Pocket Plane Group
Miscellany, Inc. => Ensign First Class Blather => Topic started by: Marauder on December 21, 2005, 06:32:55 AM
-
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=china_dog_cat_fur_boards2&Player=wm&speed=_med
So horrible.
-
that is just disgusting how the bloody hell could they have right to do that! that is sick sick sick sick sick!
-
I liked the one about the flying Spaghetti monster better.
I know PETA is trying to raise awareness of cruelty to animals, and their strategy works really well in places where people are at their leisure to think about animal welfare. But in a country where people are executed in a manner which is horribly close to summarily, where human rights are just not that important, and the government beats up, jails or kills people who dissent, we can safely expect animal rights are not high on anyone's agenda. Maybe after Amnesty International gets a little more traction, PETA might get a look in.
-
I know PETA is trying to raise awareness of cruelty to animals, and their strategy works really well in places where people are at their leisure to think about animal welfare. But in a country where people are executed in a manner which is horribly close to summarily, where human rights are just not that important, and the government beats up, jails or kills people who dissent, we can safely expect animal rights are not high on anyone's agenda. Maybe after Amnesty International gets a little more traction, PETA might get a look in.
What country are you referring to?
-
*Points to the word China in Marauder's post*
-
I'm sorry, I'd forgotten to take off my Glasses of Belligerence +3 when I replied to your post.
-
I thought so. That's why I was so polite. :-*
Really, Joe, my dove, my coney, it's time to admit that you just don't actually READ any of the posts to which you respond. ;D
-
Eral, in case you are back online soon, do they say 'mom' or 'mum' when they walk upside down? Just curious
And do you call it winter or summer now?
-
Mum. It is summer. Currently 37 degrees Celsius, and I live in one of the coldest states. (We do not walk upside down. That Simpson's episode has a lot to answer for.)
-
If my calculations are correct, 37 Celsius is approximately 100 degrees. Impressive, indeed. Can't imagine what it's in the hottest states now (I didn't know you use metric system, btw)
That Simpson's episode has a lot to answer for
I watch The Simpsons a lot, but not every episode. Was there one about Australia?
Good night
-
If my calculations are correct, 37 Celsius is approximately 100 degrees. Impressive, indeed. Can't imagine what it's in the hottest states now (I didn't know you use metric system, btw)
That Simpson's episode has a lot to answer for
I watch The Simpsons a lot, but not every episode. Was there one about Australia?
Good night
You find the metric system difficult? :o But it's practically just moving a comma!
-
You find the metric system difficult? But it's practically just moving a comma!
Not difficult. Like 1 kilometer=1,000 meters isn't difficult, while 1 mile is god knows how many yards, I agree. It's just a question of what you are used to
E.g. you say "it's 4 kilometers from ... to ..." I calculate that 4 kilometers is approximately 2.5 miles. OK, Central Park is 2.5 miles long, then I can kinda imagine or feel what this all is about. But if you just said "it's 2.5 miles between ... and ...", then I immediately imagine the distance, cos it's the length of Central Park
-
Oh, right... :) I agree. I feel the same way. (the other way around, offcourse...)
-
There are 2 (!) countries that use the (horribly outdated) imperial system of measure. The USA and........Libya? That alone is a pretty good argument for joining the rest of the world and switching to metric. I think the reason that PETA points out behaviours like the Chinese and Korean fur trades is that we are desensitized to the idea of non-companion animals being subjected to cruel treatment. When you start talking about the way minks are treated people kind of tune out. It's a different story with dogs. What PETA is trying to accomplish is bigger than fixing the animal rights problems in China. They are trying to get people to see what's going on in industry so that they can affect change. They can't do that if people ignore them, though. I also agree with you that unless we get people respecting basic human rights we will never see industry change the cruel and barbaric practices they use so they can sell their products for 30 cents cheaper. I have yet to meet an animal rights activist who was not also a human rights activist and envioronmentalist. These things just go hand in hand. (Unfortunately, many people still try to foist the "you like animals more than people" label on peole like me.
-
Koreans are more into eating dogs than raising them for their fur.
What's amusing is that whenever I try to get any cat lovers to stop buying those Goddamned "rabbit fur" mice (that are generally made out of cat or dog hair) and show them what various humane societies have found, they go instantly deaf and blind. However, they take no problem with expressing near racist umbrage over the fact that Koreans eat dogs.
Because, you know, a dog is so much more valuable and intelligent than a pig.
-
Koreans are more into eating dogs than raising them for their fur.
What's amusing is that whenever I try to get any cat lovers to stop buying those Goddamned "rabbit fur" mice (that are generally made out of cat or dog hair) and show them what various humane societies have found, they go instantly deaf and blind. However, they take no problem with expressing near racist umbrage over the fact that Koreans eat dogs.
Because, you know, a dog is so much more valuable and intelligent than a pig.
Good catch, fcm. I should have clarified what I was talking about with Korea. I was talking about "juicing" cats. It's really kind of sick. To their defense, most Koreans also think so. Only some of the wealthy actually support this kind of thing. (The governmet, unfortunately, refuses to step in despite pressure from both inside and outside the country.) I'm eating right now so I'm not in the mood to go into more detail or look for links. I'm pretty sure that cat "juicing" is news to neither fcm or marauder, so if you really want to know I'm sure they'll be happy to provide info or links.
EDIT: Grammar
-
I'm pretty sure that cat "juicing" is news to neither fcm or marauder, so if you really want to know I'm sure they'll be happy to provide info or links.
No, I don't know what it means. I'm not an activist(even though i agree withe just about everything), I just thought the movie was interesting/disturbing, so I decided to link to it here, so you could be... enlightened(sp?)
Dno't know about fcm, though...
