PETA to Michael Moore: "There's An Elephant In The Room, And It's You"...

[BlooInBloo]

What worthless pieces of shit they be.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/06/26/peta-attacks-moore-ther_n_53777.html

[loyalkydem]

1. like

anyone cares what they think.

[BlooInBloo]

2. There's a militant-vegetarian wing of this place that worships PETA.

[acmavm]

3. There's a militant wing of supporters for every bad idea here.

[BlooInBloo]

4. That may be true.

[blondeatlast]

8. True that. nt

[NoPasaran]

27. That could be our motto!

[Crabby Appleton]

99. yep nt

[ThomCat]

33. As this thread very aptly shows. The vegetarian bashers certainly

have a militant wing of supporters here.

[BlooInBloo]

78. Quick Anchorman time-out: "Whew! That sure escalated quickly!" - LOLOL!

[ThomCat]

9. There's a militant anti-vegetarian wing of this place

that get's orgasms attacking PETA.

This looks like more of a hit piece than actual reporting. No link to the actual letter. If they told him that becoming a vegetarian would improve his health, and promoting vegetarianism would improve the overall healthcare of the population, then I see nothing wrong or untrue about it.

[BeyondGeography]

11. Here 's the letter, "elephant" included

http://blog.peta.org/archives/PETA_letter_to_Michael_Moore.pdf

[ThomCat]

13. Nice letter.

The elephant reference wasn't nice, but everything else in that letter was complementary and congradulatory.

It looks, again, like people are just getting their jollies lobbing attacks at PETA. It's a very weird fetish some people seem to have. :eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

17. Oh! Well, if *everything else* was nice, I guess it's all ok then! roflmao!

[The Stranger]

44. Yeah, actually, it is.

They did make a rude and insensitive remark about Moore, but, other than that, everything in the letter is true.

Normally, I hate -- HATE IT -- when those on the Left attack each other. However, seeing how so many here virulently harbor a cancerous and disgusting hatred for PETA -- I say good luck to them.

[mitchum]

52. How is PETA "left"? Do they work for social or economic justice?

For man?

[jilln]

58. Wow, there's a lot of ignorance in that response

And not sure what working "for man" has to do with being left. Not to mention that's a sexist comment.

Research the effects of animal agriculture and get back to us. Clearly PeTA is farther left than you.

[Matsubara]

76. Traditionally "left" has been equated with struggle social & economic justice and equality

for humans. Animal welfare is more bipartisan.

Hitler was a vegetarian. Did that make him a lefty?

[ThomCat]

79. The Hitler canard has come out!

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner? Who won the bet on who would post this first?

[mitchum]

88. Not me, I prefer to point out that Dr King was one of those evil carnivores

[Matsubara]

95. It comes out because it makes the point that vegetarianism is not "left"

I would agree that vegetarianism is certainly more humane than eating meat. But it's not "left", any more than eating meat is "right-wing".

[ThomCat]

103. Somebody should tell the right wing

that PETA is not a left wing organization. Last I checked, they're all certain that PETA is a pretty representative organization for the far left. They certainly don't claim PETA for their side.

[Matsubara]

112. I don't see PETA as right or left. Just because most PETA people are probably liberal...

...does not make the organization a liberal or lefty one. They have their agenda, which may or may not align with lefty causes. I just don't see PETA's issues as left-right at all.

[Chemical Bill]

257. Meat production takes food out of the mouths of poor people.

While I don't always see eye to eye with PETA, I recognize this core fact. It takes 7 times the land used for veggie production to provide for meat production.

http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/

That's a left wing issue in my book.

Bill

[Warren DeMontague]

285. Funny, to me "liberalism" is supposed to be synonymous with letting consenting adults make up their

own damn minds about what to do with their own bodies, and that includes what they choose to eat.

[ThomCat]

333. So, you're a Libertarian, not a Democrat?

:shrug:

Democrats (especially of the liberal variety) tend to agree that consenting adults make their own choices, but tempered by some broader view. It's that broader view that allows for long term social and governmental investments in the common good.

[Warren DeMontague]

354. Yep. I'm a small-l libertarian! left libertarian! Absolutely unafuckingpologetic-libertarian!

That's right, left-libertarian! You can play your little game with deliberately conflating small-l libertarianism with the big-L Libertarian party, but seeing as the VAST MAJORITY of DU seems more than willing to self identify, like myself, as left-libertarian, that semantic smear doesn't really seem to work. Awwwwwww. :cry:

Left-libertarian. Shall I say it again?

You're damn right, I am. And proud of it.

Economic Left/Right: -4.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97

http://politicalcompass.org

I think people should be free to make their own fucking decisions about their own lives and bodies, insofar as they're not hurting other people! And no, I don't think that eating chicken constitutes "hurting other people".

Does the "l" word bother you? Make you upset? Make you angry at the thought that somewhere, someone might be doing something you, personally, didn't approve of them to do? (You like labels so much, maybe you should look up H.L. Mencken's definition of a puritan)

Here, I'll say it again, real big, and blinking:

libertarian!!!

Enjoy!

[Chemical Bill]

355. That explains the fluoride in my water. [/sarcasm]

The balance of civil liberties versus the common good is a fine line for us lefties. For repukes, it comes down to civil liberties for the rich, so it's easy for them.

I never said ban meat, I said meat takes food out of the mouths of the poor. Like you, I don't feel that legislation is the answer on this. I'm just pointing out that PETA may be rude to Moore, and I don't always agree with them, but they are left wing, because one of their points involves social consciousness towards other humans (as some other posters here demand).

Bill

[Warren DeMontague]

376. If one of their "points" is social consciousness to other humans, they have a funny way of showing

it.

I don't think drawing a moral equivalence between Jews who died in concentration camps and chickens who have been killed in the "holocaust" that is KFC is an example of "social consciousness to other humans".

I don't think valuing the lives of rats over the lives of people who could be saved by drugs that need to be tested is "social consciousness to other humans".

In my experience, PETA doesn't give a shit about humans, just like "pro-lifers" don't give a shit about life outside the womb. They have their single issue, and they can't see beyond it. Frankly, I think if PETA was really interested in promoting responsible animal production and treatment, they would be out there supporting free range, organic farming and the like. They don't do it because they have a black and white approach. In my experience. And I've seen PETA tangle it up with other progressives -not just Michael Moore- time & time again while adopting the stridency & absolutism of the religious right. I think, if it walks like a duck and talk like a duck---

[flvegan]

81. Ding! Ding! Ding! First mention of HITLER!!!

[Bjorn Against]

325. Hitler was not a vegetarian

In fact his favorite food was a dish which included sausauges. He did not eat a lot of meat, mainly because the doctors told him not to. He was not a vegetarian though.

Too often his name is used to smear vegetarians, if people want to smear us with Hitler's name then one must assume they have no problem being associated with people like Stalin, Dhamer, and Genghis Kahn. After all those people all ate meat did they not? If it is fair to use one person who is not even a vegetarian to reflect on all vegetarians, then it should be fair to use one meat eater to reflect on all meat eaters should it not?

(By the way I know you did not personally mean to associate all vegetarians with Hitler, I have just heard many others do that so I am getting my point out there for others to see because it is a smear that is used quite often.)

[mitchum]

82. Give me a fucking break...

Actually being Left has everything to do with social and economic justice for human beings. I think you may be confusing Left and the very ambigious catchall term "liberal"
I know right wingers who support PETA. I imagine that they would be quite surprised to find out that they are Leftists.
And your hysterical outrage at the use of the term "man" is...well...hysterical
(yes, I chose that word very carefully)

[Goblinmonger]

90. So you use the term "man" to refer to "humans" and then

you break out the word "hysterical" which is equally sexist. Nicely done. :applause:

[Matsubara]

104. Just because you dislike the term "man" or "mankind" doesn't mean it's universally out of favor.

I have always taken it to mean man and woman - humanity. There is obviously no sexism implied in the way it was used, and most people are NOT aware of the admittedly sexist origins of the word "hysterical".

But hey, go ahead and project all that BS on your opponent, if that's what it takes to win the argument, right?

One would think you might actually stick to the issue at hand instead of trying to construe someone's words into something else, but I guess they'd be thinking wrong.

[Goblinmonger]

Of course it is sexist.

It uses one gender to be representative of all people. Especially when the solution is so simple--just use the word "human"--Oh what a burden.

So just because people don't relize that a term is sexist, they should not be informed it is and told to stop it?

Argument? My whole point is that the "opponent" should stop using sexist language. It's all about that "BS."

I'm sorry, the next time someone uses sexist, bigoted language in an argument that is not about sexism or bigotry, I'll just let it slide. Some fundy can tell me that the fucking spics should be shot at the border, and I'll be sure to let the language slide and focus on immigration policy. You can't be serious.

[Matsubara]

148. You are incorrect. The word "man" comes from Mannaz - gender-neutral for "human"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannaz

I'll be happy to stand back while you educate the poster on the sexist origins of "hysterical".

But "man", is another story altogether, and neither have anything to do with the topic at hand...

[Goblinmonger]

163. You did read the end

where they say that meaning is archaic and that "man" is almost exclusively used to refer to the adult male?

[Matsubara]

169. In colloquial English, in the context of "a man", yes, in the context of mankind, NO.

Your wanting it to be "sexist" does not make it so.

[Goblinmonger]

172. the poster did not use "mankind"

he used "man" which, according to the article YOU link to, is used to indicate an adult male.

[Matsubara]

185. He used "man" in the context of "mankind", not "a man".

But ascribe all the sinister motives you wish to his use of the word.

It's become obvious that this is pointless...

[Beelzebud]

199. It's totally pointless. This person has an axe to grind, and I'm done helping.

I put the idiot on ignore. And now DU seems like a much better place again.

[Gormy Cuss]

189. "Man" without an article preceding it is synonomous with "mankind"

"A man," "the man*," or "men" are gender-specific terms. "Man" is not. The archaism reference in the Wiki article references to the sum total usage of "man" in the language. It is declining in this usage specifically because some people can differentiate between the generic reference and the gender specific ones, but it is still an accepted usage of the word. You may choose to avoid it but others who use it in that context aren't being sexist.

[mitchum]

194. I'm quite aware of the sexist origins of the word...

"hysterical" and deliberately used it. I figured if they got so wound up by the use of "man", just imagine how that would set them off...

[Occulus]

174. Huh?

"Hysterical" is a sexist word?

:wtf:

It's like reading a post and responding with "Beer."

:wtf:

[Matsubara]

191. In the old days, doctors diagnosed women with "hysteria"...

A malady they believed originated in the uterus, related to the menses - hence the similarity you may notice in the words "hysterectomy" and "hysteria".

It is a sexist term, but most people don't use it that way, because most people are not aware of the word's origins.

Calling someone a sexist because they use the word hysterical is unfair at best, disingenuous at worst.

[Truth2Tell]

386. Beer

[Clark2008]

229. The term came from the Greek, "hysterikos," which was an

ailment of the uterus.

The word used to be applied only to women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria

[hfojvt]

312. there should be a huge distinction there

you just equated using 'man' to describe the whole human race to an expletive use of a racial slur calling for wholesale slaughter. The one is a minor sin of ommission, not necessarily mean spirited. In the context in which it was used, it did not say anything derogatory about women. It's not bad to point out that a more inclusive term should be used, but it does not warrant the tag 'sexist' or 'bigot' all by itself. Not the same way as the term and the expletive laden call for death does.

[mitchum]

143. Matsubara, you used the word "huMANity" as a term for homo sapiens...

bad Matsubara...bad :)

Oh hell! And I just used "homo"
When will I ever learn???!!!

[Matsubara]

152. Origins of "man"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannaz

[Beelzebud]

149. Neil Armstrong was one sexist motherfucker!

[Goblinmonger]

164. Perhaps he was. n/t

[cgrindley]

316. Actually, he's still alive (nt)

[mitchum]

119. No, I used "man" in the same way the writers of the Enlightenment...

used it. Y'know, those pigs.
However, I did use "hysterical" in order to get a rise.
I thought you were an English teacher? Seems as if you would know that writers choose words deliberately...

[Goblinmonger]

126. So you think that the writers of the Enlightenment

had no problems with sexism? Women had equal rights back then? Or do you think we have progressed from that time period as well?

Nice use of deliberate sexist terminology.

So you have no problem defining all of humanity by the male gender?

[mitchum]

130. I have no problem with it at all, man

[Beelzebud]

156. The writers of the enlightenment knew the origins of the word.

Unlike you.

[Goblinmonger]

170. Just so I'm straight

You are only looking to the origins of a word and not it's usage now? You will think that a word is OK because of the way it was used in Old English?

So the term "nigger" is not a problem with you? I'm sure I can come up with a lot more if you need them.

[Beelzebud]

173. If you think "nigger" and "mankind" are on the same level, there is no hope for you.

The world will NEVER be the sanitized place you wish it to be, where "nigger" and "mankind" are on the same level.

Take your bogus outrage and do something constructive with it. Go fight real sexism.

[Goblinmonger]

179. So you admit that you are inconsistant.

I NEVER said they were at the same level. YOU said that the origin of the word was not sexist so it was not sexist now. That was YOUR standard. Of course, you won't use that standard for other words as indicated above. The ORIGINS of "nigger" were not racist but you wouldn't be OK with it now. So your standard of origins is clearly BS. So what is the real standard you want to uphold? Those things you agree with?

[Beelzebud]

184. How about a rational standard where "mankind" isn't a slur like "nigger" for starters?

How about using some common sense?

There are millions of people that still use the term mankind. Some of them women!

However, EVERYONE reasonable agrees that nigger is a deeply offensive term.

You are comparing apples and oranges, and I'm not going to let you get away with it. You're the one that compared the two, not me.

[Goblinmonger]

190. Well, I'm not going to let you get away with building that Strawman

as pretty as it may be.

