View Full Version : Vegetarianism
kyuketsuki_Lilith
06-06-2006, 09:18 PM
http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html
Yes, that is for real. There are many old news articles about this as well.
...And people wonder why i think PETA is nuts. ::)
PaigeDWinter
06-06-2006, 09:20 PM
http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html
Yes, that is for real. There are many old news articles about this as well.
...And people wonder why i think PETA is nuts. ::)
Man, I want a Newkirk skin purse!
Hello_Kitty27
06-06-2006, 09:40 PM
I would just like to say that I used to be a PETA member, although I am not technically vegetarian. Once I became a member, I became enlightened to some things:
Too many of PETA's campaigns are too extreme (or extremely ridiculous) to be taken seriously by the general public.
They are an all-or-nothing organization. For example, I am against animal cruelty, however, I sparingly eat chicken breast, or turkey breast. Maybe once a year, I may eat a steak....and according to them, that makes me a terrible person. But they'll happily take my check, and often send me letters begging for me to come back, even though most of their propoganda was ANTI-ME.
On the bright side, it has opened my eyes to some of the REAL problems concerning animal cruelty. I do try to give business to PETA-approved companies to this day and I do make an effort to take my business away from companies whose values do not match mine.
johnnychimpo
06-07-2006, 01:03 AM
I have absolutly no faith in animal research, I don't support if at all no matter what the cause - but thats another story!
What do you mean by that? I'm being serious...
I'm a physiology student who happens to take classes in a building shared with some sort of primate lab. From time to time there will be people outside the building protesting said primate lab. When I walk up to go to class they'll show me nasty pictures or video of some terrible thing happening to some monkey, and then when they realize I'm going into the building they'll call me nasty names. I've never gotten a good line of reasoning from any of these people as to why they don't "believe" in animal testing, or what they consider to be a valid alternative.
In a perfect world I agree we wouldn't test things on animals. We'd have some other method to determine which drugs worked and were safe, and which shampoos would leave your hair clean and fresh smelling without giving you cancer. Since we haven't invented that technology yet, we're stuck with using animals.
So what do you mean, no faith in animal research? You have faith you won't be getting polio anytime soon right? Or anthrax, leprosy, smallpox, or any of the other diseases that we've been able to cure/eradicate through animal research. I might be being a bit snarky, but I'm also serious. I don't understand how people who obviously reap the benefits of decades of animal research (or any other science for that matter) can then turn around and say they're against it.
DancerWealth
06-07-2006, 01:37 AM
So what do you mean, no faith in animal research? You have faith you won't be getting polio anytime soon right? Or anthrax, leprosy, smallpox, or any of the other diseases that we've been able to cure/eradicate through animal research. I might be being a bit snarky, but I'm also serious. I don't understand how people who obviously reap the benefits of decades of animal research (or any other science for that matter) can then turn around and say they're against it.
Well, here is the ultimate irony behind vegetarianism. Human beings wouldn't have evolved to where we are today if it weren't for eating meat. Because we are evolved meat eaters (omnivores to be specific) we got the necessary proteins to cause our brains to grow larger and develop better ways to get meat and so on and so forth. What's so ironic is that after millions of years of this process taking place we have evolved to having some people believe that we shouldn't eat meat even though if it weren't for eating meat we wouldn't have the brain power to take a stand to say it's wrong to eat meat. :O
PaigeDWinter
06-07-2006, 04:19 AM
Well, here is the ultimate irony behind vegetarianism. Human beings wouldn't have evolved to where we are today if it weren't for eating meat. Because we are evolved meat eaters (omnivores to be specific) we got the necessary proteins to cause our brains to grow larger and develop better ways to get meat and so on and so forth. What's so ironic is that after millions of years of this process taking place we have evolved to having some people believe that we shouldn't eat meat even though if it weren't for eating meat we wouldn't have the brain power to take a stand to say it's wrong to eat meat. :O
Kudos, DW.
Not that I dont have vegetarians for friends. I dont knock em... I just dont like getting force fed the ideas and ideals. I know humans have eaten meat, hunted, raised livestock, worn skins, etc for a long time. Its what they did to survive. It may no longer be a survival thing, but I prefer to live that way. Its natural and I am comfy with it. Do I like unneeded cruelty to animals? No. Animal torture is vile. I know there are a lot of farms and ranches that do things the bad way to get ahead. It sucks. Do I think all livestock people do that? No. I didnt. I know people who dont. Do I think we need some forms of animal testing? Yes, until medical breakthroughs can be made so we no longer need to. I dont, however, like animal testing for non-vital things like makeup. I'm not some unsensative beast, I just happen to be an omniverous, pro-leather, pro-fur, hunting/fishing, former farm kid.
Dont shove PETA and dietary lifestyles in my face, and I wont smack you with a cheeeseburger in a leather purse.
exotisch23
06-07-2006, 05:32 AM
It's fine to eat meat as long as animals don't have to suffer for it. And I have three words for peta: chicken fried steak! LOL j/k
Dottie Rebel
06-07-2006, 09:52 PM
Pardon me if I've been shitty. I've had a really fucked up week. I do have to say one more thing, though, with respect and in all seriousness: DW, is the fact that humans having evolved to the point we are today a GOOD thing? We're really kind of like a virus, are we not? We're destroying this planet and each other. I relaly can't see as how our so-called progress has been a good thing.
PaigeDWinter
06-07-2006, 10:07 PM
^^^ Well if we reverted to less developed stages, we'd ALL be wearing furs and skins.... and clubbing things to death for food. Damned if we do, damned if we dont?
