know that the online version of the ad does not include small text at the bottom because it's an online version or because it was never going on in the first place. Further, the ad wasn't rejected because it didn't back up claims, it was rejected because it was "too racy" despite the fact that there will likely be ads that are just as racy as this one aired during the superbowl advertising different products.

I don't buy either of your double-correlated claims.
for example, see:
Health effects and prevalence of vegetarianism. R White and E Frank. West J Med. 1994 May; 160(5): 465–470.
Obesity and Sexual Quality of Life. R Kolotkin et al. Obesity (2006) 14, 472–479

Sooooooo.......How sexy was that commercial exactly?

pumpkin licking is gonna be all the rage soon

No, they might lick the length of a beer or fall all over some random guy with strong implications that she'll be licking another phallic object later on... that's so much more appropriate.

Either the message is that you're not allowed to promote something that goes against the stereotype of the average American male during the football game, or that female masturbation (and/or pleasure) is wrong, but promiscuous, drunken sex is fine. Maybe if she had licked a carrot the ad would have been allowed...
Precisely the point that needs to be made.

pumpkin licking is gonna be all the rage soon

Better than toad licking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVNZ2TykHtA

pumpkin licking is gonna be all the rage soon

Im more of a Watermelon man myself, lol...

so i wonder which is more beneficial for peta, the ad actually playing once during the superbowl for millions of dollars or the notoriety of the ad being banned?

is it wrong to suspect a bit of collusion on the part of the nbc execs who made the ridiculous decision?

so i wonder which is more beneficial for peta, the ad actually playing once during the superbowl for millions of dollars or the notoriety of the ad being banned?

is it wrong to suspect a bit of collusion on the part of the nbc execs who made the ridiculous decision?

Idk, I suppose the notoriety, but, since the majority of that notoriety consists of commenting on the ridiculous nature of the ad and PETA itself...

Id say the benefits are minuscule at best...I think their best move would be to reform under a different name, and maybe lessen the extremism a bit...

I mostly agree, but, by that same argument, we should all wear human skin from cadavers rather than letting it go to waste.

TCT, I am a complete vegetarian and I do not consume dairy products unless the products in question come from absolutely humane farms; I also do not see anything immoral about wearing human skin if the human was not killed to acquire it.

Id say the benefits are minuscule at best...I think their best move would be to reform under a different name, and maybe lessen the extremism a bit...

I'm not sure that this matters. When I mention that I don't eat meat I usually have to defend my decision and often I have to deal with people who act as though I have personally attacked them (even if I have done nothing more than ask if there is a meat-free menu item or inquired whether a dish had meat in it). And I'm not even trying to convince anyone that being a vegetarian might be a good idea.

Hell, the idea that a person can be healthy with a vegetarian diet is offensive to a number of people.

I'm not sure that this matters. When I mention that I don't eat meat I usually have to defend my decision and often I have to deal with people who act as though I have personally attacked them (even if I have done nothing more than ask if there is a meat-free menu item or inquired whether a dish had meat in it). And I'm not even trying to convince anyone that being a vegetarian might be a good idea.

Hell, the idea that a person can be healthy with a vegetarian diet is offensive to a number of people.

True, and Im not disagreeing with you there...But the difference is, that there is no real "People for The Eating of Tasty Animals", and Individuals have alot more leeway in such matters than Organizations, especially such High Profile organizations like PETA...

the point is, if PETA wants to be taken seriously, it needs to tone down its attacks on Meat Eaters, and focus more on whats actually being done to the Animals themselves, and maybe rely less on gimmicks, like the now infamously aforementioned "Sea Kittens"...

just imo though...

True, and Im not disagreeing with you there...But the difference is, that there is no real "People for The Eating of Tasty Animals", and Individuals have alot more leeway in such matters than Organizations, especially such High Profile organizations like PETA...

Yes, but organizations can get better funding and do things that are actually noticeable.

the point is, if PETA wants to be taken seriously, it needs to tone down its attacks on Meat Eaters, and focus more on whats actually being done to the Animals themselves, and maybe rely less on gimmicks, like the now infamously aforementioned "Sea Kittens"...

just imo though...