I NEVER said they were the same as to level of offense. I was just testing you criteria for word use. YOU said that the origin of a word is what we look to, i.e. the origins of man/mankind were not sexist so the use of that term is not sexist now. I testing that criteria with the term "nigger." It was not racist in it's origin but it is racist now. Therefore, your criteria is worthless and your original argument is invalid. THAT has been my argument NOT that "nigger" and man/mankind are equally offensive.

[mitchum]

204. Delete: sorry, replied to wrong post

[Beelzebud]

207. ROFL... Brilliant.

LOL Great! Thank you for the sanity, man. :D

[mitchum]

212. Straw...man???!!! What the fuck is up with that?

[Goblinmonger]

220. Nice one.

Seriously.

[BlooInBloo]

234. strawHUMAN, please.

[Bake]

254. Don't you mean "strawhuPERSON"?????

Really!

Bake

[Matsubara]

407. ROTFLMAO!!!!

:rofl:

It's time to change all the dictionaries. manhole - hupersonhole, etc. etc.



:rofl:

[Kingshakabobo]

224. "Just so I'm straight"

Now wait a minute! What do you mean by "straight"? Wouldn't the use of that word be homophobic?

[ClassWarfare2008]

275. Not really, in this case

The poster is referring to himself as "straight", and he's entitled to claim his own sexual orientation. Now on the other hand, if had said "Just so you're straight" or "Just so we're straight", it would have made assumptions about the sexual orientations of others which may or may not be correct.

[Kingshakabobo]

280. No, he is implying "straight" is a good thing, versus wrong, or bad thing.

[Goblinmonger]

292. Nice try

but I'm not biting.

[Kingshakabobo]

326. Not even a nibble?

:)

[BlooInBloo]

128. Oops.

[IA_Seth]

132. Hysterical is sexist?

Holy shit this thread has some people grasping, doesn't it?

[Goblinmonger]

137. Yeah, do some research

you might be amazed. It was used to describe a woman who was overly emotional because of hormonal problems related to the uterus. The remedy? A good fucking--whether she wanted it or not.

I think the use of the term "whore" do describe members of PETA put me a little on edge. Or is that grasping, too?

[BlooInBloo]

144. Yah, that's going too far. One use of it is sexist. Not so in general....

.... Whether or not the sexist use was in play above, by the other guy, I cannot say. I know for a fact that use wasn't in play when *I* used the word much earlier in the thread.

[IA_Seth]

161. No, I don't think 'whore' is appropriate..

And is waaay over-used here at DU (IMO).

But hysterical? Really? I mean ok, I understand your point if the origins of hysterical are some backward-ass sexist medical thoughts of the ages past...but do you honestly think that particular definition is what anyone is thinking when they say you (or anyone else) is being hysterical?

Connotation and Denotation are often very different, ya know?

[Goblinmonger]

168. I understand

But I know the guy who used it and he has admitted that he used it for that purpose.

[Beelzebud]

153. Some people actively look for things to offend them.

[Goblinmonger]

158. Yeah, sexism is so OUT THERE

Why even bother to address bigotry?

BTW, your "I support Cindy" graphic--did you put that on after someone called her an attention-whore? Just saying.

[Beelzebud]

166. You'd have a point if you were dealing with real sexism in this thread...

[Goblinmonger]

175. You have still not addressed the usage

of "attention whore" to describe the women at PETA. I imagine from your graphic you had a problem with it when it was aimed at Cindy, but not Ingrid?

[Beelzebud]

178. I didn't refer to them as "attention whores", so what is your point?

Are we now to read every post and denounce things we don't agree with?

[Goblinmonger]

183. Others did.

You said I was "looking for things to offend me" and I said the same thing you got pissed about with Cindy is in this very thread. I'm not asking you to go outside this discussion. Yet you have no problem with that sexist language in this context. Why do you think Ingrid is a whore?

[Beelzebud]

188. You are insane... Where did I call Ingrid a whore? Make shit up much?

YOU are the one that actively looks for things to offend, NOT me. THAT's why you don't see me whining over every comment I disagree with.

If you can make the leap that because I didn't go and whine at someone for using a word that I called ingrid a whore, then I really have no time for you. You're looking to pick fights with peopel for saying things they didn't say, and I'm now done with you.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a creationist, or right wing fundy. NO logic, no truth, no point.

[Goblinmonger]

195. YOU DIDN'T

Follow along. YOU said I was looking for offense where there was none. I said that the useage of sexist language in this thread was bad. I specifically referenced the "attention whore" because it seems to be something you were concerned about elsewhere.

And what wonderful debating skills you are exhibiting with the ad hom. Yeah, I'm a fundy because you keep creating strawmen about what I am saying.

[Beelzebud]

196. You aren't even making sense now.

[mitchum]

159. Yes, they do...

and since I'm such a giving guy, I decided to also throw in something to really get them in a tizzy

[The Stranger]

276. Go ahead, take "a fucking break." Meanwhile . . . .

Human beings are animals, and the movement to prevent cruelty and abuse of animals (including human beings) has always, always been Left Wing. Greed is to the Right, Progressivism to the Left.

The Right Wing has demonized PETA since its inception, confusing what it does and what it stands for, and that has, unfortunately, reached even these boards.

[mitchum]

290. Yet, they use both "People" and "Animals" in the title of their organization...

it would appear that they consider them not to be the same.
Your turn...

[Goblinmonger]

295. Not even nearly clever

(and I have given you credit for being clever above).

If it were a group of canines organzied for animal rights it would be named differently.

Or are you denying that humans are animals?

[mitchum]

303. How about SSRLETA (Shrill Self Righteous Lunatics for the Ethical...

Treatment of Animals) then? It would be far more accurate than the clumsy title that they chose.
Of course, human beings are animals. According to your argument, they should have more precisely called the organization PETOA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Other Animals)
Right?

[Goblinmonger]

308. I kind of like that.

The second one, not the first one. :P

[mitchum]

311. That's cool...

:)
peace,
mitchum

[Goblinmonger]

313. Seriously, dude

Though I have reacted to this issue rather harshly, I am certainly you and I would have a great time talking over drinks. I am quite dark-humor oriented and love sarcasm and satire.

peace

[The Stranger]

318. "People" are a subset of "Animals," so the title indicates that they also seek have other people

ethically treated as well -- but you are trying to prove the opposite, no?

I just turned it around you.

[mitchum]

327. Shouldn't it be PETOA then?

People for The Ethical Treatment of Other Animals?
That would bolster your "argument" far better.
The present title places "people" in a paternalistic position over "animals" and makes PETA sound like...speciesists.

I've gotta run now. Have to walk the dog, feed the cats, and throw some chops on the grill.
Cheers

[The Stranger]

413. Or "PETAA", if that makes you happy.

People for ethically treating everyone and everything.

Now, then, will people stop assassinating PETA on these boards?

[TheWraith]

309. Sexist? Mitchum meant humans. Nice strawman though.

"Man" and "mankind" are common vernaculars for the human race.

[mitchum]

328. It's common vernacular except for when one is an uninformed...

dumbass :)
Thanks,
mitchum

[mitchum]

367. What? Not even a little thanks for the education you have received in this thread?

love,
mitchum (farther Left than PETA and you)

[ThomCat]

59. Oh Geez!

:eyes:

So you really consider them a right-wing organization?

The idea that only your idea of the left is really to the left is really a defeatist attitude. There's a lot more people here than just you.

[The Stranger]

273. Answers: Yes, yes, and yes.

[mitchum]

288. Sez you...

but then again, that's all you said

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

165. PETA Is Not 'Left'. They Are An Extremist Group That Is Theirs Alone.

They are not made up of lefties. They are mostly made up of narrow minded and ignorant extremists.

But as a member of the left, I resent for a second being associated with such a radical and nonsensical group.

[LisaL]

371. And other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

[Arkana]

423. The reason everyone hates PETA

is not because of their message. It is because of the horrifying, almost "Internet shock site"-esque things they do to get attention. In a way, it could be compared to the nutjobs who protest abortion clinics with pictures of dead babies--you're not going to reach anyone but the faithful.

[Beaverhausen]

426. "everyone" doesn't hate PETA - some may disagree with their tactics

but I think the work they do is important.

You can't bring attention to your cause if you don't stir the pot a bit.

Just look at Code Pink! Not everyone agrees with their tactics but most agree with what they are doing.

[Arkana]

430. But don't you think that maybe they'd have figured it out by now?

That maybe if they tried a little more moderation instead of the "Hay guyz let's dump pig blood on ourselves and scream at passing cars" crap that they might garner the RIGHT kind of attention for once? People might say "Hey, these are reasonable, educated people trying to make a point" rather than "OH MY GOD PETA'S FULL OF FREAKAZOIDS!"

[slampoet]

340. Exactly what i thought.

Ty Cobb used to say things like that.


"Babe Ruth ran pretty good for a fat man."




Ty Cobb died alone with no friends.



PETA is on its way.

[mitchum]

369. In defense of Cobb...he was actually good at his job...

unlike PETA :)

[Nikki Stone1]

20. The "elephant" reference is a slur and not worthy such a fine organiza--wait, it's PETA

"Michael Moore is fat,
Michael Moore is fat."

Sung to you by PETA

[ThomCat]

23. So, ignoring that obesity is a health crisis

would be good for healthcare?

I think it was a bit tactless, but you don't address any problem by ignoring it.

[Nikki Stone1]

43. "Nya, nya nya, you're fat!" is not being serious about obesity as a health crisis.

PETA's just being bitchy and immature.

[ThomCat]

47. That was not the tone of the letter.

The responses are bitchy and immature. Including yours. :eyes:

[Nikki Stone1]

57. "There's an elephant in the room..." That's not "nya nya nya"?

Sound you're on the rag, honey.

Edited to add: This is in response to the above post: "The responses are bitchy and immature. Including yours. "


Also edited to add the actual quote:

"There's an elephant in the room, and it is you," PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wrote in a letter to Moore.

[ThomCat]

62. Did you read the whole letter?

Or you always go off and attack entire organizations for one sentence from one source?

Geez, give me some reason to bother taking you seriously. :eyes:

[Nikki Stone1]

72. You put 100 roses on a cockroach, it's still a cockroach.

The rest of the letter was ok, but this one comment destroys it. It was nasty, bitchy and childish. Much like throwing paint on women wearing fur. Yelling "nya nya" at people is really in keeping with who they are.

If you can't see that, then I don't know what else to tell you.

[BlooInBloo]

80. They're trying to HIDE the cockroach in the smokescreen of roses.

[Missy Vixen]

118. How exactly do you believe that sentence should be interpreted?

Truly?

Do you think it's a shock to Michael Moore that he's a large person? I read an interview with him this morning in the Seattle Times in which he jokingly referred to himself as "Twiggy". Somehow, I'm thinking he's figured this one out previously.

Julie

[BlooInBloo]

147. They prefer that the sentence be ignored. "Look! Good sentences over there!"

[Rosemary2205]

53. Maybe they thought Moore didn't notice his own weight?

You think Peta was trying to do an intervention?

When a doctor comments that your are a fat elephant then it's healthcare (and rude healthcare at that). When a bunch of people you never met tells you that you are fat elephant it's assinine and rude.

[Elidor]

55. Neither do you win converts to your side by being a jackass

And Peta doesn't need our help to make asses of themselves. They are the nadir of good PR. You don't address that particular problem by trying to change the topic.

[Nikki Stone1]

64. Agreed. They are pretty silly on the whole.

Not worth defending.

[Missy Vixen]

121. And we all know that taunting and shaming have worked so well in the past! n/t

[Matsubara]

397. Obesity is a health problem, yes...

...but it's also one of the things the health insurance likes to use as a basis to deny coverage.


Personally, think health insurers denying people coverage on the basis of legal lifestyle choices is just plain wrong. Being that they are profit-based, there's little we can do about it, but with single-payer health insurance (and health care defined as a human right) then all can be covered, which is why we need movies like Sicko, not sickos like PETA taking inappropriate potshots about issues that have nothing to even do with their pet cause.

[kestrel91316]

89. PETA is working toward a future where veterinarians won't have jobs.

They would prefer to starve us than see us earn a living treating pets which, according to them, are exploited.

Please explain to me again why I shouldn't hate them, since their policy is to hate me and my colleagues?

FYI, Newkirk has stated repeatedly that her goal is to end all animal "exploitation", which includes pet ownership. Odd, then, that she herself is a pet owner.

I have some questions for her:
What about the coyotes exploiting and TORTURING the rabbits?
What about the ants exploiting and ENSLAVING the aphids???

[ThomCat]

92. Show me anyplace where PETA has ever said

that pet ownership is animal exploitation? Or where they've every come out against the veterinary health care industry?

[kestrel91316]

105. I've seen Ms. Newkirk say it repeatedly in interviews - and NO, i don't have an

f---ing link at the moment.

She says they intend to END ALL ANIMAL EXPLOITATION and the pet ownership is a form of that exploitation.

But go ahead and bury your head in the sand about that little factiod if it suits you.

[ThomCat]

114. Funny, as a long-time supporter of PETA I've never heard

either of those two ridiculous statements. I've read their newsletters, read the interviews, followed them online, and I think you're making shit up.

[slampoet]

341. I typed in "PETA pet ownership" into Google for your lazy ass and got this as the first result

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."
-- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Rights" (symposium) Harper's, August 1988, p. 50.

http://www.cfapurebredrescue.org/animal_rights.htm





I guess you're just WILLFULLY IGNORANT.

Enjoy your little bliss.

[Matariki]

342. I don't think it's willful ignorance. I think it's actually a sort of tactic.

It's infuriating, the way talking to a Holocaust denier would be infuriating. But then, I suppose it's meant to be. It seems to be a common tactic with the peta apologists on this board.

[slampoet]

345. Say it doesn't exist, then say it was a tactic..........

Kind of sounds like Ted Haggard doesn't it?


It is "Tactics" like this that lost the left this country.


