THis woman is a fool and is doing nothing for the protection of animals - I Am an Animal: The Story of Ingrid Newkirk and PETA (2007) Discussion

[–] hbettis_qzar 16 years ago

WQhat is the "practical use of animals"? Skinning them alive so that you can have a nice coat or shoes while you throw their bodies into a pile of other animals to let them slowly die? Is that practical? Why does slaughtering an animal for food have to be cruel?

reply

[–] trompos 16 years ago

The use of animals for food is practical and I don't recall saying that killing animals for food HAD to be cruel you moron, reread what I said. The use of animal skins for clothing that is cheaper to produce and more durable than synthetic materials. Most leather goods come from animals that are going to be consumed. More often than not leather is made from cow hide cows that are used to make beef. The use of animals for food and products is a part of life, people like you need to come to terms with that and focus your efforts at stopping things that atre not necessary and cruel, rather than things that are not inherently cruel.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

Ingrid is truly an idiot. There is no doubt of that. Animal cruelty is wrong, but PETA is rarely right. PETA is a bunch of misguided fools wasting a lot of money on some pretty feeble things.

reply

[–] trompos 16 years ago

Exactly my point. But here's an organization that has the name, has the money, has the media attention to do some real good for animals who are being abused. THey could take their money to house animals. THey could stop doing stupid documentaries on grey hounds and actually rescue them and house them and care for them. THey could care for race horses, buy lab animals, instead they choose to waste time and money on shocking people.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

And so could the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS, since I'm not sure if they even have any affiliation with local Humane Societies). An equally worthless and corrupt organization that raises money using strays it later kills. It also now medles with wildlife for some reason.

And PETA is the most hypocritical organization I can think of. That isn't a government organization.

reply

[–] punkypower 16 years ago

Leaving the whole Ingrid thing aside, I felt I had to respond to the first sentence. There are plenty of options for protein. I'm a vegan, and am healthier now then when I was an omni.

The only nutrient we cannot get from a vegan diet is B12. Luckily, there are tons of supplements out there.

Also, I'll have to find the chart that compares our face and dental structures to herbivores, omnivores and carnivores. Suprisingly enough, we are closest to herbivores.

reply

[–] trompos 16 years ago

I don't care what your research shows. EVERY vegan I've known has been pale, pastey, and speaking of teeth, they have some of the yellowish and most broken down calcium depleted teeth I've ever seen. It's not just B 12 we get from meat, but also several amino acids not present in vegetables.

"The quality of protein depends on the level at which it provides the nutritional amounts of essential amino acids needed for overall body health, maintenance, and growth. Animal proteins, such as eggs, cheese, milk, meat, and fish, are considered high-quality, or complete, proteins because they provide sufficient amounts of the essential amino acids. Plant proteins, such as grain, corn, nuts, vegetables and fruits, are lower-quality, or incomplete, proteins because many plant proteins lack one or more of the essential amino acids, or because they lack a proper balance of amino acids."

source: http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/Pre-Sma/Protein.html

The very fact that you need synthetic supplementation in order to get the vitamins you need instead of from natural food tells me that the natural human diet needs animal protein. I could live off of food replacement shakes but that wouldn't be the healthiest diet would it? Look at your teeth, we have k-9s and sharpened molars for a reason, we're carnivorous animals.

People like you love animals. You think it's wrong to kill animals even for food, right? Yet many of these very animals eat OTHER ANIMALS. So I guess PETA and vegans should shone dogs, and foxes, and other carnivores. PETA should have a terror campaign targeting these flesh eating beasts too.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] punkypower 16 years ago

You know, I stopped reading after your first paragraph of the reply.

If you can't be respectful, why should I even bother reading your reply? I was not rude in my response, simply giving you another point of view.

"Free your mind, and your ass will follow."

