http://www.wnbc.com/news/17539627/detail.htmlPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent a letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, cofounders of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., urging them to replace cow's milk they use in their ice cream products with human breast milk, according to a statement recently released by a PETA spokeswoman.
A PETA story
Moderator: Available
A PETA story
Because I know Bill loves these guys.
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
-
Laird2
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
This time I'm not sure if they were serious. I think they were just calling attention to the issue. If they were seriously applying "breast is best" to anything but babies, they've gone off their nut. The reason why "milk" is bad for nonbaby humans is because of the fat content, and that doesn't apply to skim cow's milk, but it would apply to human ice cream, as I think B&J making fat free ice cream their centerpiece is less likely than a breast milk line.
--Ian
They HAVE in the past pretty much advocated terrorist action.
I don't know if their aware of the internet backlash that they could potentially trigger.(IE like whats happening with the church of scientology and ANON)
I go to different forums, some filled with liberals...
others with conservatives.
Almost none view the PETA postivly. I mean hell Maddox's views probably summarize with the youth think of the PETA.
I don't know if their aware of the internet backlash that they could potentially trigger.(IE like whats happening with the church of scientology and ANON)
I go to different forums, some filled with liberals...
others with conservatives.
Almost none view the PETA postivly. I mean hell Maddox's views probably summarize with the youth think of the PETA.
Last edited by AAAhmed46 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
I don't know why im posting this, but Maddoxx is always funny, though he's always 60% truthful, and 40%bullshitting.
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:23:52 -0800
From: PETA Correspondent <info@peta.org>
To: maddox@xmission.com
Subject: response requested
Thank you for contacting PETA about animals killed during grain harvesting.
While it is true that animals are killed during harvesting, there is a lot
more to this story than meets the eye. First, we, and animals rights
advocates in general, are primarily concerned with preventing the suffering
of living animals. While millions of animals are killed each year in the
harvesting process, millions of animals suffer EVERY DAY in the meat
industry. BILLIONS of animals are tortured and slaughtered for food every
year in the United States alone. All of these animals being raised for meat
eat grain. In fact, they consume more than half of all of the grain produced
in this country. If the population of the United States were vegetarian, we
would actually require LESS grain, and thereby kill fewer animals during
harvesting. When you eat meat, not only are you contributing to the
suffering of the farmed animals, but you are also contributing to the
majority of the animals killed during harvesting.
If you have a moment, I'd like to know in which restaurant you saw this
"Guiltless Grill" menu section. Thanks again for your message. We appreciate
the opportunity to discuss this important issue.
Sincerely,
Cliff Kaminsky
PETA Correspondent
*Note: I have never contacted PETA. Someone sent my guiltless grill article to them and PETA decided to contact me instead.
PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Let's ignore for a moment that their name implies there exists a universal set of ethics, and instead let's focus on the meat of this email: PETA is "primarily concerned with preventing the suffering of living animals." Oh really? As opposed to preventing the suffering of dead animals? Good thing they clarified because I was confused and couldn't infer that when they said "animals" they didn't mean dead animals. Glad we have that cleared up, let's move on.
So what exactly constitutes as "prevention" of animal suffering? The moral vegetarians (not the ones who do it for religious or health reasons) love to chant "we're trying to limit the suffering." What the hell does that mean? If you eat wheat or soy, you're not limiting anything. Unless you plant, grow and pick your own crops, you're not doing everything you can to "limit" the suffering. You know deep down that you could help limit a whole lot more suffering, but you've chosen not to. You've chosen not to because your lifestyle is too convenient, and you'd have to give up too much, but nevermind that--you have a conscience to feel good about, and you can't let a little thing like millions of violent deaths of field animals get in the way of your moral trip.
Limit the suffering? That's like me saying I'm going to eat meat only 364 out of 365 days of the year in an effort to "limit" the suffering, I'm doing my part to prevent suffering. "BUT MADDOX, YOU COULD LIMIT A LOT MORE SUFFERING BY NOT EATING MEAT AT ALL!!!1" Exactly, and vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? You claim to have compassion for animals, but just as soon as it gets too inconvenient you decide to call it quits? Cowards. You're no better off; not in my book. A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20 if the murder is avoidable. Of course, from the perspective of a suggestible young vegetarian I'm sure being responsible for half as many murders as the next guy means you're off the hook, right?
I keep getting email from moral vegetarians saying "HEY MADOX WE FEED MORE GRAIN TO ANIMALS AND IF YOU EAT THE ANIMALS YOU ARE KILLING TWICE AS MUCH." No #####? The only difference is that I'm not protesting at street corners about other peoples' diets--I'm not the one with a mission to prevent "the suffering of living animals." This email I received, and many like it is the whole reason I wrote the article in the first place. My opinions are kept to myself on my personal web page. I don't remember asking anyone to read a damn thing on my website. When you open up your inbox, you don't find it full of my opinions, and if you do I didn't send them to you. I'm not standing on the street corners protesting, I'm not putting fliers on your car and I'm not putting ads on TV and in magazines. I'm not shoving my agenda down your throat, don't shove your agenda down mine. All you dumbass activists need to get bent already.
