PETA comapres raising animals for food to the Holocaust

[gvox]

Why? Why is this different from leather? If someone wants to wear leather or fur, is that their choice or yours?

nb, please read the whole thread. Earlier I stated that it is my understanding that leather is made from hides of animals that are also used for food.

That is my personal experience from living off the land so to speak.

Small animals that are used for fur coats are not used for food. They are killed simply for their pelts by the thousands. I believe that this is inhumane and wrong.

And note that I am not a vegetarian, nor do I believe everything that PETA stands for.

 

[Screaming Flower]

I have to totally disagree with you. ALL LIFE has value, even a chicken.
I don't agree with PETA on a lot of things, but they have many fine points. I eat beef and even buy it from my neighbor (nice to have cheap organic - no antibiotics - no hormones & cheap) but I've been to a turkey factory several miles away and the way they have to endure their short life is monstrous. It had been sighted several times by the EPA for runnoff (shit in the local water sytem) and the emmissions of CO2. It's in the manner of the raising of the animals by these huge slaughterhouses instead of farms.
I'd be glad to ruin your new coat for you too, fur is no longer necessary in todays society of synthetic materials.

the chicken's life might have value but it's insane to think it's as important as a human life.

and that's fine if you believe in the destruction of property in regards to the fur trade. i disagree with you completely but we're both allowed to believe what we want. i just feel it's wrong for YOUR belief to infringe on MY rights or MY property.

and what about animal testing? what about trying to cure AIDS or cancer? do the the lives of the chickens come before that?

 

[Scarletwine]

I don't think that it is important as, but still important. I think raising food for meat can be done in a more humane way.

My belief's have all the necessary right to infringe on Your Property or Your Rights if they are inherently wrong. Slavery of African Americans were also Property or Chattelat one time and some thought that was wrong. And yes I think that is a fair analogy, because many thought they were animals.

Animal testing is an unfortunate evil. Again the methods used vary incredibly. Many projects try to save money by not using anethesia even where it doesn't interfer with the tests, or they keep the animals under horrible conditions.

edited:
Again, I'm not against the practice of man being a carnivore, just the treatment given to animals during their brief life. I don't agree with all of PETA.

 

[Screaming Flower]

there's no way you can prove that killing chickens is an inherent evil, therefore negating your so-called right to infringe on my rights. it is simply your opinion. what if i believed that plants are valuable and people who eat salad are evil? does that mean i can go up to people at salad bars and harass them or damage their property?

 

[meegannie]

Excellent post, Scarletwine.

 

[Scarletwine]

Screaming Flower,
I didn't say killing chickens was evil, please reread my post. I simply stated that their life does have VALUE however small. Don't all God's creations have an inherent value?

While I don't agree some people do think plants scream when cut.
Personally I find animals removed from plants and closer to us in that they mate, bare young, and most show affection and care for their offspring, even chickens.

 

[meegannie]

what if i believed that plants are valuable and people who eat salad are evil? does that mean i can go up to people at salad bars and harass them or damage their property?

Plants are completely different. They have no central nervous system, so there's nothing to indicate that they can feel pain.

 

[gvox]

there's no way you can prove that killing chickens is an inherent evil,

Again, moving away from the extremities of the core belief of animal rights, would you care to elaborate on your right to wear a fur coat made by the pelts of small animals killed solely for their pelt? Or maybe perhaps your right to possess a bear paw ashtray? Or maybe your right to shoot a deer down, leave its rotting carcass in the woods and do home with its head for a showpiece above your mantle?

EDIT: offensive name pun removed. Sorry.

 

[Screaming Flower]

i should have said that "inherently wrong" but the same argument would apply. i don't think that just because you feel something is inherently wrong that you have a right to force that belief on me. it is legal to eat meat and wear fur, therefore i am legally allowed to eat meat and wear fur, and should be able to do so without the threat of being attacked. people can say what they want to me but once they start going after me physically or damaging my property it crosses the line. and as an aside, i feel that if the only way peta can convince people is by threatening them, they have real issues. their arguments should be able to stand on their own.

 

[Screaming Flower]

Stop screaming already.

why is it that you cannot make an argument without lowering yourself to this kind of behavior?

 

[Screaming Flower]

Plants are completely different. They have no central nervous system, so there's nothing to indicate that they can feel pain.

what if it isn't their nervous system that makes them valuable to a person? what if it's the fact that they are alive? some people feel this way. what makes their argument less important that peta's?

 

[gvox]

Sorry Screaming, but your argument just doesnt stand on it's own.

Whether something is legally permitted or not is irrelevant.

Need I list the legally permissable actions we have embraced over the last oh 100 years that have been both morally and ethically reprehensible?

 

[Screaming Flower]

Whether something is legally permitted or not is irrelevant.

says who?

 

[gvox]

why is it that you cannot make an argument without lowering yourself to this kind of behavior?

My mistake, when you posted:

it's insane to think it's as important as a human life.

and that's fine if you believe in the destruction of property in regards to the fur trade. i disagree with you completely but we're both allowed to believe what we want. i just feel it's wrong for YOUR belief to infringe on MY rights or MY property.

that you were getting a little hot...sorry for the pun on your screenname

For the record, Im finding your tireless sticking to the chicken argument and the analogy to eating salad to be diminishing the real point of the message of those both for and against what is being discussed on this thread.

