Also, they made this abomination: “Animals are people too”… people easier to kill legally apparently.
I'm a big supporter of animal welfare, and I consider PETA one of the worst things to happen to animal welfare support as a whole. Their shock-tactics and reliance on scandal regularly trivializes real animal welfare issues as the general public just starts tarring everything under the same brush ("made up stories purely for attention"). Their extremist vegan ideology does not help either - one which they cannot follow themselves properly.. if memory serves me correctly, isn't their CEO a diabetic who requires regular insulin injections? I could say more but Penn and Teller did a better (angrier) job of exposing PETA for what they really are (IMO). While they may not be the most "polite" of hosts they do seem have done some decent research -worth watching - Penn and Teller's BS Season 2 Episode 1 P.E.T.A Please feel free to correct me if they themselves turn out to be a bit BS
One of the main things that annoys me with the likes of PETA is that they don't seem to realise that not everyone has the same beliefs as them. I don't oppose what they're doing just as long as they do it without shoving down everyones throat.
Arrrgh, why does the ideology of the CE matter at all? The CE just runs the charity from a business perspective, the trustees are the ones who choose all those sorts of things such as ideology. Of course, it helps if the CE is interested in their work, but not essential. But yes, I even heard that they weren't even vegetarian.
Didn't the CEO help found PETA, so surely her beliefs must be pretty firm? In fact if you watch the Penn and Teller video it talks about it quite a lot, and about her belief that animals shouldnt be used for testing on, when she ignores the fact her insulin was done via that. She's not a CEO on just a business front, she helped found PETA and follows their beliefs.
Penn & Teller is absolutely awesome As a hunter myself I often get a lot of flag from not only vegans but also pretty much everyone else who has no idea of what hunting entails. I has always struck me that the (often) city folk who complains that hunting is torture/murder are often also the first to spray their homes or grab a newspaper at the sight of a spider.
Second. Also, just to nail my colours to the mast: I often kill animals for food (birds and small game), and I'm hugely conscientious about animal rights. I find unnecessary animal suffering disgusting, and I find the present systems of meat production very disturbing; pig treatment in Europe, in particular, is awful and (I think) a real moral problem given the neural sophistication of pigs. And I think the detachment of people from the processes that produce what they're eating, the Soylent Green level of insularization people enjoy from the realities of abattoirs even as they grab cheeseburgers and kebabs several times a week, says really unpleasant things about us as a society. In reality, then, I wish PETA did what it said on the tin and promoted discussion about and awareness of animal rights issues, because they are real issues and I would have sympathy with their intentions. But as Korvus says, they soil the entire issue with their bull**** and make it impossible to have mature discussions that don't intermittently derail with idiotic child-like arguments from sentiment. It's reached the point where I would be embarrassed to try and argue in favour of animal rights for fear of being mistaken for a PETA nutcase. It was still kind of mind-blowing to learn that PETA actually do this, though. I knew they were unhelpfully stupid and crass, but I didn't realise they were full-blown hypocrites and slaughterhouses.
The hypocrisy of animal rights activists is often never ending. There are so many holes in the idea of being a vegetarian especially those who want everyone to be a vegetarian. For example WTF happens to all the livestock? Do they live free from harm until old age? No they all need to be slaughtered so we can use the space to grow crops. Or those that don't believe in animal testing in medicine who I'm sure have never used any medicines in their lives... The same with self satisfied greenies. I suppose I'm saying I don't trust ideological fundamentalism.
PETA is absolutely terrible. Every single year they do all sorts of protests and lawsuits about the Iditarod (1,100 mile dogsled race), because they believe its cruel to animals. What they seem to fail to grasp is that the dogs absolutely LOVE running. With a passion that isn't all that easy to explain. They love running so much that the dogs that run the long distance marathons would be more than happy to run until their arms fall off. So generally the musher wears out long before the dogs ever do.
Dogs like that need to run and be exercised otherwise they aren't happy and end up anxious. I personally think it's cruel to have an unworked high spirited collie as a lot aren't remotely satisfied unless they have had 5+ hours of activity.
