Page 3 of 4 [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

06 Feb 2011, 8:18 pm

mightypen515 wrote:
[Why say you'd love to see the research, yet not be willing to look for it?

I made the (apparently mistaken) assumption that you wouldn't be making a claim without having some resources to back it up, and I wanted to see where you were getting the idea from.
My best guess was that you were misreading a misrepresentation of actual science written by a journalist with no scientific background; asking you to show me the source of the claim was asking for a reason to give you the benefit of the doubt.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

06 Feb 2011, 8:19 pm

mightypen515 wrote:
As far as 300 million Americans go, plants take up a lot of more space than animals do.

Please.
Please.
Please tell me you're joking.
One of the most common motivators for adopting a plant based diet is for environmental reasons-
it takes many pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat,
grain that could be directly eaten as opposed to cycled through animals' bodies so that the priveleged few might feast on their flesh.
There's a general consensus within the green movement that a meat eating environmentalist is an oxymoron. The system is absurdly wasteful, toxic, and in no way sustainable. A UN report from a few years ago entitled Livestock's Long Shadow called modern day factory farming of animals one of the largest contributors to environmental destruction worldwide, from a local to a global level.
mightypen515 wrote:
Not everyone who wears cosmetics supports animal testing, but they participate by buying cosmetics.

The point was that not all cosmetics companies in fact test on animals.
mightypen515 wrote:
I don't know what a slipper slope fallacy is by definition, but I know it's related to debate tactics and am aware that it was just a snotty thing to say on your part. And I don't use debate tactics, as far as I'm aware, I just say what's on my mind, and TRY to make myself clear

.It was hardly snotty to point out an error in your logic. "If we allow civil rights activists to break segregation laws, it won't be long before they're murdering whites!" That was a very popular way of thinking a few decades ago, and it's identical to the point you made about direct-action AR activists participating in illegal activities.
mightypen515 wrote:
"Do not experience pain as we understand it" is disingenuous. That's the same excuse fishermen use to explain to other people how it is that he can skin it BEFORE he kills it. I've seen it action, heard them say the words, and seen the words not taken well and not believed, including by me, because nothing behaves like that unless it's in pain.

Oh, but the animals humans most commonly consume DO experience pain as we know it, empirically and analytically. Identical arguments are not identical if one is based on factual ignorance.
mightypen515 wrote:
"if they did, they lack a brain with which to consciously perceive it." It's the "if" part that makes people feel stronger about making statements like that (it's a "just in case" sort of thing).
How conscious does a thing have to be to perceive pain in a manner that would satisfy you?
Pain is pain, it freakin' hurts.

The "if" was a pure hypothetical following the true statement "plants lack a central nervous system". No guesswork needed.
mightypen515 wrote:
No I wouldn't stab a dog. Obviously. Are you crazy? I've had two dogs, both of which lived to ripe old ages before they broke my heart. probably wouldn't stab a potato; I can't think of a situation in which I would have to. But I'm likely to cut it up somehow, unless I want a baked potato, and then, I'll wrap it in foil.

So you admit you wouldn't hesitate to do things to a potato that you wouldn't dream of doing to a dog, and call me crazy for even suggesting it.
mightypen515 wrote:
As far as Asian whaler's wives go, often the family is very poor, they work insane long hours for little pay and when he goes out she knows she may not see him again (because people die at sea sometimes), it's a crappy way to live, yes I would want them brought to justice absolutely for maiming my husband. I would be much more concerned for my husband than I would be for the crocodile tears of some stranger.

There are also people in China who make a living by harvesting the organs of political dissidents- I guess since it's a country where most people live in poverty under a corrupt government, this is also justifiable.
mightypen515 wrote:
Banning whaling altogether, with full limitation and absolutely no whaling allowed, anywhere, by anyone, why can't anyone get that done? Because for the powers that be, it ain't morality, morality doesn't figure. The powers that be care about money. It's not okay for Asians to do it, but it is okay for Nordics to do it? Until whaling is banned altogether, whaling will continue.

Very true.
mightypen515 wrote:
I like steak. I like bacon, sausage, pork roast, salmon, cod, WHALE (just kidding, I wouldn't eat whale, but I do use it in lamps, just kidding there too). I also enjoy rice, lentils, beans, many vegetables and fruits and nuts. I don't place moral judgments on anti-meaties when they're not placing moral judgments on me.