DancerWealth
06-07-2006, 11:01 PM
DW, is the fact that humans having evolved to the point we are today a GOOD thing? We're really kind of like a virus, are we not? We're destroying this planet and each other. I relaly can't see as how our so-called progress has been a good thing.
http://www.dancerwealth.com/goodgrief.gif
I guess this is the difference between how you and I think Dottie. See, I see the achievements of mankind as amazing, miraculous, and wonderful things. Sure there are wars and bad people who cause them in this world. There are bad things all around us if we choose to dwell on them. I, on the other hand, view the world and mankind as an amazing place of wonder, achievement, and beauty to which we should relish every minute of it because it is so absolutely incredible. You're welcome to live your life your way. Personally, I rather enjoy the one I lead seeing the beauty in the world rather than going out of my way to find the ugliness.
put a stop to collar pop!
06-08-2006, 10:23 AM
I guess we'll find out one way or the other what "the meek shall inherit earth" really means...I agree with both Dottie and DW. Frankly, I think humans are just like a virus. But I refuse to dwell on all the death and suffering we create.
Fuck it. If I can't start a charity or a fund, or until I can, I 'm not going to let it affect me. I'll do my part on a personal level.
But I think people have become disconnected from being part of earth. For the record, for the people that eat meat, those of us that have given it up feel that a meat eater's agenda is being pushed on us constanly.
I suppose it's like the grass is greener, but really, try to find some good non-meat containing food in your average city. Beef, it what's for dinner? Pork the other white meat? Get it? The world assumes you eat meat. OK, fine, I used to. What bugs the shit out of me is, being in a place like Miami you tell people you don't eat meat and they look at you like you have a dick on your forehead.
It gets better though. I'm out doing deliveries with a UPS driver. Stop at his house so he can get lunch. I'm offered a couple of sandwiches (my diet has already been a topic of conversation) and I look in them and it's fucking salami or ham or some shit. So I say, politely "Thanks, but this has meat." I get that dick in the forehead look and this guy tries to cinvince me that pork isn't meat. That's annoying.
Paris
06-08-2006, 11:55 AM
Call me crazy, but aren't viruses part of nature? Isn't it the norm for one portion of the ecosystem to feed off of another part? There are plently of natural occurances that destroy life and totally change an ecosystem. Volcanos, tsunamis, earthquakes, weather events like floods and hurricanes and droughts. Even something as simple as a family of beavers building a damn and destroying a meadow that deer and other animals used for grazing.
How is the alteration of the earth by humans any different than what a simple termite does to insure it's survival? Somebody stop the beavers because they are destroying the nesting ground of aphids!
Sure, you can argue that humans have the knowledge and the choice to make better decisions about their planet. But we don't have the knowledge to completely managed the enviroment. Hell, we can't even stop mold from growing in our own homes. We can't even prevent cancer! We have very little knowledge as to what is the "right" thing to do is.
Our knowledge is really quite limited when it comes to the mystery of nature. All we see is cause and effect. We really know nothing in the big picture.
put a stop to collar pop!
06-08-2006, 01:23 PM
It's artificial and on a bigger scale. And much more permanant.
You're right. We don't have all the answers, but a perfect example of the type of thinking I'm talking about, on a smaller scale is smoking cigarettes.
You know you're going to die. You know it's going to kill you. You know cancer is fucked up, horrible way to expire. But you still smoke. Partially out of being too lazy to change habits. It being routine and, therefore easy and it's lack of immediacy. We do the same thing on a bigger scale in the form of corporations and as consumers we suppert these practises monatarily.
Often not knowing, but not caring because we are too lazy to check.
Like I said, fuck it. you can lead a horse to water. Until I hve enough of a bank account to make me eccentric enough to go on that hunting trip I dream of...Fuck it.
Dottie Rebel
06-09-2006, 03:07 AM
^^^ Well if we reverted to less developed stages, we'd ALL be wearing furs and skins.... and clubbing things to death for food. Damned if we do, damned if we dont?
I have absolutely no problem with survivalism. But the wearing of fur or eating of meat nowadays has nothing whatsoever to do with survival. It's about fashion or palate preference. There are still "primitive" groups on earth who practice these customs. Do I have a bone to pick with them? (Pun definitely intended.) Not at all. Eat and club away.
DW, as for seeing the bad in the world, you've got me all wrong there. There is a lot of bad out there and I think to deny the sufferring of others so that one's mind may rest a little easier is selfish and uncivilized. I guarantee I spend less than 10% of my time concerning myself with the negative aspects of life. But I try to make the most of that 10%. I try to make good decisions. Also: I have no problem with the imminent destruction of the earth. It's a doomsday machine. I'll be dancing naked and perhaps playing a little lute the day the world ends. I am NOT one of those save the world people. But I firmly believe that we sentient beings are all in this together and if we can make a choice to save others from suffering as the world self-destructs, I say go for it.
And I really want to stress collar pop's point: The meat-eating agenda is pushed on everyone left and right through lobbying and advertising. This isn't conspiracy theory shit--it's just big business. They've got money and they use that money to further their agenda. To say "I don't like vegetarianism being shoved down my throat" is tantamount to a heterosexual person saying, "I don't understand why gay people have to throw their sexuality in our faces," while we're CONSTANTLY bombarded with images of heterosexual sex.
Incidentally, I'm not ignoring the challenge of the insulin issue. I'm getting my facts straight before I respond.
I will say this, though: Nit-picking to find instances of hypocrisy or inconsistency is really missing the point. Whether or not Ingird uses an animal based insulin has nothing to do with the fact that some people don't want to support the horrors of factory farming. The point is, we ALL have choices. Why not make ones that lessen the sum total of suffering in the world rather than choices that may lead to more? I'll never understand why that position makes me a "crazy person" who needs "meds."