Is this a slang term because I've always used mentir. Is it only used in Portugal? I ask because I am still trying to master the language.
I'd just like to say that there is room in intelligent, pragmatic thought for environmentalism and animal rights concerns. They don't necessarily go hand-in-hand with irrational, emotivist nonsense. For instance, vegetarianism (although I too find it irritating in its idealistic forms) can be perfectly reasonable. You could propose eating all the currently existing livestock and then gradually reducing meat consumption and shifting society's diet to a more vegetarian approach over the course of many years, so that the economy and farmers have time to adjust without all suddenly going out of business or doing mad things to land prices. That would be sound, and doesn't require anthropomorphism or idealism; it can simply be for the quite good reason that meat is a very expensive, inefficient food source and that the human population's growth vs. a finite amount of land means that high-meat diets will eventually lead to food shortages and extortionate food prices. And environmentalism, I think, speaks for itself. It's often based on childish sentiment and aesthetics rather than the practical implications of climate change, but not always. I'm pretty utilitarian, and I like technological progress, but I still consider myself an environmentalist. I like how the environment currently allows human life, and I think that its continuing to do so should factor into how we choose to direct our civilization. That's not idealistic fundamentalism, it's just common sense.
I seem to remember that there was problems with going completely arable. I read a paper saying that because of the space required it was equally as problematic once we reach a certain point. Of course that paper was probably funded by a leading animal produce co. There was talk on the radio about how we should be eating insects soon. Back on to PETA, I can honestly say I've been living under a rock on this one. Never heard of them. Never seen a commercial for. http://www.peta.org.uk/ Their website definitely paints a different picture to this article. So if this article is true, it's a pretty hideous affair. All though I'd be inclined that the letters may be parody. Seems like it would be one way of telling the Police dept for instance that they are killing animals again for no reason.
There are several ways to say something, it is the same case here. If you are trying to master my language you can always check: http://www.priberam.pt/dlpo/default.aspx?pal=peta
It's also bullcrap (pardon the pun) if you think about it for a second. All those animals need to be fed. All that feed needs to be grown somewhere. Depending on the meat, it takes 6-17 times more land to generate a certain amount of meat than it would take to just generate the same amount of grain or vegetables. Vegetarianism is the most ecologically sustainable lifestyle, I'm afraid.
Maybe, I don't really know enough about it all. I certainly couldn't say one way or another myself. One of the things that came up in what I read a long time ago is how little we actually use of arable produce for ourselves. In the end the wastage was broken down fastest by animals not plants. So you're going to need them in the chain somewhere for your manure. The aim was to show there was a balance from what I remember of it and wastage. Literally been probably 3 years since I read the article/paper/whatever though(I think it was an article with link to full thing. I only remember because it was something that came up when I first started work). But I'd find it hard to speak with conviction any which way. Except that, whilst not adverse to vegetarianism, I like a bit of meat now and then. Chicken, white fish, prawn, tuna, beef, lamb, pork; I wouldn't want to do without forever. But anyway, an interesting discussion about it was on BBC Radio 4 the other day. According to this show we are at 70% maybe 80% capacity in terms of meat we can produce, probably higher. The only real answer was to cut down on consumption or substitute with insects. Also the guy advocated vegetarianism pretty strongly. Maybe meat should be a treat. Weekend food?
I think the figure is about 10-12 kg of grain for every kg of beef, heard it a few years back, and by all means if you really want to yes we could feed many million extra people if we all went vegan however all this extra food would not be used anyway as we are currently incapable of distributing the extra food we already produce. Looking world wide there are food production enough to feed everyone and we are even talking about 2-2500 calories a person a day however currently most of it gets waisted in the richer countries where we throw out insane amounts of food on a regular basis. So first we must find a way to distribute the food we currently have (who pays?) and then when the insane birth rates in Africa and Asia has resulted in famine once again we can start talking about having to cut down on meat production. Until that time however I am keeping my bacon.