That's intellectually disengenuous. Like someone saying "I don't judge people who don't rape babies, so long as they don't judge me for doing so." The two lifestyles are not in any way analogous ethically and so SHOULDN'T be accorded any type of libertarian "free-will" justification.
mightypen515 wrote:
if animal testing were made illegal, all the time, no matter what, no matter who, those scientists would have to find other jobs.

Yerp.
mightypen515 wrote:
Humans make laws. Laws should be abided or the non-abiders face punishment. Man's law ought to be respected, and it is man's responsibility to change the law when the law becomes ineffective, does not carry enough weight. It is man's responsibility to adjust the punishments as well. Make animal testing illegal - with very harsh sentences - and the problem is solved. Threatening letters is criminal, and so is bombing and harassment. I'm just saying, keep yourself out of damn jail while you're doing your good. There's plenty that can be done, and is being done, without committing crimes. If you're in jail, you can't do anything at all!

Human SOCIETIES make laws, and currently our society is controlled by megacorporations. That's capitalism.
Not giving your seat up to a white man used to be criminal.
Peaceful protest by Indians against British tyranny was criminal.
Destroying a shipment of tea as opposed to being forced to pay unfair prices for it was criminal.
Those actions changed our society, if not the world.
mightypen515 wrote:
Many people need to learn better eating habits, with or without meat.

Absolutely.
mightypen515 wrote:
There's plenty of ways food plants are grown in this country in ways I consider impractical, immoral and unjustifiable; and ways to raise and kill food animals in safe, humane, painless environments.

Let's say the latter is the case- that every animal enjoys a pain-free merciless death.
Why should an animal be sentenced to the death penalty, reserved in America for the most violent and dangerous people,
simply by virtue of being born non-human?


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

06 Feb 2011, 8:24 pm

mightypen515 wrote:
I'm not paternalistic


mightypen515 wrote:
I'm proud of her that she came in and said something.


lol :lol:


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

07 Feb 2011, 1:28 am

To the OP, I like Peta Butta!



mightypen515
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 143

07 Feb 2011, 8:08 am

Bethie wrote:
mightypen515 wrote:
As far as 300 million Americans go, plants take up a lot of more space than animals do.

Please.
Please.
Please tell me you're joking.
One of the most common motivators for adopting a plant based diet is for environmental reasons-
it takes many pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat,
grain that could be directly eaten as opposed to cycled through animals' bodies so that the priveleged few might feast on their flesh.
There's a general consensus within the green movement that a meat eating environmentalist is an oxymoron. The system is absurdly wasteful, toxic, and in no way sustainable. A UN report from a few years ago entitled Livestock's Long Shadow called modern day factory farming of animals one of the largest contributors to environmental destruction worldwide, from a local to a global level.
mightypen515 wrote:
Not everyone who wears cosmetics supports animal testing, but they participate by buying cosmetics.

The point was that not all cosmetics companies in fact test on animals.
mightypen515 wrote:
I don't know what a slipper slope fallacy is by definition, but I know it's related to debate tactics and am aware that it was just a snotty thing to say on your part. And I don't use debate tactics, as far as I'm aware, I just say what's on my mind, and TRY to make myself clear

.It was hardly snotty to point out an error in your logic. "If we allow civil rights activists to break segregation laws, it won't be long before they're murdering whites!" That was a very popular way of thinking a few decades ago, and it's identical to the point you made about direct-action AR activists participating in illegal activities.
mightypen515 wrote:
"Do not experience pain as we understand it" is disingenuous. That's the same excuse fishermen use to explain to other people how it is that he can skin it BEFORE he kills it. I've seen it action, heard them say the words, and seen the words not taken well and not believed, including by me, because nothing behaves like that unless it's in pain.

Oh, but the animals humans most commonly consume DO experience pain as we know it, empirically and analytically. Identical arguments are not identical if one is based on factual ignorance.
mightypen515 wrote:
"if they did, they lack a brain with which to consciously perceive it." It's the "if" part that makes people feel stronger about making statements like that (it's a "just in case" sort of thing).
How conscious does a thing have to be to perceive pain in a manner that would satisfy you?
Pain is pain, it freakin' hurts.