Fun with facts: vegetarians love to boast outrageous figures like "it takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and only 20 gallons to produce one pound of wheat." I've heard figures ranging from 2,000 to 5,000, and vegetarians will be damned if they include a source so we'll take the mean (that means "average") and go with 3,500. The average person consumes 1.5 million gallons of water every year (it takes water to grow and produce the food you eat in addition to the water you drink, quit emailing me you morons). Why isn't PETA protesting overpopulation of humans on the street corners? Why isn't PETA passing out free condoms or throwing javelins in your cock when you walk down the street if they really cared about water consumption? It's not like that water just suddenly disappears. The earth has had about the same amount of water for 2 billion years. So if a pound of beef takes 3,500 gallons of water, what difference does it make? How many vegetarians drive a car? To make a car (including tires), it takes about 40,000 gallons of fresh water. That's not including the gas it takes to run the car, the electricity to run the gas station, the water used to create the boat that brought your precious oil, the water used to create the pavement you drive on, the destruction of toxic chemicals that went into creating your clothes, and the electricity you use every day to send me stupid emails over the internet. Every year you are directly responsible for the consumption of billions of gallons of water. There are 26 million people suffering preventable brain damage from iodine deficiency, and another 1.5 billion people at risk. Nevermind that, you have animals to save. By driving your cars, you pump billions of tons of poison into the atmosphere and you're slowly killing us all. The computer you use requires 250 watts of electricity, let alone the billions of computers required to keep you on the internet. All consuming energy. All contributing to pollution. Let's just ignore those minor hypocrisies. Someone wants to enjoy a burger and you'll be damned if you're going to let them.
What makes you think that animals suffer in slaughter houses anyway? I think it would rule to be raised for slaughter. Get all the free steroids you want, free meals and plenty of good company--hell, you have it made. Then when you're at the prime of your life, you get your head generously chopped off so you don't have to live through the suffering of old age. Not only that, but you can die with the satisfaction of knowing that somebody is going to enjoy eating a burger made out of you. What's more humane? Being slaughtered for meat or having to spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours per week in a cubicle for the rest of your life with assholes who listen to shitty music without headphones, then retiring and withering away with old age and cancer as your obnoxious kids grow up and treat you like #####? Slaughter please.
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:23:52 -0800
From: PETA Correspondent <info@peta.org>
To: maddox@xmission.com
Subject: response requested
Thank you for contacting PETA about animals killed during grain harvesting.
While it is true that animals are killed during harvesting, there is a lot
more to this story than meets the eye. First, we, and animals rights
advocates in general, are primarily concerned with preventing the suffering
of living animals. While millions of animals are killed each year in the
harvesting process, millions of animals suffer EVERY DAY in the meat
industry. BILLIONS of animals are tortured and slaughtered for food every
year in the United States alone. All of these animals being raised for meat
eat grain. In fact, they consume more than half of all of the grain produced
in this country. If the population of the United States were vegetarian, we
would actually require LESS grain, and thereby kill fewer animals during
harvesting. When you eat meat, not only are you contributing to the
suffering of the farmed animals, but you are also contributing to the
majority of the animals killed during harvesting.
If you have a moment, I'd like to know in which restaurant you saw this
"Guiltless Grill" menu section. Thanks again for your message. We appreciate
the opportunity to discuss this important issue.
Sincerely,
Cliff Kaminsky
PETA Correspondent
*Note: I have never contacted PETA. Someone sent my guiltless grill article to them and PETA decided to contact me instead.
PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Let's ignore for a moment that their name implies there exists a universal set of ethics, and instead let's focus on the meat of this email: PETA is "primarily concerned with preventing the suffering of living animals." Oh really? As opposed to preventing the suffering of dead animals? Good thing they clarified because I was confused and couldn't infer that when they said "animals" they didn't mean dead animals. Glad we have that cleared up, let's move on.
So what exactly constitutes as "prevention" of animal suffering? The moral vegetarians (not the ones who do it for religious or health reasons) love to chant "we're trying to limit the suffering." What the hell does that mean? If you eat wheat or soy, you're not limiting anything. Unless you plant, grow and pick your own crops, you're not doing everything you can to "limit" the suffering. You know deep down that you could help limit a whole lot more suffering, but you've chosen not to. You've chosen not to because your lifestyle is too convenient, and you'd have to give up too much, but nevermind that--you have a conscience to feel good about, and you can't let a little thing like millions of violent deaths of field animals get in the way of your moral trip.