-
I'm done eating. The cats are beaten and then boiled alive and the water is then sold as "cat juice", which is supposed to remedy various afflictions. You can find plenty of info from PETA, if you want to look there. I figured it wasn't new to you because you linked to a PETA site.
-
Please note: my comments about change in behaviour related only to the people currently experiencing the lack of human rights. When PETA draws attention to this stuff, the benefit to everyone else is they can't pretend it's OK to buy coats with dog fur on them. It's a very effective campaign for people who have pets who live in a relatively safe peaceful environment, where suffering is minimal. (Drew, it may be effective, when faced with someone accusing you of such stuff, to point out that if you had to choose between saving the life of a human and the life of a chicken, you would choose the ch- er, person. That will confuse them and they'll shut up.)
-
Dang. I wonder how people can get themselves to do that... But i 'spose money can get them to do just about anything...
-
There are 2 (!) countries that use the (horribly outdated) imperial system of measure
Please, Drew! I got to learn a lot about IE. Do I have to switch instead to studying such crap as metric system?
(btw, do you guys mean that they use MS in UK? If so, that's quite a surprise)
And besides, I don't want to feel like in the army, you know
EDIT> And I'm sorry if it sounded as if I wanted to teach the rest of the world about temperature, I didn't mean it when saying that 37c=100 degrees. I only thought that otherwise someone might not realize how hot 37 celsius actually was
EDIT> Do they use metric in Canada? No, it can't be
-
What's amusing is that whenever I try to get any cat lovers to stop buying those Goddamned "rabbit fur" mice (that are generally made out of cat or dog hair) and show them what various humane societies have found, they go instantly deaf and blind.
I wouldn't buy those simply because they're made of fur, regardless of the animal it came from. Besides, my cats like toys made of cloth or plastic just fine.
The little souvenir animals made of fur are equally baffling. If you love animals enough to want to display ornaments of them, why choose somethng made of an animal? Or why think it would be an appropriate gift for an animla lover?
Cat juice? ICK. As if tiger testicles, bear gall bladder, and powdered rhino horn aren't bad enough.
-
I think anything PETA says has to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially when it produces comic strips for children calling their fathers murderers for fishing.
-
There are 2 (!) countries that use the (horribly outdated) imperial system of measure. The USA and........Libya? That alone is a pretty good argument for joining the rest of the world and switching to metric.
We're in an odd state here, sort of using both... A few years ago the law was changes so traders have to advertise in the metric system (e.g. price per kilo and not per pound) but in practice most market stalls use both (as the more elderly segment of the population tends to have difficulty in converting to the metric system). Road signs still use miles, though.
-
I think anything PETA says has to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially when it produces comic strips for children calling their fathers murderers for fishing.
Don't say something like this if you don't have the decency to provide a link. PETA does not do this.
-
I thought so. That's why I was so polite. :-*
Really, Joe, my dove, my coney, it's time to admit that you just don't actually READ any of the posts to which you respond. ;D
pffffft
-
I think anything PETA says has to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially when it produces comic strips for children calling their fathers murderers for fishing.
Don't say something like this if you don't have the decency to provide a link. PETA does not do this.
A quick google search for "PETA fishing comic" produced this (http://www.fishinghurts.com/feat-newcomic.asp) as the top result. It is indeed a PETA sponsored comic, although you shouldn't trust my word on this - check it out for yourself. The first thing that catches your eye is the graphic representation of a fisherman gutting several fish (one actually has the guts spilling out). There is fish blood all over the place. It actually says "Your daddy kills animals" and "Ask your daddy why he's hooked on killing" and "Until your daddy learns that it's not fun to kill keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He's so hooked on killing defenseless animals that they could be next!"
I didn't find the word "murderer" anywhere in the comic, but the comic surely implies it. In addition, it goes one step farther and implants the ridiculous idea in a child's mind that a fisherman is going to kill the family cat or dog next. This comic is IMHO simply a deplorable scare tactic.
-
The "your daddy" stuff is satire. This is obviously not aimed at kids. (Which is what I was really taking issue with in the first place.) PETA is in no way interested in telling children that their daddies are murderers. They are interested in telling daddies that they are murderers.....
I've never seen PETA set up a booth in front of an elementary school. At any rate PETA does have a web page for kids. You can find it here. (http://www.petakids.com/fish-corner.html) You'll notice that the comic in question is not on their kids page.
-
The "your daddy" stuff is satire. This is obviously not aimed at kids. (Which is what I was really taking issue with in the first place.) PETA is in no way interested in telling children that their daddies are murderers. They are interested in telling daddies that they are murderers.....
I've never seen PETA set up a booth in front of an elementary school. At any rate PETA does have a web page for kids. You can find it here. (http://www.petakids.com/fish-corner.html) You'll notice that the comic in question is not on their kids page.
You and I understand that it's satire. My 7-year-old niece didn't. Since her daddy is a fisherman, she became afraid that her daddy might hurt her and her hamster. The fact that the comic doesn't appear on PETA's kid-friendly page doesn't make their actions in this case have any higher morality. It's still a scare tactic, and it's reprehensible. I don't expect to change your mind on this issue, Drew. I understand these are deeply-held personal beliefs for you. I don't like PETA telling my niece her daddy is going to kill the family pet.
My concern is that the page I linked to actually states that the comic is for kids and kids are pretty good at googling things these days. The examples below show that children are, in fact, their target audience for this comic.
Examples: (http://www.fishinghurts.com/feat-newcomic.asp)
"PETA’s New Comic for Kids: Taking Aim at Dads Who Fish"
"Before they are desensitized to the suffering of animals, PETA aims to help kids see the violent bloody truth behind their fathers’ outdoor pastime."
"Children will read: “Imagine that a man dangles a piece of candy in front of you. ... As you grab the candy, a huge metal hook stabs through your hand and you’re ripped off the ground. You fight to get away, but it doesn’t do any good... That would be an awful trick to play on someone, wouldn’t it?”"
