One can avoid Burger King since they have a pop up for their veggie burger on the PETA site.
Equating the murder of six million humans with animal rights is ridiculous. My nephew saw a survior at a swimming pool and asked her, “Why did you write on your arm?”
Bastards.
I must defend the honor of my Pratt heritage!
Well obviously this board just proves that PETA is waaaaaaaaaaay ahead of its time (that is if their goals are ever met). They believe humans are not superior to other animals, while such an idea is patently offensive to many of you. I guess everything does come in circles. I’m sure people were just as offended with extremists compared women to men and blacks to whites back when such comparisons were considered extreme. Looks like this will be the nations next big civil rights battle. And it’s not even about vegetarianism and why eating animals is wrong, it’s about the barbaric practices of farmers who are more concerned with the bottom line than the welfare of thier livestock. Do you think they could juxtapose holocaust photos to those of chickens running free in spacious fields and nesting in roomy coops and get the same effect?
<orwell>
Four legs good, two legs bad!
</orwell>
Were any of your family in Auschwitz?
Oh great, why don’t you give them another idea?!? 
pizzabrat, I really didn’t understand your post. At least I hope I didn’t. Go back and re-read the ADL link in ShoNuff’s post, please.
With this ad campaign, PETA has shown itself as utterly irredeemable. I don’t care if it’s Holocaust victims, raped Congolese women or dead Somali babies- there is now justification for cheapening terrible human suffering by comparing it to a cow in a pen. It does NOT “raise up” the cow, it lowers the human.
Oh jeez, nice typo- I meant to say “there is NO justification…”
:rolleyes:
Can’t find a Vancouver Province cite but here’s the lead from November, 2002 at CTV.ca. “Two Vancouver newspapers have refused to run an advertisement that likens the treatment of animals to the fate of women allegedly murdered on a British Columbia pig farm.” The planned ad compared the suffering of pigs on a pig farm to that of fifteen murdered women. There may be more victims, as at least 50 women have been reported missing over the last two decades from the same general area.
“All they’re talking about is the pain of the animals, they don’t care about the pain of the families,” said Laurie Isberg. “They’re torturing us. They’re torturing us like they say everybody tortures animals.” “The parallels in this case are very clear,” said PETA spokesman Andrew Butler. “What happened to the unfortunate victims of this crime are happening every single day in pig farms around the world where animals are routinely mutilated.” The hearing was reopened February 19; details are being withheld by a publication ban, to prevent possible tainting of the jury pool.
Xslayer didn’t originate that wordplay. A group calling itself People Eating Tasty Animals cybersquatted on the domain name peta.org for awhile.
Papermache Prince
Thank you! Yes, that is indeed the story I’d thought of. People around here were pretty horrified by the whole thing. Now, as you all know I’m a real animal nut, but these guys just give me the creeps. How can they possibly think they’re helping anything?!
Nor did Ivar originate his snide little bumper-sticker soundbite. Thus sarcasm.
Daniel
Does anyone else notice the irony here?
Irony? I didn’t even understand what he was saying. Was he suggesting boycotting Burger King because of the pop-up on PETA’s site?
Look at the BK campaign in relationship to the Holocaust campaign to see why the latter pisses me off so much. The BK campaign involved putting a lot of pressure on the restaurant to improve their animal husbandry practices and to decrease the cruelty involved in producing meat for their restaurants. When BK introduced a vegan option, PETA decided to “reward” them by promoting the option for them for free.
And that’s all well and good. That’s realpolitik for you.
But now, PETA says that the meat industry is equivalent to the Holocaust.
If PETA believes that, then we have to imagine that during WWII, PETA would have been protesting Treblinka as much as possible. And when PETA found out that a concentration camp down the road was just working prisoners to death, not gassing them, why, they would have put up banners complimenting that camp for their humane treatment of prisoners.
Either PETA is stark raving bonkers (which I don’t believe), or they’re utterly devoid of a moral compass (which I also don’t believe), or they’re cynically using the Holocaust as a bit of hyperbole because they hope it’ll help their cause (which I do believe).
They’re not behaving as if the meat industry is equivalent to the Holocaust. I don’t think they really believe the meat industry is equivalent to the Holocaust. They’re just saying that because it’s, y’know, shocking.
Revolting.
Daniel
I am advocating boycotting Burger King. In effect theya re using the murder of six million Jews to sell sandwiches.
Uh, carnivorousplant, are you thinking that BK’s popup ad on PETA’s site is paid advertising? I’m pretty sure it’s not; in fact, I don’t know whether PETA obtained BK’s permission for the ad.
Daniel
I was wondering about that…
Momma always warned us about those brain-washed folk like you…
Farmer’s bottom lines? Have you seen them lately? They’re still paying off the equipment they bought years ago plus the mortgage on the house…I don’t think that the next Bill Gates will come from some pig farm in North Carolina, let alone support their own retirement from their “bottom line”…
Civil rights for animals?..HELLO?..Since when did animals become civil?
If PETA had their way, and animals are equal to us, then I guess when we should bring all murdering animals (lions, tigers and bears, oh my!, etc.etc.etc.) to put them on trial and throw them in jail for killing those poor little bunnies, chickens and fishies and consuming them…they should know better! They are our “equals” after all!
