Animal rights group Peta has despatched a brace of near-naked operatives to Arizona in a bid to lure Prince Harry away from the delights of meat. The less-than-covert insertion of the pair of barely covered activists will cause yet more distraction for right royal playboy and his retinue, as Harry attempts to complete his …
They do look a bit undernourished, probably their diet making them look so tired. Maybe they sent two vegans in order to match the "work-rate" of one omniverous lady! Me, I'd steer clear - experience has led me to notice that veggie girls are much more likley to break wind during times of exercise.....
Standard put-down to PETA/nanny types - Hitler was a veggie and a teetotaler.
if Harry thinks those two are worth tapping up, then he will be unable to complete his pilot's training as his vision is clearly not up to the job.
while i'm not usualy a partaker in the ojectification of the fairer sex, if you put yourself on display like a piece of meat, you have to accept that you will be treated like a piece of meat.
not sure if that is supposed to be vaguely ironic. what with this being Peta an'all.
If we were all to give up eating meat, waht would happen to all the cows/pigs/sheep/goats, etc.?
If we aren't going to eat them, then there really is very little benefit to keeping them, so they will become extinct, or end up as zoo animals, it's not like most domesticated animals would do very well in the wild. Way to go tree-huggers.
Now, I know what you are thinking, we could still keep them for milk. The problem there is that to produce milk, the animals (I will use cattle as the example here), need to be kept pregnant most of the time. This isn't really much of a problem in terms of female offspring, the issue is what to do with the male offspring. At the moment, these are mostly made into tasty steaks. It would simply not be economical to raise large numbers of large aggressive, sexually frustrated animals simply to let them die of old age, not to mention the disastrous effect this would have on land usage, run-off pollution, etc. etc.
Still, never mine eh, PETA, keep up the cognitive dissonance...
I think you're missing the point of veganism which is not not use ANY animal by-product. Milk is a no-no.
I also think you're missing the point of PETA which is to put humans interest firmly behind that of other animals. Therefore 'the point' of animals doesn't come into it.
As we all know, before humans came along all animals lived happily together in perfect harmony.
Have you ever seen wolves attack an animal? Yeesh. I've seen a half-eaten bison calf, still alive (barely) after a wolf attack when I was elk hunting, and as cruel as industrial farming may be, they aren't THAT cruel.
Sorry, I still get nightmares and cold sweats about that calf. And as I said, I'm a hunter, I've cleaned and dressed animals.
As vegans they wouldn't use any kind of animal product, which includes dairy and eggs plus, I presume, wool and obviously leather. Oh, and the majority of vaccines on the market as they are egg based. And you can say goodbye to all your cats & dogs as they are carnivorous pets and can't survive on a vegan diet. Oh what a fun world that would be.
You start raising other questions such as:
At what point is it acceptable to kill an animal?
Is it never at all?
Is it in self defense, for example if about to be eaten by a grizzly bear?
What about parasites? it is morally bad to take anthelmithic drugs to expel and kill intestinal worms? If so, where do you draw the line between 'bad' and 'good' animals? if you don;t draw the line here, what about microscopic single celled animals? Whya re they somehow more special than other non-animal single celled organisms? Whay are these more 'special' than plants? Do we somehow instead draw a criterion based upon some notion of consciousness? Yes, a pig is arguably conscious, and a dinflagellate is arguably not but there is no sharp delineated cut-off somewhere in the middle.
I have yet to meet a vegetarian / vegan who can answer the above questions with a meaningful answer. I usually get a response along the lines of 'so it's okay to eat people then?'
There is a world of difference between killing animals when necessary, or simply by want of them sharing the same space with you (eg. bacteria), and ruthlessly exploiting whole breeds of animals purely for our own ends, much to the detriment of their own.
Go down to Bernard Matthew's nearest 'processing plant', have a look round, and then consider how much the chickens there are getting out of the whole being eaten thing...
Please define 'ruthlessly exploiting'.
Is it ruthless and exploitative to raise and nurture and animal that would not otherwise exist so that it can be consumed as food? If i eat a steak from an organically raised cow, is it ruthless that that animal has been given a good life, and exploitative that it has been killed (resonably humanely) in order for me to eat it? You might say yes, I disagree. By that definition, it is ruthless and exploitative to grow a carrot then skin and boil it alive. I woudl remind you that those 'whole breeds' would not exist were it not for the initial domestication of their species for food.
There is also a world of difference between raising animals for food and factory farming. Personally, I disagree with raising animals in an environment where they are under constant distress, such as the factory farming of hens, or keeping veal calves in crates. I see it as perfectly natural to kill and eat an animal. Cannibalism is frowned upon, as this doesn't make evolutionary sense, and can cause diseases (e.g. kuru). Eating cats and dogs is equally frowned upon as they are pets, therefore you have an emotional attachment to you, and they are also not nutritionally suitable for human food (unlike pigs, which can also make good pets but are considered a food animal).
I have no problem with people meking a personal choice to be vegetarian or vegan, but I do not think that they are 'correct' in doing so, and find the suggestion that they are somehow ethically superior for making that choice both illogical and offensive.
