PETA vs. aboriginal heritage... I'll get the popcorn...
Today is World Ocean Day! To celebrate, PETA has asked Mayor of Stockholm, Karin Wanngård, to maybe change a street name to something a bit more fish-friendly. Fiskargatan, or "Fisherman's Street" in Södermalm comes in for stick, with the animal rights organisation suggesting that "Fish Are Friends Street" would better, …
> Why should Democracy get a look in with the chief executive of a Republic?
The USA is a democratic republic. The major difference from a pure democracy (AFAIK there aren't any) is that pure democracy is effectively a tyranny of the majority, with no safeguards to protect minorities.
And it is important to educate PETA that even plant diets are mostly based on the subjugation of poor innocent bees.
It's not just honey that must be avoided, anything in supermarkets or farms is likely stained with the evils of bee slavery.
The obvious ethical solution is for vegans to abstain from eating any such food unless they can get official certificates that no bees were involved at all. Starting now.
The government should appoint a committee to study suitable certification schemes. Thoroughly and exhaustively.
Take it from a bee keeper, bees ain't slaves. If they don't like where they are living, they'll leave and find a better place. Or die trying. I don't force or coerce my colonies to hang out where I need them, that would be impossible. Instead, I encourage them by catering to their every whim. They come and go as they see fit, and pretty much do what they want, when they want. On their schedule, not mine. My bees are spoiled rotten, and I like it that way. In return, they over-produce wax, propolis and honey, occasionally produce new queens, and collect too much pollen for their own needs. They allow me to harvest the excess a couple times per year. It's more of a mutualistic symbiotic relationship than any other form of farming.
Mead all around!
"Please stop calling PETA an "animal rights organisation", they kill thousands of healthy animals every year and are just generally a terrible group of people. They're about as interested in animal rights as [insert topical comparison here]."
Agreed. PETA killed 95.9% of the animals brought to their shelter in 2011.
They'll never live this down. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html - "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an organization that publicly claims to represent the best interest of animals -- indeed their "ethical treatment." Yet approximately 2,000 animals pass through PETA's front door every year and very few make it out alive. The vast majority -- 96 percent in 2011 -- exit the facility out the back door after they have been killed, when Pet Cremation Services of Tidewater stops by on their regular visits to pick up their remains."
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been described as "by far the most successful radical organization in America." The key word is radical. PETA seeks "total animal liberation," according to its president and co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk. That means no meat or dairy, of course; but it also means no aquariums, no circuses, no hunting or fishing, no fur or leather, and no medical research using animals. PETA is even opposed to the use of seeing-eye dogs.
Actually, I was kinda dubious about the portrayal of PETA. No, I don't like them, but I was wondering if that claim wasn't playing with stats. Are these kill % higher than for other shelters? Is PETA getting stuck with a bunch of un-adoptable pets resulting in higher kill stats than other shelters?
Going to Skeptics, found https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/36808/does-peta-euthanize-unwanted-pets-at-its-virginia-headquarters
So, first the numbers do seem high. 80+% kills vs 30-40% at other shelters. Yes, there is the possibility that PETA gets the mutts. But what's really disturbing was the claim that "most PETA kills are within 24hrs", so they don't even try. That's what really left a bad taste in my mouth, because it would be so obscene if it were true.
Mind you, for a Skeptics entry, I found the citations very one-sided, where most of the cited sources could, by their nature, be expected to be very critical of PETA. Still, you have libel laws to combat fake articles. And an opportunity to refute it on Skeptics, which no one in PETA seems to have taken.
So, take that Skeptics with a grain of salt, but if there's any truth to what's driving those numbers, PETA's behavior is even more reprehensible than appears at first glance.
I also wonder what they feed cats there? Maybe they just can't keep them alive? Or only want to release them to vegan pet owners for adoption? I do get that humans have a choice to opt out of meat and dairy, that's just not true of carnivores.
A vegan once fed their cat on a vegan diet. Poor thing almost died
Hardly surprising - cats are pure carnivores. Amongst other things, they don't have the ability to create taurine (since their usual prey contains large amounts, this isn't usually a problem).