-
The very idea that it was for kids at all is the satire. It wasn't made to be shown to kids. If it were, PETA would post it on their kids page. As a member of PETA and a father I can assure you that I wouldn't show such a thing to my children. PETA is not trying to give this to your niece. If you are letting your seven year old niece google whatever she wants to, she will find far more disturbing things than this comic, (which is not meant for her eyes) so any argument about your niece being able to find this in a google search are invalid. There are a lot of much more disturbing images available online which can be found in a google search, whether or not you have a content filter.
-
The "your daddy" stuff is satire. This is obviously not aimed at kids. (Which is what I was really taking issue with in the first place.) PETA is in no way interested in telling children that their daddies are murderers. They are interested in telling daddies that they are murderers.....
I've never seen PETA set up a booth in front of an elementary school. At any rate PETA does have a web page for kids. You can find it here. (http://www.petakids.com/fish-corner.html) You'll notice that the comic in question is not on their kids page.
You and I understand that it's satire. My 7-year-old niece didn't. Since her daddy is a fisherman, she became afraid that her daddy might hurt her and her hamster. The fact that the comic doesn't appear on PETA's kid-friendly page doesn't make their actions in this case have any higher morality. It's still a scare tactic, and it's reprehensible. I don't expect to change your mind on this issue, Drew. I understand these are deeply-held personal beliefs for you. I don't like PETA telling my niece her daddy is going to kill the family pet.
My concern is that the page I linked to actually states that the comic is for kids and kids are pretty good at googling things these days. The examples below show that children are, in fact, their target audience for this comic.
Examples: (http://www.fishinghurts.com/feat-newcomic.asp)
"PETA’s New Comic for Kids: Taking Aim at Dads Who Fish"
"Before they are desensitized to the suffering of animals, PETA aims to help kids see the violent bloody truth behind their fathers’ outdoor pastime."
"Children will read: “Imagine that a man dangles a piece of candy in front of you. ... As you grab the candy, a huge metal hook stabs through your hand and you’re ripped off the ground. You fight to get away, but it doesn’t do any good... That would be an awful trick to play on someone, wouldn’t it?”"
Sadly, from the limited experience I've had with PETA, they've favoured scare tactics.
-
Saying meat is dead is not a scare tactic. Saying that slaughterhouses slaughter over 5% of the animals fully concious is not a scare tactic. Saying that due to the improper handling of meat by slaughter houses makes the meat more likely to carry things like botulism is not a scare tactic. These things are merely uncomfortable facts. Writing a fake kids comic telling kids to keep their animals away from their fisherman daddies is not a scare tactic since said comic is not actually for children. There are things you could use to label such a tactic, but "scare tactic" is simply not one of them. The term you are looking for, I think, is "emotional ploy". PETA does do that. Then again everyone uses emotional ploys.....
-
Don't go pulling a NiGHTMARE on us, Drew. A scare-tactic-or-possibly-some-other-term is a pretty irritating thing to do. Especially for people trying to enjoy their view from up on that horse.
-
Then again everyone uses emotional ploys.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_time_you_masturbate…_God_kills_a_kitten
-
In this case there is a pretty big difference. It was asserted that this comic was intended for kids as a scare tactic. It was not intended for children at all. It was intended for adults, and as such, there is no scare tactic involved because men who fish are unlikely to be afraid of their children hiding the cat from them. So when you read this comic in the context in which is intended, the only thing remaining is the emotional ploy, which I happily concede that PETA uses all the time.
-
This past Christmas, PETA camped outside holiday performances of The Nutcracker and other shows to force its graphically violent comic book (titled "Your mommy kills animals") into the hands of unsuspecting children. Denver's Rocky Mountain News classified PETA's attempt "to manipulate adults by traumatizing their children" as "despicable." Dr. Jeffrey Dolgan, chief of psychology at Children's Hospital, warned in the Denver Post: "Some vulnerable kids will not do well with this. It is potentially very anxiety-arousing. Someone has made a mistake."
Earlier this year, PETA announced its plan to distribute "Buckets of Blood" to children outside middle schools, high schools, and KFC restaurants. According to the Associated Press, these grotesque toys are filled with "fake blood and bones, a bloodied plastic chicken and a cardboard caricature of a blood-spattered Colonel Sanders holding a butcher knife toward a terrified-looking chicken."
In January, PETA sent a costumed activist into primary schools in England and Ireland to frighten kids into adopting vegetarian diets. According to media accounts, PETA's representative distributed "graphic leaflets detailing animal killings" to young children. The Sentinel newspaper (Staffordshire, England) reported: "PETA has been condemned by the government over the tactics it uses to convince youngsters to give up dairy products and meat."
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm?headline=2537
Hm.
-
The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network") is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture -- the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.' " It's original funding came from Philip Morris. They are not a credible source. Check it out. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
-
To further clarify what PETA is and what it isn't I need to explain one more thing. PETA does not organise any events. They are strictly an information distribution center. That said, there is going to be some misuse of PETA's information. It is inevitable and unfortunate when it happens. What you are pointing out are things that activists, who may or may not be connected to PETA, have done. I doubt all the activists are PETA members, (although most probably were) because a lot of people don't want to pay dues. You don't have to be a PETA member to distribute their material. Bottom line....the government has nothing to come after PETA for since all they do is print pamphlets and run a few websites.
-
The very idea that it was for kids at all is the satire. It wasn't made to be shown to kids. If it were, PETA would post it on their kids page. As a member of PETA and a father I can assure you that I wouldn't show such a thing to my children. PETA is not trying to give this to your niece. If you are letting your seven year old niece google whatever she wants to, she will find far more disturbing things than this comic, (which is not meant for her eyes) so any argument about your niece being able to find this in a google search are invalid. There are a lot of much more disturbing images available online which can be found in a google search, whether or not you have a content filter.