Are you aware of the though experiment in which a completely non-sentient creature is produced which produces eggs and meat? All this thing needs is a source of energy (food), and it will produce eggs and regenerate sections of it that are removed. Is it still unethical to eat the products?
Would the sci-fi staple of vat-grown meat (commenced only by stimulating cells to divide) still be offensive? If so, why?
Cows (or indeed all mammals) do not need to be "kept pregnant" to produce milk. They have to be pregnant to start, then they can continue indefinitely (see gross youtube vid of lady who breastfeeds the kids until they are 8). As long as you milk them every day, the milk will continue being produced.
" It would simply not be economical to raise large numbers of large aggressive, sexually frustrated animals simply to let them die of old age, not to mention the disastrous effect this would have on land usage, run-off pollution, etc. etc."
By that token we'd better nuke most of south London then.
Which would you go for?
"...the Meat Lover's pizza, replete with majestic amounts of bacon, ham, Italian sausage and pepperoni..."
Or some vegetables on a pizza base. No cheese.
There's no contest in my book, regardless of the number of scantily clad girlies that might come with the second. Showstopper: Having a beer with vegetables just seems so wrong....
Those two ladies really look healthy. As he said "Fit as a butcher's dog".
So I guess until you've tried it, don't knock it! I did, for awhile. I was an avid cow-chomper, met a veggie (not vegan) lass, stayed veggie for a couple of years. Felt great, I really did*. Dunno whether it was the lack of meat, or the reduced intake of hormones, etc. that the meat industry feeds these animals .
The hard part was working out what to eat...It's actually quite difficult. You need to learn entirely new cooking skills. Christmas? Forget the turkey.
Pine nut roast, anyone? (which is great, but the turkey would probably be cheaper!)
*I quit coffee completely recently. I had to dash to the dole office for my interview, and had to skip my morning 2 mugfuls. God, it felt like I'd been on a serious bender the night before! Took a week to get over the migraines when I quit as a result. Same with meat, there's a 'detox' period. Took a couple of weeks not to see roadkill as an essential ingredient for a Big Mac...
OK, I got it from here:
But a bit worse, when asked by the Finnish Red Cross if I could donate blood.
"Happily" I replied.
Unfortunately....I can't, as I lived in UK during the 'Mad Cow' (and I don't mean Thatcher era) time.
So, I can never here. Pity. I'd give willingly.
she about passed out on the 4th day due to anemia. She requires red meat. she can't even do the poultry or pork foods. And since my body is allergic to lettuce/cabbage/etc, I can't eat salads at all (well... pasta salad is fine *grin*). So all of these "oh so nutritious" foods that vegans like to rant and rave about for the most part include some form of some plant that my intestines like to explode over.
Beef... it's what's for dinner.
tl:dr - everyone has a different requirement for nutrition... some people require the amino acids from animal based foods, some people do not. but when you try to force your views on someone else... you get the big F-OFF. PETA can F-OFF... I'm going to the Saskatoon Steak House.
Don't know about that place? Check out the billboard...
'Sly' posted his wife needs red meat. My previous G/F can't eat it, chicken or fish only, else she'll be really ill.
I love celery (chobble it as a snack), but a previous manager couldn't touch it, nor nuts - she'd have been seriously ill (Blues 'n' Two's required).
I'm lucky. I can eat anything, veggie, vegan, carnivorous, fish, nuts - I have only an allergy to oysters - but they just make my face red, nowt else.
However, I know a lot of our friends cannot, so when I'm cooking, I need always to ask.
@ Sly - how was the steak? Bet you skipped the salad ;-) Kidding!
Apparently we used to be herbivores in our distant past. We could have an evolutionary split of the species, we can have herbi-humans and omni-humans.
The omni-humans will have an evolutionary advantage that when we finish ruining the planet and plant food sources start to die... Will that make the omni-humans almost zombie like to the herbi-humans?
Wow, I'm going to the pub.
This post has been deleted by its author
So.......once again the message from PETA is that it's OK to treat women as sex objects just as long as you think of the poor fluffy cute ickle animals? How very progressive of them.
Sorry, but when I look at these two all I can think of is how annoying they must be, constantly harping on about not eating animal products. If they want to be vegan that's fine, their choice. If they want *me* to be vegan they can fuck away off.
Digestive system is a comprimise, we have a single stomach, we do not eat our poo for a second go, we do not ferment our food in our stomachs.
Longer than a carnivore and shorter than a herbivore.
Teeth front teeth are good for biting fruit or cutting into meat, rear teeth are also a good design for breaking down meat, as well as veggies.
Eyes - why do we have hunting animal vision rather than defensive vision?
Sweat - why are people able to run in really hot conditions when other animals are too hot to move, hence able to convert that animal to a meal.
Lots of plants are poisonous to us, but edible by most herbivores.
Cats of all sizes can thrive on a meat only diet, we eventually get ill. We need plants for a lot of the vitamins which carnivores can make.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022