When I was a kid I lived on a farm in Indiana in the middle of Amish country. We had animals that we slaughtered. We also lived by industrial farms. The farms have become industrialized the more and more cruelity there is. Animals in an industrialized farm are no longer living things, they are just a product. The cruelty i saw there and else where makes me sick. I treat my animals well have always have. I no longer live on a farm but still eat meat.
But In the grand scheme of destruction in this world I think it is just the tip of the iceberg. There are children in this country that are treated worse than cattle. There are homeless people that have no hope or shelter. People without education. Murders and Gangs that destroy futures communites and anything it touches. How could a race of people take animal cruelty seriously when they cant even take their own destruction and cruelty to each other seriously?
Jay Zeno
06-09-2006, 10:40 AM
Life feeds on death.
By digestion and dentition, humans are omnivores, and meat can be part of a balanced diet. Or not.
Whether humans feel they're a part of nature or not, they're locked into it. Just about every species looks to its own survival and propagation and convenience. Humans are no different. We just have gotten better at it than everything else so far.
I don't feel a "meat agenda" is pushed on us any more than a "beer agenda." I don't drink Bud very often. If people think I'm weird for that, they can. If I want to eat a salad instead of a steak, which happens more often than not, I don't care what other people think about that. I'm going to get fewer weird looks if I simply say, "No thanks," rather than make a statement about what I do or don't do.
I believe in treating other lifeforms humanely (which sounds sorta funny), even the ones we feed on. I'm not going to raise much of a fuss about people who want animals to have "equal rights," unless it 1) retards health advancements for humans or 2) gets to motor vehicle licenses and suffrage.
put a stop to collar pop!
06-09-2006, 12:15 PM
When I was a kid I lived on a farm in Indiana in the middle of Amish country. We had animals that we slaughtered. We also lived by industrial farms. The farms have become industrialized the more and more cruelity there is. Animals in an industrialized farm are no longer living things, they are just a product. The cruelty i saw there and else where makes me sick. I treat my animals well have always have. I no longer live on a farm but still eat meat.
But In the grand scheme of destruction in this world I think it is just the tip of the iceberg. There are children in this country that are treated worse than cattle. There are homeless people that have no hope or shelter. People without education. Murders and Gangs that destroy futures communites and anything it touches. How could a race of people take animal cruelty seriously when they cant even take their own destruction and cruelty to each other seriously?
Maybe it's the mentality that allows cruelty to animals to be prevelant, that causes humans to not give a shit about each other. That's my take on it, anyway. I mean, I've never met a person who was vegetarian, for ethics and not vanity, that was insensetive to life in general. I've met plenty of omnivourse who were just dicks, though. Would the world be worse off if we culturaly conditioned to treat all life with respect instead of most as commodities? I'm not even talking about not eating meat. Just not being assholes to non-bipeds.
Frankly, I don't waste my pity on humans as a species. We create all of our societal issues through civilization. On an individual level, yes. Of course I care for my fellow man...But I can't say that I like humans as a race. There will always be people trying to hel[p people. I'd preffer to put my efforts into helping those that have no voice in society.
But, in a nutshell we can be pretty fucking vile and are by far the cruelest, most animalistic creatures on this planet.
put a stop to collar pop!
06-09-2006, 12:19 PM
I don't feel a "meat agenda" is pushed on us any more than a "beer agenda." I don't drink Bud very often. If people think I'm weird for that, they can.
That's a horrible example. I've never seen an ethical deabate about cruelty in brewing. Seriously. If you don't think so, then go to some restaurants and see what your non-meat options are.
DancerWealth
06-09-2006, 12:27 PM
Seriously. If you don't think so, then go to some restaurants and see what your non-meat options are.
And the reason for this is because human beings, by our very nature and evolution, are omnivores. This means we eat meat and vegatables. While I am sure there are vegetarian-only restaraunts in major cities, they are few and far between because their demographic is in the vast minority of people. I believe I saw a Harris poll recently that said less than 3% of the U.S. population is vegetarian or vegan. This means that 97% of us are meat eaters in some capacity. That is why your non-meat options are very limited. It's just the cold hard facts that we, as humans, are meat-eaters.
put a stop to collar pop!
06-09-2006, 12:40 PM
Most people can walk, but I see handicapped accesible entraces like everywhere. What's your point?
There are concessions that, for a significant portion of the population are being ignored. Regardless of history etc. the fact is that the meat industry puts big money behind advertising and purveying meat.
The simple fact that some, more progressive, restaurants and many supermarkets have a growing number of options should tell you something.
Basically what I'm getting at, is that being a demographic minority doesn't have to, and really shouldn't ne an issue when it comes to food. It's not hard to order a ground beef substitute in a chain restaurant. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some incentives either. Don't even come with that "tin hat much?" stuff. It's about money. Business is business.
Jay Zeno
06-09-2006, 02:08 PM
That's a horrible example. I've never seen an ethical deabate about cruelty in brewing. Seriously. If you don't think so, then go to some restaurants and see what your non-meat options are.Well, it was just a comparison, not meant to get anyone upset. But I don't think it's so horrible. Yes, I see lots of ethical debates about the value of alcohol in society. Alcohol breaks up families, causes social disorder, crime, etc., and yet we still have beer companies spending far, far more than meat companies ever will, pushing this stuff on us.
You go to a restaurant, and what's the first request? "Can I take your drink order?"
I see non-meat options at every restaurant I go to. Just last night, the left side of the menu was covered with salads, many of them vegetarian or vegetarian/fish, the middle was sandwiches, some of them vegetarian or vegetarian/fish, and the right side was entrees, fewer but still some of them vegetarian or vegetarian/fish. But I think it was generally reflective of the population's dietary choices, if not a little slanted toward the vegetarian side.
