Animal Cruelty - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-19-2007, 04:06 AM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpe View Post
The HSUS and PETA are not animal welfare organizations but animal rights organizations.
As I previously posted, that really all depends on who is describing them, and what their definitions of are. As I posted just previously, there are many rightists who find PETA and HSUS far too welfarist.

It really seems, again, that those interested in helping animals should not take my word for how to go about it and what groups to support, nor rpe's, but rather do their homework, search their hearts, and live their values.

Quote:
People should know that the above 3 websites are maintained by those who have a vested interest in fighting animal rights groups.
Indeed. And fighting organics, anti-smoking campaigns, anti-obesity efforts, and...

The "Center for Consumer Freedom," sponsor of these sites, has a less-than-stellar reputation itself.

"Meet Rick Berman, AKA, "Dr. Evil" (transcript of recent 60 minutes piece):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...20_page2.shtml

PR Watch Exposes "Anti-Organic" Center for Consumer Freedom:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/orga...umer_group.cfm

American Prospect/Berman's Battle:
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/24735

Center for Media & Democracy Source Watch:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...nsumer_Freedom

Center for Science in Public Interest/Bogus 'Consumer' Group Stripped Of Domain Names
http://cspinet.org/new/200302201.html

Portait of a Nonprofiteer:
http://www.consumerdeception.com/
kaydee is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-19-2007, 04:42 AM
 
MelanieMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In a state of confusion
Posts: 3,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I agree with many here. I am in no way an animal rightest (or whatever you call it), but I do work with several animal organizations. The work (volunteer) that I do involves animal rescue and adoption. I totally disagree with almost everything PETA puts out there. I simply believe that animals, while not being = to humans, deserve good homes where they are free from abuse and are properly fed and cared for. The animals we rescue aren't taken b/c they were tethered, but b/c they were malnourished, beaten, or abandoned.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with Kaydee, there aren't just two sides to these issues, and one person shouldn't have to agree with just one of them. I love animals and I want to see them all healthy and safe, but I don't think they deserve the same rights and treatment as humans. I am against fur (no matter how "humane" their living conditions are), but I eat dairy and some meat. This is just too much of a gray area as far as I'm concerned. I don't think there is a clear black and white, unless you're an extremist in either direction.
MelanieMC is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 12:54 PM
rpe
 
rpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee View Post
As I previously posted, that really all depends on who is describing them, and what their definitions of are. As I posted just previously, there are many rightists who find PETA and HSUS far too welfarist.
By the definition of animal rights theory they are not welfarist. PETA never was and the HSUS ceased to be long ago.

Quote:
It really seems, again, that those interested in helping animals should not take my word for how to go about it and what groups to support, nor rpe's, but rather do their homework, search their hearts, and live their values.
You can put up as many links as you want however, the basic tenets of the animal rights movement is based on lies and they're still working toward eliminating animals in our lives. There is no spinning out of it.

"search their hearts, and live their values" - Another excellent example of emotional appeal which is the basis for most AR arguments.

So I'll use one myself. I would say search your hearts and your values and decide if you really want to help a movement dedicated to eliminating pets and all other animals? Would you help groups that would rather see humans die (and ironically their animals) by prohibiting research?

Check Americans for Medical Progress (there are many other sites for info and some debunk many AR claims)
http://www.amprogress.org

Quote:
Indeed. And fighting organics, anti-smoking campaigns, anti-obesity efforts, and...
Yes but also fighting an Orwellian type society where the "nanny state" knows whats best for everyone. I definitely don't agree with everything they put up. However, everyone has an agenda do they not.

As I said the reason I put them up is because its easier to read about AR groups in one spot than give a slew of links. So far I've found most of what they say is true about AR groups. Especially with regards to their goals and some of their shady practices.

Quote:
The "Center for Consumer Freedom," sponsor of these sites, has a less-than-stellar reputation itself.
Depends who you talk to of course. The anti-pet, anti-owner, anti-breeder groups (animal rightists) definitely don't like having information on them easy to find. The media usually gives them a free pass.

Its high time AR groups stopped having a free pass. Big business too. Guess what? The HSUS is a big business these days.

My point? We NEED opposing viewpoints but people have to be able to discern what goes over the line.

Quote:
"Meet Rick Berman, AKA, "Dr. Evil" (transcript of recent 60 minutes piece):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...20_page2.shtml
But its okay for Wayne Pacelle (HSUS), Ingrid Newkirk (PETA), et al to lie and deceive the public? As always the animal rights movement is imbued with hypocrisy. Do read up on Berman but also realize whats on those sites about animal rights groups is true.

Quote:
PR Watch Exposes "Anti-Organic" Center for Consumer Freedom:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/orga...umer_group.cfm
Thats where I first read about terminator seeds! (somewhere on that site) Check that out. Way OT but pretty flippin' scary. Everyone should read up on that.

Many who are for organic are very much anti-AR and very much for animal welfare.

Quote:
Portait of a Nonprofiteer:
http://www.consumerdeception.com/
[/quote]

Thats a PETA owned site. Of course they don't like being exposed for killing rather than rehoming pets among other things.

Ironically, none of the sites you put up refute the fact that the animal rights movement leaders show a disregard for human life and are actively working toward the elimination of animals in our lives. They also pick and choose which animals they'll be "compassionate" towards. Their compassion does not extend to humans.

You are helping to eliminate pets by some of the legislation you are backing. Hopefully you'll change that view.

One last site. This man stopped writing a year ago but if you go through his site he has a lot of good information on the animal rights movement and links to other sites as well.

http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/

Have a great day!
rpe is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 05:04 PM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpe View Post
By the definition of animal rights theory they are not welfarist. PETA never was and the HSUS ceased to be long ago.
Your interpretation is not the only one, rpe--and if you had read the Satya pieces, you would see that, I think.

In many people's minds, an animal rights organization would never work on reformist campaigns (under the theory that it simply perpetuates abuse & exploitation, albeit in a "gentler" form.)

Which is more of an animal rights campaign: one to eliminate the use of eggs or one to eliminate the use of battery cages? One to eliminate the use of pigs as food, or one to eliminate the use of gestation/farrowing crates? One that seeks to end all trapping, or to end the use of certain traps in certain locations? Urging Whole Foods to end the sale of animal products, or signing on to their "Animal Compassion" standards for meat, dairy, & eggs?