I'm not sure what's so offensive about the Sea Kittens thing. I've had similar discussions with friends who have tried to convince me that there's a difference between eating animals kept as pets (i.e. cats, dogs, guinea pigs, pretty fish) and animals that are considered food (i.e. cows, some fish, pigs). They are all animals. Just because you personally know cats to be wonderful companions doesn't mean that they're really that different from the pig you ate for dinner. Especially when you consider that this difference is largely cultural anyway.
So portraying fish as something that is cute (a matter of perception anyway) makes people think about what they're eating. What's wrong with this? People shouldn't think about what they eat or why they decide to eat what they do?

Further, if all they did was point out how companies harm animals or how animals are treated poorly in factory farms, then their message wouldn't go anywhere. They would still be labeled and treated in the same manner because they're suggesting that people should think about where their food comes from and consider the suffering of other beings involved in obtaining this food.

Yes, but organizations can get better funding and do things that are actually noticeable.

True, but when your only noticeable for your seemingly ridiculous antics, its not necessarily a positive thing...



I'm not sure what's so offensive about the Sea Kittens thing. *snip*

Youre not taking my meaning here....Im not saying the argument cant be made logically, or that the argument is wrong...

But, I am saying that the statement itself, at least in our culture, the one they are trying to convince, sounds ludicrous and extreme...And detracts from the overall point youre trying to make...

and when youre in a business that is so dependent on Public Relations then you dont want to go around Alienating people who might not see the point you are trying to make...

Youre not taking my meaning here....Im not saying the argument cant be made logically, or that the argument is wrong...

But, I am saying that the statement itself, at least in our culture, the one they are trying to convince, sounds ludicrous and extreme...And detracts from the overall point youre trying to make...

and when youre in a business that is so dependent on Public Relations then you dont want to go around Alienating people who might not see the point you are trying to make...

My point is that I don't think they can make their point (the way our society treats animals is cruel) without offending and alienating a lot of people because for some reason, it is a touchy subject to begin with.

My point is that I don't think they can make their point (the way our society treats animals is cruel) without offending and alienating a lot of people because for some reason, it is a touchy subject to begin with.

True, but they can minimize the effects of Alienation, by using rational arguments, like Ranch and Slaughter house conditions...rather than fits of logic, that seem ridiculous on the surface...

But, I guess its largely beside the point, cause, Im arguing on how to convince people of a position that I already disagree with, lol...Not to mention the fact that 2 Million years of Human Evolution's just not going away, meat eating is not going to stop, regardless of PETA's views...

And, its just my opinion that as soon as they accept that fact, they might could actually get some headway in actually making the process a little less cruel...

Idk, I suppose the notoriety, but, since the majority of that notoriety consists of commenting on the ridiculous nature of the ad and PETA itself...

Id say the benefits are minuscule at best...I think their best move would be to reform under a different name, and maybe lessen the extremism a bit...

i think the evidence shows that peta's tactics are actually remarkably effective. much more so than almost any other organization i can think of whose positions are in such a small minority.

i think the evidence shows that peta's tactics are actually remarkably effective. much more so than almost any other organization i can think of whose positions are in such a small minority.

Id say they were effective at getting their name out there and their positions and points known...

But, although i dont know if, or how I could get data to back it up, but, I think theyve hit a bit of a Plateau, its hard to find someone that doesnt know who PETA is or their goals and positions...and I think the majority of those who are willing to support them, have already done so, and the rest either A) are pissed off about it, or B) dont care...effectively in the Meat Eater camp...

I would say, theyre approach has effectively polarized most people into one of the two camps, and have really kept people from taking a middle ground position in recent years...

Just my opinion though...

You do realize that if we stopped killing cows at this point they'd probably go extinct very very quickly right?

If we bred humans for, say, slavery and then slaughter on their thirtieth birthday, would it be a legitimate excuse to say "If we didn't do it, they wouldn't exist at all?"

Not wasting the hide = more revenue.

Right; that's exactly why what I said makes perfect sense. More revenue means greater incentive to kill cows.

Id say they were effective at getting their name out there and their positions and points known...

dude, they took on mcdonald's. and won. and then moved right on to the rest of the fast food industry. they are remarkably effective at gaining concessions from some of the most powerful actors in society. better than labor unions have been recently.

If we bred humans for, say, slavery and then slaughter on their thirtieth birthday,

Two problems, A) if your going to breed for Slavery, why slaughter when they are just getting to an effective working age, lol....

B) We slaughter Cows for food, Eating Humans produces a sort of Human Version of Mad Cow disease, due to the Prions involved....Natures way of telling you Cannibalism doesnt work....

dude, they took on mcdonald's. and won. and then moved right on to the rest of the fast food industry. they are remarkably effective at gaining concessions from some of the most powerful actors in society. better than labor unions have been recently.