Jay Zeno
06-09-2006, 02:12 PM
Most people can walk, but I see handicapped accesible entraces like everywhere. Well, there's a Federal mandate (ADA) about that. People don't usually choose to be crippled, and the government tells businesses to provide access. People usually choose to be vegetarians, and so they just need to establish their market until they can convince Congress to impose vegetarian access on all businesses.
put a stop to collar pop!
06-09-2006, 02:22 PM
Well, it was just a comparison, not meant to get anyone upset. But I don't think it's so horrible. Yes, I see lots of ethical debates about the value of alcohol in society. Alcohol breaks up families, causes social disorder, crime, etc., and yet we still have beer companies spending far, far more than meat companies ever will, pushing this stuff on us.
You go to a restaurant, and what's the first request? "Can I take your drink order?"
I see non-meat options at every restaurant I go to. Just last night, the left side of the menu was covered with salads, many of them vegetarian or vegetarian/fish, the middle was sandwiches, some of them vegetarian or vegetarian/fish, and the right side was entrees, fewer but still some of them vegetarian or vegetarian/fish. But I think it was generally reflective of the population's dietary choices, if not a little slanted toward the vegetarian side.
Dude, I haven't had meat in 5 1/2 years and I don't even eat salad when I go out. I do eat fish, but I was referring to a meat substitute that provides some protein. ;)
While you're right about companies that peddle alsohol spending more, you have to realize, there are myriad things that use animal products and by-products, so they can sell from the supermarket aspect to the backdoor aspect.
Dottie Rebel
06-09-2006, 03:32 PM
Oh, and it looks like we were all a little mistaken about the exact nature of this whole inuslin argument. Here is the response I got from PETA. I guess you can take it for what you will:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about PETA’s stance on animal testing. We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns.
It is an unfortunate fact that many cultural, technological, and scientific innovations—many of the products, services, and medical advances that we can’t imagine living without—represent exploitation. Industry has been supported by the labor of slaves, and scientific knowledge has accrued through torturous experiments on unwilling subjects, human and nonhuman alike. We can’t change the past; those who have already suffered and died are lost. We can, however, change our habits and attitudes now so that such abusive, exploitative practices do not continue into the future.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently requires all new prescription and over-the-counter drugs to be tested on animals before they are marketed, despite the fact that animal tests do not guarantee that drugs will be safe for humans. This requirement covers the insulin that PETA Director Mary Beth Sweetland (rather than PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk) takes, as it covers all other drugs. However, Ms. Sweetland proves that we can at least keep animal suffering to a minimum by opting to use synthetic insulin that contains no animal products or byproducts.
Furthermore, given the option of insulin that had been tested only in cell cultures, she would gladly choose the cruelty-free variety and, indeed, would certainly participate willingly in human-based diabetes-related experiments. To learn more about the ways Ms. Sweetland and other diabetics have found to better cope with their conditions, you may wish to read Making Kind Choices by Ms. Newkirk, available from many bookstores, including http://www.PETABookstore.com.
Unfortunately, government regulations have not kept pace with science. The federal government relies almost entirely on animal tests in setting human health policies, despite the availability of non-animal technologies such as human clinical and epidemiological studies, autopsy reports, cadaver-based experiments, and computer simulators, all of which are faster, more reliable, and more humane than animal tests. Human cell cultures and tissue studies, in vitro tests, and artificial human “skin” and “eyes” mimic the human body’s natural properties and provide scientists with less expensive alternatives to animal tests. In addition, a number of sophisticated computer virtual organs serve as accurate models of human body parts. To learn more, please visit http://www.StopAnimalTests.com.
Thanks again for writing to PETA. I hope that this information helps to explain our position on animal tests.
Sincerely,
The PETA Staff
http://www.PETA.org
PaigeDWinter
06-09-2006, 04:31 PM
We've already touched on the fact that there are other options to the typical insulin.
And honestly? I really have a VERY hard time taking anything seriously coming from a an establishment with such an.... extreme leader such as Ms Newkirk. Well, I SHOULD applaud her for the most creative will I've ever seen, but it doesnt really help how the public views her sanity. Or the credability of her institution.
madmaxine
06-09-2006, 09:06 PM
Some quick comments, I am sad to see this thread veering into Political Poo-Land:
* Does PETA really consider pet ownership to be animal exploitation...? I NEED my dog because I live in a bad neighborhood & his presence is a better crime deterrent than an ADT alarm. We used to keep cats to kill the mice that were infesting the house & leaving disease-ridden poop all over the place. The animals are compensated for these services with food, shelter & medical attention. Plus, they make better companions than people.....is it such a bad arrangement?
*While factory farming is cruel & needs to be changed, many regions of the United States base their economic well-being on income from farming. To insist that everyone go vegetarian would devastate states & cities.
I used to be more concerned with the environment over animal rights per se, but have a deep love of nature. I do wish for a world where needless suffering (and pollution) is eradicated. But it's true that we have levels of human poverty & suffering that should not be occuring in America, one of the leading industialized nations of the world. People come first.
DancerWealth
06-09-2006, 09:47 PM
* Does PETA really consider pet ownership to be animal exploitation...? I NEED my dog because I live in a bad neighborhood & his presence is a better crime deterrent than an ADT alarm.
Yes, according to Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA, you are evil incarnate. She has gone on record numerous times saying that using animals, even for seeing eye dogs, is absolutely evil and is nothing but animal exploitation. This is why this thread is about PETA because the source of the information is highly suspect. It would be like the KKK trying to be taken seriously about a debate on affirmative action. There is a point where you have to question the source at times and that's why there's all this PETA talk.
Dottie Rebel
06-11-2006, 12:46 AM
Yes, Paige, we did "touch on" the issue, but it seems everyone was a bit misguided, so I thought I'd try to set everyone a little straighter. It's not even Ingrid who uses the insulin, apparently. Maybe we don't know everything, ya know?