To the more civilized poster below, gkpete, I do not support PETA. I will not bash them, because they do more for animals than most people/organizations, but I find them hypocritical on many issues. I simply felt I needed to respond to the very angry trompos on a common misconception. Also, I do not feed my dog a vegan diet. She, from the canine family, is a carnivore by nature and structure, and I feel no need to mess around with that. My beliefs are that we are closest to herbivores and have so many options available to us, whereas, animals in the wild do not.

reply

[–] trompos 16 years ago

And we're omnivores, we need meat because in order to make complete proteins we need to mix plant sources and supplements, something we wouldn't be able to do properly in nature unless we had the technology to measure and detect the different types of protein in each plant sourse. wour structure is made to eat animal protein as well, which is why vegans look like crap.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] gja-5 16 years ago

B12 does not need synthetic supplementation . The soil is depleted which means foods contain much less of it as compared to 100 years ago. Synthetic sources are used for convenience only since one pill lasts an entire week due to the very small amount needed, micrograms. YOU are a textbook example of why Bush is our president. Simply, you refuse totally to do ANY research at all.

reply

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

Um, still trying to be polite, dogs are actually omnivores. Cats are carnivores (90+% meat in their diets, still not 100%). Check the labels of common high-quality dog foods and you will find they contain many things like blueberries, carrots, flax, and other foods high in phytonutrients. They hit about 60% in meat content. Yes, even wolves are not nearly as carnivorous as cats.

It is truly your 'belief' that we are closest to herbivores, not science. I have no problem with people using vegan diets for a religious/personal ethics reason, but there is no science that backs up that we do better without meat. We do better off of 'Western Diets', which are virtually as bad as a diet could be. There are no studies backing vegans when wild game is the only meat added to the diet. Only when compared to 'Western Diets'. In PETA's case, I don't like it when someone tries forcing their belief system onto others, especially through lies.

reply

[–] punkypower 16 years ago

I stand corrected. You are right about dogs (the canine family) being omnivores. I was wrong.

However, I will not back down in that since they DO have the dental/facial structure of omnivores, it's okay for them; whereas, our facial/dental structure/digestive system is of a herbivore (not to mention all the alternatives we have available). Plus, dogs and cats aren't causing global warming (due to the methane gases of the mass-reproduced factory farm animals).

Happy Thanksgiving. :)

reply

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

This is a common arguement. You have to mix your incomplete amino acids on a vegan diet just to get a complete protein. You can also get some b-vitamins from non-animal sources. Yes. And any diet can supplement. We know that. And if you want to stay a healthy vegan, you will have to.

You may feel you are healtheir, and may be, than when you are on an omni diet, but you are asking for proof while providing anecdote. I hear veganuts that put their cats on vegan diets and claim the same thing. I know they are wrong.

Surprisingly enough, we are only closer to herbivores than carnivores if you go tooth by tooth, and you would still find, we are omnivores. I'll give some links a little later, but it is certainly a vegan myth that our bodies are herbivore.

In the meantime.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Here's something: http://peta-sucks.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=a9cc6fda0f3a065133b86684a6ef50c7&topic=14470.0

http://peta-sucks.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=a9cc6fda0f3a065133b86684a6ef50c7&topic=29997.0

http://peta-sucks.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=a9cc6fda0f3a065133b86684a6ef50c7&topic=23964.0

reply

[–] hbettis_qzar 16 years ago

Why are you so angry? Is it because you just found out what a hypocrite you are? I don't think Jesus would be very happy knowing that you are using his name to justify your hypocrisy.

reply

[–] trompos 16 years ago

How am I being a hypocrite now? Is it because I eat meat, or is it because I disagree with you and the only thing you think to do is go for my religious beliefs? Maybe it's because I used to colorful language to respond to morons, that doesn't make me a hypocrite, nor am I sure it makes me a sinner, I'm just pointing out a truth, that you are...stupid.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trompos 16 years ago

Was this a serious response? So animal protein isn't good because animals have a shorter life span than we do? Are you stupid? So what? You believe that we are somehow eating their life force? Are you completely retarded or did your mom do heroin when she was pregnant with you?

"You can only absorb about 20-30 mg of protein every few hours"

20-30 mg of protein every few hours; REALLY? Because 1 cup of broccoli has 2.6 GRAMS of protein that is equivalent to 2,600 milligrams. That's a whole lot more protein than you say we can handle in one sitting. I'm sure the average vegan eats more than 20-30 mg of protein at one sitting, I guess their hair and teeth are in serious jeopardy. I guess you adhere more to a starvation diet where you eat 1/1000 of a cup of broccoli in order to stay within your own moronic daily value of protein. People as stupid as you make my ass hurt.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

OK Jonny Death, let's get a few things correct, since that is such a rarity when dealing with vegan philosophy.

