John Stossel Goes After PETA Tonight...

[Blue Monk]

I'm gonna disagree.
Although I am not a fan of plastic, I saw an A&E bio of her and gained respect for her ability to do something with her life coming from extremely humble beginnings.
What little I've seen of her show "VIP", I've enjoyed her self-deprecating portrayal of herself. Definitely making fun of her own image.
I'm somewhat prejudiced because she's hooked up with my homeboy Bob Ritchie, and eschews the Hollywood scene for the laid-back rural setting of Clarkston Michigan. Seen around town at the grocery store, etc. She and he are devoted to their kids, and are quite the typical good parents.
Kid brought her up to a local club on her birthday last summer. No entourage. She just hung with the locals and he did 40 minutes with my boys the brothers groove (best band in the land), which I caught on videotape.
Just another side to the story. Be careful of judging people based on what you see in the media.

Well my comments toward her were not directed at her personally but in context of her views and involvement with PETA which is the subject of this thread.

I have no problem believing that she as a person may very well be a warm and giving individual.

I have also seen her self-deprecating performances on VIP but of course I have no idea who developed or writes the show. For all I know she may very well hate that portrayal but that may be the only work she can get. Face it, I don't think we are going to be seeing her doing Shakespeare in the park anytime soon.

But of course I would not begrudge anyone for seeking honest work and quite frankly believe that she does enjoy poking fun at herself, an attribute that I too find charming.

But my opinion of her stated here is in context of this thread, namely her very visible and active participation in PETA. Furthermore my opinions are not based on what the media says of her but are limited to her opinions that she herself has expressed many times. She is a very staunch and visible and vocal supporter of PETA and has made her views known on many occasions.

And while I thoroughly respect her opinions I am also entitled to mine and based on the many statements she has made on this subject and in context of this thread it is my opinion that she is a major PETA pinhead.

While I am glad to hear that she is a good and nurturing mother, which does not surprise me at all, I am also quite confident that, heaven forbid, should her child face a terminal and possibly agonizingly painful illness, as a good mother all of this PETA nonsense will go right out the window and as any good mother she will no doubt be willing to slice and dice as many animals as it takes to keep her beloved children alive.

It is unfortunate that someone from humble beginnings can forget that the majority of us cannot afford to fly in specialists from Zurich to maintain our political integrity and make no mistake about it, interfering with animal testing will eventually result in the unnecessary loss of human life and it is the sad truth that the weakest among us, namely the children that will be at the greatest risk.

One would have to be hopelessly naïve not to understand that being a member of the wealthy elite greatly enhances the probability that it will be someone else's child that will ultimately have to pay the price for the idle rich's fad politics.

When it comes to life and death policy being good is not enough. One must be informed.

 

[subgenius]

All good points, my friend.
One way PETA sucks people in is by the confusion between animal welfare and animal "rights."
The gullible are guilted into thinking that if you're not for PETA you don't care for animals.
I continue to suspect the elevation of animals over humans comes from a weird self-loathing, horrible lack of self-esteem.
Hey, where are the pro-PETA voices out there? Are we missing something? Its no fun preaching to the choir.

 

[Blue Monk]

All good points, my friend.
One way PETA sucks people in is by the confusion between animal welfare and animal "rights."
The gullible are guilted into thinking that if you're not for PETA you don't care for animals.
I continue to suspect the elevation of animals over humans comes from a weird self-loathing, horrible lack of self-esteem.
Hey, where are the pro-PETA voices out there? Are we missing something? Its no fun preaching to the choir.

You hit the nail on the head.

'Confusion' is the key word.

What was initially a fine movement has been hijacked by extremists that seem to feel any interaction with animals is somehow inherently cruel.

Many of the these animals have been bred for specific purposes for so long that they could not last a day in the wild on their own.

In the long run PETA will do more damage than good. There are very few people who are willing to tolerate fire-bombings for this kind of a cause and a lot who would support a reasonable movement to stamp out cruelty will be turn-off by their extremism.

I guess all of the really good causes are already taken.

 

[Roadtoad]

I guess all of the really good causes are already taken.

No, only the good causes that can get any press. Sorry I'm so cynical about this, but I worked for a rendering company. I saw the end result of all this "compassion," and frankly, I'm thankful I'm no longer a part of it.