Nowhere in the Art of War does it say to deny things that already exist, yet PETA will try to defend any mistake as a tactic they can be proud of. This is because they and a few other groups out there have been founded more on expressing the anger of their members than actually getting results for their cause (in this case animals)

The same is true of any pro-life group who doesn't hand out condoms. In the 1980's Operation Rescue could have ended half of all abortions in the world if they shipped condoms to countries that had only the option of abortion as birth control (Russia etc..)

[TZ]

435. PETA wants me to starve along with Kestrel

because I am in biotech and do research that involves animals in order to do drug/vaccine/medical safety testing. I enjoy the thought that I am helping end horrible diseases. What I don't enjoy is being labelled as an unethical nazi experiemter who doesn't give a fig about animals (absolutely not true, as a pet owner and someone who has a loved nature for a long time).

[EOTE]

198. Here ya go...

http://www.cfapurebredrescue.org/animal_rights.htm

This link has a number of quotes pertaining to pet ownership.

I agree with a lot of what PETA believes in. I think it's a travesty that animals are tortured for expediency or simple economic matters. However, it's their methods and some of their more fringe-like beliefs that really turn me off to the organization.

[ThomCat]

211. Neither of those two quotes from PETA

say anything about hating vets or eliminating pet ownership.

As for the rest of the stuff on that page, I'd be sceptical that they're accurately portraying animal rights advocacy. That would be like trusting some of the people on this thread to accurately describe PETA. They might be good people on other issued...

[slampoet]

347. First say it doesn't exist and then attack the source which is HARPERS!!!

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."
-- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Rights" (symposium) Harper's, August 1988, p. 50.


Are you an employee of Fox news? or do you just use their tactics without knowing?

[mitchum]

372. Well, you know how Harpers is simply notorious for sloppy fact checking...

I don't USE the sarcasm icon, but it's not really necessary, is it? :)

[diamidue]

182. I found it as offensive as someone

including a religious tract in a letter. "We love you, and yet we know you have not yet accepted Jesus as your personal savior. Please consider the following reasons why you should join our church..." If PETA wanted to congratulate Moore, it could have done so without the veggie sermon or the highly disrespectful comment on his weight.

[Warren DeMontague]

297. Not nearly as weird a fetish as hectoring total strangers about what they choose to eat.

If it was James Dobson sending a "nice, friendly" letter to an openly gay celebrity, chastising him for having sex with other men, lecturing him about the dangers of gay sex, and offering the "good news" of salvation from those evil gay urges through Jesus Christ, would you run around cheering the presumptuous, proseltyzing piece of shit the way you're heaping praise on PETA?

I'd suspect not.

[ThomCat]

320. Vegetarians get hectored about what they eat far, far more often

than the reverse. I don't suppose you're so concerned about that though. :eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

352. Oh, Bull.

Yeah. Right. "Eat some meat! Eat some meat!" Carnivores chasing vegans around with shish kabobs, holding them down at barbecues.

That's just beyond fucking ridiculous. I don't eat very much meat at all, I had several years where I ate none- and no one ever said word one to me about it. In fact, people went out of their way to accomodate my diet. This isn't about vegans or vegetarians not eating meat, and having someone try to stop them- and it's the same as with all these other issues of personal choice and what consenting adults do with their own bodies; the abortion "debate" isn't about pro-lifers being forced to get abortions. The porn "debate" isn't about the anti-porn people being forced to personally appear in porn or rent it from the video store. No one is running around forcing drug warriors to smoke pot.

All these issues are about people who want to make their own minds up for themselves, versus the control freaks who need to tell others what to do and how to live their lives.

And like I said, if you took the exact same PETA letter and replaced "meat eating" with being gay, do you think you could grasp why it's fucking pretentious, pompous, proseltyzing and offensive?

[Mythsaje]

396. I LOL at this...

More fucking truth than most folks can handle.

[yewberry]

403. Yes, there's harassment.

No, no one is holding anyone down, but there's plenty of shit thrown at us, thanks very much. Yes, there are many who do go out of their way to accomodate dietary differences and that's deeply appreciated, but those folks are the exception, not the rule.

"No one ever said word one to me about it."
Well, you must live in a positively sanctified world, then. Tell you what--I'm at 21 years off of meat, and there's been plenty of abuse. Try daily shouting because the chef is pissed that you won't try his special. How about a nice bout of diarrhea because someone thinks you won't *really* notice that there's stock in that soup you asked about? Because those vegetarians, you know, there's no real reason for their stupid, cosmetic concerns. How about bi-weekly "eww, what are you eating" episodes at work? Sound good? How about the daily, "hey, want some of my burger" joke? Oh, yeah, that's hilarious.

And how about the sly accusations of hypocrisy? Those are fun. Here's a heads-up for all of those who've been kind enough to inquire: no, my shoes aren't made of leather. Neither is my belt or wallet. Thanks. And yes, I do know plenty about EFAs--thanks for your concern.

And let's talk about DU, okay? Ever have anyone call you nasty names based on your username? I have. Apparently, I'm irrational. Illogical. Evangelical. A nanny-stater. Elitist. Weak & pasty. A KOOK!1! I eat food that smells like a cesspool and tastes like wharf slime. I don't care about the war dead in Iraq because I can take two minutes to sign a petition about puppy mills. I'm just the same as someone from Operation Rescue. I'm a killer of infants. I must be protein-deprived. I'm smug, sanctimonious, and superior. Why am I all of these thing on DU? Because I don't bother to hide my personal choices, and I don't preface with, "Well, I'm veg, but I'm not one of those preachy ones..."


I'm not suggesting that PETA did a good thing with this letter to Moore. I don't agree with them on this one. However, suggesting that veg*ns don't get regular crap for their own personal, private choices out in the world or on DU is just foolish.

[Warren DeMontague]

415. And you're in Seattle, I'm surprised.

That sucks, really it does. You know, the closest I've come to seeing what you describe was an extremely atrocious "news" piece on MSNBC during the '04 campaign where the snide anchorbot was, like, "Next, we'll show you what we found in Candidate Dennis Kucinich's hotel room!..." (I'm thinking, what? Gay porn?) Turns out it was vegan sandwiches. Yeah, soooo weird. :eyes: But that was one of several incidents that year which convinced me to swear off Cable "Newz" for good.

I dunno, maybe I live in a bubble here in Northern California, but it seems to me pretty much everywhere I go there are good vegetarian options. No one makes a big deal out of it. I wasn't kidding about no one ever saying anything to me about it. When my wife & I got married, we made sure to include a vegan entree in the choices. And I agree, some of the stuff on the vegan/infant thread went a little overboard. I think my response, on that thread, was that people- everyone, meat eaters and non meat eaters, should stop telling the other people what to eat.

I don't consider all vegans to be as you describe, but I definitely have my problems with PETA, their tactics, their ad campaigns, and their agenda. If I slam PETA for comparing Jews who died in the Holocaust to chickens at KFC, that doesn't mean I'm slamming everyone who doesn't eat meat.

So okay, you don't preface your statements with "I'm a vegan but not one of those preachy ones", but presumably you can understand the difference between the statements "I don't eat meat because I don't think I should" and "YOU shouldn't eat meat because I don't think you should". I'm not saying you're "one of the preachy ones", but it seems to me that plenty of vegans here want to protect their right to hector other people about their dietary choices, but then resent being called on it. No, it's not right when it comes from either side of the fence, either. If everyone could just focus on what is at the end of their OWN forks, I think a lot of the dust would settle.

And, for the record, I LIKE tofu. Makes me fart, but I like it.

[yewberry]

422. Truthfully, it used to be far worse.

And you're absolutely right that there are far more options out there for veg*ns these days. I've given you the wrong impression about Seattle: it is very veg-friendly here, probably similar to what you say you've experienced in N. CA. That's part of the reason I moved here in the first place. A few years ago, I moved back to New England, and found that attitudes there were changing, but slowly. My most recent boss in MA routinely referred to me as "that fucking freak" and my coworkers never tired of the "want some of my steak?" gag. So, yeah, it is absolutely easier here.

I agree completely that no one should tell anyone else what is the right choice for them. It's arrogant and unreasonable. There is a problem with conflation here, though. So often, someone posts some PETA or random AR thread, and in short order, there's a subthread about human teeth as evidence in favor of meat-eating or vegans killing babies. I really do get that slamming PETA (something that is sometimes called for) isn't the same as slamming everyone who doesn't eat meat--at the same time, there are some folks for whom any PETA discussion is an opportunity to mock veg*ns.

There are "preachy" veg*ns here, and I don't approve of their approach. Frankly, it makes me wince when I see it. There are "preachy" meaters here, too, and the two groups together are behind most of the animosity that comes up around this issue.

Sorry about the farting. Do you have a dog you can blame it on?

[Warren DeMontague]

431. Boy, that's lame, about your old boss.

I would think, "Why the hell do you care what I eat so much? What's wrong with you?" ...It's funny, and I don't want to detour from Meat eaters vs. Vegans into East Coast vs. West Coast- but one thing I never could deal with on the East Coast (and, to a lesser extent, in the Midwest) was this ever-present thing of everyone constantly being in everyone else's face and extremely over-interested (in my mind) in everyone else's business.

Only times in my life I've ever had total strangers come up to me and comment about how weird it is that I, a man, have long hair (!) were on the East Coast. :hippie:

As for the dog, no, but I'm married with kids, so the days of anyone bothering to try to cover up human-related odors are pretty much gone. It's a lost cause.

[Goblinmonger]

29. ZOMG!!!1!! What bastards!

They tell him he is doing a great job and offer to help him with his obesity. How fucking dare they?

[insane_cratic_gal]

270. She's a publicity whore

jumped on the Moore Wagon for attention to her cause. Enough said.

Quite pathetic actually, A vegan life style should speak for itself rather then attacking someone who is over weight.

I think they should fire her skinny ass (pun intended)

[cgrindley]

314. PETA sucks

Eating animal flesh is a right as far as I'm concerned.

[BlooInBloo]

15. I'm not anti-vegetarian. I'm anti-militant-vegetarian. Big difference....

... As this letter, and its defenders, makes clear.

[ThomCat]

21. "Militant" vegetiarians is a myth of vegetarian bashers.

You are far more militant on many issues than almost any vegetarian is. The only difference is that you think you're right, but because you're not a vegetiarian you think we're wrong. Get over it. :eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

22. No it's not.

[ThomCat]

28. Keep believing that if it makes you happy.

I've been a vegan for almost 20 years now, and I get harassed by omnivores on a frequent basis who always complain about how militant vegetiarians/vegans are.

I have never, ever harassed meat eaters. For years as a gourmet cook I used to cook meat for many friends who were all meat eaters. I was the designated cook at all of our get-togethers. I'd be around it, handling it, cooking it, and I'd still hear how militant WE are.

It's the arrogant meat eaters who are militant. Like you. But feel free to believe whatever myth makes you feel better about it.

[Rob H.]

245. I've had similar experiences

I've only been vegetarian for going on four years, but I got so much grief from some of my omni friends in the beginning that I completely stopped going to restaurants with them. "Mmmm, this bacon is good" or "Oh, this steak is delicious" got old real quick. I always wanted to say, "Go ahead and have a steak piled with chicken and smothered in sausage gravy followed by shots of melted butter if you want to. I don't give a shit what you eat--can't you just shut up and return the favor?"

[FlaGranny]

434. Good lord in heaven

(not that I believe in a lord in heaven, mind you), ARROGANT MEAT EATERS?, MILITANT VEGETARIANS? Are we going to have a World War III of meat eaters vs. vegetarians? Can't we find better stuff to fight and worry about?

I've never actually met either a militant meat eater OR a militant vegetarian - but the vegetarian side is a little more vocal. I've never heard a meat eater speak of the evils of vegetarianism (because I've never met a meat eater who thought vegetarianism was evil), but I sure have heard vegetarians discuss the evils of meat eating. Hmmmmmm.

[flvegan]

24. Well said.

[jilln]

26. No no, no it's not!

A militant vegetarian is anyone who talks about it publicly. You're supposed to just eat your lettuce at home and shut up about it.

[RebelOne]

32. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm a vegetarian, but not militant. If someone wants to eat flesh and destroy their health, that's their business.

[Matariki]

187. Look at your statement -

"If someone wants to eat flesh and destroy their health".

And you wonder why people tend to think *some* vegetarians are a pain in the ass?

Do you really think you have the last word diet and health? Are you a nutritionist? Eating meat automatically 'destroys your health'? That's just nonsense.

I've known vegans with Chrons disease and anemia and any other health problem meat eaters get. I've known fat vegetarians.

It's just as possible to be healthy on a balanced vegetarian or vegan diet as it is on a balanced omnivorous diet.

This is all a personal decision. People thrive on different diets. Some people might be healthier as vegetarians, others with moderate amounts of meat. I don't see why we need to sling insults about each other's diets.

[drbtg1]

48. No, Militant vegetarians like Rod Coronado, the ALF, and other terrorists exist with help from PETA

I strongly recommend watching the Penn & Teller episode of "Bullshit!' about PETA. Yeah, there's some worthless crap from Dennis Prager and Ted Nugent, but the stuff in the tax returns, not to mention Mary Beth Sweetland's hypocrisy and the stuff on the dogs, is eyeopening.

[ThomCat]

50. Anyone who refers to Penn and Teller to back up an argument

is announcing that they know nothing on the subject. Geez. Surely you can do better than that.

At the very least, if you're going to site them, at least check out all the rebuttals that are readily available online. Google is your friend.

[drbtg1]

116. I give a source, you tell me to check Google instead of offering your own source...

or even countering any point made by the program. Lazy.

Tell me, out of all the myriad of rebuttals you claim exist about the claims made on the show about PETA, did any rebuttals come from PETA? Because when I Googled "penn teller peta" on the first few pages (per your snide suggestion), not only do I not find much in the way of rebuttals, but nothing from PETA's website. Maybe a PETA rebuttal does exist, I know I'd write a rebuttal if I was beaten up like PETA was on that show and I'd do all I can to make sure it was prominent in a Google search.

