|
PETA and Their Ongoing Insanity (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj adagnitio
Why stop there? ARA (anti racist action) needs to realize that they do not live in a world where everyone thinks blacks and whites are equal. Sometimes I wonder what kind of person would join such a self-righteous cult. They even look down at all those white guys who like to beat arabs up. I mean whites have been killing off other races for eons, if ARA foenst like it then they shoyld go and jump off the edge of a cliff. Get a life ARA because I am not giving up my weekly hispanic beatings. |
While you may be a supporter of PETA or not, I am absolutely dumbfounded by your reference to race on this subject matter, In no capacity, in no form and in no fashion was race a part of this discussion. What I stated was that PETA has an intolerant view of people who eat meat, and so do racist bastards that attack someone based on skin color and their own personal prejudices. What I would like you to do is to demonstrate how race has any significance in this discussion, if you can do that then you are smarter than I currently believe your argument to be. When it comes to the subject of race "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." I am puzzled in ways that race is brought up to justify points. Aurevoir mon ami. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj adagnitio
why? the logic is completelly the same. |
How so? In the most rudimentary form..perhaps. If your sole premise is that a+b=c, then sure I suppose you could've thrown just about anything in the world out there and claimed it was a fair comparison. You can do better--all that was was a cheap comeback in an attempt to defend PETA. I think that NYCtrancefan was more interested in the methodology of how PETA works. For example, if they didn't use the tactics that they do, they might be a more credible/worthy organization. Their purpose may be fine and good, but the ways in which they choose to reach their goals is hardly worthy.
Now, if you are proposing that the ARA uses awful tactics to deliver their message, then perhaps it's discussion worthy in a racism thread, but hardly in a PETA thread, as there are many holes in your post that reveal that it was more of a childish comeback instead of a truly logical response. And btw, racisim invovles a lot more than just white vs. everybody else. |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
| You completelly missed the point. I'm not trying to equate racism with slaughtering non-human animals, although one could make a good argument. What I was pointing out was that what you said was entirely unreasonable in the sense that the exact same statement you made could be made to any other group. Its true that not everyone in the world wants to be a vegan. It is also true that not everyone in the world wants women to be considered people. Does that mean that groups represnting womens rights should realize that and stop? The point is that your critizms of PETA are entirely unreasonable. All I did was attempt to show this by using your logic but transferring it to another group. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
How so? In the most rudimentary form..perhaps. If your sole premise is that a+b=c, then sure I suppose you could've thrown just about anything in the world out there and claimed it was a fair comparison. You can do better--all that was was a cheap comeback in an attempt to defend PETA. I think that NYCtrancefan was more interested in the methodology of how PETA works. For example, if they didn't use the tactics that they do, they might be a more credible/worthy organization. Their purpose may be fine and good, but the ways in which they choose to reach their goals is hardly worthy.
Now, if you are proposing that the ARA uses awful tactics to deliver their message, then perhaps it's discussion worthy in a racism thread, but hardly in a PETA thread, as there are many holes in your post that reveal that it was more of a childish comeback instead of a truly logical response. And btw, racisim invovles a lot more than just white vs. everybody else. |
Could not have said it better myself, like trying to compare apples and oranges. I feel that PETA isn't going to stop the average American from eating meat, what about Germans and their brutwurst, etc. I believe that PETAs actions could be directed elsewhere more productively until then they have little to no credibility, by just showing violent clips of animal tortures. Many have read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, myself included and I was repulsed by the meatpacking industry in the early 1900s but the process is fairly similar today as far as slaughtering animals, that didn't stop me from eating meat. Funny thing is I am not a big fan of eating meat, I eat the smallest portions-one small cut of chicken breast in a meal for example. I just find PETAs actions to be extremist in trying to prove a point and as we all know extremism doesn't get very far in the long run. |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
How so? In the most rudimentary form..perhaps. If your sole premise is that a+b=c, then sure I suppose you could've thrown just about anything in the world out there and claimed it was a fair comparison. You can do better--all that was was a cheap comeback in an attempt to defend PETA. I think that NYCtrancefan was more interested in the methodology of how PETA works. For example, if they didn't use the tactics that they do, they might be a more credible/worthy organization. Their purpose may be fine and good, but the ways in which they choose to reach their goals is hardly worthy.
Now, if you are proposing that the ARA uses awful tactics to deliver their message, then perhaps it's discussion worthy in a racism thread, but hardly in a PETA thread, as there are many holes in your post that reveal that it was more of a childish comeback instead of a truly logical response. And btw, racisim invovles a lot more than just white vs. everybody else. |
No, not in the most rudimentary form. My sole premise is that using the exact same criteria he was using to go after PETA I could similarly go after other groups. If he wants to go after their methodology fine, I am not trying to defend PETA's scare tactics. I am however not content with the comment he made as it seems that the overbearing remarks, for example
| quote: | | PETA firmly needs to realize that they do not live in a world where everyone wants to be a Vegan, Sometimes I wonder who is actually a member of this cult of self righteous, ostentacious wackos, look at us we don't eat meat, so neither should you. Mankind has been eating meat for eons, if PETA doesn't like it then they should go and jump off the edge of a cliff. |
Im pretty sure by that logic then ANYONE who works towards animal rights and thinks others should not be eating dead animals should go jump off a cliff. I would also like to point out that nowhere there, which is half is post does it mention methodology.