Most "animal rights" groups participate in the reformist campaigns. It doesn't mean they don't have their eyes on a greater prize--but they are willing to support welfarist reforms. (I think the only major animal group that is truly abolitionist is Friends of Animals.)

So you can say they are "rights groups" all you want, but really, it's more complicated than that.

Quote:
You can put up as many links as you want however, the basic tenets of the animal rights movement is based on lies.
I don't see how saying that all species deserve to be treated with respect and compassion is a lie. For me--and for the animal advocates I know--that's what this calling is all about.

Quote:
"search their hearts, and live their values" - Another excellent example of emotional appeal which is the basis for most AR arguments.
Values and ethics are at the heart of ALL social justice work--and are things that people have always decided to dismiss as "emotional."

If having strong values is "emotional," I am fine with that--although most animal rights theory is pretty dense with logic (Singer, Regan, Wise, Dunayer, Francione, etc.)! Sometimes competing logic, but such is the way of theory. Have you read their works? Do you think Utilitarianism, for example, is based on emotion, rather than a chilly logic? That legal theories of personhood are too touchy-feely? That speciesism is about teddy bears?

At the risk of being too "emotional" : I'll just say that I think:

--if people decide FOR THEMSELVES how much pain and suffering is acceptable to inflict on other species (and in what situations and to what ends);

--what uses of animals are acceptable to them, and what are not;

-- to what degree they feel animals exist for their own ends, not for those of humans;

--if people then live in congruence with those values; and

--do what they feel is appropriate to help shape the world in accordance to those values

they will not go wrong, no matter what PETA or the "Center for Consumer Freedom" or some blogger or rpe or me say about it.
kaydee is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 06:11 PM
 
athansor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: learning to prevent geoboobs
Posts: 2,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Good post Kaydee!


One thing I want to add, and I hope I can state this well...I think that when there is a discussion of the use of emotional arguments vs. logical arguments, it's often overlooked that playing on fears is an emotional argument.

Yes, when I show people information about veal, I'm hoping that their emotional response will get them to stop eating veal. But when someone posts a quote from someone with an extreme view, they are also hoping to get an emotial response. When someone posts a quote like 'I wouldn't support animal research even if the death of one rat would cure all diseases', they are hoping that the people hear that and are afraid that if they contribute to any kind of animal rights group, it will spell the end of medical research.

Some of the animal welfare sights linked to in this discussion seem to take the position of opposing any kind of legislation regarding animal welfare, because of fear that if something is made illegal, it will lead us down the slippery slope that ends with no more pets.

So, people who hold a more mixed collection of beliefs don't know where to go. What organization would you recommend a person supports if they want to be pro-active with regard to animal welfare, believe in a veg*n lifestyle, and are comfortable with the notion of pets/companion animals?

Vegan, mom to : Joe and Josh ::
athansor is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:02 PM
rpe
 
rpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm focussing on pets mostly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee View Post
Your interpretation is not the only one, rpe--and if you had read the Satya pieces, you would see that, I think.
Its not my interpretation but thats the aim of the animal rights movement and always has been. Its irrelevant if some don't believe it is for if they don't they're not true animal rightists.

Quote:
Which is more of an animal rights campaign: one to eliminate the use of eggs or one to eliminate the use of battery cages? One to eliminate the use of pigs as food, or one to eliminate the use of gestation/farrowing crates? One that seeks to end all trapping, or to end the use of certain traps in certain locations? Urging Whole Foods to end the sale of animal products, or signing on to their "Animal Compassion" standards for meat, dairy, & eggs?
Maybe your indoctrination isn't complete yet. Eliminating battery cages, etc. is but one step. This is how all prohibitionist movements work. Its the same for the ones who wish to ban guns. Don't go for wholesale banning all at once but piece by piece. The purpose is to make it easier to take the next step.

Thats what animal rightists will never acknowledge and what few realize. But this is whats happening all around the country.

Quote:
Most "animal rights" groups participate in the reformist campaigns. It doesn't mean they don't have their eyes on a greater prize--but they are willing to support welfarist reforms. (I think the only major animal group that is truly abolitionist is Friends of Animals.)
No its more than that. PETA and the HSUS are abolitionist. Wayne Pacelle and Ingrid Newkirk have both said as much. Others like Best Friends and ASPCA aren't quite as bad but support many of the same type of pet unfriendly laws. One of the warning signs is any group that pushes vegan as "compassionate".

Quote:
So you can say they are "rights groups" all you want, but really, it's more complicated than that.
Yes and no. Some are animal rightist "lite" and unwittingly help the hard core element, not believing what they really stand for. They unintentionally hurt the cause of animal welfare.

One example of being animal rightist "lite" is supporting anti-tethering laws and mandatory spay/neuter laws.

Quote:
I don't see how saying that all species deserve to be treated with respect and compassion is a lie. For me--and for the animal advocates I know--that's what this calling is all about.
Its a lie because the actions of animal rightists prove otherwise. They have less compassion for man. With regards to pets many of the laws they are pushing make it harder for people to give homes to animals that need them. Thats not compassionate.

They refuse to acknowledge the real problems of why dogs and cats are in shelters. Its NOT because too many are bred but because people surrender them. Whats the AR answer? Sterilize them all at a very early age even though its shown to cause health problems.

Respect and compassion? No.

Animal rightists have staged and altered videos and altered pictures when making their claims. They have been known to take old footage of puppymills that have already been closed down and use it in some of their campaigns.

The movement to ban all tying out and kennelling is an excellent example of AR dishonesty. Lying about studies and how it affects behavior and showing pictures of only abused dogs. Thats what I mean by emotional appeal and no facts.

Respect and compassion? No.

Quote:
Values and ethics are at the heart of ALL social justice work--and are things that people have always decided to dismiss as "emotional."
That the animal rights movement is about social justice is laughable. Pretending it is demeans those who really do work for social justice. Another example of devaluing human life.