The fact that it wasn't posted on their kid's page does not mean it's not meant for kids. I don't know if you have the same TV commercials I do, but we have commercials (http://www.thetruth.com/) that show the example of Phillip Morris promoting products that are unsuitable for children being aimed at a target audience of children. PETA is doing the same thing, whether you want to admit it or not.
As for your assertion that we are "letting my niece google anything she wants to", she did a google search for "fishing comic". She wanted to print off a comic that her daddy would enjoy and found a comic that made her live in fear of her daddy.
Saying meat is dead is not a scare tactic. Saying that slaughterhouses slaughter over 5% of the animals fully concious is not a scare tactic. Saying that due to the improper handling of meat by slaughter houses makes the meat more likely to carry things like botulism is not a scare tactic. These things are merely uncomfortable facts. Writing a fake kids comic telling kids to keep their animals away from their fisherman daddies is not a scare tactic since said comic is not actually for children. There are things you could use to label such a tactic, but "scare tactic" is simply not one of them. The term you are looking for, I think, is "emotional ploy". PETA does do that. Then again everyone uses emotional ploys.....
You're right - I wouldn't call the first three you mention scare tactics. I vehemently disagree with you on the issue of this comic not being meant for children. That, my friend, is a scare tactic. You have not provided me with any proof (other than the absence of this comic from PETA's kid website, which I addressed above) that would make me believe otherwise.
In this case there is a pretty big difference. It was asserted that this comic was intended for kids as a scare tactic. It was not intended for children at all. It was intended for adults, and as such, there is no scare tactic involved because men who fish are unlikely to be afraid of their children hiding the cat from them. So when you read this comic in the context in which is intended, the only thing remaining is the emotional ploy, which I happily concede that PETA uses all the time.
A parent who fishes loves their child no less than the staunchest animal rights activist. To say that "men who fish are unlikely to be afraid of their children hiding the cat from them" implies that they are so cold-hearted that they would not care that their children are living in fear of their parents. I find this statement to be abhorent.
Again, I disagree that this comic is not intended for children. All the promotion I have seen for this comic says it's for children. It has been handed out to children (not their parents) in several of my local neighborhoods. This is not the best way to convert people to PETA's cause. If PETA wants to affect people in a positive manner towards their cause, they should stick to telling the facts, not scare tactics (or even emotional ploys, if you continue to insist that it's not a scare tactic).
-
A parent who fishes loves their child no less than the staunchest animal rights activist. To say that "men who fish are unlikely to be afraid of their children hiding the cat from them" implies that they are so cold-hearted that they would not care that their children are living in fear of their parents. I find this statement to be abhorent.
Again, I disagree that this comic is not intended for children. All the promotion I have seen for this comic says it's for children. It has been handed out to children (not their parents) in several of my local neighborhoods. This is not the best way to convert people to PETA's cause. If PETA wants to affect people in a positive manner towards their cause, they should stick to telling the facts, not scare tactics (or even emotional ploys, if you continue to insist that it's not a scare tactic).
Not what I meant at all. Any reasonable human being would find the assertion asanine and would not take it seriously. Since this is not meant for children (because it is not on the list of items PETA does make for children, which is located on the link which I provided earlier) there really is no scare tactic in use, here. As far as emotional appeals go.....I'll just chalk that one up to differing opinions.
-
Drew, I am a reasonable human being. Perhaps because this is a serious topic and a written medium I missed your meaning.
Edit:
No fair, you edited...oh wait, I'm editing.
I am not so naive to think that only things on PETA's kid-friendly menu are meant for kids. Phillip Morris actually has other products other than tobacco - Kraft Foods for instance. Do I think that Mac and Cheese are the only thing Phillip Morris is trying to give to kids? Of course not.
-
So you think your children wouldn't love you if you fished? As the vegan child of a non-vegan mother with ties to the livestock industry I can assure you that I still love my mother.
EDIT: and my father fishes regularly. I still love him, too.
-
Sorry, I replied while you were editing. Please read my edit that replies to your edit... ::)
It's not a matter of whether children will love their parents if they fish. It's a matter of whether there is an organization that preys on the fears of children whose parents fish. I'm sure you love your parents - most well-adjusted people do. My issue is with PETA, not you as an individual. PETA takes extreme measures to get their point across. That is somewhat understandable, considering their belief that people are committing extreme crimes against nature. I just think that messing with the psyche of an unsuspecting child in order to change the beliefs of their parents is crossing the line.
EDIT:
I messed up my facts about Phillip Morris and Kraft - Altra is the parent company for both. I should have asked if Altria is only trying to push Mac and Cheese on kids.
-
I don't believe PETA is messing with the psyche's of children. I don't believe that that comic is meant for children. It is not hosted on a children's web page, for starters. I'm sorry your niece found that comic online and was disturbed by it. These things happen while on the internet. PETA's official stance is that they do not aim such materials at children. As a parent, I agree with that stance. You ask for evidence that it isn't aimed at children. I'll flip that question on it's head. Show me evidence that it is.
-
Drew, I'm sure you're also a reasonable human being. Please refer to my previous post (http://forums.pocketplane.net/index.php/topic,21108.msg276717.html#msg276717) citing several examples from a website PETA hosts. PETA may have an "official stance" that this sort of thing is not suitable for children, but that website suggests otherwise. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that PETA doesn't produce that specifically for children - the exclusion of this comic from their kid-friendly site doesn't convince me.
-
My interpretation of it was as satire. I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on this. If it is satire, then the points I made are correct. If it isn't satire, then you are. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree here.