The "if" was a pure hypothetical following the true statement "plants lack a central nervous system". No guesswork needed.
mightypen515 wrote:
No I wouldn't stab a dog. Obviously. Are you crazy? I've had two dogs, both of which lived to ripe old ages before they broke my heart. probably wouldn't stab a potato; I can't think of a situation in which I would have to. But I'm likely to cut it up somehow, unless I want a baked potato, and then, I'll wrap it in foil.

So you admit you wouldn't hesitate to do things to a potato that you wouldn't dream of doing to a dog, and call me crazy for even suggesting it.
mightypen515 wrote:
As far as Asian whaler's wives go, often the family is very poor, they work insane long hours for little pay and when he goes out she knows she may not see him again (because people die at sea sometimes), it's a crappy way to live, yes I would want them brought to justice absolutely for maiming my husband. I would be much more concerned for my husband than I would be for the crocodile tears of some stranger.

There are also people in China who make a living by harvesting the organs of political dissidents- I guess since it's a country where most people live in poverty under a corrupt government, this is also justifiable.
mightypen515 wrote:
Banning whaling altogether, with full limitation and absolutely no whaling allowed, anywhere, by anyone, why can't anyone get that done? Because for the powers that be, it ain't morality, morality doesn't figure. The powers that be care about money. It's not okay for Asians to do it, but it is okay for Nordics to do it? Until whaling is banned altogether, whaling will continue.

Very true.
mightypen515 wrote:
I like steak. I like bacon, sausage, pork roast, salmon, cod, WHALE (just kidding, I wouldn't eat whale, but I do use it in lamps, just kidding there too). I also enjoy rice, lentils, beans, many vegetables and fruits and nuts. I don't place moral judgments on anti-meaties when they're not placing moral judgments on me.

That's intellectually disengenuous. Like someone saying "I don't judge people who don't rape babies, so long as they don't judge me for doing so." The two lifestyles are not in any way analogous ethically and so SHOULDN'T be accorded any type of libertarian "free-will" justification.
mightypen515 wrote:
if animal testing were made illegal, all the time, no matter what, no matter who, those scientists would have to find other jobs.

Yerp.
mightypen515 wrote:
Humans make laws. Laws should be abided or the non-abiders face punishment. Man's law ought to be respected, and it is man's responsibility to change the law when the law becomes ineffective, does not carry enough weight. It is man's responsibility to adjust the punishments as well. Make animal testing illegal - with very harsh sentences - and the problem is solved. Threatening letters is criminal, and so is bombing and harassment. I'm just saying, keep yourself out of damn jail while you're doing your good. There's plenty that can be done, and is being done, without committing crimes. If you're in jail, you can't do anything at all!

Human SOCIETIES make laws, and currently our society is controlled by megacorporations. That's capitalism.
Not giving your seat up to a white man used to be criminal.
Peaceful protest by Indians against British tyranny was criminal.
Destroying a shipment of tea as opposed to being forced to pay unfair prices for it was criminal.
Those actions changed our society, if not the world.
mightypen515 wrote:
Many people need to learn better eating habits, with or without meat.

Absolutely.
mightypen515 wrote:
There's plenty of ways food plants are grown in this country in ways I consider impractical, immoral and unjustifiable; and ways to raise and kill food animals in safe, humane, painless environments.

Let's say the latter is the case- that every animal enjoys a pain-free merciless death.
Why should an animal be sentenced to the death penalty, reserved in America for the most violent and dangerous people,
simply by virtue of being born non-human?


Well, ma'am, all I can say to you at this point is...try to feel better.



doeintheheadlights
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 136
Location: Cornwall, UK

07 Feb 2011, 9:03 am

danandlouie wrote:
to writer MCALAVERA.......peta certainly kills animals. i'm a supporter of animal rights and i've killed animals. all depends on the context. silly humans like you don't really care about animals, so you just say anything to fit in with the macho crowd on w.p.

when you're faced with a situation that kills your soul, where a cat or dog has been burned and beaten nearly to death and there's zero chance for recovery, i choose and peta chooses to put the animal down, not prolong the pain and agony that you seem to advocate. uncountable. the ways humans torture and abuse animals, many times just for fun. uncountable.

approximately 5 million dogs and cats will be killed in usa animal shelters this year. no homes for them, no one to take care of them. let me head some of you off, no-kill shelters also kill, or they only take in the best that are offered to them, generally 1 per cent. they turn away the other 99 per cent that need help.