I offer a source and I get slammed for it. Figures.

[flvegan]

171. "...terrorists exist with help from PETA"

Which you backed up with a tv show by two idiot spin doctors.

Your claim is untrue. The IRS investigated allegations into PETA and found nothing, hence their still tax-exempt status. PETA hasn't supported nor funded illegal activities. What they have done, which P&T fooled you into believing was "supporting terra", is donate to defense funds for people charged with illegal activities.

Why should PETA rebut anything? People that WANT to believe PETA is bin Laden lite, won't believe what they say. I will always wonder why people that purport to be liberals will believe what a group like the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise says. It's like reading Free Republic and deciding Bush is doing a great job.

[drbtg1]

200. "Why should PETA rebut anything?"

In a word, slander. The reasoning should be obvious.

Forget it, you still don't offer sources, just more slamming, you obviously have nothing. There's no point pursuing this with you.

[flvegan]

I gave you facts and sources.

Your failure to be able to disprove them...well, that's YOUR problem.

If PETA went after every half-wit that they were slandered by or wrote libelous comments about them, they'd need a nation of lawyers. It's not worth it.

[drbtg1]

239. You gave not one URL, not one publication, that can be looked at to refute what was claimed

Thus, no sources, just what you claim to be true. Funny, you claimed Google could find all sorts of rebuttals, but you don't offer any URL's. And considering your earlier blanket condemnation about the show, your opinion has zero credibility. A source should be something that can be independently confirmed APART FROM YOU. One can watch the show apart from me and decide for themselves. You did not offer that.

And if someone was claiming PETA was killing dogs, as Penn & Teller have done, and it wasn't true, I think a reasonable person would conclude PETA might want a lawyer.

I agree with the "It's not worth it" part, but not for the same reason.

[Goblinmonger]

120. ZOMG!!!1!! Terra, terra, terra. I'm series!!1!!! n/t

[drbtg1]

135. Did you see the 60 Minutes report on the ALF?

Did you know Rod Coronado was jailed for arson and felony conspiracy?

Just wondering.

[Goblinmonger]

140. Yeah, yeah, yeah

You do know that busting out the "terrorism" argument is often as silly as the Hitler argument above.

[drbtg1]

157. Sure, it can vary from silly to another installment of...

...Olbermann's "Nexus of Politics and Terror" series. But in this case, I don't use the word lightly. I assure you I do not, nor have I ever, worked for the Bush Administration.

(BTW, Office Space rocks. I assume that's why you have the red stapler.)

[Goblinmonger]

197. I get your point

and probably knee-jerked to the terrorism.

I have a real red stapler on my desk right next to me now. I love Office Space.

[Rob H.]

240. That Penn & Teller episode had a representative

of the Center for Consumer Freedom, a front group funded by the restaurant, tobacco, and alcohol industries as an interviewee, too. Penn & Teller didn't mention that they're a front group even once in the episode. I'd take pretty much everything they said with a giant grain of salt.

Excerpted from article at link:

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network") is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture -- the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.' "

[drbtg1]

253. Correct, they're a front group...

...which would give even more reason to attack what they say instead of who is saying it, IF what they said is wrong. Yes, they're a front group, but the tax returns show interesting info which is what the front group guy was saying. Did the scumbag receive money from PETA as a "loan" which has never been paid back?

I understand attacking them as a front group and giving a grain of salt as a default position, but isn't only doing that, instead of refutting with evidence, the same as attacking people like us by saying we're wacko extremist liberals, thinking that's conclusive?

[Rob H.]

266. I don't think it's conclusive (I agree with you on that point)

but it does make me more skeptical about how and why he was presented as an objective critic when he (obviously, to me) isn't, especially given that the CCF receives a significant amount of its funding from the very industries that are also critical of PETA.

It's possible Penn & Teller didn't know anything about the CCF, but I'm just one guy with access to Google and minutes after his appearance I knew who employed him and who bankrolls his employer. That's pretty sloppy on P&T's part.

IMO, the fact that they let the CCF's "expert" come on and talk about PETA without revealing exactly who the CCF really is and who funds them let the guy get away with saying, "Look how dirty their hands are!" without Penn & Teller bothering to mention that his hands aren't exactly clean, either. It allows viewers to come to a lopsided conclusion when they don't have the complete picture, simply because they haven't been made aware of the full background of the representatives on both sides of the issue.

[drbtg1]

289. Oh, absolutely one should be skeptical

and it absolutely taints what Penn & Teller are presenting. But let's face it, after Dennis Prager and Ted Nugent, I'm not expecting Pulitzer to come knocking on Penn's door for this episode.

Still, the point remains: is what the "expert" saying right or wrong? Could it be wrong? Sure, maybe. But if it is wrong, and it's being broadcast on a national network, shouldn't the people and/or group being attacked want to set the record straight with some concrete evidence?

Unless, of course, perhaps the record is straight.

You recall going to Google minutes after the broadcast to find out about the expert and concluded P&T were sloppy. I recall going to PETA's website days after the broadcast to see if they refute what the expert and/or P&T said. Nothing there.

It's been many moons since that broadcast. The show has even been released on DVD. Does PETA still have its head in the sand?

On the other hand, maybe PETA knows and instead embraces the concept. The following is what I just found at Wikipedia (with the reference after, because giving sources isn't that hard):

"In general, Newkirk makes no apology for PETA's support of activists who may break the law, writing that "no movement for social change has ever succeeded without 'the militarism component'." Of the Animal Liberation Front, she writes: "Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out."" ("The ALF: Who, Why, and What?", Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals. Best, Steven & Nocella, Anthony J (eds). Lantern 2004, p. 341./)

[flvegan]

315. Here (pics, dial-up warning)

I'm going to use their own spin against them.

This is from animalscam.com



and



This money went for support and defense of a person (Coronado) ALLEGED to have committed arson. He (Coronado) was convicted in December of 2005, 11 months later. Presumed innocent until proven guilty, don't you know. Does P&T or CCF EVER mention that? No. Why aren't they knocking over the ACLU or other defenders of the presumed innocent? These idiots went after Greenpeace in the same breath, too.

If I donated to the defense fund for the SHAC7 before their conviction, am I funding terrorism?

Here's more you might like to read
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html

[drbtg1]

408. You are off by a decade

Coronado was jailed in 1995, not 2005, for the arson attack at Michigan State. The 2005 conviction was for felony conspiracy. What you wrote doesn't match the pics. I assume this was a typo.

http://www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=23918

Of course, if they want to claim innocent until proven guilty, fine. But I'm not sure that was what they were thinking.

"Would I rather the research lab that tests animals is reduced to a bunch of cinders? Yes."
- New York Daily News (December 7, 1997)

Also, I think where they spent that money speaks volumes about their priorities, which I'm sure we'll disagree about.

[The Stranger]

278. Oh boy, now the "Terrorism" lie that the Right Wing uses for all it hates is brandished here.

[drbtg1]

300. Kinda late to the party, ain't ya?

We've covered that. Please see the earlier subthread, starting at post #120

[The Stranger]

319. But that appears to buy into the lie, not deconstruct it.

They paid money to "Rod Coronado"? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Why are purportedly Progressive people trying to declare an animal rights organization "terrorist"?

[Warren DeMontague]

283. Bullshit. I know plenty of vegetarians, hell, I barely eat any meat myself.

There's a big difference between that and demanding that meat eating be outlawed, or comparing the chickens at KFC to Jews in Concentration camps.

PETA doesn't speak for all vegans, or vegetarians- just the ones who think that chickens deserve the same rights as people.

[ThomCat]

321. No organization that I've seen does more to promote

vegetarianism than PETA. They certainly represent more vegetarians and vegans than you do.

[jilln]

38. Writing a letter is militant?

I guess I better be locked up right away then. I'm dangerous. Not only have I written letters, but on occasion I've spoken to people - IN PERSON! I've even been known to hold a protest sign. Or pass out flyers.

Thanks for opening my eyes to what a dangerous path I've been going down. You've given me a whole new appreciation for Bush's policies. And a lot of paranoia. There are people writing letters EVERYWHERE! They must be stopped!!!!

[kestrel91316]

108. Thank you. The militants Do exist, and they are a truly vicious bunch.

[ThomCat]

115. I think you're seeing militants on the wrong side.

People who make up arguments to support their hatred of other people are the true militants.

[BlooInBloo]

151. Yes - I'm just oh-so full of HATRED of other people. I'm a walking genocide.

[Missy Vixen]

111. Frankly, I don't give a shit about PETA

>that get's orgasms attacking PETA.<

Actually, it's not quite that good for me.

I don't care for PETA. I don't care for their tactics, their willingness to embrace the half-baked as fact and their evidently burning desire (in this case) to humiliate someone else in order to prove their "point".

There's been research within the past five years proving that obesity is caused by a myriad of factors, ONE of which may be overeating. The human body is a complicated machine, and sometimes the answers aren't simple. Their "concern" for Michael Moore's health would be touching if it wasn't so self-serving.

Julie

[China_cat]

25. Yep, skeptical of anything the government says,

wanting evidence for anything another poster might say but let PETA say something and it's absolute gospel, has to be the truth and they will brook no other opinion.

[ThomCat]

30. Funny, do you have any proof of that generalization?

I'm a PETA supporter, and I was the first one on this thread to go looking for the actual letter. It appears that everyone else was attacking PETA based on a second hand write-up of one line from the actual letter.

[Goblinmonger]

34. "militant-vegetarian wing"?

What the hell does that mean? They actually talk about it? Like the militant-atheists?

[ThomCat]

35. That seems to be about right. If we dare to let anyone know

that we're vegetarians/vegans then we're suddenly spawns of satan for somesuch.

The comparison to Athiests is very appropriate. It's the same situation. If someone gets any hint that you don't believe in God then suddenly you're a militant.

[BlooInBloo]

37. I have no idea where this hysterical persecution complex comes from...

... I said what I was referring to by "militant vegetarian", and it bears exactly ZERO resemblance to what you guys have been saying over and over.

[BlooInBloo]

36. Vegetarian who believes You Should Be Too = militant vegetarian.

[jilln]

41. And a Democrat who believes others should be Democrats too...

a militant Democrat?

Or are you now gonna claim you think Republican ideas are correct?

[BlooInBloo]

51. Um, noooo. That's the difference between vegetarian and Democrat. lol!

Your folks' thought process is so bizarre. To actually believe that everything that holds for vegetarians must also hold of Democrats. Wow.

[jilln]

60. You completely missed the point.

Or maybe you just don't have a better answer.

[BlooInBloo]

65. No I didn't. You implied that anything that holds of vegetarians must...

.... mutatis mutandis, hold of Democrats as well. I deny that, being of the opinion that there are material differences between the concepts of vegetarians and Democrats. Just because something holds of one does NOT imply that it holds of the other; contrary to your belief.

[Goblinmonger]

71. You missed the point.

If you define a word to mean X, it must mean X. Just because you then don't want your behavior to be labeled X even though it clearly meets the wording of X doesn't mean that you get to move the goalposts.

[IA_Seth]

146. Then how about this...

Meat is Murder = Militant

Accusing someone of murder because of their eating habits...that is a bit out there, isn't it?

[Goblinmonger]

154. Um, doesn't the eating of meat require the death of an animal?

You do know that the cow dies in order for you to have a hamburger? Julia Child said that people need to come to grips with where their food comes from--as she tossed live eels into a frying pan.

[BlooInBloo]

176. god I hope so.

[EstimatedProphet]

177. But MURDER refers to PEOPLE

Period. That's the meaning of the word. Killing of a person. Otherwise, it reduces to complete absurdity. You have cases of "murder" for digesting protists and swatting flies.

[BlooInBloo]

203. Militant vegetarians commonly hold that all animals are people.

[Goblinmonger]

210. Got a link for that?

I will agree that they argue for animal rights and that humans are not uniquely special in the animal kingdom, but I seriously doubt they have ever said that non-human animals = people.

[BlooInBloo]

213. Equating them in moral value suffices for my point.

[Goblinmonger]

218. But it's not the same as the words you use.

That has been the point of several people on here that PETA's positions are misstated and then misstated again and again and again until the are unrecognizable.

[BlooInBloo]

221. To me it is, but I appreciate that other folks might use the words differently...

... that's why I clarified.

[Goblinmonger]

222. On this one I can agree with you, then.

[BlooInBloo]

227. NeenerneenerNEENER!! I win! I win!

:rofl:

Totally kidding, of course. :)

:rofl:

[ThomCat]

214. That's one of the most rediculous claims on this entire thread.

And there are a lot of totally rediculous claims on this thread, so you must win a prize. :eyes:

[IA_Seth]

193. Yeah, and I've killed my food before..

So now I am a murderer? Is that honestly how you feel? I've killed chickens, fish, deer, turkeys, pheasants, rabbits, squirrels, etc...and helped once with a pig too. I'm Ted freakin Bundy over here then, right?

[Goblinmonger]

202. I do think that killing animals is wrong.

That is why I am a vegetarian. You don't have a problem with that. I wish you did, but live on. I am not equating you with a serial killer. Please don't put words in my mouth. My problem is with the people that don't come to grips with the reality of where their meat comes from. You have. That's fine. PETA uses the term "murder" to make a point.

[IA_Seth]

235. Words used to make a point...

You say that PETA uses the 'murderer' label to make a point. I think that is really what others on this thread have done...used hyperbole and other language (whether offensive or not) to make a point.

To me, I think being called a murderer is pretty damn offensive, but they have no problem using it to 'make a point'. Perhaps others are using offensive words to make theirs?

[Goblinmonger]

250. You make a good point.

I am not sure of the specifics in the thread you are referring to, but there is some pretty blatant sexism in this thread which I would differentiate from the term "murder"--though your point is taken.

[Warren DeMontague]

287. And what sort of "point" were they making when they compared my relatives who died in Concentration

Camps to chickens at KFC?

'Cuz to me, the only "point" they effectively made there was that they are assholes who can't see past their fucking feet.