-Too much protein what? I've never heard that before. Never.
-You can absorb about 30GRAMS, not milligrams, of protein every 2-3 hours. Since each type of protein is only a certain percent absorbable, that means you need to intake even more to get those 30 grams. Eggs are highest at 92%, fish hit 88%, beef/pork is about 78%. Soy flies in at just under 50%. Imagine that. You need to eat 60 grams of soy to meet that 30 gram max. Yum.
Protein has nothing to do with clogging arteries. It's saturated fat in the presence of high blood sugar levels. And "causes free radicals which strips your digestive organs of very important nutrients"? Where did you come up with that crap?

HF corn syrup is still better than white sugar and white flours.

You didn't seem to get anything right, from start to finish. Nice work.

reply

[–] trompos 16 years ago

Great post gkpete, I would only add that I've heard that one can absorb between 50-80 grams of protein ever 2-3 hours. I get this from my former days as a bodybuilder.

I totally missed where this idiot said that protein clogs arteries, what a moron.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

The studies on absorption rates that I read were on average people. It's entirely possible/probable for highly trained strength athletes to have a higher rate of absorption since their daily requirements are about double per pound of a 'normal' person. I'm just not sure it's ever been tested. It would be very sound in theory, however. Fortunately, at 4 calories per gram, if one overate even 50 grams of protein per day, that's only 200 calories. For a large athlete in training, that is easily burned off by the BMR. Especially if they are keeping the carb intake in check. And since it doesn't cause problems, even doesn't cause kidney problems in non-diabetics, it's probably the safest food type to get too much of.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trompos 16 years ago

This is all I heard "blah blah blah, I'm better than you because i eat a vegetarian diet, blah blah."

Listen you say that we eat inferior mammals and build our DNA off of it, but yet you build YOUR DNA off of milk (which also has the DNA of mammal it comes from. The off spring of those mammals build their DNA from it. In affect, when you drink milk, you're eating the diet of a young inferior animal. Eggs are unborn inferior birds. And are plants somehow superior to animals?

By the way, yeast is a living organism, a bacteria, a single celled organism which means that high protein comes from the lowest of living things, highly inferior. The complete protein found in meat has been shown to improve brain function, and the creatine found in meat helps muscular endurance and strength. I'm willing to bet I'm healthier than you are. And because of all those complete amino acid filled proteins I'm willing to bet I'm smarter too.

By the way, a diet low in animal proteins has been shown to lower testosterone and increase estrogen, which explains why you're such a whiney little girl.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trompos 16 years ago

"I eat Nutritional Yeast, it's no longer active meaning, it's not alive. It's also no longer bacteria, it's the byproduct of the bacteria"

It's well, that's fine, but when i eat a cow, it's no longer alive either. And eating the byproduct of bacteria, that's the same as eating it's $hit, didn't you say something about eating $hit in your last post?

"Meat has not been shown to improve brain function, absolute myth. Statistical tests can guarantee you one thing, they were generated to fulfill an agenda. I deal with undeniable facts, not claims made by bias tests."

So I guess providing sources would be useless here as you will dismiss anything that disagrees with your propaganda as "biased" and there to "fill an agenda"

"Diets high in animal products are also high in fat, this increases estrogen dumbass."

Actually MORON! Having higher levels of fat on your body may increase estrogen as in obese people, but higher fat in one's diet actually increases testosterone. Again, i could provide evidence but you will dismiss it outright. Cholesterol and testosterone have very similar molecular structures and things like CLA which is found in red meat and milk and cheese (you eat these things don't you?) have been shown to increase testosterone. Not to mention the fact that eating fat doesn't necessarily MAKE you fat, idiot. Look at diets like Atkins, people lose weight and have increased intakes of fat. Now I'm not saying this is a healthy diet, but it goes to show that one can eat plenty of fat and protein and still lose weight.

"Meanwhile you actually believe eating a FEMALE cow is going to increase testosterone production, that's beyond stupid, it's fcking ignorant."

