Quote:
Besides which, the Europeans brought the beavers over here in the first place. They're not native to the land
Actually Cyke, the Beaver is native to North America.
Just FYI.
Cycle,
Those beaver chomped trees make dams that flood other animals habitats. Whether the habitat change is good or bad is arguable, but the fact is that beavers come second to man as the animal that changes it's environment most.
As far as hydroelectric dams go, what do you want, more coal power?
Jimro
Actually Cyke, the Beaver is native to North America.
Oops. I'm thinking of something else.
Whether the habitat change is good or bad is arguable, but the fact is that beavers come second to man as the animal that changes it's environment most.
Something tells me that they're a fairly distant second. Just a hunch.
Besides which, the beavers don't exactly make many of our own excessesses any less harmful or unnecessary.
As far as hydroelectric dams go, what do you want, more coal power?
Newer fission reactors are nice.
With all the talk on animal rights, I keep wondering when someone is going to start a plant rights campaign. After all, they're living beings as well...
Personally, I believe that we should treat animals with respect, but this shouldn't stop us from using them for food, clothing and experiments which are expected to provide beneficial results for medicine, or other things which would improve quality of life. I don't believe that animals should be experimented on for things such as cosmetics, smoking, or other things used for recreational pursuits, and when we do work with animals, we should do so in a way that maintains a decent quality of life for them. In that respect, I believe PETA and organisations like it have reasonable complaints, but they take the whole issue too far, in my opinion, in what should be done to protect animals.
Quote:
I believe PETA and organisations like it have reasonable complaints, but they take the whole issue too far, in my opinion, in what should be done to protect animals.
I have to disagree with you there, most if not all of PeTA's complaints are pulled out of their rectums.
Quote:
With all the talk on animal rights, I keep wondering when someone is going to start a plant rights campaign. After all, they're living beings as well...
If you want to discuss plant rights then make a thread on it.
If PETA doesn't like humans, and doesn't like animals (at least, not enough to give them a second chance) what does it like?
Well, since most of its $20 million budget seems to be spent on 'campaigning for animal rights', ie throwing paint over meat-eater's cars, sending research doctors threatening letters, and insulting women who wear 50 year old fur coats, it seems to like bugging people who are just doing a job or living their life.
In other words, PETA is a troll of the real world.
I don't agree with animal testing. It isn't nessecery, and besides if you test on animals the results won't be totally accurate when human trials are performed anyway.
But I agree far less with PETA gathering the animals from animal testing labs and then destroying them just because they want to spend their budget on insulting humans rather than animal shelters.
I agree that terminally sick and violent animals should be put down for their own good. I don't agree that kittens and their mothers should be destroyed just because PETA claims they "don't have room."
Reminds me of that obviously faked picture of a seal hunter clubbing a seal to death. It's the sort of viscous propaganda PETA spreads.
"Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it's nothing but vanity, human vanity."
I'd love for this woman to tell me how she proposes people have a human baby that isn't purebred. Perhaps by mating with apes?
Quote:
I don't agree with animal testing. It isn't nessecery, and besides if you test on animals the results won't be totally accurate when human trials are performed anyway.
Mice share over 90 percent of their DNA with humans.
Chimpanzees and other apes share roughly 97 percent.
That sounds pretty darn close to me.
Besides, we do animal testing before human tests are done to make sure we're not going to kill people with whatever drug they're testing. If a couple mice or monkeys die, it's not really a problem.
Chimpanzees and other apes share roughly 97 percent.
If we keep hunting them, infecting them with AIDS, and destroying their habitat, every ape species in the world will be extinct by 2030. And that's being generous.
Quote:
Mice share over 90 percent of their DNA with humans. Chimpanzees and other apes share roughly 97 percent
And bananas share about 50 percent of their DNA with humans. Closeness isn't as important as compatability.
As for PETA, I was going more with what some of their complaints, such as animal testing for cosmetic products, or unnecessary cruelty to animals, when I commented on reasonableness. However, I think they take the idea of protecting animals too far in their complaints, and achieve next to nothing for their credibility with their protests.
