PETA Spokesman Grilled by Burger-Eaters at (ND) Capitol

[DoveTurnedHawk]

Matt Prescott, 21, a former University of New Hampshire student in khaki pants, kept explaining his PETA organization's animal-rights views in an indoor voice while many of the about 50 mostly men, many in cowboy-wear, around him at the North Dakota Capitol Grounds on Thursday afternoon yelled at him.

Some of them called him "stupid" and other names and told him he wasn't wanted in North Dakota and shouldn't be here -- one rancher emphasized his taunts with an occasional spit of chew to the street and another held out a hamburger bun stuffed with grass, telling Prescott to eat it.

"Oh man, this doesn't look good," John Boyle, director of facilities management for the State Capitol, remembers thinking when he looked down from the fourth floor at the crowd below at about 1 p.m.

A University of Tennessee professor, after visiting the North Dakota Heritage Center, also became a target of taunts after it appeared he seemed to be more aligned with Prescott's views during PETA's couple-hour display of its "Holocaust on Your Plate" panels. The Virginia-based group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has eight 60-square-foot panels that show photos of Nazi death camps next to photos of factory farm and slaughterhouse scenes.

<...>

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2003/08/01/news/local/nws05.txt

DTH

[joshcryer]

1. Some people can be asses.

Enough said.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

3. Yup

I still can't believe PETA would stoop so low as to use the Holocaust for a cheap PR ploy.

DTH

[DavidMS]

5. Tasteless and Crass...

This perticular bunch of loons base their ideology on a faulty reading of Utilitarainism combined with 19th Century Anti-modernist Romanticism.

Or in other words, Fudalism Good, Democracy Bad.
Percieved Happyness of Animals good, Human Happyness Bad.

[govegan]

69. You are so content to suck the teats of corporate welfare

The mammary excretions of your
twisted analogy

spin frightening
glimpses of hedonistic revelry

Good health = bad

fat, bifurcated malignancy = good

sick = normal

medicine = divine revelation

DO NOT TRY TO BE HEALTHY

Death = health

pollution = fair

greed = beauty

misconceptions = gallant

bread = butter

peanuts = wages

GO FOR IT MAN! YOU ARE GOD'S DIVINE REVELATION.

NO ONE CAN THINK ANYMORE!

work = whore

[Sirius_on]

78. Put down the crack pipe

nt

[bitchkitty]

84. Why do you think they call it dope? n/t

.

[Karmadillo]

20. An Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust

One doesn't have to agree with the comparison, but it does seem a bit much to dismiss it as a cheap PR ploy.

In addition to the excerpt of the review, I excerpted a few paragraphs from the chapter on Isaac Bashevis Singer (it can be accessed directly from the review).

http://www.mts.net/~wva/Reviews/EternalTreblinka.html

Comparing modern factory farms to Nazi concentration camps has never been an easy sell. But Holocaust scholar Charles Patterson has a slightly different spin: objectifying domesticated animals is a prep school for doing the same to people – or looking the other way while others do it for you.

Borrowing his title from a short story by the late Jewish Nobel Laureate for literature and vegetarian, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Patterson has put together a dark and dreary history of man’s inhumanity to beast and (in very close moral and behavioural proximity, Patterson suggests) inhumanity to man.

The book culminates with the apocalyptic expression of this us/them pathology in the form of the Holocaust, mostly through the eyes and hearts of people like Singer (who fled Poland for the US shortly before the Nazi rampage) who have found the human and animal parallels inescapable. Singer never stopped seeing the ghosts of his fellow Jews in the plight of food and research animals and even the humble house mouse. “In relation to them ,” thinks a Singer character whose family was exterminated by the Nazis, “all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka.”

more...

http://www.powerfulbook.com/singer.html

Chapter 7: This Boundless Slaughterhouse
The Compassionate Vision of Isaac Bashevis Singer

One of the most powerful pro-animal voices of the twentieth
century was the Yiddish writer Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904-91),
winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1978.1 Although Singer
survived the Holocaust by following his older brother Joshua to the
United States in 1935, his mother, younger brother, and many members
of his extended family who remained in Poland were killed. Although
Singer's later stories and novels set in America are mostly about
Holocaust survivors and refugees from Europe, he did not write about
the Holocaust directly. Nonetheless, it was the ever present lens
through which he viewed the world, especially when it came to the
exploitation and slaughter of animals, which upset him greatly.