peta will take the worst abuse cases, the ones who are desperate. they work hard to save the ones they can and the rest will be killed. IT'S A MERCY ACT. just how stupid are you not to realize this....oh, i forgot, you probably like to watch animals suffer till they die. a thought......are you really michael vick? that would explain your attitude.

many other animal rights groups.....in defense of animals, last chance for animals, farm sanctuary take on those who like to abuse animals. why the writers on wrong planet just condemn peta means they are such followers that when someone mentioned peta a long time ago that's what they stuck with. don't care about the truth. it's just good to be a follower. how shameful for you. i would like to help you. maybe we could meet. i would certainly enjoy that.
j f c.....it's so sad there's not a convention of some sort for wrong planet.


There's a huge difference between someone who supports animal rights and someone who supports PETA. Yes, everyone probably takes some part in killing animals whether they want to or not, but PETA kills something like 99% of the animals they rescue. 99% of their animals, and they tried to keep it hush hush, there was no explanation from them or no facts telling exactly why they had to euthanise these animals, it was just that "it was for the animals own good". Coming from an organisation who believes that animals shouldn't even be kept as pets, and that guide dogs are mistreated and kept as slaves, I don't really trust that they have a good understanding of what's in an animals's best interest. You say it's a mercy act that PETA does, then please give me some evidence to suggest this. I want actual facts about these animals that PETA killed, not just what PETA says. They're notorious for lying.

Basically all PETA's interested in is publicity and making money. They do little if any good for the animals, because people don't want to hear that they're horrible animals killers if they don't go vegan or if they choose to wear leather or support animal testing. Animal rights isn't as black and white as that, and to to truly make a different they need to actually sit down with companies and let people know what small things they can do that won't have a huge effect on their lifestyle that will benefit anima's lives. Like only eating meat from local farmers or buying cosmetic products that don't test on animals. But instead they choose to do ridiculous protests and tell people that keeping dogs as house pets is cruel, so in turn people automatically think that PETA=animal rights=insane tree huggers who care more about animals' lives than people's, and so they totally shut down any attempts to support animal welfare.

I'm a vegetarian who doesn't support killing animals, animal testing, or any mistreatment of animals, and for that reason I would never in a million years support the PETA organisation. There are better animal rights organisations out there who sadly no one knows about because of PETA, and it's them that people should be supporting instead.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

08 Feb 2011, 2:13 am

Somebody gets it. Good post.



danandlouie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 796
Location: rainbow bridge

09 Feb 2011, 12:10 am



Last edited by danandlouie on 11 Feb 2011, 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

09 Feb 2011, 1:49 am

I love my dog. My dog loves me. No way in hell can any PETA f****r separate us from each other. Take your terrorist attacks somewhere in outer space. Otherwise, I'll get my dog to bite each of your asses off, lol.



Zeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 925

09 Feb 2011, 2:27 am

I agree with PETA to a point. I think pets, so long as they're treated well, are fine because they get food, company and a better lifestyle. Some things however are good, like stopping the Chinese skinning animals alive!



doeintheheadlights
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 136
Location: Cornwall, UK

09 Feb 2011, 12:05 pm

danandlouie wrote:
the companies that try to destroy peta support many web sites for that purpose. because everything you wrote is just silly, i assume that is where you obtain information....doeinthe headlights. the national rifle association and big business, such as tyson foods support things like center for consumer freedom. must be your favorite web site.

peta doesn't operate a regular animal shelter like the ones where someone would take a litter of kittens they did not want. . i've worked with peta on puppy mill busts and i've been to virginia and talked with the pres., ingrid newkirk. she lives in a one bedroom apt and works 12-14 hour days, every day to help animals. takes one tenth the salary the head of the humane society of the us takes. almost every dollar goes into the message and helping animals. 99%, what a meaningless figure, but then again, what do you know about it. NOTHING. i've had days where we've had to put down every animal that came through the door. are you one of the clowns who think animals who are hurt too severely or too ill to live should be kept alive without any hope of recovery. that's pathetic.

the only reason you read so much about peta is because they are hurting big business. you don't hear about other animal rights groups because they do not cause problems for those who hate animals, like your gay lover from australia. you did send your prisoners to australia, didn't you? explains why it's such a terrible place for animals.