My comment on plant rights was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, since if the same level of concern was shown for plant welfare as it is for animals by various people, then they wouldn't last particularly long due to a lack of acceptable food - except possibly fruit. However, research does suggest that plants react to damage to themselves in a similar way to animals, it is just less simple to conceive of plants suffering pain than it is for animals due to their vastly different structure. I'm not saying plants do feel pain, just that it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Well the way I see it, no matter what you do, if you are an animal or human, you have to kill something to survive, whether it's plant or animal flesh. Plants are lucky in a way, they absorb sunlight and therefore do not need to take away from anything so they can live. They also produce oxygen so we can breath and we produce what..they breath. Other than that, if not for plants we wouldn't be able to survive. Even if you are a meat eater, if you go on down the ol'circle of life, plant eaters will eat the plants, we kill the plant eaters and eat them.
I just accept it and not worry about it.
Now, I don't believe in animal cruelty, I don't believe we should go around destroying forests all the time for the sake of say, fire wood...I believe in recycling and reusing stuff. But I don't think we should go too far with it either. Just the whole simply y'know, if you cut down a tree plant a new on in it's place if you can.
Another thing you may want to consider is this, by hunting you're actually helping keep the deer population in check. If the deer are allowed to over populate, eventually they'll use up all their sources and die of starvation. And this is our fault for taking out their natural predators out of inconveniance.
NOT to say bears and wolves aren't a danger to humans, but c'mon there is such a thing as common sense when you walk in the woods. 
(chuckles) My goodness, debates on this board are quite entertaining. 
In any case, PETA would have to change their focus to actually conserving animal species and acting from a logical scientific standpoint instead of pointless propoganda if they want me to take them seriously.
Quote:
(chuckles) My goodness, debates on this board are quite entertaining.
You have learned. **gives you a gift** 😀
And you'd also be amazed, though I doubt you'd be surprized, at how many of their compaigns are simply appeals to pity, which is...a fallacy.
...Yeeeesss...I'm taking Critical thinking....Nooooo It's not going to change my points of view on love, marriage and religion.
Anyway, it seems peta is definatly out to get your money..uses the appeal to pity..."oh look at that poor helpless animal" ...and we never really know if they use that money to help that animal or not. They could very well be using it to terrorize animal shelters and harm animals.
How do we really know? Some animal shelters are actually out there to help animals.
There's a lot of necromancy going on in this board..
Quote:
There's a lot of necromancy going on in this board..
Well, this topic wasn't dead for that long, and MG in general seems to be pretty dead right now. So if you want to bring topics back, more power to ya.
There's nothing wrong with bringing a topic back up if you have something to add to it you know.
PETA Tells Kids to Run from Daddy
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, has begun a campaign to scare children into becoming vegetarians.
The group, which formed to stop animal testing of consumer products but made its name by attacking women in fur coats with fake blood, is producing comic books that portray fathers as homicidal maniacs.
The handout, titled "Your Daddy Kills Animals," features a grinning lunatic gutting a fish, and warns kids to keep their puppies and kittens away from Dad because he's "hooked on killing."
"PETA is trying as hard as it can to portray the ordinary angler as a demonic, sadistic, cruel killer. This is what PETA does it paints caricatures of ordinary people to try to convince the rest of us that we shouldn't want to emulate them," said David Martosko, of the industry lobbying group Center for Consumer Freedom.
But PETA insists that its comic is not outlandish.
"The scientific facts are that fish feel pain in the same way as dogs and cats. It's no more acceptable to hook a fish through the mouth and drag them into your boat and slice them in half than it would be to do the exact same thing to a dog or a cat," said Bruce Friedrich, vegan campaign coordinator for PETA.
Publicity stunts are nothing new for PETA, which has run ads featuring naked women in cages and people dressed in animal suits warning about the dangers of eating meat. But some critics feel the kid-targeted campaign goes too far.