The Eleventh Commandment

Singer was born in the small Polish village of Leoncin where his
father was a Hasidic rabbi. Although he only lived there until the
age of three, Singer remembered that their house had very little
furniture, but many books. He also remembered the animals. "Every
week there was a market, and many peasants would come to the town
bringing livestock. Once I saw a peasant beating a pig. Maybe it had
been squealing. I ran in to my mother to tell her the pig was crying
and the man was beating it with a stick. I remember this very
vividly. Even then I was thinking like a vegetarian."2

After the family moved to Warsaw where his father served as a
rabbi in a poor Jewish neighborhood, Singer took to catching flies
and removing their wings. He would then place the wingless fly in a
match box with a drop of water and a grain of sugar for nourishment.
He did this until he finally realized he was committing "terrible
crimes against those creatures just because I was bigger than they,
stronger, and defter." This realization bothered him so much that
for a long time he thought about little else. After he prayed for
forgiveness and took "a holy oath never again to catch flies," his
thinking about the suffering of flies "expanded to include all
people, all animals, all lands, all times."3

His experience catching flies appears in his autobiographical
novel, Shosha, which is set in Warsaw.4 When the narrator and Shosha
pass the street where they both grew up, Shosha tells him, "You
stood on the balcony and caught flies." The narrator tells her not
to remind him. When Shosha asks him why not, he tells her what
becomes a constant refrain throughout Singer's writings: "Because we
do to God's creatures what the Nazis did to us."5

more...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

23. I Disagree

but it does seem a bit much to dismiss it as a cheap PR ploy.

As others in this thread have indicated, PETA deliberately takes over-the-top positions and actions. This ad campaign was chosen with the explicit intent of inflaming.

If you want to be controversial, then fine. But when you take one of the most horrific events in human history and reduce it to cheap, self-serving theatrics like these, you leap over the line from controversial to abhorrent and disgusting.

I am well aware that a handful of people, including one or a few Holocaust survivors, might feel differently. But most people find the campaign offensive, as do I.

DTH, Who Would Like to Grill Some Steaks In Front of These Assholes and Their Holocaust Exhibit

[Karmadillo]

29. PETA seems to be taking the same position as Singer and Patterson

I assume if PETA is to be dismissed as "assholes", the same would have to apply to Singer and Patterson. Don't know much about Patterson, but not at all sure why anyone would be so dismissive of a man as accomplished as Singer. Is he "abhorrent and disgusting" for making the comparison PETA has adopted? Would you really want to grill steaks in front of Singer were he to return to life and begin a campaign similar to that of PETA's?

Also, PETA is expressing what many people believe (not a "handful"--corporations wouldn't cave so frequently if PETA had only a few members). Others may indeed find their campaigns over the top and offensive, but being offended is hardly an effective counterargument. Supporters of slavery no doubt were offended by the tactics of those who called the practice into question. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are apparently offended by all sorts of things all the time. Not necessarily a persuasive argument for giving up whatever they take offense at.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

32. Just Because a Person Is From an Ivory Tower

Doesn't make him or her right.

I stand by my position on the Holocaust exhibit: it cheapens the Holocaust to be used as a mere PR ploy. Any organization that would deliberately exploit the human suffering of the Holocaust for its own self-serving ends is disgusting. Some lines should not be crossed.

I also reject as a false premise the notion that animals are equivalent to humans, which appears to be a tenet of PETA. I value human medical research and human food requirements much more highly than animals.

This is not to say animals should be treated with needless cruelty. Absolutely, they should not. But PETA's little PR stunts get in the way of their legitimate advocacy efforts. Corporations knuckle under to PETA's exposure of their practices not because PETA is acting outrageously with respect to the corporations, but because the corporations' practices are in fact objectionable.

But this ad campaign, along with other outrageous ones directed at haranguing the general public rather than exposing offending corporations, will accomplish nothing but to piss off a lot of people who otherwise might be supportive of PETA's legitimate advocacy.

DTH

[Karmadillo]

74. Not really an ivory tower issue.

You keep calling PETA's use of the Holocaust a PR ploy and argue it is an attempt to exploit and cheapen the Holocaust for "self-serving ends". This is a mischaracterization. PETA obviously believes it is a legitimate comparison. Many, if not most, PETA members (and many nonmembers)would likely support Singer's position on this issue:

http://www.powerfulbook.com/singer.html

Singer concluded his Foreword with a warning: as long as human
beings go on shedding the blood of animals, there will never be any
peace. "There is only one little step from killing animals to
creating gas chambers a la Hitler and concentration camps a la
Stalin....There will be no justice as long as man will stand with a
knife or with a gun and destroy those who are weaker than he is."

I'm assuming you wouldn't claim Singer was guilty of a cheap PR ploy or of exploiting the Holocaust for "self-serving ends" in writing this. He obviously believed every word. PETA is every bit as serious in publicizing the comparision he made.

Again, you don't have to agree with the comparison, but the horrors of our animal exploitation are grotesque enough in cruelty and numbers to make the comparison a reasonable one. The following helps explain why:

http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fsveg3.html

<edit>

Simply put, the factory farming system of modern agriculture strives to produce the most meat, milk, and eggs as quickly and cheaply as possible, and in the smallest amount of space possible. Cows, calves, pigs, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, rabbits, and other animals are kept in small cages or stalls, often unable to turn around. They are deprived of exercise so that all of their bodies' energy goes toward producing flesh, eggs, or milk for human consumption. They are fed drugs and are genetically altered to make them grow larger or produce more milk or eggs than nature originally intended.