Wait, you drink milk, and that comes from where? A FEMALE COW! Idiot! Eggs come from a female chicken. I'm not eating the cow's estrogen stores, I'm eating it's flesh. You're connecting the consumption of flesh with the consumption of their life force again. Like when you say we're eating an inferior mammal you think we're somehow taking on their characteristics, which is beyond idiotic. Again, you drink milk and eat eggs. You're drinking the food source of an inferior mammal (in your case, I think cows might be smarter though) and you're eating unborn birds.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

Actually, trompos, the Atkins diet is pretty healthy. 3 for 3 in studies debunking the myths that fats will kill you. They have proven as good or better at reducing blood fats than veggies diets and low-fat diets. The key is that you actually have to follow it and fit into the category to benefit from it (which he discusses in his books). The veggies hated those studies.

reply

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

You realize milk is also 'cooked' in the pateurization process, right? The 'exploding' cell neucleus will most certainly occur since all enzymatic activity ends with that cooking process as well. And your drinking a large, non-related species' milk. If anything, THAT is the worst animal product for us healthwise. The milk proteins are harder to digest and so is the lactose for most people.

Go to www.pets-sucks.com and look under the veggie section and you'll get to see all the actual links to reliable sources (non of which you have produced) and information about shortcomings of veggie diets. The best thing you are doing is eating eggs.

Soy products increase estrogen, which is why certain cancer patients are now being told to avoid them. Not so with meat/beef.

Your digestion mythology comes straight from PETA and some supplement companies. Ask a gasteroenteroslogist and he'll laugh at that. And, yes, we can digest meat just fine.

If everything we believe about meat is a lie, why can't you produce one single good link to the contrary?

reply

[–] ronnieronb 16 years ago

Great posts gkpete. Some people are eager for a beating.

I will not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
I will face my fear.
I will let it pass through me.

reply

[–] sargonron 16 years ago

I recently viewed "I Am An Animal" and just read the comments on this board. I am disappointed by the rudeness and personal, ad hominum attacks that often substitute for rational thought. While like any creation of humans, PETA is not perfect, I believe that it has played an important role in bringing to light some of the horrible and unnecessary abuses of animals.

Most people go through life never thinking about the very real horrors which our society inflicts on so very many innocent creatures. My personal belief is that the great majority of the "uses" that people have for animals are unnecessary and that our society would be much better off if we fed and clothed ourselves without exploiting animals. Even if we agreed that some medical research cannot be conducted without the use of animals, the fact is that the great majority of the use of animals in reserch is totally unnecessary. Where it is necessary, we should develop stringent standards, with strict enforcement, to minimize the pain and suffering of those unfortunate creatures who will sacrifice themselves to develop treatments for diseases.

Unfortunately, "shock value" is sometimes necessary to break through the barriers many of us put up so we can ignore these terrible abuses. If the film of the poor creatures who were skinned alive, and the turkeys being abused and slaughtered in the most inhumane of ways did not touch your heart and make you shudder with revulsion, then I believe there has to be something terribly wrong with you. The majority of people would want this to end if confronted enough times by these hidden, hideous realities.

I know that most people are not ready to give up eating meat, but at the very least, we can create standards to remedy the terrible abuses and make the deaths of these animals as free of pain and terror as possible. I do not believe that all corporations and the people running them are evil. However there are many such people and companies which will put maximizing profits over basic decency. Only a public which demands of its leaders that this inhumane treatment can no longer be tolerated can bring this abuse to an end.

Obviously PETA has not succeeded in this but they have begun the difficult process of bringing the attention of some people to these problems. There are still many more people who need to be educated. Maybe PETA can achieve this or maybe some other group or coalition of animal activists can create the necessary momentum to make the ethical treatment of all sentient creatures a national and world priority.

One thing is certain: progress will not be made without some shock and the need for us to face painful, gruesome realities which sadly, are all too true. All things considered I believe that Ingrid Newkirk and PETA have been a vitally important element in getting this process going. I have a great deal of respect for her and all people who are fighting this lonely fight. I will spend the rest of my life doing what I can to help people recognize that the way we treat animals is very wrong and that there is a better way.

reply

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

'ad hominum' is a nice word when used by someone who provedes the same.