Limit the suffering? That's like me saying I'm going to eat meat only 364 out of 365 days of the year in an effort to "limit" the suffering, I'm doing my part to prevent suffering. "BUT MADDOX, YOU COULD LIMIT A LOT MORE SUFFERING BY NOT EATING MEAT AT ALL!!!1" Exactly, and vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? You claim to have compassion for animals, but just as soon as it gets too inconvenient you decide to call it quits? Cowards. You're no better off; not in my book. A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20 if the murder is avoidable. Of course, from the perspective of a suggestible young vegetarian I'm sure being responsible for half as many murders as the next guy means you're off the hook, right?
I keep getting email from moral vegetarians saying "HEY MADOX WE FEED MORE GRAIN TO ANIMALS AND IF YOU EAT THE ANIMALS YOU ARE KILLING TWICE AS MUCH." No #####? The only difference is that I'm not protesting at street corners about other peoples' diets--I'm not the one with a mission to prevent "the suffering of living animals." This email I received, and many like it is the whole reason I wrote the article in the first place. My opinions are kept to myself on my personal web page. I don't remember asking anyone to read a damn thing on my website. When you open up your inbox, you don't find it full of my opinions, and if you do I didn't send them to you. I'm not standing on the street corners protesting, I'm not putting fliers on your car and I'm not putting ads on TV and in magazines. I'm not shoving my agenda down your throat, don't shove your agenda down mine. All you dumbass activists need to get bent already.
Fun with facts: vegetarians love to boast outrageous figures like "it takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and only 20 gallons to produce one pound of wheat." I've heard figures ranging from 2,000 to 5,000, and vegetarians will be damned if they include a source so we'll take the mean (that means "average") and go with 3,500. The average person consumes 1.5 million gallons of water every year (it takes water to grow and produce the food you eat in addition to the water you drink, quit emailing me you morons). Why isn't PETA protesting overpopulation of humans on the street corners? Why isn't PETA passing out free condoms or throwing javelins in your cock when you walk down the street if they really cared about water consumption? It's not like that water just suddenly disappears. The earth has had about the same amount of water for 2 billion years. So if a pound of beef takes 3,500 gallons of water, what difference does it make? How many vegetarians drive a car? To make a car (including tires), it takes about 40,000 gallons of fresh water. That's not including the gas it takes to run the car, the electricity to run the gas station, the water used to create the boat that brought your precious oil, the water used to create the pavement you drive on, the destruction of toxic chemicals that went into creating your clothes, and the electricity you use every day to send me stupid emails over the internet. Every year you are directly responsible for the consumption of billions of gallons of water. There are 26 million people suffering preventable brain damage from iodine deficiency, and another 1.5 billion people at risk. Nevermind that, you have animals to save. By driving your cars, you pump billions of tons of poison into the atmosphere and you're slowly killing us all. The computer you use requires 250 watts of electricity, let alone the billions of computers required to keep you on the internet. All consuming energy. All contributing to pollution. Let's just ignore those minor hypocrisies. Someone wants to enjoy a burger and you'll be damned if you're going to let them.
What makes you think that animals suffer in slaughter houses anyway? I think it would rule to be raised for slaughter. Get all the free steroids you want, free meals and plenty of good company--hell, you have it made. Then when you're at the prime of your life, you get your head generously chopped off so you don't have to live through the suffering of old age. Not only that, but you can die with the satisfaction of knowing that somebody is going to enjoy eating a burger made out of you. What's more humane? Being slaughtered for meat or having to spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours per week in a cubicle for the rest of your life with assholes who listen to shitty music without headphones, then retiring and withering away with old age and cancer as your obnoxious kids grow up and treat you like #####? Slaughter please.
-
Laird2
from cbc:
----------------------
An animal rights group has posted an ad on its website comparing the recent stabbing and decapitation of a young Winnipeg man to how humans kill animals for food.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said the advertisement is meant to make people understand how animals suffer when they are killed in slaughterhouses. The group posted the imageless advertisement on its blog site Wednesday.
"PETA's ad…is meant to spur people to think about the terror and pain experienced by animals who are raised and killed for food. The group aims to demonstrate that animals — just like humans — are made of flesh, blood, and bone and deserve protection from needless killing," said a statement on PETA's website, also posted Wednesday.
Tim McLean, 22, was stabbed and then beheaded by a fellow passenger as the two rode an eastbound Greyhound bus across Manitoba last Wednesday. The man accused of second-degree murder, Vince Weiguang Li, allegedly engaged in cannibalism during the attack, which occurred just west of Portage la Prairie.