i quit a really good job so i could help animals. 16 years now. almost 20,000 hours of volunteer work. i've been assaulted, shot at and had my car vandalized by people who abuse animals. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO QUESTION ME. what have you done to help animals? complain about people who have helped animals, that's what you do. wow, aren't you special.

peta does silly things. that is to get their name in the news so they can get publicity for the horror of fur farms, for zoo animals, for koreans beating dogs to death, etc.

do you think, doekid, that if peta disappeared that some other group would step in? wrong.wrong.wrong. it takes drastic action to get attention for animals. in the usa congress, most of the members have been bought by the nra and the food industry. animals come last. no member of congress will stand up for animals. right at this moment, wild horses in nevada are being round up to be sold for as little as 100 dollars and will be shipped to slaughterhouses in canada and mexico. why? so the land , federally owned, can be used by cattle ranchers for free. the only way to get anyone's attention is to do outrageous things and peta is good at that.

jesus, it's really sad to know you can be duped by things like the australian kangaroo killer. i feel sorry for you.
if you want to call me names, you'll have to pm me. i might log in again, maybe not. i'm not coming back to this forum, it's painful to know there are so many human things on wrong planet that do not really care if animals are tortured or not.


Sorry but your entire post just validates what I said about PETA and why no one takes them seriously. If you want to have a conversation with me about PETA and their practices, please do so in a rational, grown up manner.



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

11 Feb 2011, 1:11 am

I think a lot of ther practices industrial farming is involved in is very unethical, like the way they bore a hole directly into the rumen of a conscious cow and stuff it with corn, since its something they don't naturally eat but is economical because of how heavily subsidized the cereal crop is from the corn lobby. The way they excessively use anti-biotics to make up for the unsanitary conditions of those cattle pins in those massive warehouses is probably heavily responsible for all the anti-biotic resistence that's developed. I think it was much better for animals and people when most meat came from local, family farms. The animals were allowed to live out relatively free lives outside of claustrophobic, cramped pins, and the wealth wasn't as concentrated in the hands of industry.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

11 Feb 2011, 1:52 am

FFS, I'm a vegetarian but I know that that's BS. You don't have to 'bore a hole' in a cow to get it to eat corn, any more than you have to bore a hole in a human to get it to eat nothing but hamburgers (and diets of nothing but hamburgers are about as unnatural to humans as a diet of nothing but corn is to a cow).
There are plenty of legitimately disgusting, immoral things that the factory farm industry does that we can cite, without having to make s**t up.



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

11 Feb 2011, 1:56 am

LKL wrote:
FFS, I'm a vegetarian but I know that that's BS. You don't have to 'bore a hole' in a cow to get it to eat corn, any more than you have to bore a hole in a human to get it to eat nothing but hamburgers (and diets of nothing but hamburgers are about as unnatural to humans as a diet of nothing but corn is to a cow).
There are plenty of legitimately disgusting, immoral things that the factory farm industry does that we can cite, without having to make sh** up.


I didn't make that up yo. I saw it on Food Inc. Maybe they don't do it to all of them, but they probably do it for efficeincy. I saw it on the documentary, and I'm not making anything up. I technically believe what I'm saying. Rent it and see for yourself. Its on netflix.

No, but I'm really the pro-anmal rights propaganda minister spreading lies to manipulate the truth. muahahahahahahaha.

No, but really, I believe there is some legitimacy to what I'm saying. I wish I could find the clip from the film.



Last edited by JNathanK on 11 Feb 2011, 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

11 Feb 2011, 2:08 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG9bQZgl5UI[/youtube]

Here's to prove I'm not bullshitting anybody. Jump to 2:33. It shows exactly what I was talking about. I've honestly never been around a farm, so I have no idea what a cow eats. However, this dude is probably stuffing this cows rumen with corn for some efficiency reason. Its a university, so they may just be devloping some new method where the cow i fed directly through the rumen. I'd like to find out more about it actually.



Last edited by JNathanK on 11 Feb 2011, 2:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

11 Feb 2011, 2:09 am

http://www.flickr.com/photos/trish/44089909/
http://www.life.com/image/72685046
Image

edit: I think that the cow in your clip was a research cow, not a CAFO cow.