[Warren DeMontague]

286. And what is the difference between PETA asserting that Chicken="Person" and pro-lifers saying

that a single celled fertilized egg one second after conception="person"?

If that's your belief, fine- go ahead and live according to it. But don't try to impose your belief that a rat=a cat=a chicken=a cow=a person on the rest of us. Thanks.

[Goblinmonger]

298. Again, where have they said

that chicken = person?

I realize you are angry about the holocaust comparison but it seems to me to be an analogy to point out that the chickens on chicken farms suffer a great deal. Where has the equation been made outside of an analogy?

[Goblinmonger]

61. But it fits your definition of "militant"

I'm a vegetarian. I think it would be great if everyone were, but I don't go knocking on doors.

But your definition of "militant" is wanting everyone to be. So you are a militant Democrat. Why can't you see the bizarre nature of your definition?

[ThomCat]

75. You're totally missing the point.

Your definition of a militant is anyone who actually believes in a cause.

So apparently you don't think people should support anything that you support, because if you do then by your own definition you're a militant. And we all know how much you hate militants. :eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

91. No, I'm not. What's so hard to understand here?

I'll try it a different way:

militant X = You Should Be X Too

I'm against militant X's when the X in question is a personal, private, subjectvive, choice/preference sort of thing. Eating vegetables and not meat, or vice-versa, or any mixture, is one such thing.

Being a Democrat, by contrast, I stand for things like helping the poor, ending/not starting unjust/unnecessary wars, and the like. Those are INTERpersonal, objective sorts of things. It's perfectly consistent, and reasonable to be militant (in the sense described above) about such things.

Or, as I put it before, that's the difference between the concepts vegetarian and Democrat.

[ThomCat]

100. So, being a democrat is fine, as long as you don't actually

try to register anyone as a democrat?

Voter registration drives are militant?

If you can't see your hypocrisy then you're totally drinking the koolade.

[BlooInBloo]

107. (shrug) Let nobody say I didn't try with you - can't prevent willful misunderstanding.

[ThomCat]

124. It's not willful misunderstanding.

You're just promoting a double standard based entirely on whether or not you support a cause.

[Matariki]

215. reading through this thread

That head-banging icon starts to seem more and more appropriate, no?

[BlooInBloo]

219. Nah - it's all good. It's waking me up to get my day started.

[ThomCat]

42. That's funny.

I have meat-eaters trying to "tempt" me on a nearly daily basis.

"Oooh, this steak is SO good. Are you sure you don't want a bite?"
"How can you give up Lobster? Do you have any idea how good this is?"
"Mmm... Smell that barbqued chicken. Have a piece. It'll change you back."

For every one time I've every heard of a vegetarian promoting vegetarianism, I'm personally witnessed hundreds of obnoxious militant efforts to convert vegetarians back to meat.

Where's your anger at militant meat-eaters? If you're only upset by the less militant, much more rare behavior then it's not really the militant behavior you're against.

[BlooInBloo]

54. (shrug) That's wrong too. I'm just not familiar with that happening...

... Probably because I'm usually already eating meat.

[ThomCat]

68. I doubt you've looked.

If you've ever been in the presence of a vegetarian then I'm sure you'd have seen the imbalance if you bothered to look.

Instead, you seem to be having way to much fun being rabidly on the attack. That's very disapointing because I usually like your posts on other topics. But it's good to know where people's prejudices are.

[BlooInBloo]

97. I don't know what more you want with this. I've already agreed that...

... such behavior by the meaty guy would be wrong. You're taking me to task simply because I haven't *seen* it? Freakish.

[gollygee]

40. Evangelical vegetarians

One told me in front of my young daughter while she was eating cheese that feeding her cheese would make her die younger.

[Goblinmonger]

67. That would be an asshole and not an evangelical.

I'm not a vegan but an ovo-lacto vegetarian. It is probably right that eating cheese will cause an earlier death (not sure if it is a significant number of days, but it's probably true). Delivering the message in that manner is obnoxious. What about the people that tell me raising my children vegetarian would make them weak, malnourished, and below their peers in physical ability (my son won the youth state wrestling tournament this year, ironically). The point is that there are assholes all over the place.

[gollygee]

84. I don't blame all vegetarians for that one

although that one is a member of PETA. This vegan was a friend of a vegan friend of mine.

But when people get upset about vegetarians, they're thinking of vegetarians like that. Just like I don't mind Christians at all, but ones who approach my daughter to evangelize to her bother me.

And yes there are meat-eating idiots too. Including ones who will involve vegetarians' kids.

[Matariki]

232. "It is probably right that eating cheese will cause an earlier death"

That's just silly.

Countries like France and Switzerland have some of the highest life expectancies in the world. Cheese *won't* kill a person or shorten their life. Maybe pounds and pounds of Cheez-wiz will, but that's a whole different issue.

[TheTimmer]

274. I had an encounter

with a vegetarian which illustrated what I hate in any "evangelical" - hypocrisy.

I had finished fixing this person's computer around noon, and she said "OK, I can go get lunch now." I said "Yeah, I need a big burger about now." (I didn't know she was a vegetarian). Her response was "It's wrong to kill animals for food." Normally I would have said nothing and just gone on my merry way, however, as she said this, she slid her feet into her *leather* Birkenstocks and toddled over to put on her her *leather* jacket. I was unable to hold my tongue and said something to the effect of "But it's OK to kill them for clothes right? Or do you think those Birkenstocks came from the fiber of the *suede* plant?"

If you choose a vegetarian diet for health reasons, great. Don't try to "convert" me. If you choose it because "killing animals for food is wrong", then:

- if you own *anything* with even a scrap of leather in it - shoes, jacket, sofa, gloves, belt,car seats, brand patch on your jeans - STFU. This is my major problem with Tony LaRussa and his outspoken PETA-ness, considering the amount of leather used in baseball.

- if you own anything with down, such as a comforter or winter coat, STFU

- if you have pets and feed them any food which is not 100% meat-free, STFU

- wool is questionable, unless you're OK with sheep being bred to be shaved

I want to think that the vast majority of vegetarians are not like this individual, much as I want to believe most Xtians aren't Phelps or Falwell.

Being a vegetarian is your choice, and I respect that. Being an omnivore is my choice, and I expect the same courtesy.

[ThomCat]

322. You expect courtesy to make your own choices.

But vegetarians have to live up to standards you are going to dictate in order to be able to speak about being a vegetarian?

And you've Never ever badmouthed vegetarians, so of course you're not a hypocrite, right?

[last_texas_dem]

401. I don't think that's a matter of living up to the poster's

"dictate"d standards. To me, it's just blatantly hypocritical if you profess to be a vegetarian due to eating meat being cruel to animals, but yet you use products made out of animals. Killing an animal, whether it be to eat or to use it to make a product, is still killing an animal, and there's really no way around it.

[TheTimmer]

428. Exactly my point n/t

[TheTimmer]

427. Perhaps

you didn't read what I said:

"If you choose a vegetarian diet for health reasons, great. Don't try to "convert" me. If you choose it because "killing animals for food is wrong", then..."

If you were to read it, you would see that all I said about "being a vegetarian" was "don't try to convert me". But don't tell me "meat is murder" while you stroll around in your $500 leather jacket from Nordstrom's.

I don't badmouth vegetarians, in this case I was badmouthing a hypocrite who happened to display her hypocrisy regarding her vegetarianism.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Tactless and self-defeating...but Moore has acknowledged he needs to take better care of himself

hope he gets serious about it, and soon.

[Az]

6. Gosh yes. Moore is the only person out of health

What a bunch of idiots. Moore has more than once stated that he came to realize during the filming of the movie how out of health he was and that he was trying to do something about it.

This is the most pointless attack I have ever seen. Moore isn't even on their radar. What does a movie about health care have to do with PETA?

I usually remain neutral to PETA and their tactics. But this is obviously a desperate and ridiculous ploy to gather attention for themselves. Well PETA you just won a new opponent. Good job slime balls.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

16. Also, there are no thin meat eaters. Gimme a fucking break. -nt

[BlooInBloo]

74. 6'2", 185lbs football/basketball player here BAYBEE! lol! Time for some bacon now!

[kestrel91316]

122. Did you know there are also no fat vegetarians???

:rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

142. Yup! Avocado, potatos, cooking oil etc. are NOT fattening AT ALL!

:crazy:

[diamidue]

237. Not to mention the sweets.

Many vegetarians have major sweet tooths (teeth?). I'm not knocking vegetarians - I don't eat meat myself - but I am continually frustrated when I look at veggie recipe books and find them heavy into sugary cookies & muffins, and dishes made with cheeses.

[Goblinmonger]

145. Present

:hi:

[last_texas_dem]

402. That's what I was thinking

To me, it would only be logical (albeit still nasty and mean) for PETA to attack Michael Moore as resembling an elephant if vegetarians and vegans never had a problem with being overweight or obese, which is obviously not the case.

[The Night Owl]

49. Glancing at PETA's website...

Glancing at PETA's website, I get the sense that it should change its name to PETCA... People for the Ethical Treatment of Cute Animals.

[blondeatlast]

7. Ingrid Newkirk is the pathetic kid in the corner--"Over here! I'm right here! Look at MEEEEE!" nt

[flvegan]

10. Here's the actual letter

http://blog.peta.org/archives/PETA_letter_to_Michael_Moore.pdf

An interesting piece about the letter, here: http://blog.peta.org/archives/2007/06/more_on_michael.php

"Secondly, I should probably provide a little context to our own relationship with Michael Moore—which goes back a long way. We've written to him several times over the years, starting back in the days of Roger & Me with ever-so-polite appeals to embrace animal rights. We don't hold it against him, but the only response we ever got from him was when his people showed up outside the PETA building with a donkey, two goats, two sheep, a rabbit, a chicken, three dogs, a fish in a bowl(!), a guinea pig, two gerbils, and a rat in a cage "wearing" offensive signs, like “You are wasting your lives.” He arranged to haul these animals out on a hot day to taunt hard-working people just to get a cheap laugh for his show. In addition to that little stunt, whose real victims didn’t even have the luxury of understanding what was happening to them, Michael Moore has made comments throughout his career glorifying meat-eating and hunting, and mocking people who care about animals. Now, neither I nor any of my colleagues take those comments personally—we dish it out, and we can take it. But, like I said, so can Michael Moore."

I like Michael Moore and PETA. I love that this is bringing them both additional attention.

[DemGa]

125. Wow, that's some interesting context

Maybe PETA be not such pieces of shit after all.

[ThomCat]

134. Now don't go being fair about it.

You'd interupt the orgy of PETA bashing. :P

[ComerPerro]

201. PETA needs to be bashed for this one. Their letter seems to suggest

that problems with the health care system are caused mainly by meat-eaters, and that anyone who eats meat deserves to be sick.

Basically, its about as far towards the "conservatives asshole" mentality that you can get. I kept waiting for PETA to tell him to "pick himself up by his bootstraps"

[ThomCat]

223. Bull Shit.

The letter is filled with mitigating language that makes it obvious that Meat is a contributing factor, but nobody is claiming that anything is "mainly caused" by eating meat, even if it might be true.

The letter was clearly saying that advocating vegetarianism would help Michael Moore's message, and being a vegetarian might do him some good.

It's very ironic that the letter is far more nuanced than the attacks that are being leveled against PETA.

[ComerPerro]

228. AKA, if you aren't vegan you're part of the problem

[flvegan]

225. No it didn't

Read the last paragraph again.

[ComerPerro]

233. You mean the part about "personal responsibility"? Or the part that blames meat for health problems?

[Donnachaidh]

12. PETA looking for more PR?

Notice this happens JUST WHEN Moore has a new movie out, too. What was that term that people got crazy about? :sarcasm: :eyes:

[ThomCat]

19. Geez, that so... unusual.

:eyes:

Of course they're writing to him now, when he's making a huge public issue of health care. That's their whole point, that promoting vegetarianism promotes good health. If the health care industry (and health care advocates) promoted vegetarianism a whole lot of common health problems would be drastically reduced in our country.

[jilln]

14. And yet in one of his books, Moore attacked vegetarianism

and came out of Sicko telling people to eat fruits and vegetables and walk around more.

So I guess PeTA was right.

Not that anyone who can't see past the name will be able to admit it.

[ThomCat]

31. But attacking Vegetarians is okay. None of the PETA bashers

will care about that, or even think it's relevant. :eyes:

[ProfessorGAC]

45. Seems Like Your Mixing Apples And Oranges

Bashing PETA and bashing vegans and vegetarians are one in the same? Your post makes it seem like if one doesn't like PETA, that's vegetarian bashing. You used both in the post title. I can't help but think you're making them equivalent.

I don't think that's fair.

If you don't want to eat animal products, good for you. No bashing. I still don't like, respect, or care about PETA.

No equivalency at all.
GAC

[ThomCat]

56. Not at all.

People attack PETA because they advocate for Vegetarianism. Simply saying that meat is murder is seen as a horribly militant act. (as if somehow all that meat appears without slaughering any animals.)

If not for the animosity against vegetarianism there would not be PETA bashers.

[ProfessorGAC]

63. I Believe There Would Be

PETA's tactics are not, to my way of thinking, admirable. Therefore, their advocacy of vegetarianism has nothing to do with my opinion of them.

Hence, your broadbrush is covering too wide a swath.
GAC

[kestrel91316]

129. Thank you.

[BlooInBloo]

236. Just the militant ones.

[mondo joe]

242. Indeed. PETA isn't that much unlike Operation Rescue.

And I'm pro-choice.

[BlooInBloo]

246. I'm not familiar with Operation Rescue... google, here I come!

[mondo joe]

256. Just one of the worst Anti-choice organizations out there. NT

[ThomCat]

258. I've volunteered as a pro-choice escort

outside a doctor's office when operation rescue was busing in protestors, and when one of the doctors in the area was assassinated. Comparing PETA to OR is offensive beyond belief. You have no idea what you're talking about.
x(

[mondo joe]

260. Big deal. I have too. So PETA hasn't assassinated anyone yet.

They differ from radical anti choicers only in degree - not in principle.