Yes. PETA has done some of what you are saying, but just look at their site and google much of the information listed. I have an advanced science degree and can laugh at many of the things they claim to be 'scientific evidence', but many kids believe it 100%. It's the blatant use of lies and deceit that makes PETA worthless overall. Then enhanced by their complete lack of accountability for wasting funds (bailing out ALF members from jail, etc...) that even adds more fuel to the fire.

They have a nice company line, and occasionally/accidentally do a few things right, but overall, they are not a positive thrust for preventing animal cruelty. And it's hardly a 'lonely' fight. The HSUS is also in it as well as countless other smaller ( and better?) organizations.

reply

[–] sargonron 16 years ago

I do not believe that I made any ad hominum attacks in my previous post. I am pleased, gkpete, that you acknowledge that PETA has done some of what I said and that they "occasionally do a few things right."

As for the scientific evidence that you refer to, I will leave that to others more qualified than me to decipher. I can tell you that as a vegetarian who does eat milk products and eggs, I believe that I am quite healthy and have never been described as thin (I only wish) and pasty. There are some athletes who are vegetarian and even vegan, who compete quite effectively and who are convinced their diet actually gives them an edge on their competition.

One scientific "fact" that I do remember being taught in school is that for every one person fed by meat, the same resources in grain and other resources used to produce that meat would be able to feed ten people. I believe that both sides in this argument can find data which supports their bias.

Whatever one's bias, I hope we can further agree that the horrible cruelty inflicted on innocent creatures must be stopped. I am not trying to stop everyone from eating meat. That would be like tilting at windmills. I am glad you believe that the fight to treat animals humanely is not a lonely one. I do believe that thus far it has been an ineffective fight. The horrific images shown in "I Am An Animal" prove that quite clearly. To me, that alone makes PETA a positive thrust for at least showing the horrible cruelty that still exists. Without publicizing that cruelty, it will never end.

reply

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

I have to say that I personally feel lactoovo's are not really vegetarians. That's just my opinion. With eggs and milk, you're still getting complete proteins. Although the milk intrigues me as why you include that. Raw milk at least?

Some endurance athletes have switched to veggie/vegan diets and felt it has helped them, yes. Notably the switch occurs as adults, when development has already largely taken place. Strength athletes have not fared as well, but none of this is really scientific.

I'm sure most people would love to see animals treated better, but PETA takes things to such an extreme, they actually make things worse.

reply

[–] SaphfireRose 16 years ago

"but many kids believe it 100%."
Like Gia-5. She has been well and trult brainwashed and simply has no idea of what the truth is. In fact, reading her robotic drone-like posts is actually very scary. Its obvious that its 'lights OFF and no one is home'.

"All I want for Christmas is world domination."
Salem Saberhagen

reply

[–] gja-5 16 years ago

The founders of www.curedisease.com are married Veterinarian and Physician Jean and Raymond Greek. As students in vet. and med. schools, they were struck by how differently they treated the same diseases in animals and humans. For example, humans were given penicillin for infections but rabbits and guinea pigs were not. Some drugs that caused birth defects in humans could be given to animals with impunity and vice-versa. In light of these and numerous other differences between humans and animals, they began to question how animal-experimentation could ever hope to cure human disease. As they progressed through their respective medical residencies, they saw the differences between animals and humans become even more strikingly pronounced! Tumors that are lethal in people go away without intervention in animals. Anesthetics used by people patients MUST be avoided in some animal patients. They became alarmed when they realized that SLIGHT differences in anatomy, biochemistry, and physiology make the application of the results of experiments on animals dangerous when extrapolated to humans. They were disgusted to see how much money (billions) was WASTED. Their disgust turned to horror when this wasted money was the smallest transgression: people were actually dying and being harmed when their doctor's tried to apply what they had learned in the lab to their patients! For example: Radial keratotomy, a surgery to correct vision, was performed in rabbits prior to humans. The rabbits did well but humans were blinded after undergoing the same procedure. WHY? Because the rabbit eye differs slightly from the human eye. This SLIGHT difference led to catostrophic results. Vaccines, chemotherapy, and modern-day surgery are NOT beholden to experiments on animals for their discovery even if they are used for this purpose. The original rabies vaccine was effective on animals but killed people. In vitro research led to the vaccines we have today. The list goes on and on in the thousands! The original chemotherapy agent was discovered on the battlefields of WW1. Many times animal-experimenters have announced an actual cure for cancer in animals that did NOT cure humans. The inventor of the polio vaccine said before a congressional committee in the 70's that this vaccine was delayed 10 years due to animal-testing! Penicillin was put back on the shelf for 10 years in the 20's due to it not working in rabbits. How many people died that should not have because of misleading rabbit experiments. The arithmatic says that tens of millions of people have needlessly suffered and died (since 1930) due to misplaced trust and faith in the animal-model. Even when the cardiopulmonary bypass machine and heart-lung machine tested well on dogs it directly killed its first human patients. Small differences between species make for enormously huge differences in the practice of medicine.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