True, but what Im saying is that stating your overall goal as being to end the eating of meat, is polarizing...

Im not saying they cant be effective, especially not on a large scale, like McDonalds and the Fast Food industry but, I am saying that on the more personal level, they are going to be progressively less so as they continue to polarize the public...

True, but what Im saying is that stating your overall goal as being to end the eating of meat, is polarizing...

Im not saying they cant be effective, especially not on a large scale, like McDonalds and the Fast Food industry but, I am saying that on the more personal level, they are going to be progressively less so as they continue to polarize the public...

but why should they sacrifice their power to make people feel better about them? especially since so much of what seems to drive opposition to them pointedly isn't their actually questionable practices (the rampant reliance on sexualized and subjugated bodies of women, for example), but rather the mere fact that they believe in animal rights and promote veganism as ethically obligatory or that people don't like being forced to acknowledge the violence behind their lifestyle choices.

hell, it's mainly sympathizers like me that invest the time trying to figure out if there are ways to reconcile using animals with ethical principles.

Two problems, A) if your going to breed for Slavery, why slaughter when they are just getting to an effective working age, lol....

B) We slaughter Cows for food, Eating Humans produces a sort of Human Version of Mad Cow disease, due to the Prions involved....Natures way of telling you Cannibalism doesnt work....

Make it breeding for sexslaves then. Suppose a couple wants a child for the explicit purpose of having the kid get fucked by pedophiles, having it killed when it reaches puberty.

If we forbid them to do that, the kid would never exist. Would that be wrong ?

hell, it's mainly sympathizers like me that invest the time trying to figure out if there are ways to reconcile using animals with ethical principles.

Im not disagreeing with you there...But, just for example, I sympathize with using animals with ethical principles....But, I just cant bring myself to support PETA because they use phrases like "sea kittens" and do things like this little gem...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA#Graphic_pamphlets


"The organization has been criticized for distributing graphic pamphlets to children. According to PETA's website, the pamphlets are geared toward making parents aware of how their actions affect their children. One pamphlet, "Your Daddy Kills Animals!" showed a cartoon father gutting a fish, and stated: "Since your daddy is teaching you the wrong lessons about right and wrong, you should teach him fishing is killing. Until your daddy learns it's not fun to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He's so hooked on killing defenseless animals, they could be next." Another pamphlet, addressing the wearing of fur, was headlined "Your Mommy Kills Animals", and featured a cartoon of a mother slicing a knife into a rabbit's stomach. This comic was the inspiration for the naming of a 2007 documentary film about PETA entitled Your Mommy Kills Animal"


Im just saying they Alienate a segment of the population that while sympathizing with trying to reform alot of the practices...but cant support an organization that does things like that...

*snip*

1) I was joking...

2) If you cant see the difference between farms and pedophilia, you might want to have yourself checked out...

1) I was joking...

2) If you cant see the difference between farms and pedophilia, you might want to have yourself checked out...

PETA, amongst other things, argues that most meat animals have a horrible life, filled with suffering.

You argued, jokingly or not, that those animals only existed for that purpose and implied that there therefor was nothing wrong with that.

I now described a situation where a human would be created who would also lead a horrible life, filled with suffering. A human who was born for the explicit purpose to suffer.

The question now is: is there nothing wrong with that - or does the reason the new life was created not matter and does the new life have the right to "pursue freedom, happiness and other pleasant things " ?

If so in case of the human, why not in case of the cow ?

PETA, amongst other things, argues that most meat animals have a horrible life, filled with suffering.

You argued, jokingly or not, that those animals only existed for that purpose and implied that there therefor was nothing wrong with that.

Um...No I didnt...where you gettin that?


I now described a situation where a human would be created who would, indeed lead a horrible life, filled with suffering who would not exist without that suffering.

The question now is: is there nothing wrong with that - or does the reason the new life was created not matter and does the new life have the right to "pursue freedom, happiness and other pleasant things " ?

If so in case of the human, why not in case of the cow ?

Im saying that a purpose of Eating, is different than one of sexual molestation...

Not to mention, that your situation would be Human against Human....not Human against Cow....Cow ≠ Human...

and there's no point arguing that any further...cause if we disagree on the Cow ≠ Human then the discussion would go nowhere on either side...

Im saying that a purpose of Eating, is different than one of sexual molestation...