Quote:
If having strong values is "emotional," I am fine with that--although most animal rights theory is pretty dense with logic (Singer, Regan, Wise, Dunayer, Francione, etc.)! Sometimes competing logic, but such is the way of theory. Have you read their works? Do you think Utilitarianism, for example, is based on emotion, rather than a chilly logic? That legal theories of personhood are too touchy-feely? That speciesism is about teddy bears?
I'm quite familiar with Singer and Singer himself has said more than once he doesn't have a particular fondness for animals. Regan would choose a dog over a retarded child. Their arguments are actually very weak and of course hypocritical to the idea of compassion for all species.

There is no such thing as "speciesism". Thats a term coined by those who have little to no regard for her fellow man. To put animals on par with humans is not the sign of enlightenment but rather the sign of someone with a romantic rather than realistic view of animals and one who has little understanding of them in general.

Animal rightists devalue human life and ironically, they devalue animal life by advocating no research on animals. Bruce Friedrich recently said pet food companies shouldn't test their products on dogs and cats. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

If people treated humans better they'd treat animals better. How we treat each other reflects how animals are treated.

Quote:
--if people decide FOR THEMSELVES how much pain and suffering is acceptable to inflict on other species (and in what situations and to what ends);
But animal rights groups don't want people to decide for themselves. They want to decide for them. Personally I stay away from any groups that use words like "speciesism" as it betrays their true beliefs.

Quote:
--what uses of animals are acceptable to them, and what are not;
Again, animal rightists are perfectly content for animals to die so they can eat but they balk at anyone eating meat and want to ban it. Its okay for them to be responsible for death but no one else.

Welfarists don't work to ban it but do want animals cared for humanely.

Quote:
-- to what degree they feel animals exist for their own ends, not for those of humans;
Maslow's Hierarch of needs. All animals have it. Animals don't live in the past or the future, they live in the now. Humans are much more complicated.

Nature is complex. Each animal exists for the others. The wolf eat the deer, the lion eats the zebra, etc, etc.

With regards to pets - dogs (and there is evidence on cats too) have been mans companion for thousands of years. Its natural for the dog to want to be with man. Animal rightists want to deny people this unique and extraordinary relationship.

Quote:
--if people then live in congruence with those values; and

--do what they feel is appropriate to help shape the world in accordance to those values

they will not go wrong, no matter what PETA or the "Center for Consumer Freedom" or some blogger or rpe or me say about it.
There is always a right and a wrong. Where the animal rights groups have gone wrong is first devaluing human life and often putting animals above humans and second wanting to force people to live how they (ARs) believe. For an unethical, dishonest movement to try and force ethics and values on others that they don't have is really quite ludicrous.
rpe is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 12:59 AM
 
athansor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: learning to prevent geoboobs
Posts: 2,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpe View Post

Maybe your indoctrination isn't complete yet. Eliminating battery cages, etc. is but one step. This is how all prohibitionist movements work. Its the same for the ones who wish to ban guns. Don't go for wholesale banning all at once but piece by piece. The purpose is to make it easier to take the next step.
So, this is exactly my point. We get frozen into not taking any action, because we are so afraid of the slippery slope. Bothered by factory farming? Don't do anything becuase if you try to stop the use of something like battery cages, pretty soon all meat eating will be illegal, and meth houses will be replaced by sausage houses where desperate pork addicts try to get their fix while avoiding jail. Ban dogfighting or cockfighting? Next you won't be able to crop your dogs ears, and pretty soon you won't be able to even keep a pet dog. Ban fully automatic weapons, next will come handguns, then hunting rifles and shotguns, then bowie knifes, and the next thing you know you're slicing into your baked potato with a spoon.

When you look at the world around you, and you see suffering, like the original poster did, the natural response is to want to take some action. There have been lots of arguments about not getting involved with activist groups, or donating money, and there has been the discussion that the majority of pet owners are good and caring (although I don't believe that the majority of animals raised for food are raised in good family farm type environments), but there hasn't yet been many suggestions as to what type of action is OK to take. I don't think it's enough when you witness the suffering of one animal to just feel better because there are so many others that are not suffering.

Vegan, mom to : Joe and Josh ::
athansor is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 02:04 AM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by athansor View Post
Good post Kaydee!
Thanks!

Quote:
One thing I want to add, and I hope I can state this well...I think that when there is a discussion of the use of emotional arguments vs. logical arguments, it's often overlooked that playing on fears is an emotional argument.
Excellent point. I think the"slippery slope" (or "your indoctrination is not yet complete" ) argument is to discredit all sorts of efforts to reform the status quo, whether it's with regard to animal protection, civil rights, the environment, etc. I think any claim like this bears close scrutiny and analysis as to how realistic it is, and how much it is simply an emotion-based effort to disparage "the other side."

Quote:
Some of the animal welfare sights linked to in this discussion seem to take the position of opposing any kind of legislation regarding animal welfare, because of fear that if something is made illegal, it will lead us down the slippery slope that ends with no more pets.
:

Quote:
So, people who hold a more mixed collection of beliefs don't know where to go. What organization would you recommend a person supports if they want to be pro-active with regard to animal welfare, believe in a veg*n lifestyle, and are comfortable with the notion of pets/companion animals?
If you are an advocate on any issue looking for a group to work with and support, it can be a challenge. It is hard to find a group whose views and methods you agree with 100%; sometimes you settle for a less perfect fit.

It is also important to bear in mind that groups aims and tactics change over time, so we need to keep up with what the current goals and leadership strategies are of groups we give to. Over the years I have stopped supporting several groups I used to belong to, and have joined others, as my views--and the groups'--have evolved.

Regarding the companion animal issue, I would say to read the relevant materials of the big groups (HSUS, Peta, Animal Protection Institute, In Defense of Animals, International Fund for Animal Welfare, WSPCA, Animal Welfare Institute, etc.) and see if their work matches up with your views. Call or write them if you have questions (ask them point-blank, "Do you want to outlaw guardianship of cats and dogs, for example, if that is your concern).

I challenge anyone here to show that a major animal protection organization is campaigning to end ownership of cats and dogs. By campaign, I mean concerted effort to achieve that aim through education, litigation, and/or legislation--not random, de-contextualized quotations from an individual. I just don't believe that is what they are working on or towards. But I would really like to know if I am mistaken!