Jonny Death. More illogic and mythology. Glad to see we can count on you for it every post.

There is no need to cook meat. If you process it yourself. Especially wild game. There are two reasons to cook meat, illogical PETArd, taste and sanitation from processing plants. Please post a link to such a monstrosity of a study about proteins, since it's pure BS. You really have no clue. "binding tissue"? Did you just make that up? Elasticity of tissue superior on a veggie diet? "neucleus of meat cells actually explode"? You have got to be kidding. Did you read this in the Sci-Fi channels description of a show? And an omnivore is not a carnivore. And we are not herbivores.

HFCS is not a good food. Never said it, but it has a much lower GI than white sugar and flour. Thus will not change blood sugar as fast, thus will not make it as likely for arteries to clog. Which was your attempt at a point. "Something like..." means you are guessing again, and it's not 90% or even all that close to it.

No, brewer's yeast is not the highest source, sorry (again, based on what?). It is a pretty good source compared to soy, but anything animal is. Eggs are still the highest tested in any study I've seen. "due to it's atomic structure...", you can't even get that in the movies anymore....lol.

You eat eggs and milk? Shame on you. You're a lactoovavegaterian=psuedo vegetarian. As far as 'superior' goes, where are all your Olympic medals from your 'superior' body, because the vast majority of athletes are not veggies. What pro team do you play for 'superior'? Do tell.

The rest is yet more PETA propoganda. "Western Diet" failures are not 'meat' failures. You need to get it right at some point. But who knows when that'll be.

reply

[–] gja-5 16 years ago

Jon Death; You are 100% correct, keep fighting the good fight. You gave me inspiration to do the same, THANKS

reply

[–] trompos 16 years ago

You and I and everyone on earth benefit from animal testing, but we don't like to look at it. It's like eating the burger but not wanting to know how the cow was killed (pun totally intended). Animal testing has lead to insulin for diabetics, which is taken from pigs, aids medication has become so advanced that people are living relativly normal lives with the illness because of testing mostly done on apes. Tons of stuff has been done for the blind because of rabbits, I hate to see these tests being done, but I know they're necessary. sure it's ugly, and many people in places like PETA will say that much of their research goe in the trash, but that's why it's called research, eventually progress is made.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] sargonron 16 years ago

Actually I don't drink much milk. The great majority of the milk products I consume is in the form of cheese. In this often bleak world, I have to have some pleasure. :)

As I stated in my first post, I know that PETA is not perfect. I will even concede tht it is far from perfect. I guess where we disagree is that I feel that on balance, it has been a force for good. Whenever real change occurs in human society, it begins with those who challenge our basic assumptions, often taking things too far in the minds of those defending the status quo. And yes, many of the things they fight for will cause anger and resentment among some. Perhaps some of what they present as scientific fact can be subject to debate and maybe they take their beliefs to an extreme. But the horrible abuses they fight are also extreme and should not be countenanced by a civilized society.

I certainly don't see anything wrong with having a pet, as long as it is treated humanely and I certainly don't see anything wrong with training guide dogs and other service animals, who usually have loving relationships with their human partners.

Some medical research on animals is necessary but I cannot agree that the "throw away research" should be allowed. If no direct medical application can be shown, it should be banned. If other methods can be developed, such as testing tissue samples, that should be the first choice. Where it is necessary, it should be strictly monitored so that the animals involved are pain free and treated with respect. They are unwillingly sacrificing themselves in the name of medical progress and deserve no less.

