Damn, PETA just chose my dinner for me!

[Clarkmeister]

I wasn't hungry, but I am now! Wackos.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040324/ap_on_re_us/peta_kfc_1

[ThaSaltCracka]

I don't think anyone takes them seriously anymore.

[jcx]

One of the best T-Shirt slogans I ever saw was:

PETA- People for the Enjoyment of Tasty Animals

[bernie]

Yknow, im all for ethical treatment of animals, but this is ridiculous. Which is worse for kids, seeing JJ's nipple on the superbowl or being handed a bucket of implied blood and bones? It's nice to see PETA target kids for their campaign. Like kids even comprehend what's going on. The jerks.

I think if they handed me a bucket, id just dump it back on them. Id make it like i accidently trip and spill it on em. All over em.

But now im thinking of chicken for dinner....mmmm. With stir-fry veggies and rice...

damn, gotta go. Im hungry.

b

[Boris]

KCF is disgusting food no matter how you slice it. And no, I'm not even vegetarian. I like a slab of flesh just as much as the next guy. I think it's funny what PETA is doing and if people can't hand the reality of their world then too bad.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Hey Clark, I'll be in vegas soon, let's meet up and get some wings! I like 'em spicy with a little ranch or maybe some bleu cheese!

The only thing I should say is that if you're going to be a carnivore, you need to NOT be a hypocritical carnivore. CAN you PERSONALLY KILL, gut, skin, cook and THEN eat your meal? I can. This has extended mostly to deer and fish, but if I couldn't do it, I wouldn't eat them.

al

[Ray Zee]

peta is really wacky most times. but this time they are right on. the chicken business is disgusting. not only to what they do to the birds. but what antibiotics and steroids get fed to them. then when they slaughter them you would barf at what you saw and had to eat.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[daryn]

you are entitled to your opinion of course, but i really can't follow you here. you're saying if you couldn't actually kill the animal, then you wouldn't eat it? i shouldn't be able to eat hamburger because i can't kill and prepare a cow? i mean i guess i could beat a cow to death with a club, clumsily attempt to skin it and somehow eat.. but this logic just seems crazy to me

[Gamblor]

Can you harvest barley/hops/grains/wheat, then ferment it in the exact amounts that make it palatable?

I don't think you'll be giving up beer anytime soon, nor would I expect you to.

[Six_of_One]

I could be wrong, but I don't think he was saying you need to physically kill the animals you eat...but rather that you be willing to do so, if the situation were to occur. Taking a bite of a hamburger is the same as killing the cow with your own hand. Yet, there are plenty of meat-eaters who, when handed a knife, would refuse to kill an animal themselves, but would happily eat it if someone else killed it and they didn't personally have to witness it. Those are the hypocrites the post was referring to, I believe.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing I should say is that if you're going to be a carnivore, you need to NOT be a hypocritical carnivore. CAN you PERSONALLY KILL, gut, skin, cook and THEN eat your meal? I can. This has extended mostly to deer and fish, but if I couldn't do it, I wouldn't eat them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Personally as long as the cows were liberal I would have no problem at all killing them. Of course a libertarian or conservative cow should be pampered, massaged and hand fed till it's natural demise. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Al_Capone_Junior]

it's not that you need to be able to run out and kill all the cows you're going to make burgers out of, it's that you gotta be WILLING to kill it yourself. Now I've never killed a cow, but I have shot a deer and cleaned a fish. I don't have the proper facilities to kill and prepare cattle, but it's not so hard with a deer, you field dress it, carry it back to the pickup truck, and drop it off at the processor. Also, my grandfather taught me how to clean and fillet fish.

If I wasn't willing to kill it myself, I wouldn't eat it. Of course I have eaten far more than I have ever actually killed myself tho, but to me, it's the thought that counts.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

well i cant do that, but I'd be willing to. I actually have considered doing a bit of home brewing!

