PETA has named 5 Orca Whales as Plantiffs in a lawsuit... .. Yes, they really are THAT stupid

[Sami]

What's sad is this is all they've got though. If they don't completely blow everything out of proportion and make a spectacle of themselves, no-one cares.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Dissident

[Mollfie]

I pefer the latter, Animals rights alot of it is BS and unrealistic IMO. Because a lot put the rights of animals in front of humans.

So much so that some animal rights activists dug up the grave of Scientists Mother, I shit you not, just to get at him because he works using animals for research.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Mollfie

[Stacy]

That's because I, and many others, don't believe in PETA's goal. I don't think animals deserve the rights of human beings and I believe there is a clear distinction between us and them. PETA being more and more ridiculous with each consecutive stunt isn't going to make me stop eating meat.

I'm sure I'm not the only one with this mindset.

[Legendary Emerald]

Not sure if this is really on topic or not, but here's my thoughts on PETA and all the animal rights stuff.

Animals shouldn't have the same exact same rights as humans. Not because we are different then them in any major ways (though we are in at least a few), but because we are humans and they are not. Why shouldn't the human race take priority? We can't ignore our own survival instincts. Every dollar that goes towards helping animals would be better spent on human needs, even if humans don't "deserve" it because "we fuck everything up boohoo we suck".

I love animals... possibly more than most people. But I'll always have my species' back, because at least we have the power to actually change everything for the better... if we ever get around to it. Not going to see a whale end world hunger anytime soon... unless humans learn to clone whales and make them taste like chicken.

Brb, joining scientific field right now to make that a reality.

Amendment: Ponies should be given full human rights, provided they are capable of language, flight, magic, and/or applebucking.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Legendary Emerald

[Stacy]

Jez Mollfie don't get me wrong I have nothing againist your personal choice, you have that right to choose what you want to eat. You know?

[Sami]

But that's just extremists and you get people like that in all walks of life.

The vast majority of animal rights activists are perfectly lovely, sane people. I have friends who are animal rights activists, some lean more to the extreme side and some are very average. The thing is that if you really, truly care and devote yourself to something you will do crazy things because you think it's right. People die defending animals rights, they are willing to put their lives on the line in the hope of saving the life of something they love.

I think a lot of people find it hard to wrap their head around the idea of animals being our equals, that's fine but I wish it could be discussed civilly.

It's hard to view animal rights activists as sane, reasonable people when the message they're fighting to spread is that I'm a miserable, immoral human being for being at the top of the food chain.

I love beef, I love chicken, I love shrimp, I love octopus, and so on. And you know what? I'll fight just as vehemently for my right to eat them as they will for their message.

But I digress. Regarding the actual topic:

I believe that we are superior beings to animals due to our higher level of thinking, and they do not. Disregarding the fact that I highly doubt I'll ever change my mind, stupid stunts like this certainly aren't the right path to take.

[JezMM]

Why shouldn't the human race take priority? We can't ignore our own survival instincts. Every dollar that goes towards helping animals would be better spent on human needs, even if humans don't "deserve" it because "we fuck everything up boohoo we suck".

I love animals... possibly more than most people. But I'll always have my species' back, because at least we have the power to actually change everything for the better... if we ever get around to it. Not going to see a whale end world hunger anytime soon... unless humans learn to clone whales and make them taste like chicken.

Oh really?

http://teachvegetari.../feed-the-world

Feed the World

Over 950 million people in the world go hungry.

One child dies every five seconds of hunger-related causes.

This is because one third of the world's grain production is fed to farmed animals in rich countries.

It takes about 10kg of good quality plant protein – such as wheat and soya – to produce 1kg of meat protein.

The amount of vegetable protein fed to the US beef herd would feed almost the entire populations of India and China.

Most of the UK’s animal feed protein concentrates come from poor countries – often those where children die from starvation.

If Britain went vegetarian, less than half the farm land would be needed - vegan, less than a quarter!

If everybody ate a meat based diet, the kind that a lot of people in America and Britain eat today – you couldn’t even feed half of the world’s population. Yet if everybody became a vegetarian, you could feed the whole world and more.