-
I have to confess to one more thing. (I still don't really think that this comic was meant for children.) I agree with every single assertion made in that comic. I think that fishing is killing. (This can't be argued. The fish is killed. If you throw it back it will die, anyway.) Killing is wrong. (It's the reason I became a vegetarian 10 years ago.) It's alright if you disagree, but that's how I feel. Now regarding hiding the cat.....I think that was a tongue in cheek statement. I do agree with what they implied, though. There is no ethical difference between killing an animal we consider food and killing a companion animal. They are both capable of suffering. If they would change the cover art, (which I did find abhorrent)I would consent to distributing this to children. It doesn't say that the children's daddies are murderers. It just says they are doing something bad (killing fish) and they should stop. I agree with that, as well. I just felt the need to make this statement in the interest of complete honesty.
-
I think you're right - we are destined to disagree on this one.
The cover art is graphic and lends to the "fear your father" message, but that's not my only concern. I see a very large difference in fishing and killing a companion animal - the feeling of attachment you have for them. While fishing for food has a definate purpose (regardless of the debatable moraility issue), there is no way that a fisherman is going to come home and slaughter his dog. Telling a child that he will/could/might is playing with their delicate psychological balance and should not be condoned.
But let's say this comic is aimed at adults only (I still don't believe that). The comic tells the fisherman that PETA is trying to tell his kids that he is going to kill the family pet. Any parent I know would try to protect his/her children from any organization that tries to give that kind of (mis)information to their children. This doesn't sound like an effective way of winning the hearts and minds of the people PETA is targetting. It might be a way to get a giggle out of the faithful followers of PETA, but I don't see this comic actually doing anything but spreading fear to anyone that doesn't follow their way of thinking.
-
An attachment to someone you kill doesn't make the deed any more or less ethical. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, killing a companion animal is morally equivalent to killing an animal which we deem "food".
-
Only if you raise the companion animal for the purpose of eating it. Like some people raise a sheep or pig, and then slaughter it. (I come from a long line of people who keep a pig out in the back yard.) If the purpose of a companion animal is company, affection, entertainment, etc killing and eating my cat would seem wrong to me. Whereas if the purpose of keeping my cat was to eat it later, then it wouldn't seem wrong.
This obviously only applies to carnivores, who think it is all right to eat animals and use the products obtained from their living and dead bodies. It's a wonder more of us aren't vegetarian, out of squeamishness alone.
-
@Drew
That is something we won't agree on. What about the second half of my argument? Do you really think this comic is going to change the minds of it's intended audience in a favorable way? The way I see it there's three possibilities, depending on the target audience:
1) Kids of fishermen: comic spreads fear of their parents.
2) Adult fishermen: further entrenches them in their belief of protecting their kids from PETA.
3) PETA followers: get a laugh
@Eral
My wife makes me pick out the meat because she doesn't like to see the diagrams in the store showing where the meat comes from. It's not enough to make her a vegetarian, though.
-
The life of someone I know holds no more value than the life of some one I do not know. Obviously, eating meat doesn't make you a bad person. But shock at killing a comanion animal is simply a reflection of our cultural values stepping in. My cat's (yes, I have a cat) life holds no more inherent value than a chicken's life does. Therefore, taking the life away from my cat is morally equivalent to enjoying a some KFC. In fact, it might be better that I ate my cat, instead of KFC. Since she is an animal that I care about I would kill her humanely, something that won't happen to slaughter house chickens, which are so cramped in their cages they can't even spread their wings, are debeaked at a young age with no anesthesia as well as having their toes cut off..
Regarding your other question. Yes. Shock tactics do work. PETA does not get new members if no one hears them. More genteel methods simply do not meet with success. You see, when a person finds out I'm vegan, they immediately stop listening to me. Even if what we are talking about is cars, or something. I hate that PETA has to employ such methods to get the message across, but it is the only way which has met with any success.
-
On an ethical level yes: but on a personal level, the animal I love is more valuable to me than the one I don't. I was sad for the lady next door when her cat got run over, but I didn't cry, as I did when my cat (Doug RIP) was run over. (See! More evidence that I am a delicate flower!)
When I was a kid, and made that awful realisation that lamb chops came from lambs, etc. I pondered deeply if I should be eating lambs. The baby animal was a powerful image for me. When I asked my mum about this, she said, oh, they're really all quite grown up when we eat them. Old really, and not at all cute. For some reason I had no qualms about eating unattractive old animals. The next crisis came when I realised that lamb's brains were not just called that, that liver and kidneys were actual body organs, and my dad broke out a jar of pig's feet that he was saving for a special treat. They were clearly the feet of pigs. Which did not seem to be particularly big. I decided that eating something an animal had used to process bodily fluids or think with was not a go. And eating their feet was disgusting. Fascinating, but disgusting. This lead my mum to try to tell me suspiciously shaped objects in the casserole were mushrooms, but that only worked a few times. After I shrieked, "It's a kidney!!" and vomited into my plate, Mum began to buy sausages more. If it didn't look like an animal I would eat it quite happily.
-
Nuke the world and we won't have to worry about animal abuse/cruelity any more. Plus we'll get rid of the worst animal of them all, humans.
-
On an ethical level yes: but on a personal level, the animal I love is more valuable to me than the one I don't. I was sad for the lady next door when her cat got run over, but I didn't cry, as I did when my cat (Doug RIP) was run over. (See! More evidence that I am a delicate flower!)
I knew I guy (who ate meat) who killed his cat because it scratched his 2 year old when his 2 year old pulled its tail. He snapped its neck. I'm very lucky he told me about this in the company of people strong enough to hold me back. Were it not for them, I'd probably be in prison right now. I understand the nature of our societal double standard. I, too, am prey to it. The challenge is to look past who is important to you and see that we are all equal, down here. I'd like to say that if I was given the choice of saving one friend (or even one of my children) as opposed to 5 strangers that I would save the strangers. But I will probably never know the truth of that. (I hope I never learn the truth of such a thing. Regardless of what it is, I probably wouldnt' be able to live with myself after learning it.)