Now, some animal use proponents are threatened by just about any attempts to regulate breeding, property status of animals, the language we use to describe companion animals, or the types of animals that may be kept as pets, and I think they cloak their concerns about those particular issues in fears about total loss of ownership rights or privileges.

I personally really like working with groups that have a narrow focus on a single issue, such as farmed animals. I am a huge fan of Farm Sanctuary and Vegan Outreach for the work they do in this arena.

Captive wild animal issues are also an interest of mine; that's why I support the Elephant Sanctuary and the Performing Animal Welfare Society.

Other issues, such as fur and trapping, are dealt with most prominently by the larger, multi-issue organizations. And there are lots of smaller organizations that focus on alternatives to vivisection, if that is your passion (I'm not so familiar with their work, so am not linking). Plus there are the local vegetarian societies, SPCAs, etc. that could use support.

Of course you can also simply work on particular efforts or campaigns, rather than becoming a full-fledged member of a group. You can sign up for action alerts and write letters to lawmakers and sign petitions without giving a group money or signing on as a member.

One other resource that is useful for people considering money to any charity is to look them up on various watchdog websites, such as the Better Business Bureau, http://www.charitynavigator.org/, and the Independent Charities of America. Thes sites give you access to financial records and ratings of various charities, to see how their money is spent.
kaydee is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 02:05 AM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by athansor View Post
So, this is exactly my point. We get frozen into not taking any action, because we are so afraid of the slippery slope. Bothered by factory farming? Don't do anything becuase if you try to stop the use of something like battery cages, pretty soon all meat eating will be illegal, and meth houses will be replaced by sausage houses where desperate pork addicts try to get their fix while avoiding jail. Ban dogfighting or cockfighting? Next you won't be able to crop your dogs ears, and pretty soon you won't be able to even keep a pet dog. Ban fully automatic weapons, next will come handguns, then hunting rifles and shotguns, then bowie knifes, and the next thing you know you're slicing into your baked potato with a spoon.

When you look at the world around you, and you see suffering, like the original poster did, the natural response is to want to take some action. There have been lots of arguments about not getting involved with activist groups, or donating money, and there has been the discussion that the majority of pet owners are good and caring (although I don't believe that the majority of animals raised for food are raised in good family farm type environments), but there hasn't yet been many suggestions as to what type of action is OK to take. I don't think it's enough when you witness the suffering of one animal to just feel better because there are so many others that are not suffering.
:
kaydee is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 03:11 AM
 
Shahbazin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Or, if you're interested in promoting the pet/human bond, & promoting welfare rather than "rights" issues, check out NAIA - http://www.naiaonline.org/
For another look at the importance & relevance of preserving domestic animal breeds, ALBC is an interesting site: http://www.albc-usa.org/

: : SAHM to : (5/06), : (7/07) Plus : & a few
Shahbazin is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 03:21 AM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Be sure you read NAIA's position statements! http://naiaonline.org/about/positions.htm

The site also reaffirms my sense that NAIA doesn't actually run campaigns to better conditions for animals--they seem, from what I can see, to exist almost solely to oppose reform and rights campaigns and continue status quo uses of animals.

Which may be exactly what some people want. But someone interested in veganism and opposed to fur? Maybe not so much....
kaydee is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 03:22 AM
 
mesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
but, as far as *I'M* concerned, animal rights activists live on pink fluffy clouds and are completely out of touch with reality.

Look at PETA, who lobbied and lobbied to ban the slaughter of horses in the US. And now, people are throwing their horses away, because there's simply TOO MANY. The economy is poor, people can barely feed themselves, let alone a 1000 pound animal, and no longer can they sell that animal at auction. To have it humanely euthanized costs a lot of money. To have the carcass disposed of in a legal fashion costs a LOT of money. Sure, you can shoot them, but who wants to do that, really? And you still have the disposal problem to deal with. http://www.daily-chronicle.com/artic...ews/news02.txt

No, I have no patience for these people. For a group to adopt THOUSANDS of dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens, tell the shelters they purchased them from they were going to find homes for them, and minutes later kill them in the back of their van and throw them away is despicable. Why does PETA have a walk in freezer in their NY headquarters? Surely not for BBQs (they don't eat meat). http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

As an animal lover, and lifelong OWNER and caretaker of horses and dogs, I think these people should be rounded up and incarcerated. They do not represent me, or the causes I hold dear to my heart. The welfare of animals is very important to me, but lauding the efforts of these terrorists will not get us anywhere. I purchase products that have not been tested on animals, I do my part to educate about breeding, and I rescue dogs and horses when I can. I don't breed (not that I have any issue with those that DO responsibly breed).

If I want to donate money, I will donate it to our local horse and burro rescue, or our local Humane Society (not the HSUS, who does not give back locally). If I want to volunteer, I will shovel poo at the humane society or the rescue, walk dogs, do home visits for the two rescues I'm a part of, and other things.

Horses, cattle, pigs, cats, and dogs are domesticated animals. We changed them to suit our needs, and as a result, we are responsible for taking care of them all of their days. If we turned our domesticated animals loose, the world would be chaos. Our wild lands would be overrun with cattle, pigs, and horses, our cities would be stinking pits of disease with packs of dangerous feral dogs running loose, we would have no more songbirds because of the domesticated cats eating them.

If we didn't allow hunting, deer would cause many more fatal car accidents than they do now. Mountain lions, bears, and wolves would move into our suburbs and make tasty snacks of our pets and children...because, let's face it, we all gotta share this world. True, it sucks that we are taking over their natural habitat, but that's life. There's nothing we can do about it. We need to preserve the few remaining wild places we have, and work really hard to save our endangered species. But we need to control populations too. That is part of being the caretakers of the planet. And, like it or not, that is what we are.

PETA and ALF (animal liberation front) get their headlines because they are sensationalists. The true animal warriors are the ones on Capitol Hill trying to pass REASONABLE legislation every day, who work as Humane Officers for their local Humane Societies, and those who set a good example by caring for their animals the proper way, and keeping an eye on their neighbors who might not.