It is estimated that 40 million tonnes of grain would be needed to end world hunger. This sounds like a lot, but 540 million tonnes of grain are fed to animals in the West!

Questions about 'Feed the world'

Q: How much of the world’s grain is fed to farmed animals?

A: One third

Q: How many kg of good quality plant protein does it take to produce 1kg of meat protein?

A: 10kg

Q: If everybody ate a vegetarian diet, would there be enough food for everybody?

A: Yes!

Q: How many tonnes of grain would be needed to end world hunger?

A: 40 million

Q: How many tonnes of grain are fed to animals in the West?

A: 540 million

...So, yes.

Edited February 9, 2012 by JezMM

[Jeffhog]

Can we just talk about PETA for a sec and not pick on each other over eating habits/beliefs?

...guys?

[JezMM]

Can we just talk about PETA for a sec and not pick on each other over eating habits/beliefs?

...guys?

I think we've all concluded that PETA are dumb. The discussion has moved onto whether there's any sense in PETA's core values really, it's still linked.

Edited February 9, 2012 by JezMM

[Stacy]

PETA in a nutshell!

[pooshoes]

Oh really?

http://teachvegetari.../feed-the-world

...So, yes.

It must be nice to live in the lovely fantasy land you clearly inhabit, where nothing bad ever seems to happen. The idea that world hunger would be ended by a mere 40M tonnes of grain (which, according to that article, is a minuscule percentage of world grain production), is laughable. If that was the case, world hunger would have never existed. There is clearly something else at work here, but you seem to be so blinded by your vegan agenda, you are either unwilling or incapable of seeing it.

Edited February 9, 2012 by pooshoes

[Jeffhog]

I imagine that it's about to get ugly here, isn't it. o.o"

[Solkia]

I imagine that it's about to get ugly here, isn't it. o.o"

It's a PETA thread. it got ugly the second it made it to the second post.

[Jeffhog]

Good point. Though things are slowly going from PETA towards personal matters...

[JezMM]

It must be nice to live in the lovely fantasy land you clearly inhabit, where nothing bad ever seems to happen. The idea that world hunger would be ended by a mere 40M tonnes of grain (which, according to that article, is a minuscule percentage of world grain production), is laughable. If that was the case, world hunger would have never existed. There is clearly something else at work here, but you seem to be so blinded by your vegan agenda, you are either unwilling or incapable of seeing it.

I'm totally happy to concede if the appropriate research has been done, but thus far I've only ever seen articles for the idea rather than against it.

EDIT: Just did a quick google and dug up this article which brings up a lot of good points: http://www.dogstreet....com/story/2361

The Trouble with Vegetarianism

Feb. 17, 2005 | By Jen Steffensen, DSJ Staff Reporter

It seems the more we learn, the more there is to feel guilty about. Everywhere you turn, someone is trying to condemn you for the bad choices you're making. Stop drinking. Stop having sex. Stop driving an SUV. Stop using Styrofoam. Stop eating meat.

Wait�"what's so wrong with eating meat? In case you missed the bandwagon leap from yoga to vegetarianism, we meat-eaters are tree-hating, animal murderers who are spreading world hunger and bad toxins faster than we can say KFC. Watch out hamburger aficionados. The karma police are coming for you.

For too long, the vegans and vegetarians have claimed the moral high ground with their poor-imitation boca burgers and those nasty vegan cookies while my fellow omnivores shrug off their big fat turkey club sandwiches, silently accepting their apparent moral deficiency.

Many a conscientious vegetarian, when asked why they gave up meat, will cite a laundry list of benefits longer than the ways they can prepare tofu. Every day they choose the bean over the beef taco, they are solving world hunger, replenishing the earth's soil, preventing cruel animal torture and slaughter, and building towards an all-around healthier and happier Earth.

Unfortunately for the sake of my token conservative rant, I agree with the vegetarians on a lot more than the benefits of soy. Actually, most of their concerns strike me as kind-hearted and principled, just simplistic and off-target.