PETA already disgraced themselves by using the holocaust in their campaign…please don’t drag racism and sexism to support PETA’s dimwitted attempts to make animals equal to us…
You’re right about one thing PB, things do come around in circles, it’s called a food-chain…
:rolleyes:
I for one like the ad. And the “teens should drink beer” campaign. It helps those who aren’t stupid enough to believe in PETA believe in their own judgement. When PETA ran more mainsteam ad campaigns they actually gained a bit of support. This new line of ads drives people away from PETA’s apparent agenda.
Or, as was hinted at earlier, PETA may be unbelievably clever, and they actually want people TO eat meat.
Did you ever notice that prey animals have eyes on the side of their head as a defense strategy, while predators have eyes on the front of their heads, to better judge distance and focus on the prey? I’m pretty sure homo sapiens are meant to eat meat…
This is insultingly misinformed. Do you have any real understanding of agriculture?
Farmers care about the welfare of their livestock, because livestock that isn’t healthy = financial losses (and many care just because they are humane, as well). Distressed animals gain weight/produce milk/lay eggs/whatever at a lower rate than contented animals. I don’t know any farmer who doesn’t care about livestock welfare.
No one is going to raise free range chickens on industrial scales. That doesn’t mean that lots of farms don’t have free range chickens. Heck, one of our neighbours has distributed bantams to virtually everyone in the community. They’re a bit of a plague in the garden, but they suppress the 'hopper population quite nicely. But a couple dozen chickens running free on a farmyard don’t supply a supermarket and never will, and the amount of land it would take to raise enough free range chickens in significant numbers would make doing so financial suicide. Actually, I suppose I should amend my statement to asserting that someone might raise large numbers of free range chickens, but that someone will be doing so only briefly, and then going bankrupt.
The objectionable conditions that exist on farms, and I agree that there are some, exist virtually entirely because of market pressures. Profit margins on beef, pork, and chicken are so low that for any significant income one has to operate with very high volume - hence feedlots and 1000 sow farrow to finish hog barns, and the like. Why are profit margins that low? Well, because such facilities are possible. (And actually, they’re only just possible - hog operations will lose tens of thousands of dollars a month or more when hog prices are low and feed prices are high, and sell every pig at a loss desperately hoping to hang on long enough that prices will cycle back and they can make good the losses and turn a profit.) Because they can turn a profit (just) on low margins with high volume, they drive the prices of finished stock down, making it uneconomical for anyone else to do it. So, for example, large-scale cow-calf operations either sell the calves to feedlots shortly after weaning, operate a feedlot themselves, or go broke finishing the calves in non-feedlot conditions.
So, in a sense, I suppose your statement that farmers care more about the bottom line than their animals has a bit of truth to it - if all you mean by that is that farmers will cut corners caring for their animals if that is what is required to avoid bankruptcy. This, however, is simply a truism. Those farmers who won’t cut those corners have gone bankrupt and aren’t farmers anymore. But because of the way the market works, if you want this to stop, you have only one choice - regulate the hell out of how animals are raised, and refrain from complaining when prices at your supermarket jump. Failing that, somebody will cut those corners, and in doing so, force everyone else to follow suit or go broke.
Finally, there are a large number of farmers who operate rather differently, but the scale is such that they aren’t really significant players in the market. These are the people who farm on a small scale, make very little money from farm sales, and pay the bills with off-farm income. And while these operations are actually more numerous than the big factory farms, they don’t produce enough food to feed the country, and the only time you ever hear about them is when they finally give up and sell the farm, leading to the occasional news feature decrying the loss of the family farm.
There is no “pamper the animals without going broke and produce enough to feed everyone” option. Not with a free market.
To borrow a term from you meat-eaters, baloney. Here’s what you do, step-by-step:
Not too hard a program, is it? Sure, if by “free market” you mean “totally unregulated market”, you’re right. But we don’t have that kind of free market here.
Welfare protections for livestock animals would, for instance, drastically change pig farm operations here in North Carolina. Because everyone would have to obey these changes, the cost of pork would rise, across the board. But the profit margins wouldn’t change appreciably.
Your Sausage McMuffin in the morning might cost an extra dime. But that’s okay, if it means that nursing sows aren’t chained down on their sides for weeks at a time, to prevent them from ever denying milk access to their piglets.
Is your concern really, “feeding everyone”? Then make it financially unprofitable to feed food crops to livestock. The second law of thermodynamics figures heavily in ecosystems, and you lose more than 90% of the available energy in corn, soy, and other crops when you process them into beef. The only ecologically sound way to raise meat is to do it on land that is unsuitable for crop agriculture.
Finally, Yeticus, it behooves you to learn the arguments against which you rail. When you say,
it simply shows that you’ve not got the first clue about any AR philosophy. I linked earlier to a great intro to animal rights (well, technically, to preferential utilitarianism, a philosophical system which dispenses with rights, but we can deal with the details once you’ve got the basics). Here’s the link again: an essay by Peter Singer. Read it, and you’ll see why your statement above is ignorant. Then you can come back and poke holes in an actual AR argument, rather than tilting at straw windmills.
Daniel