"This is traumatizing kids by the thousands. There's going to be long-term psychological damage from these kids being exposed to the material that PETA puts in front of them on a regular basis," Martosko said.
But, Friedrich countered, "They can certainly find stuff that is more in your face on the Internet, more in your face on Saturday morning cartoons. We don't need to shelter our kids quite that much."
The pamphlet follows a previous one that painted Mom as a "chicken killer." PETA claims its only goal is to reduce meat consumption by changing children's eating habits. Critics insist alienating children from their parents isn't in anyone's best interests human or animal.
And here are the comic covers...
Um...yeah...
(backs away slowly)
They are 2 of the funniest and yet scariest comic covers I have ever seen XD
I mean the covers themselves. What they're trying to portray is just silly.
This just proves my point that PeTA are domestic terrorists,
since by definition, a "terrorist" should be considered someone who plants seeds of dissent and fear in a society for their own personal gain.
Seriously, how low do you get? Propagandizing children with half-baked "Scientific facts" like Fish feeling pain in any kind of human sense.
This is, as the article states, simply trying to make children afraid of and hateful towards their parents.
Disgusting.
Especially considering that fish lips are made of the same material as their scale,s and thus can't feel a hook in the lip at all.
Don't use keyboards you barbarians! Plastic is partially made from rubber which came from a tree which was ALIVE. You killed a TREE! MURDERERERERERER!!!!!111////omgigglygoo
~Rico
Some scientific research has suggested that fish do infact feel pain. Though I don't think whether they do or not is as relevent as some people on both sides of the fence make it out to be.
by definition, a "terrorist" should be considered someone who plants seeds of dissent and fear in a society for their own personal gain.
So does the news media count as a terrorist cartel?
As some comic relief, this (note, f-bomb in audio, at the end of the letter) deserved posting.
Besides, we all could use some come-uh-forting.
I noticed that on the cover of Your Mommy Kills Animals it says "The sooner she stops wearing fur, the sooner animals will be safe!" This, in itself, is absolutely hilarious to me. I love how PETA has convinced themselves into thinking that just a couple people not buying a coat or eating a hamburger will completely halt the industry. Doesn't work that way--they'll just give it to the next person in line who wants it. And that's quite a few million.
However, if all those few million decide that, even if everyone else continues to support the industry they will stop doing so, then suddenly it all seems a lot more effective. Granted, it seems particularly unlikely, especially given man's incredible capacity for apathy, but targetting the campaign at getting individuals to change their minds, rather than attempting to get wholesale change, is the most likely route to success...
Umm, "supply and demand" anyone?
And unless Cosmopolitan says that animal-safe substances are the new in thing, the demand for furs won't stop.
Actually the demand for animal friendly products has risen quite a bit since the 90's and wearing fur in most younger social circles is seen as passe. If you go to a Central Market, Whole Foods or other store that sells natural products you can find a ton of organic, animal friendly, vegetarian, vegan, whatever products. There is a growing market for speciality products.
Quote:
And unless Cosmopolitan says that animal-safe substances are the new in thing, the demand for furs won't stop.
World hunger, domestic violence, war and poverty won't be going away at any quick rate any time soon. So why should anyone as individuals even bother, right?
I'm not saying people can't be vegans or vegetarians. I am saying that they shouldn't be part of a fundamentalist group of psychopathic vegheads whose soul purpose in life is to make every single person on the planet one of them.
And I never argued that, just as you never mentioned it in your previous two posts, only "lolz normal people can't make a difference", which is an incredibly ignorant and sadly all too common attitude (for many of life's challenges and injustices).
Oh. I got mix-matched signals there. My apologies.
Can "normal" people make a difference? Yes, I believe they can. In the right situation.
This is not one of those situations.
How is it not?
If less people buy fur coats, less fur coats will be produced.
If less people buy meat, less meat will be produced.
Because. People. Like. Meat. And. Fur.