Some quick comments, I am sad to see this thread veering into Political Poo-Land:
* Does PETA really consider pet ownership to be animal exploitation...? I NEED my dog because I live in a bad neighborhood & his presence is a better crime deterrent than an ADT alarm. We used to keep cats to kill the mice that were infesting the house & leaving disease-ridden poop all over the place. The animals are compensated for these services with food, shelter & medical attention. Plus, they make better companions than people.....is it such a bad arrangement?
*While factory farming is cruel & needs to be changed, many regions of the United States base their economic well-being on income from farming. To insist that everyone go vegetarian would devastate states & cities.
I used to be more concerned with the environment over animal rights per se, but have a deep love of nature. I do wish for a world where needless suffering (and pollution) is eradicated. But it's true that we have levels of human poverty & suffering that should not be occuring in America, one of the leading industialized nations of the world. People come first.
It's an unfortunate myth that Ingrid believes people who own pets are evil. Stop into the PETA office any day and you will find that many staffers actually bring their dogs to work. Management tends to find that superior to leaving dogs at home all day and they've found that it doesn't really hurt productivity. Asd I previously stated, Ingrid has about 6 cats. I have a cat. Most people at people have companion animals. Believe someone who worked there for three years over someone who hates the whole damn thing, ya know?
Honestly, social change is always going to require restructuring and reorganization. Many cities throughout US history have boomed and busted based on changing economic conditions.
It's not a matter of people first or animals first. We are harming our own health by eating meat and dairy filled with cholesterol and antibiotics and growth hormones. Choosing to NOT eat that meat does not put animals first. It puts humans first! You don't have to choose which issue to support over another. There are lots of issues that need attention and animals are just one of them. Choosing to eschew animal abusing industries doesn't typically put humans "second."
DancerWealth
06-11-2006, 09:29 AM
It's an unfortunate myth that Ingrid believes people who own pets are evil.
Fair enough. Can you explain this then please?
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." - Ingrid Newkirk - Harper's (August 1, 1988 )
or this...
"In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notiton of pets altogether." - Ingrid Newkirk - Newsday 2/21/88
Just curious.
put a stop to collar pop!
06-11-2006, 07:40 PM
Maybe she means the idea of "ownership". I, frankly don't like the insinuation that i "own" my dogs. Semantics. WE all know that, when you want to make a point it's easy to take out-of-context soundbites and distribute them as a full idea.
I read the quotes in their original context and they don't see mnearly as offensive as you would make them out to be. It's all about context.
"The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership." Elliot Katz
hardkandee
06-11-2006, 07:43 PM
Maybe she means the idea of "ownership". I, frankly don't like the insinuation that i "own" my dogs. Semantics. WE all know that, when you want to make a point it's easy to take out-of-context soundbites and distribute them as a full idea.
I read the quotes in their original context and they don't see mnearly as offensive as you would make them out to be. It's all about context.
I think that's what she means. It isn't about "owning" pets, it is more of a partnership.
Yekhefah
06-11-2006, 07:51 PM
It'll be a partnership when my cat buys my food and cleans up my shit. Until then, he is a PET and I own him. That doesn't give me the right to mistreat him (although sometimes he mistreats me!), but we do not have an equal relationship.
put a stop to collar pop!
06-11-2006, 08:24 PM
Maybe he just doesn't like you. Does he dislike you? I knew a girl who's cat didn't like her. Met her on webdate, dated for a few months and realized why. She tried to give me the other pussy as a breakup gift. lol Not insinuating anything, but sometimes these relationships go awry.
IDK, just asking. Did you split food with your parents when you were little, BTW?
put a stop to collar pop!
06-11-2006, 08:28 PM
Anyone familiar with Derrida's ideas on deconstruction? Most specifically pertaining to language. This is (this latest debate about ownership) a damn good example of an idea that is ripe for it.
Yekhefah
06-11-2006, 08:30 PM
LOL! No, my cat loves me very much. He just loves my boyfriend more, and he gets grumpy when my boyfriend goes out of town and takes it out on me. After a few days, he loves me again. He's a very affectionate cat, just a little crotchety in his old age. (He's 16.)
Did I split food with my parents when I was little? Sometimes, but yeah they paid for it. And technically they owned me too. Children are similar to chattel from a legal standpoint, though of course with necessary protection for their well-being. But that's not a "partnership" either.
Jenny
06-11-2006, 09:36 PM
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." - Ingrid Newkirk - Harper's (August 1, 1988 )Well, it is kind of abysmal, and was clearly brought about my human manipulation. I mean my chihuahua was not just a genetic quirk of a wolf, right? And breeding live creatures that were independent to be parasites is kind of sick. I mean, I don't know if we would be doing all the dogs favours by making them extinct, but most people even remotely interested in animal welfare (I avoid the term "rights") have strong feelings against domesticating more breeds.
"In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notiton of pets altogether." - Ingrid Newkirk - Newsday 2/21/88
Again - there is something to this - although I don't know what we ought to do with the domestic breeds that already exist. Keeping a few alive for zoos seems... sick and twisted. In terms of "ownership" - it is true that we own pets in a very particular way, and that there are many ways one can "own" an animal. A racehorse, for example, is a different kind of "ownership" than a family dog, and from a herd of cattle. I mean in Toronto several years ago there was an issue of a couple of boys exacting some cruelty on a cat and calling it art (they videoed themselves skinning it. PEN was not interested in coming forward on their behalf.) Hundreds of thousands of Canadians petitioned to have the maximum sentence for animal cruelty incresed. Something that is interesting to think about is that had they been doing the exact same thing to farm animals for money, they would have just been a cog in the industry, and that people do it everyday, perfectly legally.