First off, my Mother Theresas, sorry, but you're not going to end world hunger by giving up meat. Although some vegetarians complain that our livestock are eating up perfectly nutritious food that could be fed to starving people in Somalia, in reality, over two-thirds of the feed given to these animals is unsuitable for human consumption. Think mad cow disease�"cows eating ground cow brain (ok, now there's a real reason not to eat meat.)

The problem is not a shortage of food. There's actually more than enough food to feed all the world's citizens. The problem is widespread poverty and all the complex economic and political institutions that create a world with 3 out of every 10 people (1.3 billion) surviving on less than one dollar a day. Wouldn't it be nice if choosing vegetarianism meant all the extra grain you were not consuming would be charitably donated to one of those poor children in those sad black and white commercials? Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. You've known this since you were six. "But Mom, even if I finish my brussels sprouts, it's not going to help the starving people in China." Mom never had a good comeback for that one.

Gandhi, one of the world's most famous vegetarians, is often quoted stating, "We must be the change we wish to see." That's a really great quote. Unfortunately, this is one time when it just doesn't hold true. Sorry, your vegetarian diet won't end world huger and it also won't save the environment. Actually, Captain Planet could tell you that it might have a reverse effect. A mass shift towards vegetarianism would cause the demand for meat to plummet, leading to a mass exodus from farming. Total grain production would thus drop and small farmers would be forced to sell their land to developers, resulting in a loss of coveted green space, not the regrowth of the rain forest or whatever else the farms have destroyed.

Furthermore, livestock offer services to man and the environment beyond their meat. Of note, their manure is essential for healthy soil, and in many countries, dried manure is a source of fuel and energy. By cutting out livestock from farming, agricultural systems would simply turn to heavier use of agrochemicals, pesticides, and artificial fertilizers. Perhaps the most eco-friendly farming style is the mixed farm which integrates the cultivation of fruits, vegetables, and grains with the raising of livestock, allowing nature to help care for itself.

Regarding the cruel treatment of animals, the filthy, overcrowded hen houses and pig farms, the imprisonment of baby cows, the debeaking of chickens: there is no excuse for this. However, even in this instance, the real problem is not the consumption of meat, it is the corrupt practices of the meatpacking industry, and their unchecked power. However, there are more direct ways to address this problem than wholly abstaining from meat. You could promote healthy farming practices by supporting local farmers who don't abuse their animals and shopping at their farmers' markets. You could buy certified organic meat. You could boycott food chains with known animal abuse violations. You could join or donate to animal rights organizations or lobby Congress against the inhumane treatment of animals.

Still, some are opposed to eating meat even if the animals are treated humanely due to religious or personal attitudes regarding the nature of life and animals. I have little qualification to validate or invalidate the ethics of such a decision. However, this principle seems difficult to apply consistently. Is it murder to spray raid over an army of ants invading your dorm room? Will you patronize the new shopping mall in your town, a development that involved the clearing of forest and consequent death of hundreds of woodland animals? Would you deny your Grandmother medicine that was tested by lab rats? How about lab monkeys? Where does one draw the line? Even eating a bowl of Uncle Ben's white rice doesn't free you from the blame of supporting animal cruelty and “murder.” Remember, vegetable and grain farming also involves the clearing of land and relocation or death of many furry and feathery friends.

I'm not saying there are no good reasons to be a vegan or vegetarian. I'd just like to cut their egos down to the size of their celery sticks and remind them that mass vegetarianism is not the panacea for all the world's problems. The real problems that many conscientious vegetarians are trying to address (those that aren't doing it to be trendy) are complex and wound tight around the clout of US agribusinesses. If all the world was vegetarian, take it as a guarantee, big business will still be operating under the same unethical, socially and environmentally unjust practices. Instead of exploiting animals, the agribusiness would exploit the land via monoculture agriculture specializing in cash crops, draining the soil of its nutrients and relying heavily on pesticides and agrochemicals to pick up the slack. A billion or more will continue to go hungry as explained above, and soon enough there will be organizations for the ethical treatment of fruit. As consumers, we are victims every day to many cost-cutting production practices that should horrify anyone who cares about social and environmental justice. The trouble with vegetarianism is that it's not the real solution.