Ask me sometime on a pm about "The Furball Express."

 

[Guest]

Is anyone else having a problem believing Pamela Anderson doesn't eat meat?

I saw that video, you know.......

 

[Guest]

[bad pun]
From what I could see, she eats meat with relish.
[/bad pun]

 

[Roadtoad]

[bad pun]
From what I could see, she eats meat with relish.
[/bad pun]

Oh, the pain, the pain.....!

 

[Josh]

I'm a vegetarian, and have been one for 2 years now. Before you all jump on me for how ridiculous and stupid I apparently am for making a moral decison and sticking with it, you should know that I side with Einstein on this. He supported vegetarianism for the latter part of his life, and has several pro- vegetarian quotes attributed to him. One I am most fond of is, "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." I understand that you have mostly been attacking the extremists, but for any cause, it is the zealot that becomes the most dangerous. You think that you can dismiss the whole thing because there are many, stupid people out there. At least these stupid people are trying to make the world a better place. Here is what I know about the meat industry:
1. Everyday, thousands of animals are slaugthered in terrible conditions, after living terrible lives.
2. People eat these tortured beasts, en masse. Much of this product is sub-par to begin with, and alot is wasted everyday.
3. The meat industry is a very dangerous place to work. It's a big, cold assembly line with people standing shoulder to shoulder, going at haning mounds of meat that come swinging by with knives in both hands. Not to mention that there's alot of blood from diseased animals. Everywhere.
You say that if it weren't for these people out here protesting animal abuse, we'd be able to feed the world. If this were true, I'd jump aboard. Of couse, there's no money in feeding others for non-profit. Not to mention the higher cost of transporting and growing meat as opposed to grains. Also, there is the whole thing about the energy level decreasing as it passes further and further through the food chain, yadda yadda yadda... But of course, you're all right. We started as omnivores, and we would only take a step forward by contiuing to stay the same. Evolution has reached it's peak in humanity, and we have no need to continue down that path. Yes this is a cruel world. Yes, things die everyday and it's sad and quite sobering. It seems to me though, that if we are actually striving to make this world a better place, that we should apply it to every aspect of our lives, even if it means cutting out something that tastes good. Maybe, since in the broadest scope of things, there is no wrong and right, that this is all hunkey-dorey. Of course, from that perspective, Hitler was an o.k. guy and Stalin, well, Stalin's my homeboy.
I question anyone's capacity for compasion when they feast on dead flesh regularly. How many of you to actually look at what it is that occurs everyday? Think of what you are supporting. It quickly comes to a moral question of is this right or wrong. Now ask yourselves this if you believe that it is right, why is that? Generally, it's the path of not murdering millions that tends to be on the higher end of the moral scale. Also if you believe it is right, then why is it that you think abstaining from this is not right, or at least not as right?

 

[Josh]

And also, I don't care that this post hasn't been commented on in about three years. I didn't know that this place existed back then, not to mention I was meat eater at that time. Amazing how we can push forward.

 

[Mycroft]

I question anyone's capacity for compasion when they feast on dead flesh regularly.

Me too.

That's why I only feast on live flesh. It's a lot more work, and a lot more messy, but it's worth it!

 

[Cylinder]

I question anyone's capacity for compasion when they feast on dead flesh regularly. How many of you to actually look at what it is that occurs everyday?

I kill it, dress it, cook it and clean it. There's something about cutting the throat of not-so-cleanly shot deer that helps you understand the cost of sustaining life. It's humbling in a way.

The cougar is probably one of the most magnificent mammals in North America. It's 150-pound pussycat that doesn't care too much for Meow Mix. Think about between five and twenty 2 inch razors attached to a 150 lb sack of flour and thrown from a tree as you pass below. Oh yea - this one hangs on. When you finally tire or bleed out enough to collapse to the ground it uses those razors to work its way to your throat. The last minutes are spent bleeding out of the bite wound in your neck or drowning in your own blood.

I like owls too. I bet you that poor little mouse does not particularly like what happens at the end of that inaugural flight.

You don't get to see too many of them anymore because we like to eat our corn and soy-based products and (for some of us anyway) livestock and live in our quiet little neighborhoods and drive our cars down to that hot new veggie diner that just opened up on the outskirts of town. Most of us 9-5ers don't want to come home to find out that little Jenny was "taken" while we were at work anyway.