So, unless the vegan food contained all the nutrients that they need (unlikely, unless it's specifically formulated for cats) then they will quite quickly start to die of taurine deficiency.
("Taurine is essential for cardiovascular function, and development and function of skeletal muscle, the retina, and the central nervous system". Fine for us (and dogs, and pigs - omnivores in general) because our bodies can synthesise it. Not so much for cats.)
Mine happily eat sweetcorn, peas, crisps, milk, cheese and pretty much anything else they can steal.
Yeah, but they can't digest it properly. My cat's a complete bastard for crisps (can't open a packet without him trying to intercept them somewhere between fingers and gob) but he doesn't get any real benefit except for the fact that he likes the taste (and some of the salts will make their way into his system).
As the CrazyCatDude said, felines are obligate carnivores and won't survive on a vegetable diet unless it contains specific additives.
So, unless the vegan food contained all the nutrients that they need (unlikely, unless it's specifically formulated for cats) then they will quite quickly start to die of taurine deficiency.
So as long as you give your cats a nice bowl of Redbull along with their veggie-surprise (Surprise! There's no meat.) they should be 'fine', right?
"veggie-surprise (Surprise! There's no meat.)"
Reminds me of a couple of dishes I cook for myself all the time. You may have heard of tuna-surprise, where you take a can of tuna, toss it in a saucepan, and add what ever else you can find in the kitchen that might go with tuna. Except I always made it the same way, called it tuna-not-very-surprising. The other one was almost identical, except I used chicken instead of tuna, and called that one tuna-very-surpised.
Don't get me started on my signature dish, 'roossotto. Australia, where not only is it legal to eat the national animal, they sell it in supermarkets.
Hardly surprising - cats are pure carnivores. Amongst other things, they don't have the ability to create taurine
Fun fact one: tuna meat contains almost no taurine. So if you see a bargain on tinned tuna and buy caseloads figuring to save on cat food, your cat is fucked. It's usually the heart and retinas that suffer irreversible damage, and the heart damage can lead to death.
Everybody with a cat is going to point out that you can get tuna-flavour cat food, so I must be wrong.
Fun fact two: on those cat foods that list the ingredients, the flavour ingredient (beef, chicken, tuna, rabbit or whatever) is present at around 4%. Enough that when you open the can it smells vaguely of the flavour. For all I know it may even taste vaguely like it. The rest of the protein is anonymous, but makes up for the lack of taurine in the 4% tuna.
Fun fact three: Aldi chew sticks for cats, such as Chicken and Liver, contain 16% of each of the flavours. So 16% chicken, 16% liver. Which might explain why, if you can persuade your cat to eat the first one, it is likely to go mad for the things.
Fun fact four: the Aldi chew sticks don't have a strong aroma. But what there is remains trapped in the wrapper, so scrunch the wrapper under the cat's nose as you squeeze the stick out. That will often persuade a cat that it really is edible.
Fun fact five: the Aldi chew sticks are significantly cheaper than the Tesco "cheap shit" ones, which are significantly cheaper than the Tesco "own brand" ones, which are significantly cheaper than the "big name" ones.
PETA like a lot of the hardline charities always seems to let the loopiest members dictate their direction and thus the undermine any valid point they might have.
I personally disagree with any kind of animal cruelty but would not support PETA just because of rubbish like this.
A common tactic of theirs to publishing pictures of slaughterhouses and saying you evil person how can you eat meat that has come from this. what they don't tell you is those pictures come from the shonkiest halal slaughterhouse they can get into, and thus is in no war representative of the whole industry.
"PETA like a lot of the hardline charities always seems to let the loopiest members dictate their direction and thus the undermine any valid point they might have."
I'll take that farther. ANY organization will eventually be taken over by the radicals and crazies, no matter how sensible start with. They are willing to devote their life to it, tend to be aggressive and confrontational, and their ideology justifies any action taken. Meanwhile the Normal People leaders who joined to advance a good cause give up and quit. The radicals are like squirrels. Not too bright, but they never, ever, EVER give up and sooner or later they simply wear you down.