And both eating meat and molesting children are unnecessary in our society.

Not to mention, that your situation would be Human against Human....not Human against Cow....Cow ≠ Human...

And cows don't feel pain so treating them horribly is justified?

Not to mention, that your situation would be Human against Human....not Human against Cow....Cow ≠ Human...

is this a relevant distinction? suppose we meet an alien species that flies over and say 'we come in peace'. does the fact that they are not humans means that we could ethically make them suffer because it was fun or convenient or whatever?

is this a relevant distinction? suppose we meet an alien species that flies over and say 'we come in peace'. does the fact that they are not humans means that we could ethically make them suffer because it was fun or convenient or whatever?

A) thats an unrealistic situation....

and B) presumably an Alien species that achieved a level of technology higher than our own would have Sapience and therefore, no... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience

And cows don't feel pain so treating them horribly is justified?

Is it justified for Lions, Tigers, Bears, Wolves, Numerous other species?

A) thats an unrealistic situation....

and B) presumably an Alien species that achieved a level of technology higher than our own would have Sapience and therefore, no... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience

so it's not that cows aren't human, but that cows lack sapience. gotta be careful with those distinctions.

now, a question. do we have greater or lesser moral obligations towards humans which have diminished mental capacities, and therefore either lack sapience or have much less of it?

so it's not that cows aren't human, but that cows lack sapience. gotta be careful with those distinctions.

now, a question. do we have greater or lesser moral obligations towards humans which have diminished mental capacities, and therefore either lack sapience or have much less of it?

Well, being that they are a member of our own species, Id say that yes we have an obligation to him, just as much as, say, Lions have an obligation to members of their species...

http://meatatarianarmy.com/images/meatatarian_army_logo_trans.png

I like my cow still mooing. The more it suffered, the better it tastes!

Well, being that they are a member of our own species, Id say that yes we have an obligation to him, just as much as, say, Lions have an obligation to members of their species...

so what i'm getting is that members of your own species always count, and for everybody else it is sapience that matters. fair characterization?

ok, now why?

Is it justified for Lions, Tigers, Bears, Wolves, Numerous other species?

Now watch as they try to argue that humans aren't really animals.

Well, being that they are a member of our own species, Id say that yes we have an obligation to him, just as much as, say, Lions have an obligation to members of their species...

I assume that was tongue in cheek, as lions kill off other lions and then kill off that lion's young to bring the lionesses into heat...

Now watch as they try to argue that humans aren't really animals.

or, you know, that there is a difference between moral agents and things worthy of moral consideration, and that nobody honestly thinks only the former are the latter.

Is it justified for Lions, Tigers, Bears, Wolves, Numerous other species?

Lions, Tigers, Bears and Wolves don't have other means of killing their prey; we do. Further, these animals can only eat meat, we do not need to. Meat is a luxury item for most of us. Why should other beings (sentient or not) have to suffer unnecessarily for our luxury?

or, you know, that there is a difference between moral agents and things worthy of moral consideration, and that nobody honestly thinks only the former are the latter.

Is there really? Or is it just the belief, and the desire to believe? Have you ever asked yourself that?

Is there really?

yes, there is. to take a really simple example, infants are not moral agents. we do not and ought hold them morally responsible for what they do. anyone claiming otherwise could only be making some sort of a joke. but they most certainly are morally considerable - to a very high degree, in fact.

for example, see:
Health effects and prevalence of vegetarianism. R White and E Frank. West J Med. 1994 May; 160(5): 465–470.
Obesity and Sexual Quality of Life. R Kolotkin et al. Obesity (2006) 14, 472–479

Intellectual dishonesty?

Intellectual dishonesty?

did you read it?

they should let Peta play their commercials. No one watching the super bowl will care and it will be 3 million dollars peta has less to annoy me.

B) We slaughter Cows for food, Eating Humans produces a sort of Human Version of Mad Cow disease...

No it doesn't.

Eating certain parts of the human corpse might transmit prion diseases... but it does the same when we eat infected cows. The disease is zoomorphic. Which is why meat processing is so careful about the spines/brains, etc, now.

Incidentally - those kinds of zoomorphic prion diseases exist in a whole load of different parts of the foodchain. Pigs, sheep, goats, cows all have forms.

No it doesn't.

Eating certain parts of the human corpse might transmit prion diseases... but it does the same when we eat infected cows. The disease is zoomorphic. Which is why meat processing is so careful about the spines/brains, etc, now.