-
I'm going to quit reading this post. It makes me sad and angry. Kill a cat in my presence and I'll pour gasline on you and watch you do the firey dance or maybe I'll do something far worse.
-
If I actually saw it I'd try to stop it. Then I'd call the cops. (Fat lot of good that would do, though.) In Iowa, animal cruelty is a simple misdemeanor. On the other hand, given that slaughter houses do far worse things to their animals with no repercussions maybe that's how it should be.
-
I knew I guy (who ate meat) who killed his cat because it scratched his 2 year old when his 2 year old pulled its tail. He snapped its neck. I'm very lucky he told me about this in the company of people strong enough to hold me back. Were it not for them, I'd probably be in prison right now. I understand the nature of our societal double standard. I, too, am prey to it. The challenge is to look past who is important to you and see that we are all equal, down here.
This is very different from the loved ones versus stangers scenario. I think there are very few people who would contend that it's acceptable to kill a creature under those circumstances, whether it's yours or anyone else's.
However, there's very much more to it than simply recognizing that we're all equal. Your post touches on a classic psychological and moral scenario:
Assume a train is hurtling towards five people. If you want, you can divert the train onto a side track where it will only hit one person. Do you divert the train?
Now assume the same situation, but instead of diverting the tracks, the only way to save the five people is to push a man who would otherwise be safe onto the track in front of the train. Do you push him?
Most people answer yes to the first scenario, and no to the second. Yet there's no logical difference between them. What does this have to do with loved ones versus strangers? It serves simply to illustrate that psychologically it isn't quite so simple to coldly attribute value to life.
-
I sincerely hope that I would have the presence of mind to push the man. Although I don't see why I couldn't just throw myself on the tracks instead......Hypothetical situations suck.
-
We need that InterNet Quiz on ethics for Drew.
-
I think animal cruelty should carry harsher penalties (simply killing and eating an animal is not cruelty).
-
What about slaughtering it while it's fully concious? Happens to more of 5% of the animals put through our slaughterhouses. :'(
-
Do you mean chopping them up while they're conscious? Well, that's wrong, of course.
-
Exactly what I mean. Slaughterhouses don't slow the line down when the stunning doesn't take. They just slaughter the animal concious. I'm obviously just talking about cows, here. Chickens and pigs are dunked in hot water (scalding tanks) and the line moves so fast that they are usually not dead when they are slaughtered, either.
-
Free range animals <3
-
Free range is essentially a myth. Free range chickens often have less room to move than caged caged counterparts. What you get with free range is a whole bunch of chickens in a barn. Usually they give the barn an open sunroof so they can say that the chickens get sunlight. (Notice that free range producers never say they get to spend time out of doors.) When you calculate out the square footage, the chickens would probably be better off in confinement facilities. They are still slaughtered with the same (dis)respect as any other animal. Beef cattle spend the first part of their life grazing. They usually have it pretty good until they are shipped off to the feed lots. They spend their last days there, until they are shipped out for slaughter. In the feedlot they are only fed once a day to make sure they eat more. The diet they are fed is so unnatural that it isn't uncommon for the cows intestines to literally fall out. An alarming portion of the cows leaving the feedlot don't survive the trip to the feedlot. The only way to be sure that an animal was raised and killed humanely is to do it yourself.
EDIT: spelling. grammar.
-
Is this the part where you'll start arguing that animals feel pain even after death?
-
Is this the part where you'll start arguing that animals feel pain even after death?
I don't expect you to know that "free range" companies mistreat their animals every lick as badly as everyone else. You eat meat. Why would you waste your time examining the habits of the meat industry? I don't hold it against you. But don't try to attack these realities by attacking me personally. If you don't think these facts are an issue, that's fine. I don't care if you eat meat or not, but if you bring up an idea that isn't based in reality I'm going to point it out. And if you want to question my facts check this link out. http://www.poultry.org/eggs.htm Or this one. http://www.upc-online.org/freerange.html Check this one out for info on cows an other animals being slaughtered while conscious, among other things. http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/slaughterhouses.html
Making fun of me doesn't make what I say any less factual. Like I said, eat meat if you want to. But don't deny the facts.
EDIT: added another link.
-
I worked with a fellow who was the second man in line at a slaughterhouse. The yokel (who would apparently sing to himself as he worked) ahead of him would shoot the cow in the head, and then my friend and another guy would grab it by the legs and stick it upside down on a hook. I don't recall any stories of them still being alive.
Edited for flavour!
-
It's a stun gun, Ghrey. While it very occasionally kills the cow, that isn't the issue. They are to be rendered unconcious prior to this happening. Sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they wake up. The line is not slowed down when this happens. They just continue to slaughter the animal. I did provide links to more information. Check them out if you'd like to.
EDIT: In case you don't want to check out my links, here's a snippet:
On May 24, 2000, King5.com new service in Seattle, WA, broke a story about undercover footage taken at a nearby IBP slaughterhouse. According to their report, “The video shows fallen cows being trampled and dragged, others are tortured with electric prods. One cow has fallen and workers stick an electric prod on its head, then place the prod down its mouth. Still other cows are hung on chains, fully conscious, blinking and kicking. The worker who shot the tape said one cow was already at a station where legs are removed. ‘It would be horrible if someone were to cut off your leg without anesthesia.’”
And here's another link from the Agricultural Research Service/United States Department of Agriculture, if anyone wants to get nasty with me about using "biased sources". http://www.grandin.com/survey/usdarpt.html (http://www.grandin.com/survey/usdarpt.html) In case you're wondering, this will go into just how often stunning fails, among other things. And the numbers are actually worse than the conservative numbers I provided.
-
Probably depends on the slaughterhouse. you can bet some use an actual gun to do it
-
The stats are on the USDA link above. There is no need to conjecture since the info is all there and it isn't biased in any way.