And then an organization intended to prevent animal cruelty becomes a running joke, demanding bans on antibiotics (SAVE THE BIOTICS) and property rights for amoebas. That's a little exaggerated today, but just wait.
Activist organizations should have a time limit. Ten years and disband, before the crazies take over.
The radicals are like squirrels. Not too bright, but they never, ever, EVER give up and sooner or later they simply wear you down.
There are very few tree rats around here. This would be because there are quite a few red-tailed hawks and lots of kingsnakes and such as well. The tree rats can't stay in the trees, the snakes will get them, and they can't run around in the open, the hawks will get them. And they can't get into my house, my shotgun will get them.
Following Mark85s point, I've often remarked that Pheasants would have fallen to Darwinism ages ago if not for the care afforded them by shooting estates. Same for Grouse and Grouse moors. I'm sure there are other examples. PP
ICON>> Ideally a nice Claret but this'll do.
I think they stopped when people started graffiti-ing on the billboards, "I love cats---they're delicious!"
From what I've read, cats aren't that great. Dogs are a lot better.
Again, I emphasise, this is what I have read. I have not performed taste tests, and never would.
"PETA doesn't benefit much from the exposure they get over this kind of thing."
I'm not sure. Going back to your previous post, it probably brings more crazies into the fold. It also provides them with the satisfaction of getting publicity; their most appreciative audience is themselves.
If you want to be literal about it (and I think you should in this case), Fiskargatan translates to "Fishes street" which sounds very friendly to me.
"Fisherman's street" would be Fiskaregatan, but my guess is the 'e' has been eroded by time and rapid pronunciation.
Icon for obvious reasons.
HieronymusBloggs, if they were slaughtering properly, the cow chow wouldn't have been tainted with an extremely high concentration of prions. In which case, no Mad Cow Disease. And I (and anybody else who ate meat in the UK in that timeframe) wouldn't be in danger of coming down with vCJD.
I wonder if rich folks eating more meat makes it more likely for them to become infected. Would certainly explain the insanity in Westminster these days ... not that you lot's ruling class was ever considered to be particularly normal. "Eccentric" is merely being kind.
if they were slaughtering properly, the cow chow wouldn't have been tainted with an extremely high concentration of prions.
To my mind, the slaughtering practices are a secondary issue. There's a more fundamental problem that cows were being fed to other cows.
Even as someone who is very much towards the carnivore end of the omnivore spectrum, but think that the idea of forced cannibalism among livestock bred for food is pretty repugnant.
Particularly since cows and other ruminants are herbivores. There's a reason their guts are set up the way they are, as there are few ways to properly digest cellulose. Ruminating stomachs happen to be one of those few ways and probably the only one that doesn't involve (literally) eating shit (which is what rabbits and other cacophages do to give the cellulose a second go-round).
(which is what rabbits and other cacophages do to give the cellulose a second go-round)
Which is one of my arguments against eating lettuce: it tastes no better than rabbit shit (rabbits don't eat any old shit, they eat their own shit) and may taste worse than rabbit shit. Why would I want to eat stuff that has no nutritional value (to humans) and tastes no better than rabbit shit?
It's easy to figure out.
If lettuce tasted better than rabbit shit then rabbits would eat nothing but lettuce, which would not be sufficiently digested, so they'd die of starvation.
If rabbit shit tasted better than lettuce then they'd eat nothing but their own shit. This is not viable long-term, since if it worked you'd have a perpetual motion machine (pun based on an old euphemism for shit is intended). It might be viable short term, since they could eat their own shit until nothing was left to go around the loop one more time, then switch to lettuce. So lettuce tastes no better than rabbit shit, and possibly worse.
So I don't eat lettuce. Not even in salads. And especially not in salads which have raisins in them (for those who haven't seen them, rabbit droppings are around the size and colour of small raisins).
But that's a secondary argument. My main argument against lettuce is that it's a crime against humanity. That, however, is another story. Which I rarely need to tell after I've explained the rabbit shit/lettuce thing, and especially after making the point about raisins.