Incidentally - those kinds of zoomorphic prion diseases exist in a whole load of different parts of the foodchain. Pigs, sheep, goats, cows all have forms.

you normally had to eat head cheese to get it anyways

did you read it?

Do I have to? It's got OBESITY in the title. Vegetarians are healthier than people who are obese? Shocking. So are the vast majority of omnivores who aren't obese.

Also, just dropping the journal information into Google doesn't bring up a link that takes you to the article in question. Lots of clearinghouses for the journal, and Web sites for the same. So, lots of other sites citing the article, like you did, but no way to read it, unless it was past the first page of the Google search. If this information is so valuable, why didn't you link to it?

They had other reasons. No way that ad was it.

Do I have to? It's got OBESITY in the title. Vegetarians are healthier than people who are obese? Shocking. So are the vast majority of omnivores who aren't obese.

yeah, that ain't what it said. even the title gives that away.
the first article was about one claim - vegetarians being healthier than the public as a whole, and in particular having a lower bmi. the second covered the fact that higher bmi's lead to worse sex.

also, i don't know where to draw the line of 'vast majority', but something like 32% of the population is obese (and about that again are 'overweight').

Also, just dropping the journal information into Google doesn't bring up a link that takes you to the article in question. Lots of clearinghouses for the journal, and Web sites for the same. So, lots of other sites citing the article, like you did, but no way to read it, unless it was past the first page of the Google search. If this information is so valuable, why didn't you link to it?

because i have it as a pdf from a peer-reviewed journal?


it occurs to me that peta is probably also referring to the various studies that show that changing dietary habits to include less meat - particularly red meat - reduces impotence. will it matter if i track those down for you?

Bears.... Further, these animals can only eat meat, we do not need to.

first, lolwut?

Second, I would like to ask, Who's saving the poor Plants and Fungi? Do they not feel too? Just because it cant scream and isnt always cute and cuddly, doesnt mean youre not torturing it...

Doesnt mean youre not eating its young...

first, lolwut?

Second, I would like to ask, Who's saving the poor Plants and Fungi? Do they not feel too? Just because it cant scream and isnt always cute and cuddly, doesnt mean youre not torturing it...

Doesnt mean youre not eating its young...

Of course, for quite a few plants being eaten is part of their reproduction mechanism ;)

Of course, for quite a few plants being eaten is part of their reproduction mechanism ;)

One could, and has said the Same for Cows....

What was that bit about, "Is it right if the only reason their species exists is because we eat them?"

I Agree (http://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachments/screenshots/71713d1209920489-funny-strange-random-pics-1209693472975.jpg)

I Agree (http://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachments/screenshots/71713d1209920489-funny-strange-random-pics-1209693472975.jpg)

How dare she rip those leaves from that poor plant...:eek:

The horror it mustve felt when they were forcibly ripped one by one off its body...

One could, and has said the Same for Cows....

What was that bit about, "Is it right if the only reason their species exists is because we eat them?"

Aaah, tricky :) Should we indeed respect the right of the individual fruit to not be eaten over the right of the parent plant to reproduce ?
Interesting...

We should go the Douglas Adams route I think. Create food that desires to be eaten and is capable of telling us that in a clear way.

Aaah, tricky :) Should we indeed respect the right of the individual fruit to not be eaten over the right of the parent plant to reproduce ?
Interesting...

We should go the Douglas Adams route I think. Create food that desires to be eaten and is capable of telling us that in a clear way.

lol, That would be pleasant...

I just wanted to see if anyone would bite(no pun intended, lol), One of my friends jokingly came up with that point last night...

How dare she rip those leaves from that poor plant...:eek:

The horror it mustve felt when they were forcibly ripped one by one off its body...
Arguing that plants have sentience, are we?

Arguing that plants have sentience, are we?

Do they not sense pain? lol...

Only jokingly so, I dont intend to stop eating plants either, lol...

Arguing that plants have sentience, are we?

Well, or at least feel pain ;)

first, lolwut?

We don't need to eat meat in the societies in which we live. If we lived somewhere where we had to worry about where our next meal was coming from or where the land is not suitable for growing crops and there aren't any food imports, then meat would be a necessary part of our diet. Further, we live in societies where there are humane options for killing animals if we do decide to eat them. So what harm is there in taking them.

Second, I would like to ask, Who's saving the poor Plants and Fungi? Do they not feel too? Just because it cant scream and isnt always cute and cuddly, doesnt mean youre not torturing it...