Because crowding creates a prime atmosphere for disease, animals on factory farms are fed and sprayed with huge amounts of pesticides and antibiotics, which remain in their bodies and are passed on to the people who eat them, creating serious human health hazards.

Chickens are divided into two groups: layers and broilers. Five to six laying hens are kept in a 14-inch-square mesh cage, and cages are often stacked in many tiers. Conveyor belts bring in food and water and carry away eggs and excrement. Because the hens are severely crowded, they are kept in semi-darkness and their beaks are cut off with hot irons (without anesthetics) to keep them from pecking each other to death. The wire mesh of the cages rubs their feathers off, chafes their skin, and cripples their feet.

Approximately 20 percent of the hens raised under these conditions die of stress or disease.(1) At the age of one to two years, their overworked bodies decline in egg production and they are slaughtered (chickens would normally live 15-20 years).(2) Ninety percent of all commercially sold eggs come from chickens raised on factory farms.(3)

More than six billion "broiler" chickens are raised in sheds each year.(4) Lighting is manipulated to keep the birds eating as often as possible, and they are killed after only nine weeks. Despite the heavy use of pesticides and antibiotics, up to 60 percent of chickens sold at the supermarket are infected with live salmonella bacteria.(5)

lots more...

[joshcryer]

34. I wasn't taking sides.

I think both sides were equally bad. PETA obviously tries to start some flamebait, knowing that if they piss off enough people it'll look good on them (aww, poor PETA, getting yelled at). The people however, took the bait, rather than walking away (or just having their burgers in peace) and just ignoring them.

You can't honestly thing one side here was better than the other.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

35. When It Comes to the Holocaust Exhibit

Absolutely I think that PETA deserves all of the non-violent counter-protesting and verbal abuse that it receives.

DTH

[joshcryer]

65. I think *anybody* 'deserves' *non-violent* protests.

That's a constutional right. It doesn't matter who you are.

[tedzbear]

55. Why not?

Have YOU bothered to look at the photos? One would have to be pretty insensitive not to find that assembly line torture disgusting.
:kick:

[bitchkitty]

83. I understand it -

although it's not something I would do, I think that at the least, it's in bad taste.

PETA believes that animal life is as important as human life. Conditions in slaughterhouses ARE deplorable.

[Adamocrat]

2. No Class

This just shows their level of class. Some people just cannot have a reasonable, rational debate. The threat of violence and anger is their only resource.

-A

[Rowdyboy]

4. These fools have made caring for animals a joke....

I resent the bad name they have given those of us who really care -it makes it much harder to get support from the community at large when people think you're connected to those assholes...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

6. Exactly

I care for animals, and my fiancee and I support our local cat rescue. But these over-the-top fanatics never fail to piss me off.

DTH

[tedzbear]

56. So while you two pet your beloved kitties...

...I hope you enjoy the yummy beef burgers that you willingly tortured and murdered poor cattle for. Disgusting.

I AM being partly hypocritical: I confess I am not a pure vegan or vegetarian. I am ashamed to admit I still eat chicken, turkey, and fish. At least I am only buying free range chicken and turkey and I am NOT eating cows or pigs. It's a start... At least I have SOME sympathy for animal civil rights, unlike some of you kitty lovers out there.
:kick:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

61. Mmm. Beef. Chicken. Pork. Fish.

...I hope you enjoy the yummy beef burgers that you willingly tortured and murdered poor cattle for.

Hell yes I enjoy them. Damn, nothing tastier than a good filet mignon! Chicken for lunch is pretty good, too. Pork chops, also good. Fish of all kinds, yum!

I AM being partly hypocritical:

Your admission is absolutely delicious!

I confess I am not a pure vegan or vegetarian.

Gasp! You're not! I'm shocked! I thought only pure vegans and vegetarians would inherit the kingdom of the PETA God!

I am ashamed to admit I still eat chicken, turkey, and fish.

No shame here!

At least I am only buying free range chicken and turkey and I am NOT eating cows or pigs. It's a start... At least I have SOME sympathy for animal civil rights, unlike some of you kitty lovers out there.

Actually, my fiancee and I don't even own any cats. But we support our local cat rescue anyway, with cold hard cash. They are providing a valuable service.

If PETA wasn't so goddamn insane with their self-serving PR, and just concentrated on the productive activism against the corporations, then they'd be providing a valuable service, too. But as it is, I hope their shameful Holocaust exploitation decimates the ranks of their donors.

DTH

[Aaron]

66. Why is it shameful?

I'm not trying to be a pest. I'd like to understand your view if you have time to explain it.