Like me.
Way to miss the point entirely. Thanks to all the people who boycott fur coats there are less animals being killed for fur coats. The problem hasn't been entirely eradicated, but they're still making a difference.
Because. People. Like. Meat. And. Fur.
If there is less demand, less supply will be produced the next time round. Trust me, I work in wholesale.
Way to miss the point entirely. Thanks to all the people who boycott fur coats there are less animals being killed for fur coats. The problem hasn't been entirely eradicated, but they're still making a difference.
Oh. I get it. Okay, I was missing the point. I thought you were saying that they would eventually be successful in making the entire world go veg. Sorry, won't happen again.
Or it will.
Quote:
If there is less demand, less supply will be produced the next time round. Trust me, I work in wholesale.
Good thing, too. Wasting something is never good, but for me especially bad when its an animals remains. You're only helping bacteria otherwise..
Quote:
I thought you were saying that they would eventually be successful in making the entire world go veg.
Circumstantially, it could happen. If our population grows enough, that is, it'd become impractical to keep livestock. No idea how big the population would need to get for that to happen though
If the population continues to expand like it has been doing for the last 100 years or so, the most economical food will be insects. They're higher in nutrients and energy than beef, and require less land to raise than wheat or corn.
I just want to say that I went to U-Grill the other day and had a stirfry consisting of sprouts, noodles, mushrooms, onions, broccoli, bok choy, tofu, rice and ginger sauce, and it was so good I nearly collapsed. Although that is partly attributable to the fact that I broke about half the bones in my body while snowboarding over the weekend.
I love a lot of veg cuisine, but something about Tofu makes me want to throw up. I think it's the gummy sort-of-like-meat-but-not texture that strikes me as horrifying.
And the opposite of vegan, well isn't that meagan?
A while back I happened across a traditional british meal that is darn near the Anti-PETA diet, something called the Mixed Grill.
Serves 4
450g (1lb) Rump Steak cut into 4 pieces
225g (
z) Black Pudding cut into 4 pieces
4 Lambs Kidneys, skinned and halved
4 Lamb Chops
4 Bacon Rashers
4 Sausages
4 Tomatoes, halved
4 Large Mushrooms, peeled and sliced
Oil
Salt and Pepper
Pre-heat oven to 160C: 300F: Gas 2.
Pre-heat grill.
Brush the kidney, lamb chops, and steak with oil, season to taste
Place the sausages under the grill, cook for 8-10 minutes, turning frequently.
Remove and keep warm in oven.
Place the kidneys under the grill and bacon, cook for 4-5 minutes, turning once.
Remove and keep warm in oven.
Place the steak and lamb chops under the grill, cook for 7-10 minutes, turning once.
Remove and keep warm in oven.
Place the black pudding under the grill, cook for 8-10 minutes, turning once.
Remove and keep warm in oven.
Brush tomatoes and mushroom with some of the meat juices, season to taste.
Place under the grill, cook for 3 minutes on each side.
Serve immediately with a little of the meat juices poured over each portion.
Of course there is an Americanized version that substitutes bacon wrapped filet mignon for the black pudding. For some reason Americans don't consume a lot of black pudding...
Jimro
Well I have this this saying: "The difference between an omnivore and a vegetarian is that that vegetarian never sees the animals they kill on their dinner plate."
"The difference between an omnivore and a vegetarian is that that vegetarian never sees the animals they kill on their dinner plate."
The different between a vegetarian and an omnivore are that one likes meat and the other doesn't.
Actually, the difference between a vegetarian and an omnivore is two syllables.
The difference between omnivores and vegetarians is that omnivores is what humans are biologically designed to be and vegetarians aren't.
Yeah really, what the hell? An omnivore ain't a vegetarian.
My point was that I don't buy the arguement of the vegetarian diet as being more 'moral' than an omnivore diet. Many animals die in the harvest of grains, vegetables and such.
Too bad the head honchos at PETA are in psychotic self-denial about it.