I've tried refusing lettuce by saying I don't like it, to which I get the "You've only eaten crappy lettuce, not wonderful lettuce like this." I've tried refusing lettuce on religious grounds, but then I have to make up a religion and dietary restrictions on the spot to justify it. I've tried saying I'm allergic to lettuce, but nobody believes that. So it's either the rabbit shit/lettuce thing or screaming at the top of my voice I HATE LETTUCE and being thrown out of the restaurant.
Just point out that, thanks to the use of human waste as a fertiliser and not all of it being kosher, as it were, E.Coli now grows on lettuce (notably iceberg lettuce) and, if it's all the same to them, you'd rather not ruin their carpet as you die of the galloping trots.
As a resident of Fishkill, New York, I can tell you that we got that call from PETA back in 1996:
We've got a lot of kills in this area; Peekskill, Wallkill, Sawkill, Deerkill to name a few. Turns out this area was settled by the Dutch and "kill" means "body of water". You know, where fish generally live.
Damn.. overran editing time..
Judging from google maps, the original kil should still be there, with the remains of an attached duck trap. It's the double body of water between the railroad and the creek, left of Sam's Club.
Bonus points for Rapalje Road, by the way.. ( rapalje = (murderous) scum )
I would fully support changing the name of Rapalje Road to Murderous Scum Road -- nice one.
Oh and there is an obligatory tech tie-in I failed to mention, East Fishkill next door is home to Globalfoundries 300mm CMOS fab (used to be Big Blue back in the day). I believe the first run of Playstation 2 Cell chips were stamped out there.
"And how are you supposed to know that someone is a ve.... never mind."
Their partner rings up a hour before your dinner party to tell you. As you had been told originally they were vegetarians - and the local shop is now closed - it takes some quick thinking to make a suitable menu adjustment.
Make a suitable menu adjustment? Nah. What they don't know won't hurt 'em. As I've proven many times. (My SIL is vegan, and prone to showing up without so much as a by-your-leave. We tell her it's vegan, and she asks for seconds ... and also tells anybody who will listen how good a cook I am. Before anybody says it, we are discussing vegans, not folks who are allergic ... which I will happily bend over backwards to accommodate.)
I have yet to meet anyone who is allergic to ALL types of animal products. I have recently started becoming intolerant (as in "run to the toilet and hope not to end with a brown stain in the pants" intolerant) to pork products (the fats and derived products like gelatin seem to be the main culprit). Other red meats seem to be more tolerated by my bowels, but still not 100% ok. I've reduced my meat intake in general, and eat more chicken and fish.
Sorry, my bad, clearly none of you in these four pages of comments have got your knickers in a twist.
And jake, you're really out of order there mate. You don't have to cook vegan for people, you can just not cook for them. To deliberately feed them something they've told you they don't want is pretty shitty.
How would you feel if I fed something you believed to be pork that turned out to be human? It's all just about where you draw the line, and it's my line for me, not yours.
Sabroni, when I cook for vegans, it's vegan. I eat vegan probably 3 days a week. But when my sister-in-law shows up without so much as a by-your-leave, sticks a spoon in my bean pot & takes a bite without asking, am I at fault that she is happily chowing down on legumes cooked in the drippings of a wild turkey or boar that I smoked the night before? Or that the soup was started with fat-back? Or has proper veal stock in it? Or the time she commented that the turkey breast chunks in chili verde were the best tofu she ever ate? Keep in mind that I don't ask her over, rather she inserts herself. If it were anybody but my Wife's sister, I'd ban her from the property for her rudeness.
If you (or any other sanctimonious vegan) were to offer me roast pork, I'd bow out gracefully knowing something was badly wrong with the situation. Not that I'd ever break bread with you, that is. Life's too short to spend time with the holier-than-thou set.
Actually a closer translation of "Fiskarnas Vänners Gata" would be The Fishermen's Friends Street. Knowing that the Scandinavians have a special salty licorice (salmiak) version of the throat lozenge of that name, I suspect the street name is a secret attempt by the marketing department of the Fleetwood based company to advertise their menthol throat lozenges.
PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals. Now that's an organization that I can get behind.