-
I have watched most of PETAs stuff now, and i must admit its rather freaky! and i had to be stupid and watched it when i was eating needless to say i didnt eat my food, but maybe they just got to bad places surly every place isnt like that
-
Making fun of me doesn't make what I say any less factual. Like I said, eat meat if you want to. But don't deny the facts.
I said what I said because I believe that you would find some reason against whatever manner of meat acquisition I brought up.
If I told you that I hunted and killed an animal myself to eat it (which I have never done and never will), I have the feeling that you would come up with some justification to call me a heartless and evil bastard. Or say that I was being cruel.
-
I always thought that PETA was all about promoting very rich models who claimed that they would rather be naked (not very uncommon) than wear fur. While now I think this is a hidden Brazilian campaign and said models have repeatedly acted against their vows. I guess it is still who pays the piper calls the tune.
-
Is this the part where you'll start arguing that animals feel pain even after death?
I don't expect you to know that "free range" companies mistreat their animals every lick as badly as everyone else. You eat meat. Why would you waste your time examining the habits of the meat industry? I don't hold it against you.
Not everyone just eats what's cheapest. I know a lot of people who eat meat, but check where it's from and how it's produced. We live in a rural area with lots of farms, so it's really easy to find some decent farmers.
-
Making fun of me doesn't make what I say any less factual. Like I said, eat meat if you want to. But don't deny the facts.
I said what I said because I believe that you would find some reason against whatever manner of meat acquisition I brought up.
If I told you that I hunted and killed an animal myself to eat it (which I have never done and never will), I have the feeling that you would come up with some justification to call me a heartless and evil bastard. Or say that I was being cruel.
Heartless, evil, and cruel are your words. I haven't directed such language at you, here, and I won't. If you get frustrated by my pointing out what you said was non-factual, then don't say anything without checking It's source. I posted a USDA document to back my assertions. I'm not making things up.
Is this the part where you'll start arguing that animals feel pain even after death?
I don't expect you to know that "free range" companies mistreat their animals every lick as badly as everyone else. You eat meat. Why would you waste your time examining the habits of the meat industry? I don't hold it against you.
Not everyone just eats what's cheapest. I know a lot of people who eat meat, but check where it's from and how it's produced. We live in a rural area with lots of farms, so it's really easy to find some decent farmers.
I hope they also check how they spend their last days. I have family that runs a small farm and they were my first introduction to animal cruelty. They were all desesnsitized to the pain and suffering of animals. They did the neutering of the males in-house with no anesthesia and no vet present, for example. The twins ache just thinking about it. That said.....technically speaking what you say is possible, if you want to watch what happens when they are fattened (if the word "feedlot" is used you need to run away. Fast.) and how they are killed yourself. My own family has (possibly unknowingly or out of ignorance, more likely because they figured I wouldn't actually check) lied to me about how they treat their own livestock. On the other hand, from what I know of Germany, truth in advertising actually matters there. And Germany actually has far more laws than the U.S. protecting animals from inhumane treatment.
-
I'm not making things up.
I never said you were. :-*
-
*Eral smiles at Joe tenderly, then smacks hard him across the ear.*
Don't Joe. You haven't given us enough time to get over your last gross breach of All That Is Decent And Good.
-
I have four cats and two dogs. I don't think I'd like to live in a home without a dog or a cat.
-
I believe you misinterpreted Eral's post quite handily. I'm pretty sure what Eral was getting at is that when you say things like
Is this the part where you'll start arguing that animals feel pain even after death?
It will generally be interpreted as accusing the other party of making shit up. I think she was also trying to say that no one is in the mood to hear you try to argue, as Clinton once did, about the meaning of the word "is". (Proverbially speaking) Correct me if I'm wrong, Eral.
-
I wasn't calling you a liar, I was just saying that I believe you could find a justification against any kind of treatment of animals if it ended with death for consumption.
-
By making such a statement as I quoted in my above post, you were implying that I was not only making statements that were untrue, but were absurd as well. That is the meaning your words carried, whether you intended it or not. I'm not being touchy. That is simply the most likely meaning to come out of such a statement. I'll let you off the hook this time, since you have stated that was not what you meant. In the future, however, I would reccomend just coming out and saying what you mean the first time, rather than trying to revise the meaning of your words on the fly.
-
I'm not going to Twilight Zone this shit by having a conservative tell a liberal not to take stuff so seriously all the time.
-
I'm not going to Twilight Zone this shit by having a conservative tell a liberal not to take stuff so seriously all the time.
You just did. :o You see, Joe, I've noticed you have this funny little habit of sniping at people after they've taken the wind out of your sails and left you with nothing else to say. Snipe all you want. I actually think it's kind of cute. :-*
-
If this is your attempt to get me into bed, it isn't working. You'll have to work a lot harder than that.
-
I've always thought that Joe's inability to understand what anyone else says and respond to it clearly and simply, was due to a processing difficulty he must experience with comprehending written text. I thought that was a kinder explanation, but I'm willing to move to the position of "He's a flamer", because then I can just ignore him for the rest of my life. How peaceful it will be.
-
wow, this thread is going downhill like a fat chick chasing a twinky! :P
-
Going downhill? It started that way and never changed. I think we're at 500 below sea level by now.
-
yeah, that could be right too...
-
Germaine, Gloria and Betty note down Marauder's address, and, in a city not far from him, the Feminist SWAT team moves in to action...
Don't tell him how bad it's going to be Vel. That's if you're able to talk about it yet...
-
Joe, could you just.. Stop causing trouble and picking fights? Please? There was a good debate going on here (sort of) and then you just start up more petty squabbles that has nothing to do with the real topic and are just.. Stupid.