We should have a television program where randomly-selected suburban families are waken in the dead of night and forced to run a mile in 6 minutes. If you fail, you are butchered on the spot with an axe. I hope Grandma ate her Cheerios this morning. That would be a reality show.

Maybe you can contemplate breaking your jaw or legs and having to still find your own food and water. No hospitals or grocery stores here - you're on your own. Or watching a pack of dogs fight over your own intestines.

My carnivorous nature has nothing to do with my level of compassion. It has more to do with little evolutionary bends in the road that happened many millions of years ago.

Since I am to take responsibility for my carnivorous habits, do you take the same responsibility for the affect of farming practices on wildlife habitat?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not putting you down for your lifestyle - I just happen to feel rather comfortable in mine, thanks for asking.

You want me to share a human practice totally devoid of compassion? It's embalming and cremation. We take and we take and all that's thought of at the end of a life is cheating a handful of worms.

 

[Ed]

Read Mitchell's The Hunt and get back to me.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394506847/qid=1137931851/sr=1-32/ref=sr_1_32/002-4795282-4377628?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

 

[Josh]

Since I am to take responsibility for my carnivorous habits, do you take the same responsibility for the affect of farming practices on wildlife habitat?

So then, it is us that abstain from eating meat that bare the sole responsibility for all the deforestation in the world? I could have sworn that only a few people only eat meat. And I certainly don't of know any that only eat meat, and only eat it what they personally killed in the wild. Most people complement their diets with other things, such as plants. I mean, That is alot of hunting for them to do. How do they have a social life? Also, all the mass-produced animals out there are herbivores. Any guesses on where their food comes from?
To answer your question, yes I do take responsibility for the effect of farming practices on wildlife habitats. But for vegetarians, vegans, and (shudders) fruitians, and microbians,(why do I have to be in the same category as these people?), to bear the sole blame for something that is shared the world over, by every consuming individual is not right. While I'm at it, I've got some English blood in me, so I guess I'm also responsible for the Boston Massacre. Then again, I am and have been American all my life, so I'm also very pissed about what I've done to myself. What I am saying is that we no longer need to eat animals. Factory farms aren't anything natural. It's business. It is corporations selling profits at the expense of the world and its people. It is a brutal and violent thing that is no longer necessary and should be done away with. I know that hunting can be necessary to control populations and I'm fine with that. Things die, and they do it all the time. I say that we don't have to assist them though. If I was lost in a forest and had to fend for myself, I'd eat any damn creature I could get my hands on. But you know what? I get my food from a grocery store. It is one of the steps along a large path that has people everyday working to feed the world. But alot of this food goes into feeding our food so that we can eat it in an unhealthier, less energizing form. Where's the efficiency in that? If you really want to get your jollies by appreciating the majesty of life, by ending it, why don't you go after something that would really benifit mankind? I've heard that Pat Robertson is supposed to taste alot like lamb.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm a vegetarian, and have been one for 2 years now. Before you all jump on me for how ridiculous and stupid I apparently am for making a moral decison and sticking with it, you should know that I side with Einstein on this. He supported vegetarianism for the latter part of his life, and has several pro- vegetarian quotes attributed to him. One I am most fond of is, "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

You side with Hitler on this too. So what is you're point? Oh, and do the words "Argument from Authority" mean anything to you? If not, perhaps you could google themand see what comes up.

I understand that you have mostly been attacking the extremists, but for any cause, it is the zealot that becomes the most dangerous. You think that you can dismiss the whole thing because there are many, stupid people out there. At least these stupid people are trying to make the world a better place. Here is what I know about the meat industry:

Stupid people trying to make the world a better place are still stupid people. Further these stupid people are stupidly endangering human lives and destroying property. At least the ones who are being criticised. Personally I don't care what other people choose to eat or why, so if someone wants to be a vegetarian that's no skin off my nose, it's the people who want to force me to adopt their viewpoint and eating habits that concern me.I suspect that most people who criticize PETA feel the same way.