And it seems to me, just offhand, that the dichotomy presented "people or animals" "animals or the environment" or "people or the environment" is a bit of a fallacy. Ecosystem. Interdependance. Isolating "people" from "the world" is what got us here in the first place.
And finally - dude - you realize that these quotes are nearly 20 years old?
And Yek - children are not chattel. If nothing else they cannot be alienated. Children are "cared for" not "property".
PaigeDWinter
06-11-2006, 09:39 PM
Honestly I think it would be more cruel to just set all the domesticated animals free. They wouldnt know what to do. Sure, we can play the blame game for domestication to begin with, but that will do little good now. I dare say letting a poodle go into the wilderness would be a good idea. Sure, I've seen packs of wild dogs... I've seen stray cats... but as a whole, I dont think letting every dog, cat, bird, etc go would be wise. Many would not survive.
Jay Zeno
06-11-2006, 09:54 PM
If my dog barks at night, or shits in someone's yard, or bites someone, or gets hungry, or cold, or hot, or thirsty, or sick, then I have to take care of it or suffer consequences that the law has to offer for abuse or neglect.
If I play my stereo loud, or urinate in public, or hit someone, or I get hungry, or cold, or hot, or thirsty, or hungry, or sick, or stranded, my dog's not gonna do a thing, not even grab my checkbook and bail me out. (Well, if I'm sick, she'll lie down beside me, and lick my face, and look worried, so she apparently does like me.) In fact, during all of that, I still better make sure that the dog is still cared for.
And a thousand other examples. I don't see this "partnership" deal happening in the legal sense of a partnership, where there's equitable contributions, risks, and rewards.
I agree that we inbreed animals to ridiculous extremes. I suspect that at first, a lot of it had to do with breeding out the predator instinct of our canine companions, because every now and then a Stone Age kid or old person would get munched by the local wild dog, but that's just my suspicion based upon seeing "domesticated" wolves and wolf hybrids.
This is pretty far afield from vegetarianism. I don't plan to eat my dog (although Native Americans did, and they were a lot closer to nature than we are). In fact, in the coming apocalypse, when push comes to food, she'll probably take me out first.
madmaxine
06-11-2006, 09:55 PM
Domesticated dogs & cats can revert to being feral (EX: Jack London's "Call of the Wild"). Of course, then they become disease bearers.....countries in Asia & Eastern Europe have to exterminate roving groups of feral dogs because they have maimed people, which is unacceptable.
PS The Chihuahua is a special breed of Northern Mexican desert dog, not some accident of selective breeding. In the wild they hunted in packs.
Today's newspaper cover story was about the local shelter & how they put down 15,000 animals a year because somewhere along the line, a human was not responsible. It was worse on the islands I lived on- the strays had nicknames like "boonie dogs/cats" & "satos" & spent short brutal lives starving in the jungle before they got hit by cars & or died from disease.
Life is about quality of time, not quantity of time. Every living creature dies....it is up to those with the ability to prevent needless suffering to do so....Mammals have infantile intelligence.
DancerWealth
06-11-2006, 10:08 PM
It'll be a partnership when my cat buys my food and cleans up my shit. Until then, he is a PET and I own him. That doesn't give me the right to mistreat him (although sometimes he mistreats me!), but we do not have an equal relationship.
...Couldn't have said it better myself. As much as I love my three dogs, they are pets and I own them. There is no mutual relationship whatsoever, and if I didn't own them or make a choice to own them, they'd be dead. It's just that simple. Again, as much as I love them like my kids, the reality is that they are property. While I cherish them infinitely more than I do my coffee table or my bookshelf, they are still property both philosophically, literally, and legally. They are not equal to humans as the fanatics in PETA would like people to believe. In all reality, if my house were burning down, I would rescue my wife long before I would rescue my dogs. I'm sure most people short of Ingrid Newkirk and her ilk would do the same when it came down to brass tacks. So if you're claiming that Fluffy is on the same level as your wife, boyfriend, mother, father, sister, brother, friend, etc., you're living in La La Land.
DancerWealth
06-11-2006, 10:12 PM
Domesticated dogs & cats can revert to being feral (EX: Jack London's "Call of the Wild").
This isn't always true. I can absolutely guarantee you that if my dogs were left without food and water they would be dead within 3 days. In fact, I don't think I know a single pet owner who could claim otherwise whether it be with cats or dogs. Even my friend who owns two ferrets often says that if left to their own devices, one of them would probably live for a week then die and the other would be dead in less than 3 days. There are some breeds of dogs that would go feral but it's not many and certainly most domesticated house cats would eventually starve to death if left on their own because they have never been taught by their parents to hunt and kill things. They just don't know how to do it right. My in-laws have three cats and they let them out supervised all the time. I've watched them hunt and none of them could catch a mouse or a bird if it had a net over it.
Yekhefah
06-11-2006, 10:23 PM
Right on, DW. I was an animal-rights activist and a vegetarian for over 12 years and I felt the same way then. They definitely deserve our love and respect, but they are pets, bottom line.
My cat was a wild barn cat for the first several years of his life, but he is now 16 and mostly toothless. If I set him free, he would most likely die in a fight. He loves to watch catfights out the window (we have a lot of cats in my complex), but when I leave the door wide open, he shows very little interest in going out. He knows where he's fed and protected. A cat wouldn't be very likely to make it to his age or stay so healthy when toothless in the wild. And he definitely wouldn't be able to snuggle in bed with me and purr comfortably when it's raining outside like he likes to do now. ;D
DancerWealth
06-11-2006, 10:34 PM
Right on, DW. I was an animal-rights activist and a vegetarian for over 12 years and I felt the same way then. They definitely deserve our love and respect, but they are pets, bottom line.
