Why vegans are simply better people

[Johny2x4]

I am staunchly anti pet unless you have unlimited resources to take care of the animal. I can't tell you the number of poor white trash I see out there who can't take care of their children or pay their bills but have 2-3 dogs and a bunch of cats and bunnies etc.

We have a guinea pig. And he's treated like gold, but he's the entire exception. He's able to be kept in a cage, we let him out from time to time but he prefers the cage and loves being held.

Anyone who is poor and has a pet is an uncontrollable source of frustration for me. I think it is horribly cruel to the animal. If it were up to me animals would never be allowed to be bought as pet or adopted unless you got a license and had animal insurance of some sort.

I can't stand humans who use animals for personal comfort but fail to treat the animal with the kind of freedom and care it deserves. I don't think there are too many people lower on my disgust list.

Definitely.

Anyways, to the OP and other "enlighten" beings, it should be noted if you choose to be vegan good for you, I honestly don´t give a ****, but if you try and act might and say I´m a bad person cause I eat meat, I´m going to eat even more meat, just out of spite. You can write a wall of text on how bad and wrong it is, and I won´t even care. Meat is tasty to me, and I´m not stopping eating it.

 

[Dessi]

Yeah...No offense but quoting from the official PETA sources is not going to convince me. That´s like quoting that NK is a great nation according to their official sources.

That is a weirdly defensive response. You very specifically criticized PETA for its policy on euthanasia without understanding why PETA holds the policy in the first place. Then you criticized PETA for opposing pet ownership, a position it does not in the first place. The point on euthanasia is debatable, the point on pet ownership is not.

Do you actually disagree with any part of my post?

 

[Johny2x4]

This is a weirdly evasive response. You very specifically criticized PETA for its policy on euthanasia without understanding why PETA holds the policy in the first place. Then you criticized PETA for opposing pet ownership, a position it does not in the first place.

The point on euthanasia is debatable, but the point on pet ownership is not. Do you actually disagree with any part of my post?

I´d like to see more non biased sources that confirmed that. Not something that came from PETA officially.

 

[jj]

Although I support the ALF on the whole, I had a major-major philosophical disagreement with them over what to do with killifish. Major.

Riiiiight.... Someone's sarcasm is showing.

 

[Cain]

I think you're mistaking an unwillingness to understand with an unwillingness to agree. That I agree with the ultimate causes of some terrorists does not necessarily mean I agree with their actions in those causes' names.

Then I think you're rather ignorant of how social justice movements work. There's a vitally important above-ground contingent, and then there's the underground. The ALF's mission is not to harm anyone, human or non-human, and by that standard they have far more credibility than, say, your government.

Just to further clarify, as you seem to stubbornly ignore my point at each turn: I would not support an assassin who takes out the CEOs in the animal-exploitation industry. Boston Tea Party style violence against property is A-OK. The "kill-the-tax-collector" contingent of the local Sons of Liberty, not so much.

 

[Rat]

Then I think you're rather ignorant of how social justice movements work. There's a vitally important above-ground contingent, and then there's the underground. The ALF's mission is not to harm anyone, human or non-human, and by that standard they have far more credibility than, say, your government.

I think you're mistaking an ignorance with a disagreement.

 

[Kahalachan]

Vegans are also very humble and not full of themselves. Oh wait the first post proves me wrong.

What a shame. Guess vegans aren't better.

 

[Dessi]

I´d like to see more non biased sources that confirmed that. Not something that came from PETA officially.

Pretty much everyone describing PETA's policies are going to do two things:

1) cite PETA as the actual source of its policies.
2) or make garbage up, cite urban myths, throw in ample amounts of venom to smear PETA as much as possible, all the while taking quotes out of context, not unlike fundamentalist Christians do when explaining evolution to their peers.

Would you accept me as a relatively informed source, someone who's capable of stating what PETA's policies are without BS?

 

[Johny2x4]

Pretty much everyone describing PETA's policies are going to cite PETA as the actual source of its policies.

Would you accept me as a relatively informed source, someone who's capable of stating what PETA's policies are without BS?

Nope, not really.