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[daryn]

my point is, if you don't feel like killing animals, you should be able to eat meat still. some people just don't have it in them to kill (myself not included /images/graemlins/grin.gif) but that doesn't mean they are not allowed to eat meat.

[Six_of_One]

I know people like that, and try as I might, I just can't seem to convince them I'm right (imagine that /images/graemlins/smirk.gif). But they're fooling themselves if they think eating the burger is any different than killing the cow. They may think they're too squeamish to kill, but in reality the blood is on their hands just as much as someone who personally slits a cow's throat.

I realize that the last paragraph sort of came off like I was a vegetarian or something, so I'd like to point out for the record that my hands are very, very bloody (in a figurative sense).

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I know people like that, and try as I might, I just can't seem to convince them I'm right (imagine that ). But they're fooling themselves if they think eating the burger is any different than killing the cow. They may think they're too squeamish to kill, but in reality the blood is on their hands just as much as someone who personally slits a cow's throat.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but that is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen on this site (and I've seen some whoppers!).


I'm a carnivore (and proud of it), but I also like vegetables. I don't grow them in my backyard, I buy them at a supermarket. I guess by your logic I am both a killer (because I eat meat) and a farmer (because I eat vegetables). But actually, I'm just a consumer.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing I should say is that if you're going to be a carnivore, you need to NOT be a hypocritical carnivore. CAN you PERSONALLY KILL, gut, skin, cook and THEN eat your meal? I can. This has extended mostly to deer and fish, but if I couldn't do it, I wouldn't eat them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you personally build a computer, including all of its components, and get it to operate properly? If not, by your logic, you shouldn't be using one or posting on this forum.

I'm glad we have people who kill cows and chickens so I can spend my time doing other things, but still eat them. Mmmmmmm, meat...

[Al_Capone_Junior]

this is getting a bit off the beaten path of the sub-thread on whether one would be willing to kill or not in order to consume something later.

Would you shoot a deer, clean it (or even HELP someone who knew what they were doing), and then eat it after it was processed? or would you be unwilling to do the actual dirty work, but more than happy to have deer for dinner?

al

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you shoot a deer, clean it (or even HELP someone who knew what they were doing), and then eat it after it was processed? or would you be unwilling to do the actual dirty work, but more than happy to have deer for dinner?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how it could possibly be a relevant question. I'll tell you this, I wouldn't be willing to be a garbage collector or toll booth collector, but that doesn't mean I refuse to have my trash picked up or to drive on toll roads (or that it is immoral for me to avail myself of their services).

Our society is set up with a division of labor such that certain people have certain roles, for the greater benefit. I don't have a garden in my back yard and I don't own any animals, but I sure like to eat. Whether I would personally be willing or able to kill a cow or grow crops has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I should eat a hamburger or vegetables.

[Six_of_One]

My point is, the person eating the meat is just as responsible for the killing of the animal in a moral sense as the person who does the actual killing. I don't understand how this can be disputed.

One of the dumbest arguments you've ever seen? Really? Come on now...perhaps just a little hyperbole there?

[Eihli]

Sponser a vegetarian!

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

[daryn]

now this guy is making some sense.. good posts B man

[B-Man]

Well, that's not exactly what you said, but your clarification is more sane than what you wrote above (I still disagree).

Perhaps I used a little hyperbole... but I think the premise that anyone who wouldn't be willing to kill an animal shouldn't be able to eat one is outrageous and nonsensical, and that is what set me off.

[El Barto]

I think it would be cool to kill a cow, just to watch it die.

[Six_of_One]

I'm not saying anyone should not be able to eat anything they want...just that it makes them hypocrites (a tag that could no doubt be applied to roughly everyone at some point or other in their life). Hey, there are worse things to be.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying anyone should not be able to eat anything they want...just that it makes them hypocrites

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, there you go again. Someone who doesn't like to *personally* kill an animal but eats meat is NOT a hypocrite. If you don't see why, read my other posts in this thread (responding to Al Capone Jr.).

[B-Man]

I think you should email that message to PETA, and see what they write back.