[BiggJawn]

7. Agreed. what good does it do to convert 5 people to Veganism...

...if you piss-off 50,000 in the process?

PETA lost me YEARS ago. In some of their tactics, it's obvious they've lost sight of the fact that Man is an Animal, too. Nothing "Ethical" in the way they treat human carnivores.

[Aaron]

45. PETA has great success

See post 14

[curse10]

8. Yeah! Another chance to bash PETA!!!

:eyes:

What, it took a whole five minutes for this thread to be turned into a PETA bashing thread?

[BiggJawn]

12. Not "Bashing"...

Unless you view any disagreement with your POV as "bashing".
In that case, we got nothing to discuss.

[sangha]

19. Hmmm, let's see

"loons", "stoop so low", "assholes", etc

Nope, no bashing here.

[curse10]

24. Don't forget...

not "sane activism," "radical and useless," and they use "tactics favored by the right wing"

But, really, no attacks on this thread at all.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Attacks

I'll be honest, I'll attack Peta all the time. I oppose their "unique" sense of moral equivalency where animals equate to people.

[classics]

9. PETA: The prada bag producer for Ingrid Newkirk

It certainly does not represent any sort of sane activism.

[The Stranger]

10. I'm glad PETA makes people uneasy.

People need to be taken out of their comfort zone to understand the message.

Let the morons get angry and spit on the ground. Later they will think about it, and a seed will be planted. When they see a news article or something on television, they will think back -- even if they still disagree.

[CheshireCat]

11. Peta is needed

in this country to make people think about the way they treat animals. Some of their tactics are outrageous, but it gets them news coverage. The news coverage gets their ideas across and gets people thinking.

They have a right to speak out just as much as any other group.

PETA and groups like them have had some success, especially among young people. When I was growing up in the 50's, I did not know what a vegetarian was. I wasn't given the choice to become a vegetarian. Now young people know about their choices when it comes to nutrition - thanks to groups like PETA.

I do not think people who eat meat are bad people. It is natural. But the way this country (and the rest of the world) "farms" animals is unnatural and immoral in my opinion. No creature should live its life in tortuous conditions.

Flame away if it makes you feel better. Our opinions differ. So what?

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Harm

Peta does more harm than good to legitimate causes. It is a radical and useless fringe group.

[The Stranger]

15. If exposing truth is the "good," and the "harm" is upsetting or

offending people, then PETA most certainly isn't "useless."

If the truth offends them, then let them be offended.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Truth

Boy, we could spend all day talking about different perspectives on that word.

The reality is Peta chases away more would-be pro-animal types than it does good. No one except the radical fringe wishes to have anything to do with them.

[The Stranger]

18. No, you really needn't spend all day.

No one disputes that animals are mistreated. The PETA People show up with the facts. Some people try to avoid the truth and the facts by making an issue (and focusing solely) on how it is presented.

It is actually a favored tactic by the right wing, who constantly attack celebrities who take stands for animal rights, anti-war and other issues.

The message is subtle, but two-fold -- one, you don't have to hear what the activists are saying because of how they are saying it; and, two, you will be ostracized and attacked if you speak out like they do.

This is how they avoid addressing issues over which there is very little debate, such as the environment, protecting animals, even just cause for war.

[tedzbear]

57. It didn't chase me away!

They have educated me to an atrocious mass torture of innocent creatures who share this planet with us.
So what if we are part carnivores? That does not give us the right to torture and maim our food source in an assembly line fashion in order to eat. In nature, cats hunt with a quick pounce and slash of the juggler. They don't imprison their prey in tiny overcrowded cages where they never see the light of day. Or slowly torture them up to that final moment of slaughter. In nature, the cat's victims live a free and productive life up to the moment of slaughter. At the very least, we should do the same.
:kick:

[Karmadillo]

17. Any proof re: more harm than good?

How much progress would have been made regarding animal rights if there was no PETA? Who would have brought about the successes they've achieved? The Democratic Party? The Organization of Perpetual PETA Bashers? The SPCA? Doubtful, at best.

[NashVegas]

40. Agreed

I can't say I'm in love with their over-the-topness, but it's been a hell of a lot more effective at bringing awareness than, "Sirs, would you please mind not putting the chickens in these tiny wire cages? It's bad for them."

[Kanola]

60. PETA's tactics are too confrontational

They put people on the defensive, and when people are on the defensive they are least likely to change or consider other opinions. PETA will only attract likeminded individuals who think yelling at people and other highly confrontational tactics to their cause. I think they are a disaster if they are truly try to change minds. I love animals but they are too extreme and unyielding in their collective thinking to persuade people to join their cause. You have to meet people in the middle and do some subtle persuasion to make change happen. IMHO.