 

[Dessi]

Well then.... ok.

 

[citizenzen]

Nope, not really.

I think what you're really saying is you won't trust PETA's stated policies no matter what, as anybody can go to their website to look them up.

 

[RandFan]

I've defended PETA before. I liked their programs to reduce suffering resulting from factory farms. There are reasonable ideas, even ones I don't necessarily agree with. I don't care for many of their ad campaigns, publicity stunts, whatever. Who am I to council them though? It's just a personal opinion. I find them politically tone deaf but their strategy might turn out to be the right one. I'm no expert. I doubt it though.

 

[Estellea]

Indicates PETA used video footage stolen by ALF to show severe animal rights abuses in the Silver Spring Monkeys case. I say this is a point in favor of PETA, not against it.


This guy has no affiliation to PETA.

Sure he does; these are quite incestuous groups after all. PETA funnels money to ALF, ELF, SHAC and Coronado himself, who was convicted of torching the MSU laboratory (that's not in dispute). Coronado is also a spokesperson for SHAC.

PETA indicates that some of AFLs actions have resulted in severe criminal penalties for experimenters for violations of the Animal Welfare Act.

Ah, so they accomplished some legitimate exposure of animal cruelty so it's just fine they engage in terrorist acts? They are recognised as a terrorist group by the FBI you know.

In any case, the comment itself is not particularly damning. At best it expresses a view I've seen myself in the AR community: that almost anyone would support direct action if humans were victims of the exact same treatment that animals endure every single day.

Color me skeptical, but I don't think info above is particularly damaging to PETA at all. I would go a bit further and say that the sort of direct action PETA engages in -- undercover investigations with hidden cameras -- is actually pretty tame, actually pretty sensible, several times media coverage of these investigations have been explosively effective. That's how you do direct action.

This sounds an awful like the dodgy speech PETA has adopted to allow their ardent supporters enough moral relativism to engage in the ethical contortions and downright denial to keep the funding going. They fund terrorists and terrorist organisations; if you want/need to buy into the wink wink, nudge nudge nonsense PETA espouses, that's a problem with your credulity, not mine.

citzenzen asked which of PETA's activities appear to ally themselves with terrorist organizations. I'm asking you what the connection is between PETA and the Coronado.

More to the point, following up on citizenzen's commentary above, I'd be interested to know why an association to the guy would be that damnable in the first place.

PETA has given funds directly to Coronado for his defence on the arson charge while talking out both sides of her mouth about how she doesn't like arson. He committed at least one terrorist act, is associated with other groups that commit terrorist acts and all receive money from PETA. That's pretty damnable if you ask me.

Maybe the problem here is a simple category error: it sounds like the argument is, if PETA supports direct action, the organization must by definition support every single form of it from under cover investigations to arson... except it doesn't.

Again with the moral contortions. PETA won't denounce or stop funding these organisations and individuals and as long as they continue, they are complicit.

For that matter, I know several vegans like myself who approve of a few PETA actions. For a start, General Motors used to perform crash tests using live animals up to 1993. Following tremendous pressure from the ASPCA and PETA campaigns, GM stopped using live animals, crash test dummies were developed instead. This, I think, is commendable. Does that necessarily mean I support the round robin of PETA campaigns, like the highly inflammatory Holocaust On Your Plate or Your Mommy Kills Animals pamphlets? Well, no.

It is highly unlikely that we can find an organisation to support that is perfectly aligned with our own philosophy. However, the few positive impacts they make do not absolve their support of terrorists and terrorists acts. For instance, if I found out that an organisation I supported was found to be even peripherally involved with a child porn ring, I would be livid, to say the least and pull financial and/or other support from said organisation, not perform mental gymnastics in order to continue supporting them because of the few positive impacts they may have made.

I agree. Arson bad.

Then how do you condone PETA's support of Coronado, ALF and ELF?

I've only ever heard of members of PETA giving money to the Animal Liberation Press Office, which is a newsletter that publishes articles related to direct action, but does not engage in direct action itself.

I'm not aware of PETA ever condoning arson.

Oh please, how naive or credulous do you have to be to buy that load of bollocks? See the links I provided above.