Gabriel the lowly poor behaving one

 

[gvox]

says who?

How about the decendants of slaves, for instance?

How about the innocent mother of 3 who was killed by a driver with 0.06 alchohol in his bloodstream, while not illegal, he was definately impaired in his ability to operate the car?

Shall I continue listing the so-called 'legal' things that we've done that are in no way shape or form necessarily right?

Please.

 

[Screaming Flower]

For the record, Im finding your tireless sticking to the chicken argument and the analogy to eating salad to be diminishing the real point of the message of those both for and against what is being discussed on this thread.

that's fine. if that's the only part of my numerous arguments in this thread that you feel the need to focus on, be my guest. i for one am going to attempt to continue this conversation. i feel it was going well and was quite interesting until this moment. from here on, i will avoid your questions/comments and you can feel free to do the same with mine.

 

[gvox]

i will avoid your questions/comments and you can feel free to do the same with mine.

Actually I find it very disrespectful when someone asks another to consider what they consider valid points and that person in turn responds in a manner that indicates that they are clearly deflecting or didn't deem the thought worthy of reply.

But that would probably be a topic for another thread.

 

[meegannie]

what if it isn't their nervous system that makes them valuable to a person? what if it's the fact that they are alive? some people feel this way. what makes their argument less important that peta's?

If they feel this way, they're either going to starve to death or eat only animal products which contributes to the death of more plants than if they ONLY ate plants.

There are a lot of actions that we can't prove are inherently wrong. Where/how is the line drawn?

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

newsflash

"deathbear encourages peta to lick his taint"

dumbassholes, comparing the slaughter of animals to the genocide of the jews is absolutely absurd.

im dead set on eating a peta supporter.

 

[Screaming Flower]

There are a lot of actions that we can't prove are inherently wrong. Where/how is the line drawn?

i think that's the real question. i have no idea what the answer is. i don't think anyone does. we all have really strong opinions that we believe are right but i don't think any of us can prove that our views are inherently right. it's kind of a neverending battle.

 

[meegannie]

it's kind of a neverending battle.

Like the battle against gingivitis.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

this isnt even worth a debate. if vegetarians or vegans chose to be vegetarians or vegans - great. i wont complain.

but they better not complain when i eat meat, cause theres nothing better than licking, sucking and taking my tongue and rolling it along a thick, long piece of meat.

meat between the buns is also good.

i cant stand peta.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

what i meant to say is that i hate peta.

 

[Screaming Flower]

Like the battle against gingivitis.

exactly.



gingivitis.

 

[Scarletwine]

Back to the PETA issue. While I don't agree totally with the holocast analogy, it did have it's points. Especially in relation to Gabriel's posts on the holocostt survivors.

My belief is in the ethical treatment of animals, meaning minimal pain and suffering for animals used for food with a decent (in animal terms) quaility of life, humane treatment of domesticated pets, and protection of wild animals from extinction.

Last summer I was in VA Beach and I would have loved to call PETA. The strip shops had hundreds upon hundreds of baby sharks in jars lining the tops of shelves. Literally hundreds in almost every discount shop we entered. I finally asked a clerk where they came from and they were shark embryo's taken from sharks hunted for these babies. I was sickened and appalled. First why the hell were they hunting so many sharks in a beach area and the number of females needed to provides those embryos had to reach the thousands. This was one beach town. How many up and down the east coast. F**king disgusting.

 

[Screaming Flower]

My belief is in the ethical treatment of animals, meaning minimal pain and suffering for animals used for food with a decent (in animal terms) quaility of life, humane treatment of domesticated pets, and protection of wild animals from extinction.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

scarlet, the point is peta is comparing their somewhat debatable agenda to the holocaust.

do you know what the holocaust was like, scarletwine? do you think that if you had survived it, and you saw some people who dont believe anyone should use animals for anything capitolizing and attempting to cash in on heart strings, would that not make you upset?

its sickening. if they were honestly interested on making points known to the people about animal rights, they would first try to gain respect from the public. noone cares about the opinion of one who is considered a jackass by all, right?

their reputation is horrible, and this is the worst example yet.

if i need to, i will be happy to gather some holocaust stories to maybe make anyone feel like an idiot for agreeing in principle, theory or in part to any of peta's rediculous hurtful propaganda.

 

[Scarletwine]

I didn't say I agreed with their current campaign strategy. I just think they do make legitimate points and if they weren't so radical they could create more positive improvements in the lives of animals.
As to the holocaust, no I've not lost anyone from that tragedy, but I have read lots of survivors stories and seen many pictures. My 9th grade World Cultures class teacher was a spy in WWII and he was able to show movies from the liberation of several camps, that weren't released to the public. Some I think still
haven't been released. I was in no way downplaying that tragedy or actually comparing it to the human suffering. I only commented on how the nazi's fashioned the camps after slaughterhouses.

In the UK McDonalds was found to cause the mistreatment of cows due to the large amount of beef needed for their business, which 99% comes from South America, and the former rainforest.

 

[meegannie]

do you think that if you had survived it, and you saw some people who dont believe anyone should use animals for anything capitolizing and attempting to cash in on heart strings, would that not make you upset?

This exhibit/idea was endorsed by holocaust survivors.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

This exhibit/idea was endorsed by holocaust survivors.

right, exactly how many of them?

im sure you could even find a jewish nazi if you looked hard enough, thats my point.