[Karmadillo]

14. List of PETA's successes

Bash away at them if you wish, but I imagine the sort of "reasonable" animal rights organization some of you seem to pine for would be publishing a much shorter list.

http://www.peta-online.org/about/milestones.html

1981

PETA’s undercover investigation of a Maryland laboratory results in the first-ever conviction of an animal experimenter on charges of animal abuse and the first-ever suspension of federal research funds for cruelty.

1982

PETA files the first-ever lawsuit to become the guardian of animals used in experiments.

1983

PETA closes a Department of Defense “wound lab” in which the military had planned to fire high-velocity missiles into dogs, goats, and other animals. PETA achieves the first-ever permanent ban on the shooting of dogs and cats in wound labs.

<edit>

2001

PETA settles a lawsuit with Rosie O’Donnell stemming from her comment that the leather featured on her show was approved by PETA. Said Ms. O’Donnell in an on-air correction that was viewed by millions of people: “The fact is, PETA feels no one needs to wear leather apparel at all—no one needs to hurt and kill animals for fashion anymore.”

After PETA provides March of Dimes corporate sponsors Jamba Juice, M.A.C. Cosmetics, and the Sara Lee Corporation with information about cruel animal tests funded by the March of Dimes, the companies all agree to earmark their donations strictly for non-animal programs. Sara Lee also provides information about the charity’s animal experiments to each of its 154,000 employees.

Following PETA’s five-month “Murder King” Campaign, Burger King announces that it is taking action to ease the suffering of millions of animals. The company will now conduct unannounced inspections of its slaughterhouses, require that hens be given 75 square inches of space in cages, stop purchasing hens from suppliers who starve the birds to shock their bodies into another laying cycle, and more.

2002

Thanks to more than 100 PETA protests at Safeway stores, the grocery chain becomes the first in U.S. history to improve conditions for factory-farmed animals, including unannounced slaughterhouse inspections and increased space for laying hens. Albertson’s and Kroger follow suit.

After receiving a letter from PETA, the National Collegiate Athletic Association agrees to stop using leather basketballs in its “ March Madness” tournament in favor of cruelty-free synthetics. The Women’s National Basketball Association has banned leather, and PETA urges the NBA to do the same.

PETA persuades 40 companies, including Nike, Reebok, May Department Stores, and DaimerChrysler, to place a moratorium on the purchase of leather from India, where animals are transported in bone-breaking conditions and skinned alive. Indian leather producers lose more than 40 million dollars in revenue.

PETA helps activists pass ordinances banning circuses with animals in Costa Rica; Windsor, Canada; Greenburgh, New York; Bogota, Colombia; São Leopoldo, Brazil; Orange City, North Carolina; and Pasadena and Rohnert Park, California.

TV journalist María Celeste Arrarás joins PETA to launch the Spanish language Animal Times, the first-ever animal rights magazine in the U.S. dedicated to a Spanish-speaking audience. PETA also reaches out to the teen audience with the introduction of peta2.com, a Web site about animal-friendly action, featuring popular bands, athletes, and actors.

end

[NashVegas]

46. That's a Great List

A lot of those campaigns never got huge publicity in the first place.

[sangha]

51. List of PETA-basher's successes

1) Posts on DU

[veganwitch]

70. dont forget mcdonalds

only peta could be the countries biggest buyer on animal products to even consider thinking about changing its standards on welfare.

[jiacinto]

21. I don't support PETA I really don't

Their tactics are counterproductive. I don't like how they force themselves on people and force vegetarianism on everyone.

Now I don't support animal cruelty, but comparing chickens to the Holocaust is extreme. And I like to eat meat.

I am against animal cruelty but I am also not a PETA extremist either.

[bicentennial_baby]

22. Disagree

If you're eating factory-farmed meat, then you are directly supporting animal cruelty, imho.

[jiacinto]

26. Then so are most Americans

But again I don't feel guilty over that. I like rare steaks.

[bicentennial_baby]

28. Why? Why? Why?

Why is it that nearly every time a meat-eater on DU proclaims their carnivorous nature and lack of guilt thereof, they have to add in a beef reference?

It's soooo bizarre to me. :crazy:

Btw Carlos, watch out for E. coli with those rare steaks. Food-borne illness is very prevalent in this country, more than you'd think.

[curse10]

31. That's a good question

it's some sort of crazy beef fetish is all I can guess.

Or perhaps they have fallen to the advertising junta of the beef industry and actually believe those bullshit "beef: it's what's for dinner" ad campaigns.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

33. Or Maybe

We just like the taste?

:shrug:

DTH

[Aaron]

59. Beef has always been my favorite

[anti_shrub]

37. Why should meat eaters have guilt?

Eating meat is something people have done since the dawn of time. I personally believe humans are programmed to be omnivores. Why should people who eat meat feel guilty?


I love animals, I cried when my beloved cat that I raised from kittenhood died. I've nearly put passengers in my car into the windshield to avoid hitting critters crossing the street. I seem to have some kind of magnetism wherein no matter whose house I go to, that person's pets are drawn to me.