Designed using large, bold type, the ad compares McLean's struggles to those endured by an animal being slaughtered for its meat. It then refers to Li's alleged act of cannibalism before saying, "It's still going on!"
In its statement, PETA said it intended to run the notice in the Portage Daily Graphic, the local newspaper in Portage la Prairie, Man. PETA also sent out a news release to major media outlets across Canada announcing its plan to run the ad in the Manitoba paper, according to a story on the newspaper's website Wednesday.
The paper's publisher Barry Clayton, however, said the advertisement is in bad taste and will not be allowed to run.
PETA acknowledges in the ad itself that the notice may be offensive to some, but spokesman Bruce Friedrich said the goal is to inspire people to think about what they can do to stop violence against animals.
"We can't do anything to bring Tim back or bring his family relief from their suffering. But all of us can ask what we personally can do to decrease our support for this sort of violence," Freedrick said.
PETA said it will discuss later this week whether to attempt to run the ad in other publications.
---------------------------
----------------------
An animal rights group has posted an ad on its website comparing the recent stabbing and decapitation of a young Winnipeg man to how humans kill animals for food.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said the advertisement is meant to make people understand how animals suffer when they are killed in slaughterhouses. The group posted the imageless advertisement on its blog site Wednesday.
"PETA's ad…is meant to spur people to think about the terror and pain experienced by animals who are raised and killed for food. The group aims to demonstrate that animals — just like humans — are made of flesh, blood, and bone and deserve protection from needless killing," said a statement on PETA's website, also posted Wednesday.
Tim McLean, 22, was stabbed and then beheaded by a fellow passenger as the two rode an eastbound Greyhound bus across Manitoba last Wednesday. The man accused of second-degree murder, Vince Weiguang Li, allegedly engaged in cannibalism during the attack, which occurred just west of Portage la Prairie.
Designed using large, bold type, the ad compares McLean's struggles to those endured by an animal being slaughtered for its meat. It then refers to Li's alleged act of cannibalism before saying, "It's still going on!"
In its statement, PETA said it intended to run the notice in the Portage Daily Graphic, the local newspaper in Portage la Prairie, Man. PETA also sent out a news release to major media outlets across Canada announcing its plan to run the ad in the Manitoba paper, according to a story on the newspaper's website Wednesday.
The paper's publisher Barry Clayton, however, said the advertisement is in bad taste and will not be allowed to run.
PETA acknowledges in the ad itself that the notice may be offensive to some, but spokesman Bruce Friedrich said the goal is to inspire people to think about what they can do to stop violence against animals.
"We can't do anything to bring Tim back or bring his family relief from their suffering. But all of us can ask what we personally can do to decrease our support for this sort of violence," Freedrick said.
PETA said it will discuss later this week whether to attempt to run the ad in other publications.
---------------------------
-
Laird2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_Front
Sounds like terrorists to me. And peta is on record paying to defend these scum. That's funding terrorists in my book.
Send in a smart bomb to take out peta headquarters!
Sounds like terrorists to me. And peta is on record paying to defend these scum. That's funding terrorists in my book.
Send in a smart bomb to take out peta headquarters!
Every time I hear a PETA story, the possibility that it's just a good advertising company backing them up crosses my mind. But if that is, or was, the case, I don't think it is anymore. Unless they hold PETA meetings where they let their 2 million members in on the joke, it sure seems like the everyday member is going to get the message: after hundreds or thousands of stunts like this and various acts of "petty terrorism", their members seem to follow the leadership and think this is how we're supposed to act.
Surely we've all met a PETA member who was just as insane as these stunts.
Greenpeace is starting to follow the same trend. I remember reading a press release from a former GP founder that said "Hey, I started this as a legitimate way to help the environment and now we have people chaining themselves to the props of oil tankers. Not cool, I quit."
Surely we've all met a PETA member who was just as insane as these stunts.
Greenpeace is starting to follow the same trend. I remember reading a press release from a former GP founder that said "Hey, I started this as a legitimate way to help the environment and now we have people chaining themselves to the props of oil tankers. Not cool, I quit."
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
All you dumbass activists need to get bent already.
ROTFLMAO!!!What makes you think that animals suffer in slaughter houses anyway? I think it would rule to be raised for slaughter. Get all the free steroids you want, free meals and plenty of good company--hell, you have it made. Then when you're at the prime of your life, you get your head generously chopped off so you don't have to live through the suffering of old age. Not only that, but you can die with the satisfaction of knowing that somebody is going to enjoy eating a burger made out of you. What's more humane? Being slaughtered for meat or having to spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours per week in a cubicle for the rest of your life with assholes who listen to shitty music without headphones, then retiring and withering away with old age and cancer as your obnoxious kids grow up and treat you like #####? Slaughter please.
Thank you! I haven't laughed so hard in months!