Anyway, about that comic. Drew, Loriel, I don't really think it's so important wether PETA intended that comic to be targeted on kids or not. I think they'd just be better off if they didn't make that kind of crap at all. Wether it's targeted on kids or not, they're going to see it, and it's going to scare them one way or another. This is just one of many times when I say PETA needs to rethink everything they're doing and start over.
I don't know if this is absolutly correct or not as I heard it from someone else, but I trust this person enough to type a bit about it here.
An old friend of mine who is against animal cruelty and whatnot was going to the zoo one bright summer's day. And, to make a long story short, PETA was there handing out little brochures to children with comic strips of various animals being violently slaughtered. Blood, guts, the whole package was there for our young five and six year olds.
Somewhere along this four page thread someone said that people who are not members of PETA can freely hand out PETA material; maybe that's what was going on at the zoo? Who knows. Either way, PETA should not resort to those tactics (fear, emotional, whatever) to inform people, or whatever it is they think blood and gore and violence will do.
Drew and some other person were going on about morality of killing a stranger versus someone you know and care for. (Why is it I only remember Drew..? Probably that pretty pink bra burned into my brain.) I do agree with bra-man on this one. Wether you care for someone or not, they are still someone. If I had to choose between saving the life of five strangers but end the life of a friend, or save my friend but end the other five lives, I would choose the former.
Hurray for utilitarianism (sometimes)!
-
The problem with calling PETA on the tactics of handing those brochures to children is that they were not intended for such use. I agree that those members of PETA were not doing the right thing. PETA does not organize events. They print brochures. They don't control what is done with them. They can say what it is that they think should be done with them but that's as far as it goes. I readily tell my 6-year old son that we don't eat beef because you have to kill a cow. I don't show him pictures or tell him about the number of cattle that go through the line fully concious. My son wouldn't be able to handle it.
-
Good good, then.
But why would PETA make things like that comic book anyway? I don't see any good that could come of it.
Silly PETA people.
-
pETA people should be nuked . Fry them up and serve themm well.
-
pETA people should be nuked . Fry them up and serve themm well.
Personally, I prefer a good, slow cooking over the barbeque; crispy on the outside, juicey on the inside, and no chemical waste polluting the air and gnawing away at my lungs.
But nukes work, too. And I won't be surprised if China nukes us soon, so we might as well get used to the idea anyway :-\
-
China will crush us economically, first. They have the right idea for conquering the world--force of arms not being it. For evidence of this see: McDonald'seses in the former USSR, violent insurgents in Iraq.
-
I breifly remember the conversation I had with a college pal (it was six in the morning, lots of walking all day), but he said that China is capable of basically blowing our satellites out of space, or disrupting them so they can't work properly, or something. And some other things that I really just can't remember about shutting down all our communications systems. But I'm sure that we have some kind of back-up system or something of the like.
It'd be nice to have a conversation with that guy while at least somewhat awake.
Does anyone know if Bush is doing anything concerning the threat of the Chinese? Most of the world is pretty pissed at us right now; even if it were just the Chinese I'd be concerned, but all he seems to care about is liberating Iraq.
That is not to say I'm against the war. I don't really know much about wether or not we should have or should not have gone into Iraq, but the fact is were already there, and if we just run away it'll be basically handing Iraq a yellow Sticky-Note saying "Destory Us".
-
China isn't a military threat to the US. They don't have the capability to hit the US with an Atomic. Too far away! And they don't have the technology to launch a missile into orbit. (Which is what it would take to actually shoot down a satelite.) They are, as Ghreyfain mentioned, a threat to us economically. In the age of our modern Navy, we could soften them indeterminately from afar and then just mop up what's left. The best way to handle China (or any nation) is to coopt them over to our side. China isn't interested in fighting us. It is far more profitable to trade with us.
-
Ghreyfain is easy to agree with - I think it's his Canadian charm. Either that or his choice(s) in avatars. But who knew the day would come that I would agree with Drew on something? Hell's temperature just dropped several hundred degrees. ::)
-
They don't have the capability to hit the US with an Atomic. Too far away!
Where the hell are you getting your information? Of course China can hit the US with nuclear weapons. We might beat them down in the end, sure, but nobody wants to be hit with nuclear weapons in the meantime.
-
Yeah, I missed that. You know, China has put people into orbit. I suspect they can do the same with missiles.
-
I simply stated that China does not yet have a delivery system for a large, Nuclear weapon which can hit the US from China. They could certainly develop the technology, but they do not have it yet. Taking a satelite down with a terrestrial missile is nearly impossibe. It would be difficult for the US to do. China does not have a terrestrial missile which can be launched from the ground and hit a satelite.
As to where I get my info.......I learned about this when I held one of those jobs that nobody talks about in the Navy. No, I'm not basing this on classified data. It was just a rather important subject to know about in my old line of work.
-
I simply stated that China does not yet have a delivery system for a large, Nuclear weapon which can hit the US from China. They could certainly develop the technology, but they do not have it yet.
Yes, they do have it.
China has about 20 CSS-4 ICBMs that can reach any part of the United States. Several newer missiles, including the long-range Dong Feng-41, are in development.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2000/0400edit.asp
Approximately 20 Chinese weapons are deployed on missiles that can reach the continental United States.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17609&prog=zgp&proj=znpp
China's missiles are operated by the Second Artillery Corps, and include about 650 DF-11 (M-11) and DF-15 (M-9) missiles opposite Taiwan; several dozens of DF-3, DF-4, and DF-21 medium-range missiles that can reach Japan, India, and Russia; and 18-24 DF-5 ICBMs that can reach the United States and Europe.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/China/
China now has about 20 long-range nuclear missiles with sufficient range to reach the continental United States, and while it apparently has the ability to place multiple warheads on its missiles, it has so far chosen not to do so.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/gill/20010907.htm
-
It appears that a lot can change in 6 years. >:(