All joking aside, since the relevancy of PETA is...well...none, articles like this give them what they want the most: attention. People who are completely vegan are in general unhealthy and have to take supplements because our bodies are not designed to process plant matter effectively.
PETA is nothing more than the brown stain on used bathroom tissue.
The problem with your strategy is that it doesn't work with crazy people. People starved for attention will go to ANY lengths to get it. Thus the streetside campaigns at furriers and so on. If their current campaigns stop working, they'll just find something even more shocking while hiding behind Freedom of Speech.
PS. I heard about their survival rates, but as a frequent watcher of Animal Cops, I will take the number with a grain of salt since we don't know why the high rate. I mean, if they're constantly getting terminally-ill or grievously-injured animals, then that might provide an explanation.
The whole point of blackmarking them on mainstream media is so they get relegated to the fringe publications which are inhabited by people just as crazy as they are, if not more so. So in that case, let them have at it.
Back in the day however, PETA did do a lot of good in advancing animal rights. They got women to mostly stop wearing fur coats and such. That pissed off the furries, but oh well. A changing world means that you need to change with it or be left behind.
"Back in the day however, PETA did do a lot of good in advancing animal rights."
Rights? What rights? Are they going to get the vote soon? Can they legally be licensed to drive? Do they need to register for the draft and/or sign up for national service? I'll believe in the concept of "animal's rights" when they are capable of expressing why the concept is or is not a good idea.
"They got women to mostly stop wearing fur coats and such."
What's good about wasting rabbit pelts? The critters are going to get eaten regardless, after which they aren't using their skins anymore ... Are you arguing that they should rot? Don't try to make the argument that humans should stop eating meat. That is not ever going to happen. Humans are omnivores, despite a few holier-than-thou types protesting to the contrary.
"The whole point of blackmarking them on mainstream media is so they get relegated to the fringe publications which are inhabited by people just as crazy as they are, if not more so. So in that case, let them have at it."
But someone crazy enough will just plan something SO ostentatious that the MSM will be FORCED to cover it...or risk getting scooped and panned for not covering something THAT big. That's why ignoring bullies doesn't always work. Some are willing to go further than survival instinct will allow.
"Ma'am, I recommend you move to California."
I wonder what would happen if the vegetarian then replied, "Then may I have your name, please, so that I and the hundreds of friends I have will come nowhere near your establishment anymore? Oh, and did I mention that one of those friends is a food columnist for the Arizona Republic?"
In the '70s, I worked for a guy who had a contract fitting heavy electrical switchgear at Windscale, we stayed with one of his friends about twenty miles away from the plant, the friend Bob hated all the animal libbers who used to bother the farmers and the stock auctions around there so he had a teeshirt printed up with a pic of a whale spouting a mushroom cloud and the legend 'Nuke the Whales'. That produced much hilarity with the hairies in the pubs and at the markets, I may do a rerun and get some printed up.
I began reading this and thought it was some sort of joke, but then realised in this age of SJW and special snowflakes that they are serious....
They should take note about a similar thing in Liverpool. England. Liverpool's growth was largely based on the slave trade. Ships would leave Liverpool with trinkets to trade African cheifs for slaves, take those slaves to the Americas and then return to Liverpool loaded up with cargo, mostly sugar and cotton.
many of Liverpool's streets were named after ship owners. This included a one street named after James Penny. James Penny was a very vocal anti abolitionist and had lobbied parliament defending the trade.
Many years later, a group of lads wrote a very popular song about the lane named after James Penny, and not to many years ago there was a call to change all the street names named after slave ship owners. There was a vote and the people complaining were told to fuck off, and I fully agree with them.
Its not that I agree with the slave trade, I don't, but its part of the History of liverpool and brushing the bad things away is just an attempt on erasing the not so nice history.
and just if anyone is interested, the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester comes from this era too. The ships used to land at the docks in Liverpool and the cargo of cotton was then transported to the Manchester mills via canal boats. Someone had the bright idea to build a ship canal all the way to Manchester. This cost the Liverpool dockers a lot of work money , reducing many families to poverty.
so if you want to change names of streets, change canal street in Manchester as this is upsetting to the people of Liverpool !!