Este

 

[citizenzen]

It is highly unlikely that we can find an organisation to support that is perfectly aligned with our own philosophy. However, the few positive impacts they make do not absolve their support of terrorists and terrorists acts.

Then how do you condone PETA's support of Coronado, ALF and ELF?
Oh please, how naive or credulous do you have to be to buy that load of bollocks? See the links I provided above.

I believe it comes down to the age-old conundrum of one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter". Looking back through history you'll find more than a few examples of leaders or movements who started off on the wrong end of the law. That does not mean that I condone their actions. I always prefer nonviolence over violence. However, your post leads me to ask whether you believe these past transgressions by PETA can ever be outweighed by the good that they've done? Will this forever be a criminal organization in your opinion?

 

[Unabogie]

As a long time vegan, I'd just like to say that I am indeed a better person than all of you. It's just that it's not because I'm vegan.

 

[Kid Eager]

As a long time vegan, I'd just like to say that I am indeed a better person than all of you. It's just that it's not because I'm vegan.

... but as a vegan, your assessment is immediately suspect.

 

[Cain]

I think you're mistaking an ignorance with a disagreement.

I don't think so, but I'll agree to disagree (as I would with any glib creationist, astrologist or other like-minded folk on account of the suspicious fact that the very notion more radicalized elements play a critical in social justice movements is sooooooo disagreeable).

--------

It's worth noting the "Great Man" version of history so well-criticized by Howard Zinn. Up thread I recall comments about Abraham Lincoln and FDR, the "Great Men" who made mistakes. The excuses typically amount to "complicated men, complicated times."

A more recent case is Nelson Mandela. To college students today it's unimaginable that Dick Cheney and others would not be Mandela worshipers. The guy is like an even older, wiser version of Morgan Freeman. And who doesn't love Morgan Freeman? Red?? Yet, in the soft glow of victory it's easy to gloss over the car bombs that left barely recognizable, mangled bodies.

A government illegally invades a country, kills tens of thousands of people. Mistakes were made. Honest mistakes. I can't imagine the same kind of forgiveness extended to the ALF, even if it has a worthy cause, well-intentioned motives, and takes far greater precautions; even if disagreement and debate among direct-action liberationists is far more morally serious.

 

[Dessi]

Sure he does; these are quite incestuous groups after all. PETA funnels money to ALF, ELF, SHAC and Coronado himself, who was convicted of torching the MSU laboratory (that's not in dispute). Coronado is also a spokesperson for SHAC.

Ah, so they accomplished some legitimate exposure of animal cruelty so it's just fine they engage in terrorist acts? They are recognised as a terrorist group by the FBI you know.

This sounds an awful like the dodgy speech PETA has adopted to allow their ardent supporters enough moral relativism to engage in the ethical contortions and downright denial to keep the funding going. They fund terrorists and terrorist organisations; if you want/need to buy into the wink wink, nudge nudge nonsense PETA espouses, that's a problem with your credulity, not mine.

PETA has given funds directly to Coronado for his defence on the arson charge while talking out both sides of her mouth about how she doesn't like arson. He committed at least one terrorist act, is associated with other groups that commit terrorist acts and all receive money from PETA. That's pretty damnable if you ask me.

Again with the moral contortions. PETA won't denounce or stop funding these organisations and individuals and as long as they continue, they are complicit.

It is highly unlikely that we can find an organisation to support that is perfectly aligned with our own philosophy. However, the few positive impacts they make do not absolve their support of terrorists and terrorists acts. For instance, if I found out that an organisation I supported was found to be even peripherally involved with a child porn ring, I would be livid, to say the least and pull financial and/or other support from said organisation, not perform mental gymnastics in order to continue supporting them because of the few positive impacts they may have made.

Then how do you condone PETA's support of Coronado, ALF and ELF?
Oh please, how naive or credulous do you have to be to buy that load of bollocks? See the links I provided above.

Point taken. There is a credible link between PETA and Coronado, at least in nodding ideological support to some organizations and funding legal defense for specific individuals.