[ThomCat]

262. You know, at this point

I know I'm on the right side simply because you're on the other side. I don't think I've ever agreed with you on any thread, ever. You're always attacking someone, and I'm always defending them.

You've become a litmus test. It's amazing how consistently I can read your posts and think you're totally off-the-wall and full of hated.

[mondo joe]

267. Good.

I feel the same way. :-)

[Warren DeMontague]

417. Yeah, I think that's how I know I'm on the right side.

I think Joe & I usually agree. :thumbsup:

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

18. PETA makes me laugh

[shadowknows69]

39. Holy fuck PETA

you have a pretty decent philosophy going on, focus and stop making yourselves look like lunatics. Go after the fur merchants, go after cruel animal testing, zoos and circuses. Fighting carnivorism is a fight you aint gonna win. Man mammals have eaten meat for millenium.

[Goblinmonger]

86. Can you please stop using the word "man" to refer to "human"

it makes you look like an idiot.

How do you make a difference between raising animals for fur and raising them for meat?

[shadowknows69]

117. Well if I used you or anyone as a gauge as to whether or not I'm an idiot

I guess I'd be really upset right now. I will, however endeavor to be more politically correct in the future since people are incapable of humor these days. I'm not a fan of the meat industry myself and haven't eaten beef in over 5 years. Yes I'm still a heartless slaughterer of hogs and chickens but one battle at a time no?

[Goblinmonger]

131. I didn't make my point clear enough.

I think your arguments are valid but the language got in the way. And while I generally am a fan of satire and don't go out of my way to address language, the use of whore to describe people on the thread have possibly put me a little more on the defensive. Sorry if I needlessly kneejerked.

I started with eliminating red meat from my diet first. Then went down to just poultry and fish and currently still eat eggs and dairy. Farther down the food chain the better (for you and the environment).

[Beelzebud]

141. Neil Armstrong was the biggest idiot ever!

[Goblinmonger]

150. So you have no problem with the term?

Refering to both males and females with the term "man" when you could just say "human" isn't a problem for you? How about "he" to refer to everyone?

And I've never met Armstrong, but his buddy Buzz Aldrin taught at the university I attended and he was an arrogant fucking sexist prick. Just because you are the first person to put your foot on the moon doesn't mean shit about whether you were/are sexist.

[Beelzebud]

162. No it isn't a problem with me, because I don't look to be offended at everything.

If you are offended by the first quote uttered on the moon, you are looking to be offended.

[mitchum]

181. As was Jefferson, Voltaire, Rousseau, Shakespeare, Lincoln...

Paine, Einstein, Faulkner and all of those other idiots

[ComerPerro]

208. all huge morans

[ComerPerro]

205. insulting people for using common and widely used terms makes you look like a douchebag

[mitchum]

226. LMAO!!!

You do know that it's highly likely he's gonna jump on you for that word choice, don't you?
Of course, you do...
Well done :)

[ComerPerro]

230. naturally, lol

[Goblinmonger]

251. You obviously missed my posts

on the douchebag thread. And have missed my point in much of this discussion about language. It is about double standards. It is about ad homs.

[mitchum]

263. And you hold the sainted Ms Newkirk to the same standards...

re: the use of ad homs?
Answer carefully now...

[mitchum]

46. Ingrid and the other saintly attention whores resent the activist spotlight...

shining on anyone else
It really is that simple

[blondeatlast]

69. ...

:thumbsup:

[Goblinmonger]

77. So this website will basically shit itself

when someone calls Sheehan an attention whore, but calling Ingrid that is somehow appropriate?

Where's the language police beratting you for your bigotry?

[ThomCat]

83. It's different for us, because vegetarians are approved targets.

:eyes:

[Goblinmonger]

94. Oh, yeah, I forgot.

vegetarians, gays, atheists. Whom have I left off?

[kestrel91316]

133. I've never seen anyone attack vegetarians here simply for being vegetarians.

I HAVE seen food fascists attacked, however. With good reason.

[ThomCat]

139. So who, here, has been a food fascist?

And how, exactly, do you define that?

I think you're wearing blinders, and you see what you want to see. YOu're the one clearly on the attack. In fact, you're nearly rabid on this thread. Yet you're accusing others.
:eyes:

[yewberry]

339. It happens quite often.

It's not generally a case of, "You are a vegetarian jerk." It's nearly always a case of, "Vegetarians/vegans are__________" (and fill in the blank: evangelical, nanny-staters, vicious, irrational, delusional, starved for protein, child killers, hypocrites, smug, superior, "KOOKS," etc.)

And let's not even get started about the lying. ("OMG, I heard that vegans eat their poop!") :eyes:

[Raine]

346. Yeah I guess I should be used to it

by now. :-(

[mitchum]

93. Well, there is a world of difference between grieving over a dead child...

and grieving over a box of fish sticks

[Goblinmonger]

101. I'm not talking about the issues

I'm talking about the language.

And do you think that Ingrid is somehow LESS dedicated to her cause so that you can call her a whore?? Or it is just that you agree with Cindy's cause more so you feel it is ok to launch bigoted language at Ingrid? Or do you just like calling women whores because you don't like them?

[ThomCat]

110. Well said.

There are a whole lot of people here launching attacks purely out of personal animosity that they would condemn if those same attacks were aimed at a cause they approved of.

[mitchum]

127. Mr Monger, you have used the word "whore" a hell of a lot more in this thread...

than I have used the word. Is that significant? A deeper meaning? Do you have issues?

[Goblinmonger]

186. Yeah, that's right.

So you don't have a problem with people calling a woman whore just because they don't agree with them. Is that the sarcastic point you are making?

[kestrel91316]

136. Ms. Newkirk begs to differ. To her, they are exactly the same.

[mitchum]

217. Well, the insane are different than you and I

[NeedleCast]

429. It'll be a shame if that doesn't

win a DUzy award.

:rofl:

[mitchum]

436. Won't it now?

I try...
Thanks for your kind words, NeedleCast :)

[Matsubara]

66. Oh, freaking brother.

I personally have known lifelong vegetarians who were GROSSLY obese.

Does PETA think its opinion is wanted on EVERY issue?

I wish they would stick to uncovering abuse by companies like KFC - an honorable effort.


This is just ridiculous. There MUST be some GOP/libertarian types infiltrating that group is all I can figure.

[trumad]

70. Mike said he lost 30 pounds recently and is quite aware of his weight problems

The dude is trying to be healthier...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. What's Michael Moore got to do with the animal rights movement?

:shrug:

[mitchum]

102. Absolutely nothing...and there is the rub

[aikoaiko]

85. Do we dare call it "hate speech"?

This is another fine example of PETA attention whoring methods.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

87. It's items like this that make me question some organizations. Does PETA say such

ridiculous comments to make the left appear bad?

[Missy Vixen]

96. Wooo-hoooo! PETA's going to get in a little gratuitous fat-bashing, too!

I know I can't wait to sign up!

Again, they can't disprove Michael Moore's arguments in "SiCKO," so they'll make fun of his appearance. It's worked so many times before!

In the meantime, might I say that PeTA's leader is dumber than a box of hair?

Julie

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

98. Fuck, where's arwalden when you need him? -nt

[bunkerbuster1]

106. Really stupid "breaking entertainment news"

The actual letter from PETA is perfectly reasonable; furthermore, MM himself has said in interviews that he's "learned about these things called fruit and vegetables" that he needs to eat.

I'm no fan of PETA, nor am I vegetarian. But this huffpo blog entry--actually, it's from Jeannette Walls at MSNBC, I see--sucks ass.

It's the kind of crap I'd expect from the Stupid People's Network, i.e. FoxNoise.

[SOS]

109. Question

If a vegetarian referred to a McDonald's customer as a "worthless piece of shit", would the vegetarian be a "militant"?

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

113. No.

Just a worthless piece of shit.

[SOS]

123. Glad to know it works both ways.

nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

243. Both ways?

We're calling these people worthless pieces of shit because they're horribly rude, unconscionable people. The hypothetical PETA member in your post called a person a worthless piece of shit because they ate at McDonalds.

That's not both ways, that's apples and oranges.

[SOS]

349. OK

Calling Moore an "elephant" is "horribly rude" and "unconscionable".
But calling Newkirk a "worthless piece of shit" because she "picks on fat people" (post 160) is the height of civil discourse?

(The concern for the overweight and obese on this thread is really emotionally uplifting. I'll be sure to look for it on the next Rush Limbaugh thread)

[BlooInBloo]

160. Um, no. The "piece of shit" remark had to do with picking on fat people...

... I defined what I meant by "militant" upthread. It's obvious that they have nothing to do with each other.

[SOS]

344. Re: "picking on fat people"

Are you also upset by Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot"?
Is Franken also a worthless piece of shit?

[Beelzebud]

138. PETA, there is a dumpster full of dead kittens and puppies, and it's you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

155. They're Such A Joke. Their Premises Are Often So Monumentally Laughable. It's Like Their

primary purpose is to be mocked and ridiculed. They never fail to astound me with their utter stupidity.

[Joe Fields]

167. Seems like they have missed his point entirely.

[gatorboy]

180. VROOOOOOM!

Fastest thread in the West!

[flvegan]

192. 10 more posts to being the

biggest discussion on the front page of GD right now.

Newkirk would be very proud.

[ThomCat]

259. And it's spreading to other threads.

:(

[BlooInBloo]

206. LOLOL!!! I know *right*?

[Buns_of_Fire]

231. I need more popcorn...!

:popcorn: <=== (Organic, of course, and no cute little woodland creatures were harmed in the making...)

[donco6]

255. Oh yeah.

It's like magic, man.

[BlooInBloo]

209. Why does PETA kill cute little kitties?

[AngryAmish]

216. PETA wants to kill your dog

[mainegreen]

238. Yeah, well, I'm not wearing any underwear.

[Az]

241. Some definitions

PETA is in fact a left wing organization. An extreme example but their ideology does flow from left leaning thinking. Their argument is based on the idea of extending rights to all entities be they human or otherwise. This is a natural extension of most liberal platforms.

The trouble is that all species are speciest. That is we are concerned with our own well being first before other species. The PETA agenda warps the values of any species to the point that they sublimate our own survival in favor of prevention of any exploitation of other species. PETA is in the send self destructive preferring to hold to an advanced ideal rather than survive.

The idea of working towards an exploit free world is a high minded idea. But it is not one that can be achieved over night which seems to be the demand of PETA. Progress is being made as social extension of rights to other species is being encompassed. But simply put our system is dependent on much exploitation of other species. But this is simply nature.

Most life preys upon other life. The food chain is a chain of exploitation. It is part and parcel of nature. We are not separate from this chain. We are embedded in it. With technology we are able to shift our position in it. But we will always be dependent on other life. It is simply how we evolved. And without major genetic engineering that is not going to change.

The best case scenario is we continue to develop technologies that move us away from causing discomfort to critters that can experience such things. Genetic engineering may lead to sources of meat that do not involve creatures that are aware.

But till such a time we are going to be the omnivores we are. Some of us more dependent on meat than others. I personally tried to go vegitarian and nearly died because I could not eat many sources of protein in the veg diet.

Life consumes life. That is nature.

[BlooInBloo]

244. That's a lot more thought than I put into it. I just thought it was shitty to rip on fat people.

[slowry]

265. The circle of life?

The trouble is that all species are speciest. That is we are concerned with our own well being first before other species.

It's one thing to be concerned with our survival, another to "rely" on meat and animal products at the level we do now. Cheese, steak, chicken, eggs, fish, turkey, pork -- it wouldn't be entirely unusual for someone to eat all of these, at some point, multiple times even, in a week. There is nothing "natural" about that; there is no circle of life here. This is a species that has gained massive power, and doesn't know what to do with it, imho.

The food chain is a chain of exploitation. It is part and parcel of nature. We are not separate from this chain. We are embedded in it.

Really? I'd say we're quite outside of it. We (or those of us with means -- not speaking of people struggling for shelter and food, here) have no predators, and we prey on all animals, plants, and insects, whether they be for food, or "collateral damage". We could (and we might) turn this planet into an unlivable world.

I personally tried to go vegitarian and nearly died because I could not eat many sources of protein in the veg diet

Protein, really? Hmph.

[WildEyedLiberal]

324. Having no natural predators doesn't make a species "outside the food chain"

Do lions have natural predators? Wolves? Tigers? Bears? No. It's called being at the top of the food chain.

[slowry]

334. Us, us, us, and us.

I specifically used "predators" in the sense that we kill / clear / displace anything that gets in our way. It's not just that we don't have things wanting to eat us, on a daily basis, it's that we're so far removed from the wild as to be effectively unchained from the so-called "circle of life".

It's just complete BS to pretend we fit so simply into the natural order of things, when everything we do is unnatural -- granted, not always in a destructive way.

[mitchum]

363. By that line of reasoning, anti-choice groups are also Leftist...

"PETA is in fact a left wing organization. An extreme example but their ideology does flow from left leaning thinking. Their argument is based on the idea of extending rights to all entities be they human or otherwise. This is a natural extension of most liberal platforms"

A fetus is not a person, but it is certainly an entity. And what is the rallying cry of the anti-choice nuts? Something about rights...

AZ, I'm not picking on you, but I just wanted to point out the dangerous flaw in that reasoning before the pro-PETA partisans ran with it in order to "prove" their "Leftist" credentials.

peace,
mitchum

[outofbounds]

247. Man,

This post is filled with hysteria, as long as man has walked the earth we have eaten meat. It’s healthy. Man has benefited from protein. I don’t like to murder anything including plants. Plants that help man by removing deadly global warming causing CO2 from the planet that man has lived on for thousands of years. When man stops eating meat the planet will be overcome by the deadly CO2 all mammals exhale. Why do people think killing plants is any different than killing animals? Especially when plants do us more good alive.
What was this post originally about?