To be honest, PETA are a terrorist organisation with little care about anything but their own aims, which, in many cases are not actually in a creatures best interests. It would also be better if PETA actually accepted evolution and realised we are actually part of the planet and not invading aliens.
" Even worse, we often don't kill them completely before eating them."
A lot of them actually "want" (yes I know, I dislike anthropomorphism as much as the next deity, we're talking selection pressure success here) to be eaten so we will later deposit some of the seeds in a pile of damp compost. Evil human beings have developed seedless grapes, but the principle is the thing.
The human population that could be supported on a fruitarian diet probably isn't that high but the death rate from PETA being allowed to mandate it would certainly do wonders for soil fertility for a few years.
"Not only are plants alive, they have feelings, and talk to each other. Even worse, we often don't kill them completely before eating them."
So go on to establish PETPV--People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants and Vegetation.
"A lot of them actually "want" (yes I know, I dislike anthropomorphism as much as the next deity, we're talking selection pressure success here) to be eaten so we will later deposit some of the seeds in a pile of damp compost. Evil human beings have developed seedless grapes, but the principle is the thing."
And seedless watermelons. And practically all bananas are seedless, too (the Cavendish is cloned).
"The human population that could be supported on a fruitarian diet probably isn't that high but the death rate from PETA being allowed to mandate it would certainly do wonders for soil fertility for a few years."
There is an ongoing argument that one could easily support many more people by turning over grazing land to crops and letting the hillsides go wild again to support the ground-level ecosystems and prevent monoculture. But then, that starts another argument about the nutrients that we can ONLY get from animals.
"There is an ongoing argument that one could easily support many more people by turning over grazing land to crops"
Yes, but I mentioned fruitarians, the people who think we should only eat the stuff that wants us to eat it, plus other wild (i.e. noncultivated) stuff. The "ongoing argument" works on the basis that all the insects, birds and small animals we would need to kill to live off cultivated crops don't matter as much as, say, pigs or cows. But intelligence is not a matter of size. Which has the greater right to exist, a cow or a cockatoo?
"Which has the greater right to exist, a cow or a cockatoo?"
How about one cow versus TEN cockatoos? Plus there are those who would argue we've over-predated the planet and are overpopulated right now, meaning unless we ease ourselves down, there's going to be a day of reckoning, followed by a population crash which we may not survive (not my thought, but I can see the reasoning at least).
I'm a farmer. I raise my plants and animals with tender, loving care. They never want for anything, and live a far, far better life than their brethren in the wild. Including clean water, the best food that money can buy, protection from predators and inclement weather, a really nice place to stay, and proper medical care.
And then I kill them and eat them. You see, I am unabashedly an apex predator. No, strike that. I am unabashedly THE apex predator on this planet ... although I'm a trifle less abusive than your average carnivore. That's just reality. PETA and their ilk can either shut up and deal with it, or leave.
PETA will counter that we're overhunting the planet and leaving US vulnerable to extinction when the food supply runs out, and THAT is just reality and that carnivores and their ilk can either shut up and deal with it, or leave. They're not gonna leave unless you wanna nuke them, and nuking will pretty much set off World War III, in which case we'll have other concerns. IOW, how do you deal with people for which MAD is an acceptable scenario?
There's a big computer in PETA's office (you know, a proper sci-fi one from the 1970s with flashing lights and bleep boop noises) that constantly monitors social networks. When their name isn't being mentioned as much it immediately generates some random mad idea from an algorithm and fires it out all over the place hoping for some free publicity.
Recently this included trying to get the new Dr Who to be vegan (presumably eating some nasty soya based "fish" fingers with vegan custard) and campaigning for Warhammer figures (you know, small plastic representations of FICTIONAL CHARACTERS) to stop wearing fictional animal furs for fictional warmth and instead wrap themselves up in a nice shell suit or something.
They're an absolute joke. I don't mind paying a bit more / going out of my way for increased animal welfare but for crying out loud, they're just clown shoes.