1. Everyday, thousands of animals are slaugthered in terrible conditions, after living terrible lives.
2. People eat these tortured beasts, en masse. Much of this product is sub-par to begin with, and alot is wasted everyday.
3. The meat industry is a very dangerous place to work. It's a big, cold assembly line with people standing shoulder to shoulder, going at haning mounds of meat that come swinging by with knives in both hands. Not to mention that there's alot of blood from diseased animals. Everywhere.

[Claus Mode]
Evidence?
[/Claus Mode]

You say that if it weren't for these people out here protesting animal abuse, we'd be able to feed the world.

Who said that?

If this were true, I'd jump aboard. Of couse, there's no money in feeding others for non-profit. Not to mention the higher cost of transporting and growing meat as opposed to grains. Also, there is the whole thing about the energy level decreasing as it passes further and further through the food chain, yadda yadda yadda... But of course, you're all right. We started as omnivores, and we would only take a step forward by contiuing to stay the same. Evolution has reached it's peak in humanity, and we have no need to continue down that path. Yes this is a cruel world. Yes, things die everyday and it's sad and quite sobering. It seems to me though, that if we are actually striving to make this world a better place, that we should apply it to every aspect of our lives, even if it means cutting out something that tastes good. Maybe, since in the broadest scope of things, there is no wrong and right, that this is all hunkey-dorey. Of course, from that perspective, Hitler was an o.k. guy and Stalin, well, Stalin's my homeboy.

Fine. No problem with your opinion on that, I don't happen to share your view of things, but what the hey. What I have a problem with is people like PETA, ALF et. al that wish to use force to make people adopt their point of view.

I question anyone's capacity for compasion when they feast on dead flesh regularly. How many of you to actually look at what it is that occurs everyday? Think of what you are supporting. It quickly comes to a moral question of is this right or wrong. Now ask yourselves this if you believe that it is right, why is that? Generally, it's the path of not murdering millions that tends to be on the higher end of the moral scale. Also if you believe it is right, then why is it that you think abstaining from this is not right, or at least not as right?

And I question the compassion of people who would deny others the benefits of modern medicine, much of which comes from animal research, and PETA would deny people these medicines. And again, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who seriously thinks that being vegetarian is morally wrong, it is the people who wish to force vegetarianism upon others that I and most others have a problem with.

 

[Cain]

You side with Hitler on this too.

This is such a B.S. smear as common as it is wrong. Hitler's demi-vegetarianism did not stem from an ethical concern for animals, but a stomach that couldn't tolerate certain kinds of food.

So what is you're point? Oh, and do the words "Argument from Authority" mean anything to you? If not, perhaps you could google themand see what comes up.

Of course it is a foolish argument to say "become a vegetarian because Einstein was a vegetarian." I think the limited point of citing "great men" is that vegetarianism is "intellectually respectable" and also morally progressive (Tolstoy, Shaw, and so on refrained from violence against animals). Michael Shermer's book _The Science of Good and Evil_ makes a case for limited vegetarianism. Shermer's approach is to first advocate rights for the most intelligent animals and then move on from there.

Which leads to a rather basic point as I browsed over this older thread: the disproportionate level of outrage is astonishing. A man torched some SUVs and the people herein go crazy, characterizing him as a violent maniac. Meanwhile, animals are systematically slaughtered and abused -- billions of them -- and we get the same tired jokes that are supposed to be irreverent and funny. Har har har, People Eating Tasty Animals! I only feed on the flesh of live animals, har har har har.

It reminds me of the episode of _Seinfeld_ where Jerry's dentist converts from Catholicism to Judiaism for the jokes.
Priest: And this offends you as a Jew?
Jerry: No, it offends me as a comedian.

Further these stupid people are stupidly endangering human lives and destroying property. At least the ones who are being criticised. Personally I don't care what other people choose to eat or why, so if someone wants to be a vegetarian that's no skin off my nose, it's the people who want to force me to adopt their viewpoint and eating habits that concern me.I suspect that most people who criticize PETA feel the same way.

Standard BS non-argument from self-interest. What if someone wanted to eat Thai children? Oh, well of course that's a different issue entirely because they're HUMAN and humans have rights -- like the right to eat animals -- so you would presumably be opposed to a homo sapien diet, right?