What PETA and ALF do accomplishes NOTHING. Sure, it may get them a headline, when they break into a Norwegian fox farm in the middle of winter to release 1000 foxes into the wild....but do they tell you that farmer spent the next few weeks gathering the stiff, frozen bodies of his foxes who starved to death? No. Sure, I think poaching (like for ivory), keeping sentient animals captive for the amusement of others (elephants and other circus/Sea World creatures), fur farming, and senseless torture of lab animals is deplorable. Do I think people need to die because of it? No. Do I think property should be destroyed because of it? No. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...n1036067.shtml

Do I believe that global warming, the destruction of the rainforests, and the pollution of our oceans are more urgent threats to our world as we know it? ABSOLUTELY. But nobody has easy answers to those problems. Certainly not PETA or ALF. So they take the easy way out, donning their black facemasks and committing their acts of terrorism. But they don't bring about any change at all, just terror and big black headlines.

Misti, mom to DS (12), DS (9), DD (3), and Mr. Man (October '10)!

mesa is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 09:19 AM
 
rmzbm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 15,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This thread should be published or something...

Mesa... I agree almost 100%!

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 04:59 PM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Again, the conflation of PETA and ALF with all animal protectionists is really, really frustrating.

I think that if people use these two groups as examples of why they will not be part of the animal protection movement, they are, IMO, being absurd.

If they have issues with the other actual aims, positions, and tactics of all the other groups as well, that’s fine. Working for local shelters is important, too.

But when I hear people say over and over, I can’t be involved in the broader animal protection movement, I hate PETA, it makes me just want to kick a puppy or something. : (j/k, obviously—gallows humor from someone who has heard this *&^@$$# a few too many times.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mesa
Sure, I think poaching (like for ivory), keeping sentient animals captive for the amusement of others (elephants and other circus/Sea World creatures), fur farming, and senseless torture of lab animals is deplorable. Do I think people need to die because of it? No. Do I think property should be destroyed because of it? No. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...n1036067.shtml
I hope you are not saying that the people and groups that work on these issues are arsonists, murderers, and vandals?

Only a miniscule fraction of the people working on the issues you cite are involved with illegal activity of any sort! As is true in ANY social change movement. So why oh why do those few keep being held up as representative of a movement by people who should know better (that is, anyone who has critical thinking skills and can look beyond sensational headlines). Especially when so much has been done by the other 99% to disavow those sorts of actions and tactics?

Some of the stuff that’s been said about animal protection advocates should scare the pants off ANY social justice advocate.

A metastasized “Green Scare” could unfarily pull in many, MANY people working to better the planet and stifle all kinds of dissent. The lumping together of advocates with terrorists that I see here is only contributing to that demonization, IMO. (FWIW: I am totally opposed to property damage or violence as an advocacy tactic for any issue, no matter how close to my heart. But I am also opposed to what appears to be a new breed (sic) of McCarthyism in this country.)

P.S. I challenge you to find an animal group that has EVER recommended setting all domesticated animals loose on the land! A few wingnuts operating under the name “ALF” or “ELF” don’t count. Of course that would be a problem. And it’s not what anyone is recommending! Please, if you are going to argue with ideas put forth by animal groups, make sure you are actually arguing with ideas put forth by animal groups!

Quote:
No, I have no patience for these people. For a group to adopt THOUSANDS of dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens, tell the shelters they purchased them from they were going to find homes for them, and minutes later kill them in the back of their van and throw them away is despicable. Why does PETA have a walk in freezer in their NY headquarters? Surely not for BBQs (they don't eat meat). http://www.petakillsanimals.com/[
P.P.S: Are you aware that there is no NY headquarters of PETA? :

And that PETA, whatever offensive tactics it uses, does not commit acts of terrorism? :

Seems like if you want to hurt invective, you might want to get your facts right.... But then the site you cite isn't really the most reputable source (there's that Center for Consumer Freedom, again! )
kaydee is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 05:23 PM
 
mesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Did or did not Peta lobby for the ban of the slaughter of horses for human consumption?

I'm sure most animal rights activists live near an auction house of some sort. I encourage all of them to go and rescue 10 or 15 of these poor horses themselves. As a horse lover, I would really really love to hear the solution to the horse slaughter problem. What will the activists do with the unusable, foundered, broken legged, man killing horses that are being given away (or turned loose) now because of this ban? I know several people who run equine rescues, and they are chock full and having to turn people away. I would like PETA to establish a ranch (or 10) for the lifelong care of these animals, also for the out of work rodeo stock who are so abused , and mustangs who HAVE to be rounded up to preserve grazing lands so the herds can survive.

We are talking about AT LEAST 80,000 equine stock a year, quite possibly much, much more. Are PETA and the other AR groups prepared to feed, trim, vet, and maintain all these animals for their approx. 30 year lifespans? Are they prepared to fork out upwards of $150 each JUST to humanely euthanize them? I have 3 horses, and we spend $1500 a year on hay ALONE. Grain, much more. One vet visit for shots is at least $300. God forbid someone gets sick or hurt. Trimming? $30 each, every month. Shoeing? $90 each, every 6 weeks.

I'd really like to know. And no, THAT'S not terrorism, it's good old Washington lobbying by people who have no idea what they have done.

And sorry, the PETA headquarters are located in VA. But you didn't answer my question about the industrial sized walk in freezer. It's on their tax records.

Ok, ok, reputable sources, fine.

How about the San Francisco Chronicle?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DG11DC9BK1.DTL

The Austin Review?
http://www.austinreview.com/archives...a_kills_1.html

MSNBC?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8255324/

And Ms. Newkirk has admitted to being affiliated with the ALF, and has had ADVANCE knowledge of at least one bombing committed by ALF, Michigan State University. The woman behind the man, so to speak. She may not be in your face, a part of ALF, condoning these actions by ALF, but she certainly is supportive behind the scenes. I wouldn't be surprised if she helped fund their actions. No proof of that, but still.

Misti, mom to DS (12), DS (9), DD (3), and Mr. Man (October '10)!

mesa is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 05:25 PM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Apologies for the aggravated tone and the smilie overkill.

I just get really frustrated with what I think are errors, myths and misconceptions used to tarnish the good work of good people.