Plants don't have central nervous systems. They have the ability to detect when a part of the plant is damaged... but that's about it. Also, if you don't want to die from vitamin deficiency, you're eating these same plants too.

One could, and has said the Same for Cows....

Ugh. Look, if I eat an apple and drop the core on the ground, I have helped the apple tree propagate. The seeds of some trees will only start to grow if an animal eats the seed and its digestive juices break down part of it. For many plants, it is helpful to eat part of it. When you eat a cow, a new cow does not sprout up when you throw away the bones.

What was that bit about, "Is it right if the only reason their species exists is because we eat them?"

No, their species exists because it was around to begin with. We have heavily modified them, but animals still go feral and they do so rather quickly. Cows would probably be fine after a couple of generations if we turned them loose (assuming they are released anywhere that has plains full of grass).

*snip*
I was referring to the mention of Bears, another Omnivorous Species...they dont have to eat meat either...
Further, we live in societies where there are humane options for killing animals if we do decide to eat them. So what harm is there in taking them.
None, And Im not against that, but one of the arguments posted in this thread, and posed by PETA itself is that we shouldnt eat meat at all...


Plants don't have central nervous systems. They have the ability to detect when a part of the plant is damaged... but that's about it. Also, if you don't want to die from vitamin deficiency, you're eating these same plants too.

Thats the Idea, If you start not eating things that detect injuries(the data could be called pain, no? lol) then you will die...

Ugh. Look, if I eat an apple and drop the core on the ground, I have helped the apple tree propagate. The seeds of some trees will only start to grow if an animal eats the seed and its digestive juices break down part of it. For many plants, it is helpful to eat part of it. When you eat a cow, a new cow does not sprout up when you throw away the bones.


True, but you are Eating a Plant regardless...

not to mention, what about, say, Mushrooms, Sunflower Seeds, various Nuts, and Beans...They dont require you eating them for procreation, in fact you would be hindering them in their efforts...

Yet, we still do, robbing generations of various plants and fungi...

I was referring to the mention of Bears, another Omnivorous Species...they dont have to eat meat either...

There are many species of bear. Some of them only eat meat (i.e. polar bears). Also, considering that they have to track down all their food, if they can't find berries... Bears eat meat as part of their survival. You eat meat why... because it tastes good and you're too lazy to figure out a balanced diet that doesn't involve meat?

None, And Im not against that, but one of the arguments posted in this thread, and posed by PETA itself is that we shouldnt eat meat at all...

Well, this is the easiest way to prevent animal cruelty. I'm just saying that meat is an unnecessary item in our diets here. There are a number of reasons to reduce or eliminate meat in one's diet that are completely unrelated to animal welfare.

Thats the Idea, If you start not eating things that detect injuries(the data could be called pain, no? lol) then you will die...

No, there are people who do this. Apples don't feel pain... nor do fruits in general.

True, but you are Eating a Plant regardless...
But you are not Eating A Sentient Being.

True, but you are Eating a Plant regardless...

...and?

not to mention, what about, say, Mushrooms, Sunflower Seeds, various Nuts, and Beans...They dont require you eating them for procreation, in fact you would be hindering them in their efforts...

This depends... when you consider that during the harvesting process a number of seeds, nuts, beans are likely to be dropped along the way, the plants are going to get to reproduce further from the original site of the parent plant (this is something that plants tend to "like" and is usually the idea behind seeds that are either easily carried by the wind or that exist in edible fruit, so animals will carry seeds off). Further, farmers will collect some of these seeds and use them in the next generation of crops (hell, if I had a garden this is also what would attempt).

But you are not Eating A Sentient Being.

But can you prove that it doesnt feel the injuries?

This depends... when you consider that during the harvesting process a number of seeds, nuts, beans are likely to be dropped along the way, the plants are going to get to reproduce further from the original site of the parent plant (this is something that plants tend to "like" and is usually the idea behind seeds that are either easily carried by the wind or that exist in edible fruit, so animals will carry seeds off). Further, farmers will collect some of these seeds and use them in the next generation of crops (hell, if I had a garden this is also what would attempt).

First, thats completely dependent on happenstance, and doesnt account for the eaten seeds that will not get to grow up, instead you ended that chance...

Not to mention, most Farmers will ensure they dont "Drop" any seeds, yes they will keep some for re-planting, but how do you account for the many many more that will not be given that opportunity?