Yet I eat meat and I own 2 leather coats. I don't see why I should have any guilt.

[bicentennial_baby]

41. I never said they should

Carlos stated that he does'nt feel guilty about it. I never said that he should...it's his karma, not mine! :-)

[Aaron]

47. You should feel guilt if you aren't eating ethically raised meat

Relatively cruelty free meat exists. If you don't choose that option - well then you've chosen animal cruelty. If you're too poor to afford decent meat you might do better not eating it at all - as cheap meat may pose a health risk.

This article discusses one ethical farm.
http://www.nehbc.org/pollan2.html

[BiggJawn]

52. Oh, REALLY???????

" If you're too poor to afford decent meat you might do better not eating it at all..."

Oh, how so very Elitist of you....

Listen, Jack, perhaps you're too young to have "enjoyed" Reagan-Nomics (don't worry, you'll have your chance with "Bush-o-Nomics")

But there was a time when I was too poor to afford "decent" meat. In fact, all I could afford was cheap fatty hamburger and beans, and bacon, and crappy twigs-and-all green-label "generic" veggies, and day-old "Kleenex Bread".

A "Healthful" diet was WAY out of my reach. Good fresh veggies, Soy products, fruit? forget it! Cost too damn much.

Really pisses me off, this psuedo-moral superiority of the "Meat STINKS" crowd....I'm so put off by the antics of PETA and the DU Vegan crowd that I'd eat tainted meat before I'd eat a veggie, just to piss you off some more.

[Aaron]

54. If you wanted to eat tainted meat I wouldn't stop you

If that's what you want to do then go ahead, I won't stand in your way. I wouldn't make the same choice, but if eating tainted meat brings you pleasure then I have no interest in trying to stop you. Your eating of meat, tainted or otherwise, doesn't "piss me off" - although I suppose it could frustrate me somewhat if we had a national health care system where your purposeful consumption of tainted meat increased costs on the rest of us. If you've got an argument or evidence to disprove that there may be potential harm in eating cheaper meat I'd like to see it. My understanding is that cheaper meat is usually fatty thereby posing a greater health risk than lean meat. Additionally the cheapest meat I've found, in my city, has been sold on the street - by vendors who I suspect don't follow food regulations, if they are even aware of them. Perhaps cheap meat in your location is different than in mine?

[BiggJawn]

68. Cheap meat sold on the street? where do you live? Juarez?

You're right about it being fatty. Fat is cheap. Starch is cheap.

Well, since you're not gonna "stand in my way" if I want to eat tainted meat, forget that, I'll stick with "choice" or "Prime", and hope you won't stand in my way for that, either. And as always, I'll be mindful of what some cow or pig went through so I could eat. Yeah, I realize eating is a violent act, wether it's a pig getting it's throat cut and hung in the air, or an ear of corn ripped from it's stalk before it can fulfill it's reproductive purpose. Neither one got to live to a ripe old age, did they?

The only difference I can see between the two acts is that the ear of corn has no eyes, and emits no screams as it is "butchered".

[Aaron]

72. Portland, Oregon

You've never had people try to sell you cuts of meat that they dug out of a dumpster, shoplifted, or used food stamps to buy and now want to sell so they can get alcohol etc.? I figured that happened everywhere. I knew of a guy who would catch ducks in the city parks several years ago to eat or to sell, I think he got busted though.

You can eat whatever you like and I won't stand in your way. You could probably eat kittens and I wouldn't be inclined to stop you unless you were going about it in a cruel manner. Any concern I have with meat is with the process. I know humans are pretty set on being omnivores, and I don't think that's necessarily bad. I do think that farming/processing practices that are anti-worker/anti-union, excessively pollute, endanger humans, or are unnecessarily cruel to the animals are bad. We've got technology and methods to keep animals from suffering, it might cut butcher/farmer profits or raise the cost a few pennies a pound or something but it exists.

Corn, as far as I know, doesn't feel pain or stress. Although if it did I'd avoid buying corn from corn farmers who place undue pain or stress on the corn so that they could increase profits. I've got no interest in causing or contributing to unneeded suffering, in humans or animals.

[SOS]

63. Reagan's economic policies

caused you to eat bacon rather than fruit? That's an unusual outcome.
You'd eat tainted meat rather than a vegetable just to piss off vegetarians? Go ahead.

[Brian Sweat]

86. Bullshit,

PETA isn't about ethically raised meat. It's about veganism. It's a bunch of people who have decided they don't want to eat meat or were any products made from animals and they want everyone else to do the same.