And having worked in the field for many, many years, you hear it a lot. Every now and then the pot o'frustrations boils over!
kaydee is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 05:40 PM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesa View Post
Did or did not Peta lobby for the ban of the slaughter of horses for human consumption?
Yup. They did.

Most animal groups also place or run rescues themselves, as well. ImIncluding horse rescues. I am not sure exactly what PETA does in this regard, as I have never been a PETA member. HSUS has at least one large sanctuary, possibly more than one since they have acquired other groups. You might look at www.taosanctuaries.org or www.americansanctuaries.org to see which sanctuaries are affilicated with which advocacy groups.

If the numbers of "spent" horses is high, it's not activists fault. It's the fault of those who "used 'em up" first and had no plans for humane disposal. Your anger seems, to me, misplaced. Those who use the horses should be required to care for them humanely up to and INCLUDING their deaths.

Regarding wild horses and grazing. I have major issues with kicking wild horses off wild lands so ranchers can graze their livestock (meat!) at astromonically low rents (subsidized by taxpayers). Again, directing anger at groups advocating for the horses seems misplaced to me.


Quote:
I'd really like to know. And no, THAT'S not terrorism, it's good old Washington lobbying by people who have no idea what they have done.
I am quite sure the consequences of the law passing were discussed by people all sides of the issue. That doesn't mean well-intentioned and thought out laws don't still have bad unintended consequences. That happens all the time, unfortunately. And it may happen with the horse slaughter ban--but we don't know yet what the negative fallout may be, if any.


Quote:
And sorry, the PETA headquarters are located in VA. But you didn't answer my question about the industrial sized walk in freezer. It's on their tax records.
No idea about the freezer. Why don't you call them and ask? (Not being facetious here; I'm always amazed why people don't ask questions directly more often).

I assume your insinuation (or that of the Center for Consumer "Freedom") is that it is used to hold animal carcasses. Much as I don't care for PETA, I find that highly doubtful.

I know the group I worked for (much, much smaller than PETA) often did public events where we served free veggie burgers and soy ice cream that we had donated to us by manufacturers. We stored ours in our miniscule freezer. It seems reasonable that a group of PETAs size would get similar--if larger--donations, too, and probably need larger freezers. ASSuming it is a "freezer of death," is odd, to me.
kaydee is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 05:43 PM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
P.S. Don't forget about my request for examples of animal rights campaigns where it was sugggested that domestic animals be let loose to roam the land freely!
kaydee is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 05:53 PM
 
mesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
ah, yes, the overbreeding problem. That is a huge issue, and as difficult to fight as the overbreeding of companion animals. Like I said in my previous post, the economy is very poor. Horses are expensive. Yes, there are many people out there who refuse to take responsibility for their stock, but there are just as many who, when facing the economy as it is, must choose between feeding their stock or feeding themselves.

And don't get me wrong, not all of these horses are "spent". Many of them are well bred, even trained for a discipline. Trust me, if these people could get what these horses are worth, they would never dream of auctioning them. The US horse market has tanked.

I think something needs to be done about overbreeding. What, exactly, I don't know. Personal freedom, and all that. People own something with a uterus, they seem compelled to force it to reproduce.

Mustangs, BLM does what they can. They have instituted prisoner training programs to increase the adoptability of some, nationwide adoption programs (for very little money, I might add) so people like you and me can have a piece of history. Mustangs make fabulous horses, and they are a part of American history. They manage the herds by introducing new stallions to maintain genetic diversity, and some of the HMA's are known worldwide for their stock. Look up Kiger mustangs, if you would like an example of what I'm talking about.

If we left the herds completely alone, they would starve. Many of the HMAs (herd management areas) are extremely remote, in parts of the country that are known for incredibly harsh winters, and these HMAs can only support so many head of stock.

Misti, mom to DS (12), DS (9), DD (3), and Mr. Man (October '10)!

mesa is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 05:55 PM
 
mesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
oh, and about Washington. You and I both know the power of well funded lobbyists. They buy their votes just like you and I buy food. Are you saying that you trust the talking heads in WA as far as you can toss them? They are susceptible to the propaganda just like everyone else.

Misti, mom to DS (12), DS (9), DD (3), and Mr. Man (October '10)!

mesa is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 06:10 PM
 
mesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
mesa is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 06:20 PM
rpe
 
rpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Again, the conflation of PETA and ALF with all animal protectionists is really, really frustrating.
Some of the things you mentioned you're working for have NOTHING to do with animal protection. It is indeed helping groups like HSUS, PETA, ALF and ELF. The HSUS is just PETA in an expensive suit and their latest aim is actively trying to destroy breeds in California. That is despicable.

Quote:
I think that if people use these two groups as examples of why they will not be part of the animal protection movement, they are, IMO, being absurd.
It is absurd to claim animal rights leadership (especially that of the HSUS) is working for animal protection and not animal elimination.

Quote:
But when I hear people say over and over, I can’t be involved in the broader animal protection movement, I hate PETA, it makes me just want to kick a puppy or something. : (j/k, obviously—gallows humor from someone who has heard this *&^@$$# a few too many times.)
No one said that. However I too have heard too many times those who claim they're working for animal protection when in reality they're helping extremists. Good soldiers who have no idea how corrupt their leaders are.

Quote:
Only a miniscule fraction of the people working on the issues you cite are involved with illegal activity of any sort! As is true in ANY social change movement. So why oh why do those few keep being held up as representative of a movement by people who should know better (that is, anyone who has critical thinking skills and can look beyond sensational headlines). Especially when so much has been done by the other 99% to disavow those sorts of actions and tactics?
The movement is for the most part, deceiving the public when it comes to animals. They are not for improving anyone's life, just an animal's life.

More than a miniscule amount and a larger amount certainly does advocate illegal activity. The HSUS in fact, hired a former ALF terrorist.

Quote:
Some of the stuff that’s been said about animal protection advocates should scare the pants off ANY social justice advocate.
Again, its patently absurd to think an animal rightist is working for social justice. I will mention again it demeans and cheapens the work of those who really are working for social justice.