Jen Steffensen is a staff columnist for the DSJ. Her views do not necessarily represent those of the entire staff.

What's sad is most of the time I actually take the middle ground and would rather just encourage people to buy their meat and animal products from more humane sources like this article suggests. But people are too lazy to even do that because it's too much of a hassle or too expensive, etc.

Of course I still stand by the general "too late" opinion that if our society's food intake wasn't so centered around meat in the first place, there would be none of these problems to go wrong by the world turning vegetarian tomorrow, but alas.

Edited February 9, 2012 by JezMM

[Stacy]

Another biased article. Everybody all being Vegan or Vegetratian wouldn't slove a damn thing there will still be, arseholes, war, famine, poverty, world hunger.

[JezMM]

Another biased article. Everybody all being Vegan or Vegetratian wouldn't slove a damn thing there will still be, arseholes, war, famine, poverty, world hunger.

What the hell does that have to do with anything said here?

And yes, sorry for the biased article. Next time I'll get an article promoting vegetarianism that also doesn't promote it. That makes perfect sense.

EDIT: Oi, and I promised myself I wouldn't stoop to sarcasm in this thread. I apologise.

Edited February 9, 2012 by JezMM

[Stacy]

What the hell does that have to do with anything said here?

And yes, sorry for the biased article. Next time I'll get an article promoting vegetarianism that also doesn't promote it. That makes perfect sense.

EDIT: Oi, and I promised myself I wouldn't stoop to sarcasm in this thread. I apologise.

Er, Famine, poverty and war etc can cause world hunger, taking meat out would do very little.

[JezMM]

Er, Famine, poverty and war etc can cause world hunger, taking meat out would do very little.

[Stacy]

Interesting you say that, because due to rationing a lot of people (at least in the UK) were pretty much forced to live as vegans to get the best amount of food, and they ended up healthier for it. Not entirely relevant, just an interesting tidbit.

But point is, I never claimed vegetarianism WOULD solve all the problems in the world. Just y'know, it'd be nice. I kinda like animals in case you hadn't guessed.

[JezMM]

I didn't mean all world problems, World Hunger wouldn't not be solved by getting rid of meat, because it always be there.

Vegans? they still had meat just not everyday, I don't have meat everday, I have what is called a balanced diet I am sure many others here are same, I eat meat doesn't I have everyday my meat even makes a veggie meal now and again.

You would hate army back in the 80's my dad had a friend who was vegetarian, they wasn't much choice back so ended eat meat again (he could of left I know but he needed it phsyically), hell my dad ate a snake as part of his training.

Hilter was a vegetarian, ironically.

Edited February 9, 2012 by JezMM

[pooshoes]

Hilter was a vegetarian, ironically.

Edited February 9, 2012 by pooshoes

[Sami]

I didn't mean all world problems, World Hunger wouldn't not be solved by getting rid of meat, because it always be there.

Vegans? they still had meat just not everyday, I don't have meat everday, I have what is called a balanced diet I am sure many others here are same, I eat meat doesn't I have everyday my meat even makes a veggie meal now and again.

You would hate army back in the 80's my dad had a friend who was vegetarian, they wasn't much choice back so ended eat meat again (he could of left I know but he needed it phsyically), hell my dad ate a snake as part of his training.

Hilter was a vegetarian, ironically.

[JezMM]

Oh lol, you did not just say the Guardian is neutral. Good grief.

Well it's not coming from a vegetarian site, is my point, lol.

Damn, new page... I also included a couple of relevant comments in that post if anyone missed them.

Edited February 9, 2012 by JezMM

[Milo]

Seriously guys......

Anyway, has anyone looked at the News section at Google when you search PETA? Like seriously, just go do it.

It's like they condemn or file a lawsuit at something/someone every six hours or so.

^ Sorry for the quality, I used Windows 7's Snipping Tool.

OK, I'm starting to see what you guys mean when you say PETA is a bunch of attention whores.