Afterall, several Cows are kept specifically for Breeding as well...

First, thats completely dependent on happenstance, and doesnt account for the eaten seeds that will not get to grow up, instead you ended that chance...

Not to mention, most Farmers will ensure they dont "Drop" any seeds, yes they will keep some for re-planting, but how do you account for the many many more that will not be givin that opportunity?

Most seeds in nature do not go on to make new plants. That's why plants produce so damn many seeds at once. If they're scattered by the wind they can land in a number of undesirable spots. If they're carried off by animals they can land in a frequently trampled path... they can not go anywhere at all and be beaten out for sunlight and nutrients by their plant siblings who grow faster et c. In general, plants depend on luck and large quantities with a few survivors for their reproduction.

But can you prove that it doesnt feel the injuries?
I can point to the fact that it doesn't have a central nervous system nor, to my knowledge, any equatable biological equivalent.

Ugh. Look, if I eat an apple and drop the core on the ground, I have helped the apple tree propagate. .

Also, when you eat that Apple, you will throw it in the Trash...It will go to a Landfill...It will not grow...You effectively screwed that tree out of propagating...

You effectively screwed that tree out of propagating...
But can you really screw over a future being?

In general, plants depend on luck and large quantities with a few survivors for their reproduction.

True, but, in what better way to ensure that that luck is incredibly bad, than to infact Eat it?

Skalvia, what are you trying to show?

But can you really screw over a future being?

This isnt an Abortion Debate, lol :p

I meant, you screwed over the Tree, you ruined its chances of reproducing through that apple....

Also, when you eat that Apple, you will throw it in the Trash...It will go to a Landfill...It will not grow...You effectively screwed that tree out of propagating...
Not really. Have you ever been to an apple orchard? Do you have any idea how many apples the average tree produces in a single year?

Also, I try to avoid throwing apple cores in garbages, they just add unnecessarily to waste (although it's also likely that a squirrel will climb in there and carry the apple core off somewhere to eat it).

Skalvia, what are you trying to show?

Nothing really, I already said it was a joke...

But, its a fun intellectual discussion...

This isnt an Abortion Debate
No, but it's still a pertinent question.

Nothing really, I already said it was a joke...

But, its a fun intellectual discussion...
Ah, I thought you might have a particular point to make.

Ah, I thought you might have a particular point to make.
I suspected there wasn't a point for a while.

I suspected there wasn't a point for a while.
Oh, I wasn't being sarky; I quite enjoy such discussion.

No, but it's still a pertinent question.

Not really, at least not to the Question I was asking...As the hypothetical apple wouldve been the future life...

I saying you would screw over the tree's reproductive attempts...

Oh, I wasn't being sarky; I quite enjoy such discussion.
I'm just saying that it seemed like a series of arguments for the sake of arguing.

Not really, at least not to the Question I was asking...As the hypothetical apple wouldve been the future life...

I saying you would screw over the tree's reproductive attempts...
OK, if you're keeping your focus on the existing tree, we've no problem. But if you start talking about the future tree, that would sprout from the apple seed, many folks would dismiss any claims of ethical responsibility.

I'm just saying that it seemed like a series of arguments for the sake of arguing.

NSG in a nutshell, lol...

But, look, the reason I eat meat, is there arent enough Vegetables I can stomach to replace the meat in my diet...pure and simple, lol......well, maybe not Pure...but still...

Im not going to say its right, but I dont intend to stop eating meat either...

because i have it as a pdf from a peer-reviewed journal?

Ah.


it occurs to me that peta is probably also referring to the various studies that show that changing dietary habits to include less meat - particularly red meat - reduces impotence. will it matter if i track those down for you?

Despite the fact that a diet higher in protein than refined carbohydrates takes longer to digest and is more likely to to be slimming? Of course, that depends on moderation -- something many (at least 32% by your count) in the US are not familiar with, let alone any good at.

But, look, the reason I eat meat, is there arent enough Vegetables I can stomach to replace the meat in my diet...pure and simple, lol......well, maybe not Pure...but still...

You should maybe take a cooking course. I'm sure you can find a way to cook up some veggies in a way that's pleasing, especially if you pair it with other items that you do like and proper spices (this isn't even getting into adding things like lentils).

Im not going to say its right, but I dont intend to stop eating meat either...

Ok. And I'm just saying that it is unnecessary.

Although speaking about food is reminding me that I have to go shopping.