Quote:
A metastasized “Green Scare” could unfarily pull in many, MANY people working to better the planet and stifle all kinds of dissent. The lumping together of advocates with terrorists that I see here is only contributing to that demonization, IMO. (FWIW: I am totally opposed to property damage or violence as an advocacy tactic for any issue, no matter how close to my heart. But I am also opposed to what appears to be a new breed (sic) of McCarthyism in this country.)
Its good to work for conservation but that must also be balanced with human needs. One reason the founder of Greenpeace left the organization is for just that reason.

Quote:
And that PETA, whatever offensive tactics it uses, does not commit acts of terrorism?
There are FBI documents linking PETA to domestic terrorism. Bruce Friedrich and other spokesmen has publicly advocated it, and PETA has given money for domestic terrorist Rodney Coronado's defense.

Quote:
Seems like if you want to hurt invective, you might want to get your facts right.... But then the site you cite isn't really the most reputable source (there's that Center for Consumer Freedom, again!
Like it or not, that site has public information and documents about various animal rights groups that shows that animal welfarists who are fighting animal rightists are quite often right in what they say about them.

But for ARs of course its okay for the HSUS and other groups to deceive people.

Shahbazin,

Animal rightists don't like any organization which exposes their true agenda and nature. The NAIA has done a lot of good work for animal owners and their animals. A part of that good work is educating the public about the AR movement.
rpe is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 06:46 PM
 
TigerTail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: I'm finally here!
Posts: 8,660
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
the house rabbit society: I think the insistance on only adopting rabbits as indoor pets has led to so many languishing in rescue groups; they are not ideal indoor pets imho (if it works for you, awesome-it's just the judgemental attitide towards breeders and the ARBA that frustrates me).

People's expectations of rabbits as pets can lead to disappointment in less socialized, more destructive pets than they'd been led to believe. I've had rabbits that followed me around like a dog- it was their nature. I've also had ones that would really prefer humans to just fetch their vittles & leave them alone.

Kind of ot, but since we are discussing animal welfare groups that may not be entirely helpful to genuine animal welfare causes, I thought I'd throw that out there. The house rabbit advocates are as vocal as furries.
TigerTail is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 06:58 PM
 
sunflwrmoonbeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've read most of this discussion, as it's a subject that I care quite a bit about. I eat meat, I wear leather. I do not wear fur. I have a cat and want more. My cat was spayed after she had kittens, she is not declawed. I think what PETA says and does is generally speaking, crazy. I want animals to be treated like animals and not objects. This is why I will very soon be buying all or most of my meat from a local Amish farmer who treats their animals very humanely.

That said, I'm bothered by the discussion of whether or not animals are equal to people. I firmly believe that we are not inherently better than animals, or that we're inherently worse. I therefore think animals and humans are "equal." That said, it is natural and right that humans would prefer humans over other animals, and that there is nothing wrong with that. As an example, I think it's wrong to exterminate an annoying species (I'm an arachnophobe, and I don't think spiders shoudl be extinct. I just don't ever want tosee them or know they're there.) like wolves. But that doesn't mean that i don't have the right to kill a wolf if it's threatening my family. Conversely, wolves or lions have the right to kill and eat our pets or our children. That's what animals do. But we have the right ot defend ourselves and kill them to protect our family and home, if need be.

Ashley, Pagan treehugger.gif mama to E (6/09) and my beautiful hbac.gif baby T (4/3/12)
sunflwrmoonbeam is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 01:07 PM
 
athansor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: learning to prevent geoboobs
Posts: 2,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpe View Post

Animal rightists don't like any organization which exposes their true agenda and nature. The NAIA has done a lot of good work for animal owners and their animals. A part of that good work is educating the public about the AR movement.
That's the only work I saw at their website, basically countering the animal rights movement. I didn't see anything pro-active to protect animals.

Ok, there are a lot of sites that exist to bash PETA and other AR groups, and I think this site has a nice collection of links for anyone who wants a soundbyte for why they shouldn't support AR groups.

Now, back to my question. If you are concerned about animal welfare and stopping factory farming, without getting rid of companion animals, what should you do? What organizations can you support?

Vegan, mom to : Joe and Josh ::
athansor is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 02:15 PM
Fab
 
Fab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I cannot watch such clips... It makes me sick and soooo mad!!!
Fab is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 02:36 PM
rpe
 
rpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Right now the biggest fight to help animals is to fight animal rights groups for without their existence there is nothing left to protect. They promote rescue, education and shelter programs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athansor View Post
Now, back to my question. If you are concerned about animal welfare and stopping factory farming, without getting rid of companion animals, what should you do? What organizations can you support?
Did you know the term "factory farming" was coined by animal rightists? Just as "backyard breeder" was in their continual effort to portray breeders as evil. They start with the big operations, put it in people's minds that they're all bad no matter what and they want them all gone. Its the same approach they take to everything. Fact is, most animals are not treated as poorly as they claim. I've been to some of the big operations back in the days when I believed their propoganda. Sure some aren't treated well and some are fed questionable food but that goes for everything. Rather than abolish it and giving money to those who want to eliminate all animals there are groups that are working for change that want nothing to do with animal rightists. I'm sorry I can't remember any for I'm not involved in that fight right now. There are so many!

What I like to do is support local farmers and ranchers and encourage others to do so as well.

AR groups scream about "factory farming" just as they continually scream "overpopulation". Its been found the latter isn't quite true - there aren't too many pets being born. The problem is surrender. ARs make the claim so they can get a foothold to spay and neuter out of existence. Since they're basically dishonest about pets then why do you think they'd be honest about anything else?

People are vulnerable to animal rightist propoganda because they see the words "humane", "ethical" and want to believe what they say is true. They package it nicely claiming they want to help animals. Most people do so they rarely question what ARs say. We have to remember AR groups are like big tobacco and any other big business. They only have their own self-interests at heart. The HSUS is a prime example.

Its not just PETA that has a twisted mindset. The quote below reflects the philosophy of the HSUS.

“Humane care (of animals) is simply sentimental, sympathetic patronage.” Dr. Michael W. Fox, Humane Society of the US, in 1988 Newsweek interview.