Well, it's like I said, I actually am an animal rights activist and sit on the board of directors of an animal rights organization and rescue...specifically for the rescuing of greyhounds off of racetracks and getting them into new homes. What's so funny about that is virtually every local, regional, national, and internation Greyhound rescue organization is anti-PETA. You would think they would desperately embrace PETA because of all the horrific stories that come out of greyhound racing. You know why they don't like PETA? Aside from the fact that they are too radical and affiliate themselves with domestic terrorists, they have never gotten any support from PETA for their cause? Why? Because PETA realizes that to take on that battle would require some actual effort on their part and probably not get them on the 11 o'clock news every night. See, showing up with protest signs at an animal testing facility gets them on the news. Protesting the March of Dimes or MDA gets them on the news and it's easy work. All they have to do is show up with some signs and scream and yell a bunch. Heck, that's easy. Or even giving financial support to people who teach seminars on bomb-making, that's easy work. Or having people doctor videos so they can destroy people's lives without any remorse, that's easy work. Now, actually getting off their butts and DOING something, well, that's a whole other ballgame, isn't it?! That's why I find it so fascinating that there are so many animal rights organizations out there that want nothing to do with PETA because where the rubber meets the road, PETA is their own worst enemy.
DancerWealth
06-11-2006, 10:41 PM
Ah, but wait, there's more!
In a 1992 report by the NCIB, National Charities Investigation Bureau, PETA spent 42% of its organizational expenses on fundraising. Only 20% on actual research and investigation in to animal cruelty.
More current reports examining PETA's tax filings have shown as little as 1% of PETA's total revenue actually goes directly to helping animals; usually small donations to animal clinics or similar organizations. PETA's 2001 tax filings show some interesting donations:
1. Compassion Unlimited Plus Action - Bangalore - Donation - $11.11
2. PETA Research & Education Foundations - Donations $29.16
3. In Defense of Animals - Donation $71.11
4. Virginia Police Defense Fund, Norfolk Police Union - Donation - $150
5. Society for Abolition of Animal Exploitation - Donation - $150
6. Kalamazoo Animal Liberation League - Donation - $150
7. Vieques Humane Society - Donation - $25
8. SNAP - Donation - $50,000
PETA's donations totaled only $206,655.58, but they had a total revenue of almost $14 Million.
PETA spent the following on
1. PETA TV - Expense - $13,268.84
2. Electronic equipment, computers, cameras - Expense- $33,869.24
3. Automobiles - Expense - $148,362.02
4. SNAP Vehicle - Expense - $150,000.00
5. Buildings and improvements - Expense - $295,101.60 (After a $195,000 donation of property)
6. Land - Expense - 94,170.00
Kinda makes you say, Hmmmmmmm?
Dottie Rebel
06-12-2006, 12:15 AM
Honestly I think it would be more cruel to just set all the domesticated animals free. They wouldnt know what to do. Sure, we can play the blame game for domestication to begin with, but that will do little good now. I dare say letting a poodle go into the wilderness would be a good idea. Sure, I've seen packs of wild dogs... I've seen stray cats... but as a whole, I dont think letting every dog, cat, bird, etc go would be wise. Many would not survive.
I wasn't aware that anyone was suggesting that someone should let a domesticated cat out the back door to go find her sweet freedom. NO ONE said that. Of course they wouldn't survive. Humans domesticated them and made them uttterly dependent upon us. I think that manipulation is a little fucked up. That's all. No one is wanting to "liberate" Fluffy.
This whole "what if all the dogs and cats were let loose" or "what if all the farms closed tomorrow" thing isn't even rational. Why bother worrying about such hypotheticals? This is my whole point: instead of these things, why not worry about real situations and circumstances--the reality we are currently dealing with.
For instance:
As I already said, imo the real crime is breeding more animals when there are plenty already here needing good homes. As long as there are domesticated animals here, good people should take them in. Where it goes wrong is when people get the idea to breed more for some unknown reason. Is it wrong for someone to live with and provide for a rescued dog or cat? No...call it owning, call it whatever you want. No one, including Ingrid NEwkirk, would say that is wrong.
Dottie Rebel
06-12-2006, 12:19 AM
In all reality, if my house were burning down, I would rescue my wife long before I would rescue my dogs. I'm sure most people short of Ingrid Newkirk and her ilk would do the same when it came down to brass tacks. So if you're claiming that Fluffy is on the same level as your wife, boyfriend, mother, father, sister, brother, friend, etc., you're living in La La Land.
I'm always surprised to hear this argument. Would a mother cat or dog not save her own young before saving someone else's? We all have such priorities, if you want to call them that, based on basic survival instincts. I really don't understand the logic of this at all.
Dottie Rebel
06-12-2006, 12:22 AM
You know why they don't like PETA? Aside from the fact that they are too radical and affiliate themselves with domestic terrorists, they have never gotten any support from PETA for their cause? Why? Because PETA realizes that to take on that battle would require some actual effort on their part and probably not get them on the 11 o'clock news every night. See, showing up with protest signs at an animal testing facility gets them on the news. Protesting the March of Dimes or MDA gets them on the news and it's easy work. All they have to do is show up with some signs and scream and yell a bunch. Heck, that's easy. Or even giving financial support to people who teach seminars on bomb-making, that's easy work. Or having people doctor videos so they can destroy people's lives without any remorse, that's easy work. Now, actually getting off their butts and DOING something, well, that's a whole other ballgame, isn't it?!
Can you tell me what action you and these groups are seeking out of PETA? You claim that PETA only does "easy" things like public relations campaigns (the same as any corporation would do), but that they don't "support" other groups by "getting off their butts." What does that mean exactly?
