This makes me laugh.. PETA at it again

[Whaleboy]

I'm going veggie!!

Ok, mainly cos I need to lose weight but hey.

If we must eat animals then why not treat them well? What is the coherent argument for treating animals badly?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by elijah
If we must eat animals then why not treat them well? What is the coherent argument for treating animals badly?

Well we have to treat cows in a good way or the meat will taste like crap. Chickens on the other hand..

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by elijah
If we must eat animals then why not treat them well? What is the coherent argument for treating animals badly?

If we let them know that we are concerned about their welfare they will rise up and overhrow us. Haven't you read Animal Farm?!

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Ming
Many of the PETA people will walk by a person living on the street and not even notice them... but heaven forbid an animal might be treated harshly before it gets killed and eaten.

There is no way to back up that statement.

[Gibsie]

Sure there is, haven't you heard of hyperbole?

[Ming]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
There is no way to back up that statement.

No... no "exact proof"... but in discussions with many of them, and watching how they act, they care more about the plight of animals then they do human beings... With all the starving and mistreated people in this world, I find it sick that they are more concerned about animal abuse...

Again... animal abuse is bad... I love animals... but PETA is full of a bunch of hypocrits... They wear their leather shoes and purses... and many eat meat...

[Whaleboy]

I suppose the key fundamental debate here is the question of consciousness and individuality. OK, I'm prone to look for the fundamental stuff but its better perspective than getting bogged down in specifics.

It is my belief that until we can prove a species of animals to be effectively a biological machine (no greater than the sum of its cells, in other words, with no consciousness (I think therefore I am)), then we must assume (Heisenberg style) that it may be intelligent, and afford it at least basic rights, namely that to live etc. As far as this debate is concerned, the issue of ownership is also key. Are we to say that we can "own" an animal as if it were an inanimate object. Obviously if it was conscious (lets all get over the notion of inherent human superiority), then "owning" it would be similar to slavery, and thus imo, unacceptable. The rights afforded of course would be proportional to its intelligence, Maslows hierarchy of needs as a rough guide, which of course raises the question of who is to judge if the animal cannot judge and communicate for itself. Meantime, theres always tofu!

[Whaleboy]

Ming is correct, many PETA members are hypocritical, and without being Vegan (I'm working on it) its often hard not to be, unless we assume intent to be more important than act (a sort of John Lennon, Let it be kinda thing). However, I'm not a member of PETA, so I'm free to moan!

[:) Smiley]

Anyone remember the Beef Vat from CTP I? Now that's how we ought to be doing it!

[TCO]

I had chicken wings for lunch. No kidding.

[Gibsie]

I had chicken selects, and got a Transformer with it. Wordlife. *wins*

[Whaleboy]

Besides, you shouldn't eat at KFC anyway!! I have this fear that eating at fast food restaurants will result in me consuming the contents of someones prostate.

[TCO]

Originally posted by elijah
I suppose the key fundamental debate here is the question of consciousness and individuality. OK, I'm prone to look for the fundamental stuff but its better perspective than getting bogged down in specifics.

It is my belief that until we can prove a species of animals to be effectively a biological machine (no greater than the sum of its cells, in other words, with no consciousness (I think therefore I am)), then we must assume (Heisenberg style) that it may be intelligent, and afford it at least basic rights, namely that to live etc. As far as this debate is concerned, the issue of ownership is also key. Are we to say that we can "own" an animal as if it were an inanimate object. Obviously if it was conscious (lets all get over the notion of inherent human superiority), then "owning" it would be similar to slavery, and thus imo, unacceptable. The rights afforded of course would be proportional to its intelligence, Maslows hierarchy of needs as a rough guide, which of course raises the question of who is to judge if the animal cannot judge and communicate for itself. Meantime, theres always tofu!

How about fetus? How about a just born baby?

[Ming]

One of the local papers poked some fun at a local PETA event a ways back by publishing the menu... Needless to say, meat was a on it... they then included pictures of the organizers... and matched up the shoes, belts, and purses to manufactureres... and guess what... real leather... hypocrites

[Asher]

PETA needs to get their priorities straight: The pop machines at the KFCs here don't have enough carbonation.

How about we make human's lives better before chickens, da?