This site has some pretty good info on vegetarianism/veganism and some of the myths surrounding those diets - ie, they're not better for everyone and there is really no science proving it is. Some do fine on it some don't. Animal welfarists want people to have the right to choose. Animal rightists don't care about people or their needs.

http://www.beyondveg.com/

Just another side to what ARs present. Its not to try and convince anyone either way.
rpe is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 04:32 PM
 
athansor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: learning to prevent geoboobs
Posts: 2,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So, you are saying that there is no such thing as a factory farm? Most animals raised for meat are treated humanly? AR is like the tobacco industry, but the meat industry is just a bunch of nice people who raise and kill their animals humanely? The health benefits of a vegetarian diet are a myth? (Have you read the China Study, or Dr. Furhman's book Eat to Live?) Are the environmental benefits also a myth? What about the abililty to feed more people if we used the land to grow crops for people instead of to feed livestock? Also a myth? Could the world support the current population if the only thing people ate was grass fed beef and free-range chicken?

Is the best thing I can do to end the suffering of animals to start eating meat and wearing fur? Will I live longer and be healthier if I give up my veg*n diet, and return to a diet heavy in beef and cheese? Will eating beef also help provide food for the rest of the world?

(I've been to Dr. Mercola's site, and do not believe that he is not trying to convince anyone either way...or that he is not trying to sell something. If you are looking for an unbiased, statistical and research based look at vegetarian diets, try the China Study)

I'm not anti-dog or cat. I have dogs, cats, and used to run a riding school, where I had many horses that I rescued from auctions and other situations. But I still don't see an answer for the slippery slope issue. Do you really think that the meat industry as it exists in the US right now treats all animals humanely? How about veil? Are you OK with how veil is 'produced'? Is it OK to speak out against veil or fois gras production? The meat industry in general? Or does any action taken lead to the end of dogs or cats?

Vegan, mom to : Joe and Josh ::
athansor is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 07:30 PM
rpe
 
rpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by athansor View Post
So, you are saying that there is no such thing as a factory farm? Most animals raised for meat are treated humanly? AR is like the tobacco industry, but the meat industry is just a bunch of nice people who raise and kill their animals humanely? The health benefits of a vegetarian diet are a myth? (Have you read the China Study, or Dr. Furhman's book Eat to Live?)
Nope, not saying that but more are treated humanely than the AR movement wants you to believe. They want you to believe none are treated humanely. I'm pointing out that the AR movement is every bit as deceptive and dishonest as the tobacco industry. I don't use "factory farm" since its an animal rights term and as such doesn't have much meaning. Its just another term meant to tug at people's heartstrings. They know how easy it is to manipulate people.

If killing an animal to eat were cruel then all predators are cruel. One cannot have the pretense that it is only man that is cruel. Most often the animals are killed much quicker than a predator kills its prey.

Many claims of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet are indeed a myth. Works for some, not others. That is my point. There are so many books on diet by many different doctors - some nutritionists, some not. They range from eating too much meat to saying all meat is bad for you. Everyone has their favorite. I've read many of them. I don't recall "Eat to Live" as being better than any others and not one of the best books on a vegetarian diet I've read.

Did you know the author of the China Study is a member of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine? Thats not a group of doctors, at most 5% are doctors, its been funded by PETA (public documents have shown it) and the head of it is not a nutritionist (Neal Barnard). He was trained as a psychiatrist.

That sheds a whole new light on the efficacy of the China Study.

Here's a couple of critiques (there are others out there as well) -

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-8e.shtml

I don't think there's anything wrong with being vegetarian or vegan and was a vegetarian for a year. I just didn't feel quite as good so I went back to eating meat. If people ask me about it I tell them to read up on it and give them the pros and cons so they can make an informed choice.

[quote]
Are the environmental benefits also a myth? What about the abililty to feed more people if we used the land to grow crops for people instead of to feed livestock? Also a myth? Could the world support the current population if the only thing people ate was grass fed beef and free-range chicken?
/quote]

Some are a myth yes. Its a dubious claim at best that one could feed more people if we didn't eat meat or that it would be a great positive effect on the environment. ARs in particular ignore that in nature there is a hierarchy and that man is a natural omnivore. That means its natural for man to eat meat.

Quote:
Is the best thing I can do to end the suffering of animals to start eating meat and wearing fur? Will I live longer and be healthier if I give up my veg*n diet, and return to a diet heavy in beef and cheese?
You'd probably be healthier if you weren't a vegan but going heavy on beef and cheese isn't the answer. A balanced nutritional diet doesn't consist of extremes but moderation.

Quote:
Will eating beef also help provide food for the rest of the world?
Eating vegan doesn't. Many third world countries don't get enough food because those who receive it won't distribute it equitably. That kind of corruption is a much more serious problem.

Quote:
I'm not anti-dog or cat. I have dogs, cats, and used to run a riding school, where I had many horses that I rescued from auctions and other situations. But I still don't see an answer for the slippery slope issue. Do you really think that the meat industry as it exists in the US right now treats all animals humanely? How about veil? Are you OK with how veil is 'produced'? Is it OK to speak out against veil or fois gras production? The meat industry in general? Or does any action taken lead to the end of dogs or cats?
Any donations to AR groups like the HSUS does help contribute to the end of dogs and cats as well as banning all meat, leather, etc. Their agenda is to also force everyone to be vegan.

I think its fine to speak out against veal or any inhumane practice. However when doing so people need to be honest about it. If they are not then they are no better than those who are abusing animals.

We live in a time where most people live in cities and have no concept of where food comes from. All they've ever seen is meat in a nice, neat package. For them any image of death is horrible no matter how instantaneous. Death is never pretty. I don't make the mistake of thinking everyone treats cattle humanely just as I won't make the mistake of believing AR propoganda. Images are powerful and an excellent tool for manipulating.
rpe is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 04:26 AM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesa View Post
Oh, and about Washington. You and I both know the power of well funded lobbyists. They buy their votes just like you and I buy food. Are you saying that you trust the talking heads in WA as far as you can toss them? They are susceptible to the propaganda just like everyone else.
Sorry--I'm not sure what you are asking me here, or what part of what post you are responding to. (Or even if you are addressing me! )
kaydee is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off