It all goes back to the rampant stupidity of the American public, a stupidity we're trying to export to the rest of world. Here it's respectable to discuss when the fetus "becomes human" even though, scientifically speaking, it was always human. It's more or less not permissable to seriously discuss non-human rights because that poses a threat to our comfortable way of life... even if our lifestyle choices result in unnecessary suffering on an almost unimaginable scale.

And I question the compassion of people who would deny others the benefits of modern medicine, much of which comes from animal research, and PETA would deny people these medicines.

I think many of the diehards -- those who take the initative to criticize PETA -- share some of the same philosophical underpinnings. Standard thought experiment: suppose our best chance for preventing the spread of a nasty disease involves forcibly testing a particular tribe of people native to Eastern Africa.

People often quote one PETA lunatic who said that if he could cure all the disease in the world by killing one rat, he wouldn't do it. OK, same situation, but let's replace rat with human.

And again, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who seriously thinks that being vegetarian is morally wrong, it is the people who wish to force vegetarianism upon others that I and most others have a problem with.

I only have a problem with it because it's a blunt, ineffective tactic. Meat-eaters find the notion anathema because it's exactly what they do: their lifestyle choices manifest themselves as force, violence, and injury to others with the concomitant consequences of unnecessary pain and suffering.

 

[Mycroft]

It all goes back to the rampant stupidity of the American public, a stupidity we're trying to export to the rest of world.

Obligatory US bashing noted.

Here it's respectable to discuss when the fetus "becomes human" even though, scientifically speaking, it was always human. It's more or less not permissable to seriously discuss non-human rights because that poses a threat to our comfortable way of life... even if our lifestyle choices result in unnecessary suffering on an almost unimaginable scale.

It seems to me that life on earth results in "unnecessary suffering" on an almost "unimaginable scale". What we should do is get rid of "nature", turn the earth into a park after euthanizing all predators, and devote the energies of the human species to veterinary medicine and animal husbandry so we can care for whatever animal life is left over.

I think many of the diehards -- those who take the initative to criticize PETA -- share some of the same philosophical underpinnings. Standard thought experiment: suppose our best chance for preventing the spread of a nasty disease involves forcibly testing a particular tribe of people native to Eastern Africa.

People often quote one PETA lunatic who said that if he could cure all the disease in the world by killing one rat, he wouldn't do it. OK, same situation, but let's replace rat with human.

And what if you could go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby? How trite.

If the degree of suffering is you measure, as you implied earlier, the choices in these scenarios are a no-brainer.

 

[Vagabond]

I don't have a problem with somebody wanting to be a vegitarian for health reasons, but I have a big problem with those who say they do it purely for the welfare of animals. It's completely idealistic and out of wack with reality.

You aren't saving a single animal with your diet. The best thing you are accomplishing is making the local market throw a couple extra pounds of meat in the dumpster every week.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, what exactly do you think would happen to the cows, pigs, chickens tomorrow if you could wave a magic wand and make everybody stop eating them?

You think all the farmers would just let them graze on their farmland out of the goodness of their hearts? You would see the biggest mass slaughter of animals imaginable. Tens of millions of animals would be bull dozed alive into trenches. In a year the only place a cow would exist is in a zoo. Cow's are not wild animals, they can't exist in the wild, they have no habitat to return them to. They exist only because people eat them.

Taking the same arguement anti-abortionists take all the time, that ANY life is better than no life at all. Wouldn't the animals be worse off not to exist at all?

 

[Mycroft]

Taken to it's logical conclusion, what exactly do you think would happen to the cows, pigs, chickens tomorrow if you could wave a magic wand and make everybody stop eating them?

Good point. The alternative to raising these animals for food/medicine is the genocide of these animals.

That would end their suffering.

Which is a pretty good anti-environmentalist argument. If a species becomes extinct, that species no longer suffers. Therefore we should scrap the endangered species act out of concern for the suffering of these animals.

And by the way, nuclear war isn't so terrible when considered from that point of view either. If we destroy the biosphere of the Earth making it uninhabitable, then all suffering ends. Neat, huh?

 

[Freakshow]

Taken to it's logical conclusion...

usually results in a straw man argument.

 

[Vagabond]

usually results in a straw man argument.

Accusing somebody of having a strawman arguement all the time because you aren't smart enough to actually come up with an arguement of your own or make a point is a strawman arguement as well.