[M2d]

"If God didn't mean for us to eat cows, why do steaks taste so good?"

[Six_of_One]

Maybe I haven't been clear...I don't mean that someone needs to be willing to personally kill an animal in order to not be a hypocrite. What I mean is, they are a hypocrite if they think there is some kind of moral difference between themselves and the person who did the actual killing.

I understand many people are squeamish about blood or whatever, I just don't want to hear someone complaining about how horribly animals are treated between bites of their cheeseburger.

The basic point is, the person eating the meat is every bit as responsible for the terrible conditions those animals endure as the companies who create those conditions in the first place. That includes myself, because I eat more meat than almost anyone I know.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the premise that anyone who wouldn't be willing to kill an animal shouldn't be able to eat one is outrageous and nonsensical

[/ QUOTE ]

I just said that it's hypocritical to be unwilling to do your own dirtywork when it comes to eating an animal. The vast majority of americans certainly don't have the huevos to do their own dirtywork in any endeavor, particularly not in the dirty business of killing and preparing animals for food. It's a bloody business, and most americans would probably puke at the sight of just a little chicken blood, let alone a deer or cow in the throes of death.

I didn't say you should be starved to death for it, but I stand by my opinion anyway.

al

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
The basic point is, the person eating the meat is every bit as responsible for the terrible conditions those animals endure as the companies who create those conditions in the first place. That includes myself, because I eat more meat than almost anyone I know.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is absurd. What about someone who eats meat, but is unaware of the way animals or treated? Or, what about someone who eats meat and is aware of the way animals are treated--what is this person supposed to do? How can one individual change the way the slaughterhouses treat animals? Is he supposed to devote all his free time to joining advocacy groups like PETA to institute change? And if he lacks the time or inclination to devote his free time to bring about change, or refuses to give up meat, he is a hypocrite? Your position is ridiculous and makes no sense.

[Six_of_One]

[ QUOTE ]

That is absurd. What about someone who eats meat, but is unaware of the way animals or treated? Or, what about someone who eats meat and is aware of the way animals are treated--what is this person supposed to do? How can one individual change the way the slaughterhouses treat animals? Is he supposed to devote all his free time to joining advocacy groups like PETA to institute change? And if he lacks the time or inclination to devote his free time to bring about change, or refuses to give up meat, he is a hypocrite? Your position is ridiculous and makes no sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

If someone eats meat, there is no reason why they should be unaware of how the animals are treated. If they're dumb enough to really not know, they have bigger problems than this issue.

A person who does know how the animals are treated need not join PETA or do any such radical thing. But if they refuse to give up meat, while at the same time believing it is wrong how the animals are treated, then yes, that makes them a hypocrite. I don't see anything ridiculous about that...seems like common sense to me.

[Wake up CALL]

I would venture an educated guess that less than 50% of the posters in this thread really understand the exact conditions under which animals are slaughtered for food. That likelihood pretty much renders your supposition useless Six_of_One.

In case you disagree please explain in detail how each individual slaughterhouse in the nation handles the slaughter of cows, pigs and chickens.

[hetron]

Even in a post about PETA he can't stop channeling Limbaugh and company.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Even in a post about PETA he can't stop channeling Limbaugh and company.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you feel unloved as a child Hetron? Your post is the first mention of Limbaugh in this thread unless I overlooked another. Also you need to learn what the n/m convention means.

[daryn]

as usual he's right

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even in a post about PETA he can't stop channeling Limbaugh and company.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you feel unloved as a child Hetron? Your post is the first mention of Limbaugh in this thread unless I overlooked another. Also you need to learn what the n/m convention means.



[/ QUOTE ]

The n/m was an accident, I didn't mean to write anything in the message part. But must you turn everything into some conservatives vs. liberals nonsense, even in a thread where it is irrelevant?

[Six_of_One]

[ QUOTE ]
I would venture an educated guess that less than 50% of the posters in this thread really understand the exact conditions under which animals are slaughtered for food. That likelihood pretty much renders your supposition useless Six_of_One.