Unfortunately, existing laws designed to protect animals from abuse are either not stringent enough or not enforced properly. If nothing else, PETA has shown us that. The truth, even when shocking and ugly, must be faced. The more people of good will who understand the abuses that are occuring, the faster we can end the horrors faced by these innocent and sentient beings.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

Same with Pamela Anderson and her Hepatitis.

reply

[–] gja-5 16 years ago

Hey Trompos: Thou shall not kill means just that. Do unto others means just that. Love your neighbors means just that. That which you do to the LEAST you did it to me, means just that. Its clear by your very own words that you do not follow christ, you follow the anti-christ. Folks just another christian hippocrite. As a group they STILL voted for Bush in 2004. You would make a great poster-child for human IGNORANCE.

reply

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

I truly love reading your posts. Please post me gja. Please. TV writers are on strike and you've got some fantastic material.

reply

[–] trompos 16 years ago

I love how you idiots harp on the fact that I'm a Christian and I don't live up to the stupid standards you think Christians should live by. Jesus fed the masses with what? FISH! Animal sacrifice was a large part of the Jewish faith, animal skins were used in great quantity throughout the Bible. And thou shall not kill, yeah, that is a bad translation of the Hebrew which better translates as "Thou Shall Not MURDER" ie an unjustified death. Which is why capitol punishment was so prevalent throughout the Bible, wars were justified, because it's not MURDER, it's not the unjustified death of an innocent life. You're just a fool who wishes to use a person's faith against them and have no leg to stand on, you place your faith on a stupid woman with no direction. I pity you.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

gja isn't really 'of this earth'. Her posts are quite unique. I thoroughly enjoy reading them for their comedic value.

reply

[–] gja-5 16 years ago

Fish was NOT fed to the masses. This story was simplified and altered to teach a lesson. If you go back to the original translators, Jesus was feeding a form of brocolli/spinach bread from the sea called spirulina. It takes 9-12 pounds of grain to get one pound of beef. World hunger is due to this in part. Jesus would be against world hunger but you are NOT, you refuse to do the tiny amount of research to figure out that the top reason for global warming is factory-farming.
Jesus would be against polluting the earth and planet unecessarily, you are not bothered by this at all. Do unto others is what Jesus in a nutshell taught. You refuse to follow him accurately. Our nations prisons have inmates whose numbers are easy to count. It is a fact that Christians are incarcerated at a greater number as a percentage of their population representation than any other group. MOST of you do not understand his message, you distort, distort, and distort. Nonbelievers and vegetarians are the LEAST likely to be jailed. When it comes to ethics it is this group who are society's kindest. It is simple arithmetic.

reply

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

LMFAOLMFAOLMFAOLMFAO!!!!!!!

Thank you gja! Writers beware. She's on a roll. Oh, crap, I think I pulled my left oblique.

reply

[–] trompos 16 years ago

World hunger has nothing to do with lack of food and everything to do with political manipulation of goods. So my consumption of meat isn't causing starvation, governments are. As far as your made up vegan story about broccoli bread and whatever else, we must remember that Jesus when He walked the earth was a devout Jew and Jews until the middle ages sacrificed animals as part as their worship. Jesus also lived near the sea of Galilee and in addition to being a carpenter was probably a part time fisherman, as were his apostles. The diet of Nazarenes was high in fish protein and the last supper is said to have had baked fish in it. Though it was probably really broccoli bread right? Jesus also speaks of wine skins which were made of goat. He helps the apostles fish and the Bible speaks of the head's of the fish bursting through the nets.