[Gingersnap]

49. I don't think you should feel guilty

I'm a vegetarian and have been for 16 years, but I don't try to push it on others (though I support the conciousness raising attempts of PETA). I may not be as strict as other vegetarians, but to me what is bad about eating meat is not that animals die. We're omnivores. What makes eating meat unappealing to me morally (in addition to just thinking it's gross tasting) is the factory-like conditions in which the animals live. I've lived in a mountain village in GUatemala and I would have not have objected to eating meat over there. "Meat" there comes from your own farm animals, that are free range and lead "normal" lives with dignity. To me that is closer to how it should be. And since we live in such a wealthy country in which meat-alternatives are healthy and easy to come by, I've chosen to live my life without depending on the deaths (and most likely degraded lives) of animals.

edit: incomplete sentence

[tlb]

76. Because

Beef, it's what's for dinner <<< deep voice >>>

[MadHound]

30. Ahh, but do you like the following Carlos

1. Antibiotics in your meat, which has been shown to help escalate the rate of drug resistant diseases in this country

2. Hormones in your meat and dairy products, which has been shown as a reason for the dropping puberty age in this country

3. Shit in your meat from the ruthless killing line at meat processing plants. This leads to all sorts of wonderful disease causing "bugs" showing up in that meat your eating.

4. Tension in your meat. When animals are packed into cow cars wall to wall(common practice), herded into a crowded corral, fed into a factory line chute, killed by sudden blows or shocks, then hoisted onto a hook and wisked off down the line(maybe dead or alive), all of that causes stress and tension. When that occurs in an animal then certain chemicals are released which both toughen the meat and decrease the flavorness of it.

5. Random parts in your meat. With the kill line in a meat processing plant so fast, accidents do happen. Human parts are sliced off and sometimes wind up in the meat for consumption. Waste parts aren't properly funneled away, thus some wind up in in the meat for consumption(deep fried chicken head anybody?). Or the machine itself(which may or may not be properly maintained) spits chemicals and/or parts into the passing meat(a few extra hydrocarbons and iron with that steak?).

6. Wrong kind of meat in your meat. With the kill line moving so quick, odds are good that you might wind up with some intestines in your stew meat. Yummy, bonus chitlins!

7. Meat fed to your meat. Yay, Mad Cow Diesease coming to a table near you!

Look , I agree that PETA can be over the top, but they are intentionally so. With the situation so dire and the public so apathetic, big shows are apparently the only way to get peoples' attention. I support the work they do, for it benefits us all.

If you wish for a more thorough examination of what you're eating I suggest you go check out Fast Food Nation. A very scary book, and its not fiction.

[jiacinto]

38. Those are differnet issues to me

But PETA is against people eating meat entirely. And that is my problem with them.

The issues you raise are valid ones, but I disagree with the PETA approach.

Again I don't feel guilty that I eat meat.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

39. ROTFL!

But PETA is against people eating me entirely.

Freudian slip, buddy?

:D

DTH

[MadHound]

42. But by putting pressure on McDs, KFC and meat proccessors

Peta is addressing those very issues. Granted, while they would like for people to stop eating meat entirely, they realize that is an impossibility. Thus they are working on issues that address the condition of the meat you and I eat. How can you have issues with that? They are simply working for the common good of all of us. Oh, by the by, I eat meat also, but I do get it from local organic, free range producers. You should try it sometime, the meat is much tastier than the factory crap you get at the grocer, it is much healthier for you, and you keep your money in the local economy where it does much more good. Bon appetit!

[Aaron]

43. So buy them from ethical ranchers (n/t)

[NashVegas]

44. I LOVE Rare Steaks and Juicy Cheeseburgers

Unfortunately, because of modern livestock producing and slaughtering house conditions, to eat rare, factory-farm beef is to put your digestive system into the hands of Agri-Business boards of directors who only care how much money they can squeeze out.

[tedzbear]

58. Well said.

You can't have it both ways.

[Selwynn]

27. As always, look for the mean...

...between extreme positions.

Do I believe we have a serious problem in the industrialized world with how we treat animals? Yes I do, just like I believe we have a serious disreguard in the industrialized world for the environment in general.

However,

Do I believe that anyone who has a hamburger is the equivalent of a Nazi exterminator? No I sure as hell don't. I don't even believe that the only way a person can be "ethical" in their treatment of animals is to be a vegitarian. I am not against the use of animals for food, tools, clothing, shelter, etc. What I am against is the total objectivication of that process.

In this way I really have a great appreciation for some of the early native american tribes and the kind of "relationship" they had with animals and the earth. Yes, they still used animals for food, but in at least some instances I am familiar with they also had a great reverence for the animals they hunted, and felt connected to them - and managed to maintian a fairly healthy equalibrium with the land and animals.

I think that what is wrong in modern times is the attitude and disreguard that we have for the treatment of animals. This includes more than just killing them for food but also animal testing, using animal for sport in a dangerous or inhumane way. I do NOT think it is wrong by definition to eat meat. I think it is wrong to not strive to see the animal that gives its life for your food as a subject rather than an object, and therefore to not support companies that you clearly know are cruel in their practices, and personally try not to waste and squander your food -- basically on all ways being responsible and meditated on the rightful balance to be hand between animals, the land, and all of us.