That said, maybe I don't view ALF, ELF, or SHAC as even remotely comparable to child porn rings. I can understand why people would support those groups, understand their motivations, sympathize with their goals.

I'm well aware that ALF and ELF are recognized as domestic terror organizations. However, there's nothing comparable between these groups and say, the KKK, al-Qeada, Aryan Nation, Army of God, which is best put by the words of the FBI themselves:

In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States. Despite the destructive aspects of ALF's operations, its operational philosophy discourages acts that harm "any animal, human and nonhuman." Animal rights groups in the United States, including the ALF, have generally adhered to this mandate. The ALF, established in Great Britain in the mid-1970s, is a loosely organized movement committed to ending the abuse and exploitation of animals. The American branch of the ALF began its operations in the late 1970s. Individuals become members of the ALF not by filing paperwork or paying dues, but simply by engaging in "direct action" against companies or individuals who utilize animals for research or economic gain. "Direct action" generally occurs in the form of criminal activity to cause economic loss or to destroy the victims' company operations. The ALF activists have engaged in a steadily growing campaign of illegal activity against fur companies, mink farms, restaurants, and animal research laboratories.

I'm particularly sympathetic to Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, a campaign which absolutely destroyed the Huntingdon facility financially:

The campaign against HLS, at its height, brought the company to the brink of collapse.[12] In 2000, SHAC obtained a list of HLS shareholders, including the names of beneficial owners: anonymous individuals and companies who bought shares in the name of a third party. These included the British Labour Party pension funds, Rover cars, and the London Borough of Camden. The list was passed to the Sunday Telegraph, and several investors divested themselves of their shares, including the Labour Party.[17] Two weeks later, an equity stake of 32 million shares was placed on the London Stock Exchange for one penny each and HLS quotes crashed. The Royal Bank of Scotland, closed HLS's bank account, and wrote off an £11.6 million loan in exchange for a payment of just £1 in order to distance itself from the company.[18] The British government arranged for the state-owned Bank of England to give them an account, because no other bank would do business with them. The British Banking Association said "Huntingdon Life Sciences are in a nightmare situation."[19] The company's share price, worth around £300 in the 1990s fell to £1.75 in January 2001, stabilizing at 3 pence by mid-2001.[18]

On December 21, 2000, HLS was dropped from the New York Stock Exchange because of its share collapse: its market capitalization had fallen below NYSE limits and the NYSE did not accept HLS's revised business plan.[20] On March 29, 2001, Huntingdon lost both of its market makers and its place on the main platform of the London Stock Exchange.

Let me get this straight, terror groups that save lives and kill no one? Terror groups which use undercover video and cooperate with law enforcement to penalize organizations being cruel to animals?

I hope you understand why, for a terror organization, I'm a little underwhelmed.

I'm very much familiar with how these groups operate. In addition to undercover videos, their actions consist of vandalism, property damage, they're known to cooperate with police, they have a tremendous respect for human and animal life. I don't find those behaviors especially objectionable. Except arson. I find arson uncontrollable, very unnerving.

 

[Dessi]

As I've said before, I'm a fan of the ALF. Modern-day abolitionists, and real heroes. There's no G.I. Bill for anonymously saving animals.

Anyway, you know who financial links to terrorists? U.S. taxpayers. Our government has also openly supported known dictators. We fund oppressive forces. Does that make the ALF's policies hunky-dory? No. Does it make many people in this thread self-righteous hypocrites. You bet.

Terrorist!

Double terrorist!

 

[Travis]

And as I've said constantly in these threads, I guess vegans in the US must be very different to those here. Either that or both Travis and MikeyX are incapable of recognizing confirmation bias.

Tons of confirmation bias. We tend to remember people who come off as jackasses. I'm sure I've met loads of vegans that I don't even know were vegans because they were just nice and normal people who didn't make it their goal to tell me all about their veganism within five seconds of meeting them.


Oh and PETA......I think they are the worst thing to happen to animal welfare in a long time. I mean if people stop treating animals badly they'll stop plastering naked women on billboards. I can't think of anything that would better assure animal suffering. And that porn site they wanted to run with random images of animal cruelty in it.......what drug do you have to be on to think that up?