Oh and farms don't cause global warming as warming treads are not man made but a cyclical event that has happened before, look up the little ice age.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] gja-5 16 years ago

YOU are now embarassing yourself royaly. You just showed the world how you cannot understand SIMPLE first-grade arithmatic as well as never analyzing Peta's website in the first place that shows 100% TOTAL beyond a doubt PROOF. GROW UP! Governments hoarding is a contributor to hunger problems as well as allowing their trees to be cut in making way for cattle-raising where the nearby crops are fed to the cows and the hungry people are largely ignored. This tonnage of food can be fed directly to the population. People like you vote for the wrong politicians that in turn make these wrong decisions. You STILL refuse to do any type of genuine research. You google things left and right to support your INITIAL feelings about an issue based not on reason or science but convenience, comfort, and simplicity. ANY personal viewpoint can be supported by internet info. due to the trillions of things in print. You rarely seem to scrutinize the info.'s real accuracy and base its meaning to fit your own personal preference just to convince yourself that you are winning an arguement. You definitely NEED some type of therapy but I do not know enough about you to make an accurate recommendation, sorry.

reply

[–] trompos 16 years ago

Every case of "starvation" in modern times has been caused by war. Famine as a real and viable natural disaster has not been a concern for generations, famine is a war tactic and nothing more. THere is enough food to feed everyone around the world many times over, there is no food shortage.

"Governments hoarding is a contributor to hunger problems as well as allowing their trees to be cut in making way for cattle-raising where the nearby crops are fed to the cows and the hungry people are largely ignored. This tonnage of food can be fed directly to the population."

So you feel that governments should not only disallow people from cutting down trees on their own property, but furthermore they should dictate to people what to do with their vegetation ie, feed their grass and hay to starving people rather than to their cows? That doesn't make sense on many levels.

The only countries where forests are being cut down in mass quantities to make grazing land are developing and impoverished nations. The US for instance has more forests today than it had 40 years ago, and Europe has also done well in re growing its forests over the last few decades. Countries in Africa Asia, and Latin America have however, experienced more deforestation. This has been done, mainly, by small independent farmers in order to feed their families. See buying processed vegan food that has higher protein levels because you've messed with it in a lab is not something that people in these countries can buy. It's either eat meat, and raise cattle for money, or die. You have the luxury of being able to go to the market to buy your silly little tofu or whatever the hell you morons eat, these people have to grow and raise what they eat. Their vegetables act like vegetables, they are high in indigestible fiber, moderate in carbs and fairly low in protein. These people are protein starved and they can't pop a pre made calorie dense fake meat in their nonexistent microwave.

Also, I don't research anything on google, I actually read books. Pick up PJ O'Rourke's "All The Trouble in the World". And read about the truth behind so called famine.

By the way, don't think I haven't noticed that you've completely abandoned your origninal accusation that I'm a bad Christian for eating meat and fish.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] gkpete 16 years ago

LOL. That's awful funny. All one has to do is go on PETArd2 boards to find that isn't true. Most PETArds can't come up with anything non-PETA sponsored to back up their claims, no matter how hard they google. Then they kick you off for posting research contrary to their beliefs. And you're very askew as to what you personally feel is 'research'. Vague at best. This is not the X-Files and big corporations don't have all power and can change the accuracy of every bit of information not on a PETA-based site.

And what is the right politician? Besides the fact you constantly bring that up and it's usually off-topic, all politicians are crooks to some degree. The higher up they go, the better at it they are.

reply

[–] melb784 16 years ago

I have been following your posts and I find that they all have one thing in common. Complete irrational loyalty to something that you cannot back up with fact.

Nobody here is disputing that animals cruelty is wrong, and certainly nobody is saying anything about "hating" animals - which you mention in one of your other posts. (In fact, I don't know anyone who actually 'hates' animals) But whatever it is that you are arguing, you are lacking hard cold facts. The only evidence you seem to espouse is this one website. You speak of doing research, of waking up. Take your own advice. Research implies using more than one source of information. And doing research implies that you will have facts to back up your arguments. You make asinine arguments, and then back them up with... well, nothing. Nobody is going to believe you and just take your word for it. The people arguing against you have given you some hardcore facts and evidence, quoting reliable resources, stating facts that they back up. You have failed to do this on every occasion.

If you want people to believe in you or in your cause, you can't just expect people to believe the crazy statistics that you list off, or the facts that have no basis of actual truth. You do some research and come back when you can support your arguments.

And stop playing the politics blame game. If you knew anything about politics you would know that the electoral college decides who the president is, not the people. And the majority of people running for any sort of office are pretty crooked. So, its a matter of voting in the best of the worst.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]