I don't see how using a different group using his comments is comparing apples and oranges. All I was attempting to demonstrate is simply that his grounds for insulting them are unreasonable and no thought out. If he has simply said that their methods are ineffective and not aggreeable then there would be no issue, but he clearly did not. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| You ARE comparing two completely different things. Humans are omnivores. We eat both plants and animals. A strictly vegan diet is not healthy for us. Not to mention it's retarded, because aside from eating meat, vegans constrain themselves from eating all animal products. So I can kinda understand their sympathy for animals, but how is milking a cow and eating that milk gonna harm anyone? Oh, yes, I remember, milk is the deadly poison, as they once stated. :rolleyes: It is a matter of lesser evil, whether we live a quality life and eat animals, or whether we constrain ourself to eat a severely limited diet and let the animals roam free and be eaten by other predators. Because, face it, if we don't eat those animals, someone else will. We don't live in a hippy free love world, where everyone respects everyone, and noone gets harmed. The only thing I agree upon is that the way in which those animals are slaughtered is often inhumane. But hey, neither does a lion care whether the antelope it attacks is gonna be in pain or not. On the other hand, the issue of racism is a totally different matter. People of other races don't degrade the quality of your life and health, and therefore no valid reason exists to hate them. |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
You ARE comparing two completely different things. Humans are omnivores. We eat both plants and animals. A strictly vegan diet is not healthy for us. Not to mention it's retarded, because aside from eating meat, vegans constrain themselves from eating all animal products. So I can kinda understand their sympathy for animals, but how is milking a cow and eating that milk gonna harm anyone? Oh, yes, I remember, milk is the deadly poison, as they once stated. :rolleyes: |
I would disagree that a strictly vegan diet is neccisarely unhealthy, however that is a completely different argument. There is actually a strong argument for being a vegan. Keeping female animals to produce eggs and milk requires male animals to be born in more then the amount required to reproduce, therefor they are killed. So by creating demand for eggs, etc. you are supporting their murder.
| quote: | | It is a matter of lesser evil, whether we live a quality life and eat animals, or whether we constrain ourself to eat a severely limited diet and let the animals roam free and be eaten by other predators. Because, face it, if we don't eat those animals, someone else will. We don't live in a hippy free love world, where everyone respects everyone, and noone gets harmed. The only thing I agree upon is that the way in which those animals are slaughtered is often inhumane. But hey, neither does a lion care whether the antelope it attacks is gonna be in pain or not. On the other hand, the issue of racism is a totally different matter. People of other races don't degrade the quality of your life and health, and therefore no valid reason exists to hate them. |
It is completelly ridiculous to say that to live a 'quality' life we have to eat animals. That has no founding any kind of reality. It is also a very dangerous justification to use that if we don't kill them someone else will. That logic could justify a lot of horrible things. It is true that we don't live in a world where everyone respects everyone and no one gets harmed. However that does not mean that we should not respect people and not harm them. Socities do change and we have to be the ones pushing for that change.
I also don't really see how you compare the way we kill to the way a lion does. The two things are just different in every way.
I agree that racism is different and like I have already said several times it could of been anything I used as an example I was merely using it to point out the fault in his line of reasoning.
However animals don't degrade the quality of your life and health. So there is no valid reason to exploit them. The logic that is used is that 'using' them makes your life better. The exact same thing could be said of slavery. And after all at the point when it happened Blacks weren't people, just like non-human animals. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| I see your point as far as the humane treatment of animals, however many cultures around the world consume meat, so what is the agenda of PETA in dealing with a non-Western society, for example in Korea, a certain breed of dogs are grown just for consumption, in Islam, sheep is a staple of consumption in many Ramadan feasts, in some African cultures it would be considered an affront to refuse to eat their meat if offered to you. My point is that meat is intertwined into the cultures of many societies around the world and I feel that PETA is fighting a losing battle in their campaign. How do they stop these societies from "animal cruelty" as PETA sees it. |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
I see your point as far as the humane treatment of animals, however many cultures around the world consume meat, so what is the agenda of PETA in dealing with a non-Western society, for example in Korea, a certain breed of dogs are grown just for consumption, in Islam, sheep is a staple of consumption in many Ramadan feasts, in some African cultures it would be considered an affront to refuse to eat thier meat if offered to you. My point is that meat is intertwined into the cultures of many societies around the world and I feel that PETA is fighting a losing battle in their campaign. How do they stop these societies from "animal cruelty" as PETA sees it. |
I can't tell you how PETA sees it, however I can give my thoughts.
It is clearly not a process that takes both time and effort. I strongly feel that no society should ever kill without necessity. This in my mind applies both to civil war in the congo and eating sheep in Islam. It seems obvious one cannot simply walk in and demand change. However people can campaign to change opinion and attempt to over time change popular beliefs. I think the situation is comparable to some human rights situations. For example take a look at the situation of women in Afghanistan. Their position of extreme disadvantage is deeply rooted in their society. However this does not mean we should not attempt to change that. To help those women. |
|
|
| Izzy |
at least the parents named the kid a 'cool name' - Ice :rolleyes:
i can just see the bullies picking on his name and hippy parents.
:( |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | | The Swintons, who say they approach veganism as a religion, fed the child a diet of "ground nuts, fresh-squeezed fruit juices, herbal tea, beans, cod liver oil and flax seed oil," a complaint said. |
Yummy! Hey Mom, I wanna be a fanatic, too! Sounds delicious! There's nothing I love more than a flax seed and bean flavored milkshake...errr, I mean soyshake. |
|
|
|
|