Dottie Rebel
06-12-2006, 12:30 AM
Ah, but wait, there's more!
In a 1992 report by the NCIB, National Charities Investigation Bureau, PETA spent 42% of its organizational expenses on fundraising. Only 20% on actual research and investigation in to animal cruelty.
More current reports examining PETA's tax filings have shown as little as 1% of PETA's total revenue actually goes directly to helping animals; usually small donations to animal clinics or similar organizations. PETA's 2001 tax filings show some interesting donations:
1. Compassion Unlimited Plus Action - Bangalore - Donation - $11.11
2. PETA Research & Education Foundations - Donations $29.16
3. In Defense of Animals - Donation $71.11
4. Virginia Police Defense Fund, Norfolk Police Union - Donation - $150
5. Society for Abolition of Animal Exploitation - Donation - $150
6. Kalamazoo Animal Liberation League - Donation - $150
7. Vieques Humane Society - Donation - $25
8. SNAP - Donation - $50,000
PETA's donations totaled only $206,655.58, but they had a total revenue of almost $14 Million.
PETA spent the following on
1. PETA TV - Expense - $13,268.84
2. Electronic equipment, computers, cameras - Expense- $33,869.24
3. Automobiles - Expense - $148,362.02
4. SNAP Vehicle - Expense - $150,000.00
5. Buildings and improvements - Expense - $295,101.60 (After a $195,000 donation of property)
6. Land - Expense - 94,170.00
Kinda makes you say, Hmmmmmmm?
I really don't understand this, at all. PETA is a PUBLIC RELATIONS ORGANIZATION. They are not a shelter, they are not a rescue. They are not in the business of collecting donations just to then disseminate those donations back to other groups that should be getting their own freaking donations--in other words, not a FOUNDATION.
They are trying to disseminate information to the public. Public.relations.
Every corporation has to have a building, for christ's sake. And automobiles. And for an organization whose whole mission is education, I think media expenses are pretty much a given.
And it's actually "SNIP", not SNAP. lol! SNIP is the local Norfolk PETA-run spay/neuter clinic, so I think you can go ahead and classify those expenses as direct help to the animals. Don't you?
DancerWealth
06-12-2006, 01:02 AM
Can you tell me what action you and these groups are seeking out of PETA? You claim that PETA only does "easy" things like public relations campaigns (the same as any corporation would do), but that they don't "support" other groups by "getting off their butts." What does that mean exactly?
Oh this is real easy to answer. Every year, we hear at least one or two major horror stories involving the torture and killing of racing greyhounds. To name a few...
- One kennel in Florida was caught taking greyhounds by the dozen out into the ocean and throwing them overboard alive. Greyhounds, especially racing greyhounds, have very low body fat and as a result are unable to swim because they can't float in the water. As a result, they all drown. At least the perpetrators of this crime are doing prison sentences. The reason the kennel did this was for the same reason they wouldn't adopt the dogs to homes who would take them in. The reason was because the dogs were so mistreated while there, that once they left the property the evidence against the abuse would be obvious. Such abuses include malnutrition, bad teeth from feeding the dogs raw meat, broken or dislocated toes that never were set or healed right as a result of turning at high speeds on the track, and broken bones that were never set properly. Oh, and this doesn't include the wounds from being beaten when they don't win races. See, racehorses are often treated really well when they aren't racing...greyhounds aren't so luckly. Years ago, the kennel owners would just shoot the dogs when they didn't win much or hit their mandatory retirement age of 5. Back when this was exposed to the public in the late 80s a lot changed and now most of the kennels give the dogs up for adoption but some do not. The ones who don't are typically the worst abusers of the dogs.
- We frequently hear stories in the southwest U.S. of huge piles of dead greyhounds left on the side of a road in the middle of nowhere. Generally, all the dogs have their ears cut off when they are found like this. The reason? They all receive a tatoo of an ID number in their ears which can identify which track or kennel they came from. No ears, no evidence. Usually these dogs are found with gunshot wounds to the head. Those are the lucky ones.
- But my alltime favorite greyhound horror story goes to one of the Kennels down in Tijauna, Mexico. The owner of a kennel down there was actually arrested (only after it hit the media by U.S. greyhound organizations) for animal cruelty. The crime? He said on camera that the bullets to shoot the dogs cost too much where he lived, so when the dogs were done racing he figured the easiest way to euthanize them was to starve them to death. You heard me right.
So, with such horrors going on all over the United States and around the world, you'd think PETA would get involved in some way? Not a chance. Not once has the largest animal rights organization ever gotten involved. See, it's a lot easier to throw a protest in front of Sizzler than it is to get involved with an issue that actually requires a little effort. I know for a fact that every major greyhound organization has pleaded to PETA for some form of assistance to help fight this fight whether it be financial, publicity, etc. Nope, zip, zero, nada from PETA. See, they would much rather have an "Adopt a Turkey on Thanksgiving" protest making themselves look like morons than actually do some good for animal rights for a change. But like I said, that actually requires a little elbow grease which PETA seems to want to avoid. Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for PETA to help the cause...they'd probably screw it all up and make the cause look stupid like they do with everything else they touch. No, I'm just pointing out the fact that this organization has a political agenda and that agenda is very far removed from anything involving actually helping animal rights.
PaigeDWinter
06-12-2006, 01:28 AM
^^^^ PETA tends to be all bark no bite. They spend more money and energy on making flyers and raising hell than actually going out and doing anything. They can knock down as many trees as they want to make flyers and books and signs about Wahhh The Poor Animals, but I'd really love to see PETA use their millions to buy land to put up a farm that shows the world how to raise products that PETA thinks are right. Or use their millions to start a company that discovers how to NOT need to test on animals. Put their money where their mouths are, and since their mouths are everywhere, this should prove to be good.