[BlooInBloo]

248. PETA ripping on fat people.

[outofbounds]

249. Well

thats not very nice of them. Although they seemed be very complimentary of that man otherwise.:)

[BlooInBloo]

252. Yup.

[MilesColtrane]

388. "they seemed be very complimentary of that man otherwise."

Please!

He's a human who just happens to be male.

Do we have to have our faces rubbed in our differences by calling him a "man". }(

[outofbounds]

409. Why

do you feel your face is being rubbed in anything? He is a man, how in the world does that offend you? Genuinely asking, no sarcasm no bs I want to understand how that offends you, why?

[MilesColtrane]

414. I don't.

I was parodying the painfully extreme political correctness regarding use of the word "man" exhibited by a particular poster to this thread.

I guess I didn't use a sarcastic enough smiley.

[outofbounds]

433. yup

It would be interesting to where such deep pure hatred comes from. I'm a male that hates nothing. Just wanted to understand or at least hear the reasoning.

[ljm2002]

261. Wow, way to get the public to hate your group even more...

...and on a topic that has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH YOUR PRIMARY GOAL.

Not only that: talk about shoot the messenger! So now we should all just shut our mouths unless we are pristine: healthy, good looking, in good control of our finances, well groomed, no skeletons in the closet -- right. I wonder how many of the PETA staff can measure up? In fact I wonder how the PETA president measures up???

What an ass.

[HEyHEY]

264. What a bunch of dumb fucks.

[lies and propaganda]

268. PETA KILLS ANIMALS

When the animal rights organizations are cruelly killing... They are a joke that sadly, alot of us fall for.

[flvegan]

277. Apt username

Center for Consumer Freedom does all your research for you, eh?

[baldguy]

269. PETA = Fred Phelps

Same attitude. Same tactics.

[originalpckelly]

271. Well, we can't all be tall, thin and stunningly beautiful Ingrid, can we?

Ingrid is on the right, she's wearing the tan and brown outfit.

[BlooInBloo]

281. Boobies! lol!

[Bluebear]

294. Is that some grownup Campfire Girls uniform or something? nt

[Name removed]

272. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarfare2008]

279. How does PETA know what the Hell Michael Moore eats anyway?

He could be a vegetarian. I doubt it, but he could be. How would they know, one way or another?

[Warren DeMontague]

282. It bears repeating: PETA is NOT a "Liberal" organization. If anything, they're like pro-lifers

or the far religious right.

They're fucking zealots.

[JVS]

284. Maybe PETA should focus on the occasional vegan dumbfucks that starve their infants to death.

Note: this is not to say that all vegans are dumbfucks, I simply mean the people who are vegans and don't take the effort to learn to feed their kids.

[mitchum]

296. The organization that EQUATED MEAT PRODUCTION WITH THE HOLOCAUST...

is not going to address anything in a sane manner

[Goblinmonger]

299. Maybe you should not believe the bullshit that passes for news.

the death of that child had nothing to do with veganism.

[JVS]

304. Veganism can be done without killing kids.

But uninformed people who attempt veganism occasionally end up with a dead baby. Since PETA is so concerned with stopping the use of animal products, they should use some of their wonderful capacity for raising awareness to make it so that more of these people who try to go vegan know what they are supposed to do and what not to do. And instead of accusing me of believing bullshit news, read closer and don't be so flamey.

[Warren DeMontague]

291. Yeah, but to be fair, PETA doesn't give a shit if humans get sick and die.

If it comes down to your kid dying of an incurable disease or testing a new drug on rats, PETA is going to side with the rat.

[Matariki]

293. There's something quite sociopathic about that, isn't there?

[BurtWorm]

301. Maybe they're complimenting him?

Saying he is a smart, endangered animal who should be treated ethically?



Yeah, that's the ticket...

[mitchum]

305. You're on to something, Burt; maybe they're calling him a pig

:)

[BlooInBloo]

306. With a bang-up memory! lolol

[fishnfla]

302. 5th Rec! and off to the, er, greatest, well, prototypical DU page!!!

can I use any of those words without insulting anybody?

[Tom Joad]

307. PETA wanted the US to kill Arabs/Muslims in Iraq while eating vegatarian MRE's

Many decent folk are part of the peta outfit, but it seems like its run by reactionary pigs. but you know what they say... when life gives you pigs, time to make bacon.

[Goblinmonger]

410. Was that how they worded their press release

and their communication with the military? Or is it more likely that they were fighting for those people in the military that wanted to be vegetarian to have an option to do so with the meals offered them?

This is part of what pisses me off. Was is wrong for them to fight for vegetarian soldiers? I'm sure if you asked Ingrid she would want the war ended.

[shance]

310. They are not worthless, however they are probably infiltrated with provacateurs.

PETA is quite powerful and so it is important to the beef, pork chicken industry to shut them down and marginalize them as much as possible.

Because PETA knows too much.

I recently listened to part of a DVD on the animal killing industry. It was difficult and heart breaking in many regards. More than anything it was one of those necessary things I knew I had to listen to, even if I've had to take it one segment at a time.

The slaughter industry if you haven't looked into it, has become the most cruel and inhumane "industry" around. Greed at the top has taken over any semblance of decency really. If every American really knew how cows, chicken and pigs are treated by the corporatized slaughter industry, I'd say 90% of us would probably vegetarians. Yes I eat meat, but I am tapering off slowly. I come from a big beef eating family and have always eaten meat. When we have the courage to learn what is happening to the animals, how the slaughter industry is a top polluter, then I think people will have more compassion and understanding to what is happening to the planet overall.

That is why they keep it the industry secret and as far away as possible from the public eye, and give us cartoon images of happy cows, chickens and pigs.

In reality these innocent creatures live every day of their lives in misery and live in a state of constant fear and terror. And those chemicals are in their flesh when they are then eaten as a meal.

I'm not talking about all animals per se. I am however most definitely talking about the mass/conventional slaughter industry.

[ThomCat]

323. Any left wing organization that threatens any industry

is going to be infiltrated and undermined. And people here are just waiting to snap up any red meat (pun intended) that might get thrown there way. People here are just waiting for an excuse to shoot down left wing organizations. The right barely has to try.
:(

[Matariki]

329. There are plenty people on the left that don't like PETA's tactics.

As this thread demonstrates. The people here who don't agree with you or with PETA aren't just a bunch of 'right wing provocateurs'.

Personally I share *some* of their goals, as many people on the left probably do. BUT they seem to go out of their way to alienate people, even people who would ordinarily agree with a good deal of their agenda.

[ThomCat]

330. A lot of people keep claiming that they would otherwise agree

with PETA's goals. Is that like people who agree with civil rights but use racial slurs and take every oportunity to bad-mouth actual civil rights efforts?

I've seen a huge number of people offer that kind of support. You get a lot of people saying you're doing something good, but you get no help, no support, no contributions, and in exchange for that you have a watered down program that doesn't accomplish much.

I'd rather support a group that actually does something, instead of one that has a lot of useless people claiming to support them.

[Matariki]

338. And I'd rather not support a group that constantly insults people

or gives money to people convicted of arson.

[DarkTirade]

343. Or one that doesn't practice blatant hypocracy

like running animal shelters that are NOT no-kill shelters... or one that doesn't practice pure stupidity. For instance: picketing those evil meat processing plants that make (get this) Dog food.
Seriously, they picketed a dog food plant becuase the people used meat in making the dog food. So what's the alternative there? Let dogs hunt naturally, and cause the prey animals the pain and suffering of being bitten to death? Or maybe we should just feed dogs healthy vegitables... oh, wait. No, they're carnivores.
I'm all for ending cruelty to animals. But PETA is just plain (*&%ing nuts.

[Mythsaje]

399. Actually, dogs are omnivores...

They can adapt rather well to either a more carnivorous or herbivorous diet, with some variation based on individual and breed.

But, yeah, they generally need more protein than we do, and NO ONE wants to live in a house with a dog that's been fed too many legumes.

[DarkTirade]

404. Yes, but their natural diet is composed of mainly meat.

Even most dog foods have more veggies in them than dogs in the wild would normally eat. Dogs may be a bit tamer and have a slightly different outside shape than their wolfish ancestors, but the insides are still pretty similar.
And I know all about the last part... when my ex was a teenager and she was mad at her parents, she'd feed certain things to the dogs that would sleep in their room... :evilgrin: Nothing that would make a mess, but it usually ended up with a lot of smelly dog farts.

[Mythsaje]

405. Genetically, dogs aren't all that far from wolves...

The only dogs that can safely eat salmon, for example, are those that are closest--Huskies, Malamutes, and several of the Asian breeds. Yet, oddly enough, those Asian breeds do very well on a diet rich in vegetables as well, even though we can surmise that vegetables are not a common lupine food source. Japanese and Korean breeds are routinely fed a diet of fish, rice, and vegetables in their native countries.

There's nothing funnier than watching our four dogs, ranging in size from a 55 lb Jindo to a 8 lb min-pin, line up for broccoli pieces when we're making stir-fry. And they go NUTS for rice.

Humans and dogs have lived in a sort of symbiosis for thousands of years and only in very recent history have they been fed anything different than what their humans ate, except those who were allowed to hunt and feed themselves to some extent.

Now CORN, on the other hand, is a TERRIBLE filler for dog food. Dogs metabolize corn with less success than we do.

[Mythsaje]

400. self-delete...Dupe

Stupid spacebar

[ThomCat]

379. That's a bit hypocritical of you.

You've been repeatedly insulting PETA and yet you won't support them because they supposedly insult people. :eyes:

They contributed to the defense of someone they believed in. He wasn't convicted of anything when they donated to his defense. Perhaps you don't think people are entitled to a defense?

You've got no grounds to judge them. You're more rabid than the people you attack.

[Matariki]

382. You seem backed into a corner and just lashing out at this point.

Their miserable reputation is well earned. Look at how many people on this left leaning board find them disgusting. You can stick your head in the sand all you want but there is a reason why so many people dislike them. And YOU clearly aren't very educated about them and the tactics that have earned them their bad reputation. Maybe you want to do a little more research before defending them so loudly.

Your signature graphic is seeming more and more appropriate with every post. I'm not sure if it's an illustration of what it's like to dialog with you, or you are trying to knock some sense into your own head.

[Matariki]

384. self delete

[Matariki]

381. delete / dupe.

[Warren DeMontague]

420. I would "otherwise agree" with PETA's goals for more humane animal treatment if that was a goal.

If promoting things like free range, organic farming were goals of PETA. They're not. Putting a stop to all meat eating is the goal of PETA. Giving all animals equal rights to humans is the goal of PETA.

Just like I would support the goal of the "pro-life" movement--- if the goal was actually to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies through, for instance, increased availability of and access to contraception. But it's not- the goal of the "pro-life" movement is to stop people from fucking for non-procreative purposes. The goal of the "pro-life" movement is to give single cells equal rights to humans.

Just like the goal of PETA is to stop people from eating meat.

[mitchum]

331. So which agent provocateur in PETA approved the meat industry/Holocaust campaign?

Or any campaign?
Aren't all of them developed and approved by the leadership?

[ThomCat]

332. I can't say I've ever seen that campaign.

I've only ever heard anti-PETA people complaining about it. (Sometimes, it's the same people who feel compelled to mention that Hitler was a vegetarian. Oh, the irony.)

[Matariki]

335. Is this the new PETA tactic or something?

They put up billboards or whatnot and when they've created a stir or majorly offended people, their apologists claim that it never happened and that PETA's critics must be making it up. I've seen it used repeatedly on this board.

[Matariki]

337. And here.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22HOLOCAUST+ON+YOUR+PLATE%22&btnG=Search

[ThomCat]

350. Cool. Thank you.

I had not seen it before. I thought, from all the shouting, that it equated simply eating meat with the holocaust. It doesn't. It equates factory farming methods with the holocaust.

I think that's a huge difference, and an important one. I could support that campaign if it was still going on.

[Matariki]

353. Factory farming sucks. It sucks and it should end.

But comparing it to the holocaust is very, very upsetting and disrespectful to survivors or family of survivors of the holocaust.

It's unfortunate that you can't understand that.

There are far better ways to make people understand the big problems with factory farming. Like I said, peta constantly manages to alienate reasonable people and that does little for otherwise worthwhile goals.

[ThomCat]

377. You're talking to a Jewish kid who's family

didn't entirely survive some european Pogroms. I understand the importance of the holocaust. I also understand that nobody has a monopoly on horror.

It's unfortunate that you can't understand that.

It's because "reasonable" people sit back and do nothing, support nothing, and wait for slow gradual changes that never come that organizations like PETA are absolutely necessary. Like it or not, they're the ones who get things done. People like you would never in a thousand years make any significant changes in the issues PETA addresses.

Look down your nose all you like. They've earned my respect and support. I like results far more than I like snobbish appeals to "why can't everyone appease me and play by the rules I approve of."

[Matariki]

385. I mean understanding the difference between human suffering and chickens.

That's sociopathic.

You can call yourself Jewish if you want but that doesn't make you any less sensitive or clueless. The 'kid' part I believe.

If you think running around putting 'got pus?' stickers on milk cartons is doing something you really *are* beating your head against the wall.

[mitchum]

398. Dude, why don't you haul out "first they came for the chicken fingers...

and so on and so on..."
Because you are getting dangerously close to just that with your "it's because 'reasonable' people sit back and do nothing..."
But even you know that.

[Matariki]

336. Here you go.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14245_1.html

[mitchum]

361. Well, it's rather naive to be an errand boy for an organization and seemingly...

not be aware of their activities

[ThomCat]

378. If I'm an errand boy then you're an attack dog.

Who's water are you carrying? It seems you're on the Libertarian/Right Wing side of this issue.

I didn't know of one of their old ad campaigns. Get over it.