But of course, this is America, and everything I just said is hippie bullshit.... /sarcasm

Sel

[joshcryer]

36. Let me just state that I love meat.

But I'll go vegetarian as soon as my galfriend tells me to. :D

[NicoleM]

48. Bad PR

You don't go to a bunch of cattle ranchers and essentially tell them they're Nazis, and then expect them to think you're not an idiot.

I'm sure this PETA kid has good intentions, but for pete's sake, know your audience. Many (maybe most) North Dakotans are very conservative, very resistant to ideas that challenge their own, and either ranch or hunt or both (I was born and raised in ND). PETA's not going to get very far with them, at least not with their usual tactics.

[hotphlash]

50. whatever...I'm going to Wendy's.

n/t

[The Stranger]

53. Who the hell is Wendy?

And what has she got to do with any of this?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

62. I'm a member of PETA

"People Eating Tastey Animals"

Any democrat who wants to make this an election issue should pull their head out of their ass. The only primate that's a pure vegetarian is the mountain gorilla. Should people overall eat less meat? Yes. Is animal welfare an issue we should care about? Yes.

However the brain dead assholes in PETA suffering from a vitamin B12 deficiency have presented this issue in such absolutes that they will not win any support whatsoever from most people at large.

[Aaron]

64. Post 14 has a list of PETA successes

I thought it was an interesting read. I didn't realize how much they've accomplished.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

71. And of course you believe them.

I've gotta bridge for sale. Wanna buy it?

[Aaron]

73. If you've got evidence to counter them I'd certainly be interested in it

Right now all I've got to go on is their list. If you have evidence that they're mistaken, or misleading, with regard to those successes then I'd like to know about it.

[The Stranger]

79. No, but post where they're incorrect

if you've got something to say about it.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

80. yo mama --suck on this--then go loggin

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/1358

[Karmadillo]

81. Eternal Treblinka, indeed. Wonder if the carnivore faction will respond.

What an awful story, but thanks for posting it aunteeWar. It certainly should give anyone pause before supporting this industry in any way. Here's an excerpt for those hesitant to click on the link.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/1358

PASCO, Wash.--It takes 25 minutes to turn a live steer into steak at the
modern slaughterhouse where Ramon Moreno works. For 20 years, his post was
"second-legger," a job that entails cutting hocks off carcasses as they
whirl past at a rate of 309 an hour.

The cattle were supposed to be dead before they got to Moreno. But too often
they weren't.

"They blink. They make noises," he said softly. "The head moves, the eyes
are wide and looking around."

Still Moreno would cut. On bad days, he says, dozens of animals reached his
station clearly alive and conscious. Some would survive as far as the tail
cutter, the belly ripper, the hide puller. "They die," said Moreno, "piece
by piece."

Under a 23-year-old federal law, slaughtered cattle and hogs first must be
"stunned" -- rendered insensible to pain -- with a blow to the head or an
electric shock. But at overtaxed plants, the law is sometimes broken, with
cruel consequences for animals as well as workers. Enforcement records,
interviews, videos and worker affidavits describe repeated violations of the
Humane Slaughter Act at dozens of slaughterhouses, ranging from the
smallest, custom butcheries to modern, automated establishments such as the
sprawling IBP Inc. plant here where Moreno works.

"In plants all over the United States, this happens on a daily basis," said
Lester Friedlander, a veterinarian and formerly chief government inspector
at a Pennsylvania hamburger plant. "I've seen it happen. And I've talked to
other veterinarians. They feel it's out of control."

more...

[Karmadillo]

82. Kick for those who might have missed aunteeWar's post n/t

n/t

[BiggJawn]

67. What about Carnivores who might be "SWING VOTERS"????

Maybe we should clue in PETA that they need to tone it down a bit, because they might scare off the Swing Voters?

just a thought.
Seems to be a valid admonition to other Liberal groups to be quiet and not upset anyone...Like the LIHOP and MIHOP people, and us Liberal Gunners, etc....

[Aaron]

75. I'd figure they'd want us gun-owners to speak up

The party would seem more moderate that way and appeal to the swing voters. But, maybe I'm wrong - maybe the swing voters are all gun-grabbers? I've never seen any statistics on it one way or the other.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

77. I stopped donating to PETA ...

when they began elevating animal rights over human dignity and welfare. I'm still active in animal rescue activities and support local shelters, but I can't agree with PETA's tactics :-(

[The Stranger]

85. Where did they "elevate animal rights over human dignity and welfare"?

When they confronted these spitting imbeciles with the facts about what they were eating? When they sprayed colored water on a group of people who screamed bloody murder?

I don't think it is really that dramatic.