In case you disagree please explain in detail how each individual slaughterhouse in the nation handles the slaughter of cows, pigs and chickens.


[/ QUOTE ]

Shall I stand on my toes and recite the dictionary for you as well? Come on. What you're asking has basically nothing to do with this debate. The point is, life for an animal in a slaughterhouse sucks, and not just because they're waiting to be killed. You don't need to know the "exact conditions under which animals are slaughtered" to know that.

[daryn]

this one is funny. here's what you said:

must you turn everything into some conservatives vs. liberals nonsense, even in a thread where it is irrelevant?

even though you were actually the one to first mention Limbaugh! what a joke.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Shall I stand on my toes and recite the dictionary for you as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind? You could then stop at the word generalization and perhaps see why your initial statement must be false. Personally I believe the vast majority of animals destined to be our food are treated properly considering their ultimate destination and purpose. Now you may very well feel differently but that alone does not either make you right nor me wrong.

[ElSapo]

What about people who know or understand, but simply don't care?

[daryn]

that's me!

[Six_of_One]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I believe the vast majority of animals destined to be our food are treated properly considering their ultimate destination and purpose.


[/ QUOTE ]

"Treated properly" is a very delicate way of putting it. It allows you to avoid making any judgment at all on whether it sucks to be in a slaughterhouse from the perspective of a cow. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not at all inconsistent with my original point. One could certainly believe that the life of a cow in a slaughterhouse sucks, but that nothing can or should reasonably be done about that, for various reasons. Thus, they're "treated properly."

Well, fine. That's as valid as any other opinion. It has nothing to do with the point I was making when you jumped into this thread, however, which was: People who *DO* believe there is something wrong with the way animals are treated, yet still eat meat, are hypocrites. You haven't contradicted that point, and I have no idea whether you disagree or not.

[hetron]

Which was in reply to :

Personally as long as the cows were liberal I would have no problem at all killing them. Of course a libertarian or conservative cow should be pampered, massaged and hand fed till it's natural demise.

[andyfox]

"rom the perspective of a cow."

I think this phrase sums up the problems I have with PETA, and, in fact, with all animal rights activists. To put it bluntly, I don't care about the cow's perspective. If it had to be that every cow on the planet died to save one human life, I'd vote for saving the human life. Ditto for every dog and every whale. Humans have too many problems to be worried about the cow's perspective.

[jdl22]

I hope you're being sarcastic and/or exaggerating. If you really would prefer the extinction of cows, dogs, or whales to save one human's life which will end in at most 80 years anyway that is pretty fascinating. Even from the human perspective we would be better off letting the human die. Otherwise whence would come our steak?

Not saying that animals should be on equal with humans, but you really think humans should be infinitely more important than animals?

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a carnivore (and proud of it), but I also like vegetables.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an inherent contradiction. Being carniviorous implies that you don't eat vegatables. Like most humans I'm omnivorous, something of which I'm neither proud nor ashamed.

[andyfox]

I'm always being sarcastic and/or exaggerating.

No, not infinitely more important. But a helluva lot more important. Certainly an individual cow's perspective is of no interest to me.

What value does the one human life have to you? If not equal to all the cows on the planet, than how many? A hundred? I suppose it depends on which human (Albert Einstein vs., say, Saddam Hussein), but I don't think it depends on which cow. Which is why, though liberal on most issues, I can't get excited about animal rights.

[Ray Zee]

its that point of view that has caused the loss of most large species of animals in the world. if what you want is a concrete world of poker tables thats fine but i will vote to save the animals over the humans.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
its that point of view that has caused the loss of most large species of animals in the world. if what you want is a concrete world of poker tables thats fine but i will vote to save the animals over the humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the idea of wiping out a species for a single human is over the top. But the idea of crippling a human community over a species like the spotted owl is just as over the top.

If PETA was a reasonable group, they could make reasonable contributions to this issue.