[mitchum]

383. Well, If I am a dog, I guess I trump you

in St Ingrid's eyes.
That's really lame, but typical, in that you continue to haul out that threadbare Libertarian/Right wing accusation.
The campaign was three years ago. That hardly qualifies as old. Such significant memory loss may be due to dietary deficiencies. I have some suggestions that may remedy that...

[mitchum]

359. Self delete

what's the point

[Dogmudgeon]

317. There is NOTHING worse than being Fat

Not rape.

Not pedophilia.

Not murder.

Not to elite youth, anyway.

The world would be a beautiful place if all the un-pretty people just died.

PETA used to place ads along I-95 showing obese white men's bellies juxtaposed with a half-dressed model quoted with "Men's stomachs make me sick." I'm sure that thousands of people had better opinions of PETA as a result ... not.

I suspect that Ingrid Newkirk's sexual anxieties are part of the campaign.

There are so many just-plain-hateful things that PETA has done that I wonder where animal welfare fits into any of it. It seems more like a bunch of moralistic bourgeois poseurs who are outraged that there are people who exist who don't believe as they do.

But, oh, yes, "Obesity is bad ... Science says so! And Science is better than even God, or Emo punk rock! So we are justified in hectoring you! Fatty fatty fat fat!"

--p!

[Matsubara]

364. If PETA had any sense of moderation and humility, it could be a real force for good...

But time and time again, they pull these kind of stunts. How is taking a swipe at a man who has done nothing but stand up for working people on the eve of his film's opening going to help animals? It's not.

But PETA knows that if they take a public swipe at him, they can jump on the Sicko publicity bandwagon, which they mistakenly believe will win people over to their cause.

I think most of us agree that vegetarianism is a humane, honorable, more sustainable lifestyle. I think most of us agree that factory farms need to change on grand scale to ensure more humane treatment of animals. I'm grateful that PETA has exposed cruelty by suppliers for KFC and other companies.

But coming into my neighborhood supermarket and putting "got pus?" stickers on all the milk cartons is NOT COOL.

Throwing paint on people for wearing fur is NOT COOL.

And ridiculing Moore for being overweight/obese just to get attention for your group is NOT COOL. Like somehow obesity automatically cancels out anything good and worthwhile a person has done?


And didn't PETA recently SLAUGHTER a bunch of the animals they had "rescued"?

"There are so many just-plain-hateful things that PETA has done that I wonder where animal welfare fits into any of it. It seems more like a bunch of moralistic bourgeois poseurs who are outraged that there are people who exist who don't believe as they do. "

Couldn't have said it better myself. these people use Pamela anderson and hot young models stripping naked all the time in their little PR events, but the actual mainstream membership of PETA are not necessarily folks that anyone would want to see naked.

At least 30% of Americans are seriously overweight, and more than 90% of us eat meat. Calling us elephants is not going to win us over.

And for myself, I have always fought with my weight. It's not too bad now, but It's still a struggle. In my case, I don't eat that much meat at all. Rush Limbaugh may like to wolf down those obscene 44 oz steaks, but I try to follow the "deck of cards" rule for meat servings. My weight problem has more to do with a lack of exercise and a predilection for Mexican foods, and CHEESE. Oh, and then there's the beer and the sodas...

[Dogmudgeon]

418. You don't have to apologize for either eating meat or being obese

Although vegetarianism is perceived to be, as you said, a "humane, honorable, more sustainable lifestyle", I strongly disagree. There is very little evidence for this outside of research done by scientists with deep commitments to religious and/or political groups that value abstention from meat.

The only reason to not eat meat is personal preference.

The main reason for reduced "sustainability" of animal production is the way animals are raised for food. In the USA, three animals -- cattle, pigs, and chickens -- account for over 90% of all meat production, and nearly all of that is raised in factory farms. A return to free-range animal husbandry practices and more variety in meat consumption would result in more nutritious meat, animals not living miserable lives, and a greatly improved environmental "footprint" that might actually return some nitrogen to our badly depleted topsoil.

There is scant evidence that eating meat is in any way bad for one's health. Most of the studies showing otherwise do not control for glucose metabolism. Those that do, consistently fail to find the correlation. It is turning out that pathologies of glucose metabolism are the primary culprit in fat-related diseases. And food itself isn't the entire problem. Most people are aware of the role of our sedentary, chained-to-the-desk corporate culture, but factors like pollution, sleep disorders, hormones and pseudohormones in food, the explosive growth of allergies, long-term and unrelieved stress -- all known to potentiate glucose metabolism disorders and obesity -- also figure strongly.

It's not "just bein' a lazy fat-ass", in Jay Leno's words.

There is no reason for the "deck of cards" meat portion rule (unless it's a deck of tarot cards), though restricting carbohydrates or eating them with supplemental fiber may be necessary for you. Non-nutritious sugars should be avoided by everyone, but not like they were "poison". Ice cream and cake can remain as treats. It's the heavy "dose" of sugar in non-sweet foods that needs to go.

Avoiding meat to spare animals premature death is also an empty gesture. The protein lost from avoiding meat must come from somewhere, so it comes, mainly, from wheat, corn, and soy. Yet the very process of harvesting kills hundred or thousands of small mammals for each acre of harvested cropland. PETA and "go veg" groups ought to be lobbying for faster, more humane methods of slaughter, yet they have not done so to any significant degree. One of the rare pieces of useful activism they do is to oppose factory farming of animals, but it should be extended to crops, too.

It's more fun to splash paint on women. Funny how PETA never does that to people wearing leather jackets.

There is a significant portion of the vegetarian community that is every bit as evangelical and easily offended as PETA; of course, the two groups draw from each other. And there are many vegetarians and animal-rights people who do not engage in fanatical and outraged behavior -- but they avoid going around insulting and assaulting people and then calling it "activism".

I've also noticed that many adherents to these groups put serious effort into their outrage with other topics. They are only outraged because they alone have the moral clarity to see The Truth, and all who err must be ... deserve to be ... put in their place by their betters. And you can guess who's "better".

Ultimately, people like that are intellectual thugs with socially-protected agendas -- and no manners.

--p!

[Matsubara]

432. I'm overweight, not obese, not that it really matters.

I personally don't think that eating huge amounts of meat(or anything else besides fresh veggies) is healthy. That's why I follow the deck of cards rule as best as I can. I try to eat fish or chicken instead of red meat several times a week - again, for health reasons.

But I like meat and have no intention of every becoming a vegetarian.

I don't take issue with the rest of your post, but there is a lot of research showing overconsumption of meat, especially fatty cuts of red meat, is a serious factor in heart disease and cancer.

Just because there are a lot of jerks in PETA doesn't mean we should all run down to Wendy's and gorge on quadruple cheeseburgers.

[Swede]

348. Here's a good reply.

[Toasterlad]

351. I Knew It! Not Eating Meat DOES Make You Crazy!

Oh, I'm only kidding. Lighten up, veggies.

[Solo_in_MD]

356. PETA could take integrity lesson from Cheney

[and-justice-for-all]

357. PETA makes a good and loud fuss...

..and they actually do expose animal cruelty and protest for better treatment of animals. I agree with them on the animal treatment issue, I am also a vegetarian simply because I do not like the cruelty involved with meat eating. I am better for it too, lost weight, I keep it off and I feel a hell of a lot better since I stopped eating meat almost 2 years ago.

I am not sure why PETA is barking at Moore on an issue that clearly involves all Americans, its rather odd really. Moore is actually dieting and exercising, he stated this in his DemocracyNow interview.

why are we getting screwed while the a large majority of other countries have excellent health care systems(even Cuba). Ones that work and benefit ALL citizens, its one of the things that I think the Government should be handling..it is their duty to protect its ciizens, it is what we pay them to do and they simply are not doing it.

[QC]

358. In my more cynical moments, I think that PETA is

a right wing front group designed to make animal rights supporters look like fools.

And, for what it's worth, I am a vegetarian myself.

[mitchum]

360. No, it's a right wing front group designed to make the Left look like fools...

even though there is nothing Left about Saint Newkirk's organization

[QC]

365. Probably true, since we all know that all leftists

are nature worshipers and such.

[mitchum]

366. I think we're both right, but you know how we cynics are :)

[Goblinmonger]

411. No, do some research into movements

If anything, PETA serves to mainstream the other animal rights groups. PETA goes out onto the fringe and does something and then the other groups look good by comparison. This is not necessarily conscious on the part of PETA, but is very common in movements and campaigns. For an example, look at how freakin' out there Greenpeace was at one point until Earth First! and others came along and made Greenpeace seem mainstream.

[alarimer]

362. I heard him say that he has started eating better and exercising

because of this film so I think it's very low of them to criticize someone who is at least making an effort. But it's none of their business anyway. PETA can go to hell; they have outlived whatever usefullness they might have had.

[Bryn]

368. Not PETA

PETA president *Ingrid Newkirk* said this. She was wrong to insult Michael Moore like that. I don't agree with her at all. PETA has done so many great things for animals and animal rights.

Shame on you, Igrid Newkirk. You don't speak for us animals. :P

[ShaneGR]

370. Someone explain to me how hateful speech wins people to your side...

That's what bothers me. I eat meat. I like meat. But I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who might be swayed by a proper message, thoughtful message. Instead PETA seems to think they can win people over with this kind of garbage. It's not like this is anything new. I just don't understand.

[mitchum]

374. Yes, that's further evidence that PETA is run by nitwits...

it takes far more talent and charm to persuade people to not eat meat, than it does to persuade people to eat meat.
If I were a well meaning PETA supporter, I would seriously question what type of pathology is driving the decision making process at the top of the organization. Seriously question.

[Truth2Tell]

389. Beer

[mitchum]

395. Are you suggesting that Newkirk is a lush suffering from wet brain?

That could explain her crazyass pronouncements

[MilesColtrane]

390. Yeah, my grandma used to say, "you can catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar".

..."provided that you used honey from wild bees-not the kind enslaved to do our bidding-and that you caught and released the flies."

Then again, she was a shrill, militant Buddhist.

[Matariki]

392. Speaking of Buddhists -

You know it really drives some people crazy that the Dali Lama is a meat eater?

Some people really fret over that and wish he would 'convert'. Much like the fundies must wish he's 'convert' LOL.

[enki23]

373. where the fuck did that come from? PETA can heat dogshit. i'll hold the fucking spoon.

you fucking bastards.

[garybeck]

380. read the whole letter. see post #10. there is context.

[Matariki]

375. You know, more to drive the wingnuts crazy than peta necessarily

we should really push the 'peta is a right wing organization' meme.

I bet free republic doesn't flame peta in this way ;-)

[WindRavenX]

387. I lost brain cells reading this thread

x(

I don't even know where to begin...PETA's attack on Moore seems so...beyond counterproductive it boggles the mind.

[Swamp Rat]

391. LOL!

I'm glad I skipped to the end. :D

[WindRavenX]

393. As soon I read the title of this thread, I said to myself, "I'm sitting this one out"

Man...some days I can't tell if I'm in the real world or not...everything is just too bizarre.

[Swamp Rat]

394. No kidding!

These days, realty is truly seems stranger than fiction: Dick Cheney is his own branch of government. :crazy:

[slowry]

406. TIME TO EAT BACON LOLOLOL

I'm sick to death of militant vegans -- they're everywhere!!!! Trying to tell my son it's ok to like other boys............. I mean, to not eat animal products.

OMG. Stay away from my SON! He likes girls! I swear to God I'll punch your fucking lights out, all you militant atheists, I mean gays, I mean vegans... HOOOOOOOOOOO WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE

NOT IN MY BACKYARD

VEGAN AGENDA

HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?????????

Now watch this drive.

[Goblinmonger]

412. Nice

:thumbsup:

[Warren DeMontague]

416. Actually, there's a lot more similarity between the ANTI-gay folks and PETA than there is

the other way around.

If this was James Dobson writing a letter to an openly gay celebrity, insulting him, hectoring him about his personal choices and lifestyle, then offering him the "good news" of salvation from his evil gay ways through Jesus, would you think it was such a great thing? Or would you call it for the presumptuous, proselytizing bullshit it is?

Oh, but if they're lecturing Michael Moore about meat eating and offering the "good news" of salvation through veganism, it's okay.

:eyes:

[slowry]

419. Instant automated reply.

Hehe, actually I just happened to log in, and you posted this 30 seconds thereafter. Honestly, PETA doesn't mean much to me, and yeah, as a vegan I often find them more annoying / destructive than anything, probably on a deeper level than a non-vegan could.

That being said, some people's reaction to the things PETA says or does is way over the top; they're more easily offended by a game about throwing tomatoes, than by baby seals being smashed and skinned alive, by the hundreds of thousands, and the way we're truly fucking over the entire planet, in general.

Hence my incoherent outburst :crazy:.

[Warren DeMontague]

421. Gotcha. I don't eat much meat, had several years where I ate none. But PETA does piss me off.

I lived with animal rights activists for a while, in college. I know from whence I speak.

[Matariki]

425. Hey you!

I think we'd have a more productive discussion about stuff that matters, like baby seals being smashed and skinned alive, if we could not be so damn reactionary and took the time to try and understand each other.

And since you are making a reference to a past thread I started, I want to address this. I HOPE you will not just give me a knee jerk response and slow down to consider what I'm saying.

It's because I actually do give a damn about baby seals, polar bears losing their habitat, chickens caged in spaces so small they can't move, that I really don't like PETA. There are many more productive ways to address animal welfare, factory farming, and so forth than PETA's tactics. I will concede that they have done *some* good but overall I believe they do far more harm than good. They alienate people who might otherwise give a damn. They push a philosophy that, while it might be fine as a personal philosophy, is so extreme it's laughable to most people.

Can you understand that?

[chaska]

424. Militant vegetarians ... so, what? I still support them...

because they are right about animal rights. Period.

[LibraLiz1973]

437. What a pathetic way to get attention. FUCK YOU PETA

I just decided to wear fur.



Assholes

[ellisonz]

438. Michael Moore + PETA = POOP!

:popcorn: