Badmovies.org Forum

PETA makes an effort to convince me that they are bigger idiots than I thought:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/15/victorias.peta/index.html

With a couple of silly sentences injected, this could read almost like an article from The Onion.

Well, I guess their hearts are in the right place at least... even if their brains aren't.

People Eating Tasty Animals. Thats me and mine.
....If i get a deer or Turkey next year, maby i'll send them the antlers. Even extreamist need coat hangers.

I have a t-shirt (available at rottencotton.com) that says PeTA-People For The Eating Of Tasty Animals.

Radical animal-rights peoples are perhaps the most aggrivatingly dense group of pusses on the face of the Earth. I have never even seen a PeTA-type that wasn't pasty, effeminate and sickly-thin. I have never heard them give decent answers to these questions-

Fruits and vegetables are living things, why is it acceptable to eat them? The very animals you try to save eat other animals, why is it okay for them and not us? Our eco-system dictates that living things must live off of other living things; If you're so concerned with the environment and mother nature why do you support eschewing the entire order of life?

I hate hippies.

Well..here's one solution

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (http://www.vhemt.org/)
"May we live long and die out"

The P.E.T.A  folks are by far not the wackiest wackos

"Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense."

I've pored over my copy of the Constitution.  Nothing on rights for animals.  I'll have to go over the Supreme Court decisions...  : )

But in fairness, if they don't have rights, humans do have a responsibility not to cause them undue suffering or be wasteful when we kill them.  Genital electrocution of a mink to make a fur coat when they chuck the rest of it in the trash?  Their Keystone Cops routine aside, PETA isn't completely off the wall.

PETA makes the mistake of extremism in that 'their cause' is the most important issue at the expense of all others and that means almost anything goes in advancing the cause.  I don't think anyone is really lining up to join an animaly cruelty crusade, but their actions tend to alienate the people they really need to enlist for support. Things like what Andrew brought up don't help their cause.  Instead of turning anyone's attention to issues of animal fur usage and any cruelty related to it, it just calls attention to PETA itself, in a very negative light.  They make others who may share similar concerns look bad in the same light, and cut off any attempts at discussion or resolution in process.  Maybe to them, though, the ability to feel proud for having made a stand is more important than actually having accomplished anything

I could never figure out why everyone was upset that tuning fishing killed dolphins.  It tends to kill a lot of tuna, too.  From an ecological standpoint, there's probably a lot more tuna than dolphins, but if you want to take an ethical approach to it, then the tuna and the dolphin are the same

>PETA makes the mistake of extremism in that 'their cause' is the most important
>issue at the expense of all others

I agree. I'm not in favor of being cruel to animals, or things like testing cosmetics on them or killing frogs just so kids can cut them open in science class, but if animal testing can lead to cures for diseases, then I support that.

I'm with you, Dano and John.
....The guys i'v started hunting with, will use the deer and Turkey for food. Its not in me to disrespect what God has given us.
....P.E.T.A. and like groups start with a fair argumant....but loose sight of the need for balance. Animal testing has limets of value. As G.Gordon Liddy, of all folks, has said, animal biochemestry does not lead to obvious conclusions about haw a drug/chemical will react on/in a human. Owls can dine on Arscnic, with no ill effect, but give it to a human....
....BTW, does the V. H. E. M. logo look like something you'd see on the door of the Eviloverlord's secret lab? Or is it just me?

That VHEM is pretty creepy. Frankly, the only reason I care about the Earth is because my family and I live here. We need to take care of the Earth to ensure our survival, our health and our happiness.

The biggest flaw in the crackpot philosophy of VHEM is the idiotic notion, shared by many radical environmentalists, that humans and nature are separate. They seem to be aware that we need the biosphere, but don't seem to consider us an essential part of it. Humans are part of the biosphere. We came from nature, the same as any animal. We just happen to have a capacity for shaping things the way we want them. That hasn't always been for the greater good, but it makes us special, and there surely must be a purpose for it. Humans are the greatest achievement of nature so far (as far as we know). No other species can build machines, cure diseases or leave the planet. I can't say I've seen any evidence that other species can even think abstractly.

Doesn't mean animals don't have feelings or that we shouldn't treat them well. We should. We just shouldn't kid ourselves into beleiving the two main fallacies that so many activists manage to believe simultaneously - that we're different from animals and that animals are the same as us.

Oh, and the reason why a few dolphins are mourned more than millions of tuna is that tuna aren't cute.

PETA makes the mistake of extremism in that 'their cause' is the most important issue at the expense of all others and that means almost anything goes in advancing the cause.
*****  Agreed.  If they came to my door and said they wanted to make a law against wasteful slaughter for fur, or make stricter guidelines for lab animals, I'd probably sign their petition or vote for their referendum.  It's when they start in with the "We are eating our brother animals" stuff that they lose me.  Also, while I don't hunt I have no desire to ruin other peoples' fun and I have sense enough to know that without hunting you'd have an ecological mess.  A couple of good intentions wrapped up in 35 years of polemics does not make for an attractive platform.

VHEM is the best way to counter the environmental extremists (and no, I'm not against drinking clean water or breathing fresh air).  Every action we take does impact the environment, the only way not to pollute (even electric cars need power plants) is to not exist.  And the cruelty exhibited when a cheetah brings down a gazelle has got to be as bad as anything in a slaughterhouse.  Maybe PETA can try talking the cheetahs & wolves into being vegetarians.  Once that happens, then I will give up turkey for Thanksgiving.

BTW, to be fair to the PETA side, I would like to crash a Victoria's Secret fashion show myself 8-)))

I would like to crash a Victoria's Secret fashion show myself

You just want to follow the models down the runway :)

Fair enough, Sir Campbell.
....I do believe Humans are different from animals, but in a non physical level.
....But as flesh and blood, we are animals.
....PETA's problim, is the fact that only humans are even able to argue the point in the first place. Even the smartest chimp has never develouped a cognitive ability like that of the average human. Apes have a good digital manipulitive ability....but they can't take it as far as we can.
....Humans can gather knowlage, and store ideas away for future use. Flying, for example. We can't fly as animals....but, we found a way around that, diden't we?
....No. Humans are different...but still we are part of the life forms that inhabit Earth. I believe there is a greater purpose involved, you may not. no matter. It'll work out in the end.
....There is a balance to be acheived. And PETA will never reach it.
....Heh. Hope those poor schlubs don't try to actualy teach a cheeta to go Vegan. A cheeta will eat a "Hairless ape" as easily as the regular one, and with coughing up of hairballs to boot!

My take on these individuals is simple - turn to Genesis - God commanded that Humanity look over and care for his creation.  Humanity, being rebellious and sinful in nature, has abused this privledge to no end for the short term gains of satiated greed and gluttony.  These groups seem to understand the need to repent and properly safeguard the Lord's creation, but the answer is in Jesus Christ, not in worshipping nature.

Thank you.

<>

PeTA is now saying that pet owners (or, as they put it, "guardians") should ween their dogs and cats off of meat. Yeah, my cats would eat my eyeballs as I sleep before they'd nosh on a carrot. Now they're even trying to restrict the diets of the animals they want to save!

An unsupportable premise taken to [ir]rational conclusion

J.R. wrote:
>
>  
> PeTA is now saying that pet owners (or, as they put it,
> "guardians") should ween their dogs and cats off of meat.
> Yeah, my cats would eat my eyeballs as I sleep before they'd
> nosh on a carrot. Now they're even trying to restrict the
> diets of the animals they want to save!
>

Uh, what is the IQ of the people responsible for this???

Anyho, I once had a talk with a dog fancier (I have a cat).  She preferred dogs as, if you died, they would not eat your corpse.  Starving housecats would.

Once upon a time I read an article/advertisement in the New York Times from some fellow that advocated world Veganism.  After all humanity turned to vegan eating, then animals would likewise be trained to eat fish.

Wow, teaching a Great White to eat kelp, or a Bengal Tiger to eat cabbage, what a job!

"...ween their dogs and cats off of meat."

----Engage Ramble-----

      I believe I read somewhere that if a cat is deprived of protein it will go blind.  Nice planet set up there.
     Other primates have been trained to use sign language and do math.  Parrots have been taught to identify and request specific objects.  Many animals cooperate and use tools.  Few things of intellect are limited to humanity.                       However, we are the species that has aquired the greatest collection of these qualities and pushed them beyond natural limits.  As we use the most tools and have the greatest degree of logical thinking, I think this gives us a certain responsibility on how exactly we go about getting food.  Make the slaughter as quick, clean, and painless as possible.  I do not like the idea of eating or wearing anything that died by having a big electrode jammed where the sun don't shine and a zillion volts run through its system.
     Still, I would rather have a burger than try discussing philosophy with a cow.  Most of the time people eat animals, sometimes animals eat people.
          One last thought:  Minks are actualy very nasty and angry little animals that you would not want to mess with.  Not everything out there is cute and fuzzy, I think that is a lesson that the activists on the stage needed to learn.
----Disengage Ramble-----
------ooo-'U'-ooo-----Kilroy was here.

I believe I read somewhere that if a cat is deprived of protein it will go blind.
*****  There is protein in beans and other legumes.  That said, try to feed a cat a bean burrito some time and check out the look it will give you.
: )

Regards Sheesh!
....Actualy, Chadzilla.....you said it better then i did. Will wonders never cease.....
....Corse, there could be a touch of tongue in cheek there, perhaps?

Some great arguments all around.

Just to clarify what I said earlier, the belief of the folks at PETA seems to be, on one hand, that we shouldn't eat animals because we are no better than they are, and on the other hand, that we are better than animals, and are not allowed the same predatory behaviour that is so common among them.

When you start getting into vegan diets for carnivores, you're simply going against nature. A few veggies are as good for a dog as they are for you and me, but that's not meant to be the bulk of his diet. Try to force him to live on it, and that's bordering on animal abuse, in my opinion.

An interesting point on the intelligence of animals. I've been reading a book on dog training that is fascinating. While dogs are very smart and trainable, it explains that they cannot distinguish right from wrong, they don't recognize pictures, they can't think abstractly or plan ahead, they don't understand the value of anything (except as food or chew toy), and most of what they do is guided by what will give them immediate food or pleasure. While they can be trained to recognize a word, they don't really understand language. In spite of appearances, there is not much human-like inside their heads, as far as science can tell. Training can curb their natural urges by substituting new rewards for the pleasure they get from chewing your shoes or peeing on your bed.

The book gets interesting when it explains that a lot of the abuse dogs get is from people who credit them with too many human qualities. When your dog knows right from wrong, and he misbehaves, it would seem like he deserves a punishment. Thus, a lot of dogs get punished (and have no clue why) by people who think of them as being like us.

Moral: Animals are not furry people, and everyone will be better off, especially animals, if that notion were eradicated.

True.
....My friends Barb and Steve have always had dogs. Currently, Two Rotties and a Mutt. The dogs are well behaved, for the most part, and one they accept you, the Rotties are friendly and like attention. They've known me saice pups, and as the owners are good friends, accept me as part of the pack.
....Its the use of the dogs pack mentality that nakes them valuable. They do see us theough the filter of their programming. They adapt to our world, but recconise
we are strange "dogs". A friend said, that because we can pick up things and throw them...which they can't do....gives us an edge in keeping out "Pack leader " status. Makes sense. Watch you dog, pups espchualy, when you throw things. They seem to be facinated by that. Guess they think its neat.

Andy Campbell wrote:
>
>  
> Moral: Animals are not furry people, and everyone will be
> better off, especially animals, if that notion were eradicated.
>
>

Wait, you mean Benji, Lassie, and The Incredible Journey LIED!!!

Can people live on vegetables, fruits and grains alone, yes
Is it healthy? Debatable, but I've never liked the apearance of any vegan I've ever known
Is it natural? No, hell no. Our own body tells us that.
Is in possible, heatly, natural to eat red meat for every meal? Again, no our own body tells us that. We have molars for vegies and incissors for meat. Use them both, live long time.

Humanities whole problem is we wouldn't know what was a natural balanced idea if it skullf*cked us!

Do I think sacrificing animals for any old reason including curiousity is right? No.
Do I think only using part of an animal and wasting the rest is right? No.
Would I kill a million rats to find the cure for cancer? Hell yes!

Truth be told... until we can figure out how to respect human life the animals are on their own!

I always find it interesting that the PETA folks accost supermodels and little old rich ladies rather than biker gangs.

After all, what is the difference between leather and fur to the animal that was wearing it before we took it?

I suspect there would be a lot less PETA members if they started going after the biker gangs.

Yeah, I would love to see that neatnik biker in the vacum cleaner commercials clock one of those protestors with his clean machine.  "SCOTCHGUARD THIS!!"

PETA also picks on kids, whenever McDonald's or Oscar Meyer does some publicity at a school or something, PETA is there harrassing little kids who haven't the foggiest idea why singing "I wish I were an Oscar Meyer weiner" makes them bad enough to have adults yelling at them to stop.

Frankly I wouldn't mind seeing Ronald McDonald kick the snot out of them.

<>

Like I said before, every vegan spokesperson or Earth Liberation Front terrorist I've seen is a skinny, pale, effeminate puss.

<>

I was watching the news a while back and a bunch of PeTA jackasses went to an elementary school at lunchtime handing out trading cards. One card said that when people drink milk it hurts cows. You don't want to hurt cows, do you?

I wonder, if an animal rights freak were dying of cancer, would they refuse treatment tested on animals? Or do tree huggers comprehend that their home is made of wood? There was this hippie that lived in a tree for two years, and when she came down she wrote a book. And we all know that paper is made of, everybody now- WOOD!!!!!!!

Again I think the real issue (for me anyways) isn't consumption, but unmittigated consumpion. Yes, books are made of paper, but they can also be made of recycled paper or hemp pulp. Are houses made of wood? Yes, but how many trees can you cut down before the forest is incapable of perpetuating itself? I'm an omnivore, I don't mind people needing houses, but that doesn't change the fact that our consuption is outpacing the renewablity of these vital resources. Intelligent, mindful consumption, not abstenance is the key.

Yes the HEPA folks are freaks, but isn't everyone at a fashion show ;-)

PETA can go live in India where they worship the cow!

J.R. wrote:
>
>  
> I wonder, if an animal rights freak were dying of cancer,
> would they refuse treatment tested on animals?

The current president of PETA went on record saying "No, I would not."  She amended her comment that her life was not worth the suffering of an innocent animal.

>Or do tree
> huggers comprehend that their home is made of wood? There was
> this hippie that lived in a tree for two years, and when she
> came down she wrote a book. And we all know that paper is
> made of, everybody now- WOOD!!!!!!!
>
>

I remember her, she took a lot of flack for doing that.  But the book was printed on recycled paper, so she had a holier-than-thou cop out.

Awhile back there was another hippie that protested logging and did so by flashing her boobies at the truckers driving the logs out of the forest.  The truckers were more amused than annoyed.  But she got her picture in the paper and that drew attention to her cause, or to her.

Perhaps it's more about getting attention than actually acheiving any real goals.

As far as the harrassment of kids, a news reporter called them on it when the kids began crying and parents threatened the protestors.  The protestors didn't care, as far as they were concerned, the ends justified the means - an approach that is the surest way to make more enemies than supporters.

Then again, I think it's more about getting attention than actually raising real awareness.

Something I've always wondered about vegans: Do they breastfeed their children?

Mofo Rising wrote:
>
> Something I've always wondered about vegans: Do they
> breastfeed their children?

I'm sure they do.  It's natural, normal, and CONSENSUAL (an intelligent being is allowing it to happen as opposed to being forced to do it).  It also does not, in anyway, have a connection to ingesting meat or meat products.

"I'm a Fruitarian, we only eat fruit that has fallen from the tree."

"I'm a 5th level Vegan.  I only eat food that casts no shadow."

in related silly hippie stories, there has been a rash of hippie deaths here around san francisco.  one was by santa cruz, i believe.  a guy climbed up into a tree to protest logging.  after living up there for a while i guess he decided safety wasn't a concern.  needless to say humans aren't designed to fall from trees like pine cones.

the second case was a pair of hippies protesting against possible war with iraq last month.  they probably should have paid more attention to where there bus was going (both were standing up through the escape hatches on a double decker).  a trip through a tunnel at least 25 mph and you have 2 hippies with flat heads.

that said dying in a stupid way while trying to make a point is not the best way to get your message across.

Mofo Rising wrote:
>
> Something I've always wondered about vegans: Do they
> breastfeed their children?

Yes. They breastfeed their children until they're 17.

      A few more thoughts.  There was a real case where a woman insisted that breastfeeding her eight year old was "Natural".  I'm sorry, but when the adult teeth start growing in, ya might just consider stopping.
      Humans are omnivores by nature, our teeth and digestive system can handle a huge variety of things as long as they are fairly simple.  As a result, we can Survive on just about anything.  Living comfortably on the other hand, does require a balance.
        Here's an idea:  a diet that consists entirely of foods generated without something having to die, plant or animal.  Milk, cheese, fruit, honey, eggs...  It might be an intoresting concept to try, though I wouldn't make it a lifelong thing.

----ooo-'U'-ooo------Kilroy was here.

A funny anecdote: At Sea World in San Diego, I was waiting on line to get in with my friend and his nieces.  There were protesters out front screaming bloody murder about the orca whales in the park (I can't say if they were PETA, another group, or random malcontents).  The kid in front of us (6 or 7 maybe) says to his dad: "Why are those people yelling about the whales?"  The father replies: "Because they don't want you to see them."

And people say parenting is a lost art.

Regarding our teeth:  molars are for grinding; incisors are for biting off pieces of fruit or cutting through thick stuff like carrots; canines are for defense.  It is my understanding that people, as animals, originally evolved as herbivores.  That said, meat eating obviously goes back to the stone age (see cave paintings), so enjoy!

>There was a real case where a woman insisted that breastfeeding her eight
>year old was "Natural"

 I think I saw her on some talk show a while back. I know I saw some woman who thought it was ok to keep on breastfeeding her boy long after he was old enough to carry on a conversation.

>Here's an idea: a diet that consists entirely of foods generated without
>something having to die, plant or animal. Milk, cheese, fruit, honey, eggs

 Cross eggs off that list, the chicken embryos have to die in order for you to have eggs without little dead chickens in them.

One thing I've always wondered about the people who oppose the killing of animals for food; Is it ok with them if you eat an animal that dies of natural causes?

What's wrong with the VHEM?  I tend to agree with them...  I'd be extremely happy if for the next hundred years the population fell to around 100 million or so...   It's not like our species is going to live forever.  The longest realistic estimates give us a few million years...  

Just remember, the less people there are in the world, the better it is for the few who remain.

Remember though, they don't keep the dolphins, and it was seriously reducing their numbers.  They breed a lot slower then tuna do.  

PETA doesn't (as far as I've seen, they even have anti-fishing campaigns) put one animal over another, but most people (obviously) do.  I mean, the average person does value a human life over, say, a rat.  Most people value animals that are either 1.Smart, or 2.Cute.  Combine them both and you've got a winner!  Dolphins are high up there, easily among the smartest animals on earth, and pretty amusing and cute at the same time.  Heck, they're one of the very rare animals that have sex for more reasons then reproduction.

Probably my favorite PETA campaign was "Eat the whales!".  They actually had a legitimate point - people don't eat the whale meat (generally).  If you're gonna kill one of those increasingly rare creatures, might as well use the whole thing...

The key difference, at least in PETAs mind, between animal hunters and the slaughterhouse is pretty simple..  Animals in what are called "factory farms" are essentially in a state of torture and misery for their entire lives.  If you don't agree with that, you've never seen a factory farm.  The free range, more traditional farms are far better for the animals and the people the who eat the food.  It is pretty nauseating what they pump those animals full of, how they have constant infections, boils...  Puss, et al.

The gazelle at least was free before that, and the most likely reason it was killed was that it was, in someway, weaker then its comrades.  

"Every action we take does impact the environment, the only way not to pollute (even electric cars need power plants) is to not exist. "

It depends on what you count as pollution.  Do you consider any of the other animals on earth to be polluting?  If you do, then yes we can not live without polluting.  But do you consider people like the masai, nomadic herders, to be polluters?  Wipe out 6 billion people and we could live as hunter-gathers, or the earth could probably support a few billion traditional farmers, who don't pollute in the traditional sense.

"Humans are the greatest achievement of nature so far (as far as we know). No other species can build machines, cure diseases or leave the planet. I can't say I've seen any evidence that other species can even think abstractly."

I didn't realize nature was attempting to achieve something.  And humans are not a great achievement..  The fact that most of us think we are negates any possibility of it.  

We're at the exact same level of value as the diseases we've wiped out.

Your post reminded me of something.  I eat meat, and like it.  A lot...  But, ever since my mother got remarried..  This guy is insane.  They eat meat, almost always red, as the main course at every dinner.  Which is ridiculous, and considering their age and activity levels extremely unhealthy..  It worries me.  

Eating large amounts of meat at every meal is not what our bodies are intended to take.  We're meant to eat primarily grains, fruits and vegetables, with meat as basically a supplement.  To a certain extrent, I wish we were carnivores.  It'd make life a lot easier.  And imagine how interesting our society would be...

"I wonder, if an animal rights freak were dying of cancer, would they refuse treatment tested on animals?"

I've KNOWN people who've refused drugs that had been tested on animals, though the disease it was for was not like cancer - it could kill you, but more often then not didn't.  It did make the said disease last longer..  I can't quite remember what it was, as I didn't really know the person very well.  Both my sisters are vegetarians, and the one is a mildly active animal rights activist.

My favorite story, from someone on a message board..

PETA was having a protest that milk was sold in a school.  Yes, that milk was sold in a school.  You'd think they'd be trying to help animals that were in worse duress, but anyways.  They had people in cow suits, the whole bit, and were putting pins on all the kids that came by.  The guy who posted it, was walking his son into school, when one of the guys came up to put a pin on his kid.  He told him he would hit him if he touched his son, but he did it anyway.  So he punched the PETA guy in the face.  Of course, they all went crazy and ran and talked to a cop.  The cop pretty much said that was in the guys rights, so quit complaining and get a tissue for the bloody nose.  

I thought it was funny...

An interesting note: in many developing countries, they breastfeed up til around the age of 5.  The reason is simple: when woman are breastfeeding, they are much less likely to get pregnant.  I forget the exact reason, but it's true for most women.  Not all, of course, as like many of our evolutionary adaptions, it is fading away as natural selection doesn't really effect us anymore.

Oh yeah, and I think if you're not willing to breast feed your children, you shouldn't have them.

"Cross eggs off that list, the chicken embryos have to die in order for you to have eggs without little dead chickens in them.

One thing I've always wondered about the people who oppose the killing of animals for food; Is it ok with them if you eat an animal that dies of natural causes?"

The chicken embryos don't have to die, as the ones you get in the store were never fertilized.  It's the equivalent of...  Well, to be fairly disgusting, eating (drinking rather) menstrual blood.

And on the second question: they would not have a problem with that.  At least any one of them with half of a brain.  Carrion is good eatin'!

Here's a fun thought:

Too Much Coffee Man: "Cows are fed growth hormones and antibiotics that cause sores and ulcers, so cow milk has a fair bit of pus in it."
Cow: "It's not my fault."
--Shannon Wheeler, "Too Much Coffee Man's Amusing Musings"

Personal view: if there's a better alternative, I'm all for it. I drink soy milk, which (once you find the right brand, in the milk section, not produce) actually tastes pretty damn good and has a LOT less "problem" elements. (Until we find out otherwise, which shouldn't be long, as industry always sacrifices safety first to increase profit. Don't you wish Big Government would just GET OFF THEIR BACK? Cough.) I like cheese and yogurt too much to care if the cow p**sed in it. Well, maybe.

I eat red meat, but a lot less than I used to. Used to love veal, until I found out how it was made; I still indulge in the occasional burger and still like my pizza toppings, but e.coli--and the thought of animals living and dying the way they do in the food industry--has changed my intake. Almost all of my "meat" intake comes from peanut butter, soybeans, fish, and eggs now. Love a good omelet. And I cannot resist fried squid.

My own little leftie-rightie conflicts:

Left wing: Just because stupid animals tear apart other stupid animals doesn't make it a good thing for US to do. We're not stupid animals. Cruelty is NOT a higher brain function; neither is overfishing to the point of depletion. Right wing: We are built to consume meat; we just don't need to torture it for its entire life, then kill it violently.

Right wing: If a hippie sticks his or her head out of the top of a moving vehicle, he deserves anything he or she gets, in terms of head injuries--just as anyone who climbs a tree without a safety line deserves what they get when they fall. Left wing: Don't trust the people who gave you strip-mining in the 80s to manage forests today.

Right wing: Animal testing CAN save lives. Left wing: Scrubbing cosmetics into animals' eyes or repeating the same exact vivisection experiment for the millionth time will not help anyone. Someone once joked that "if electrocuting a chimp would prolong his life by ten seconds, (he) would gladly do it." My version: "Too bad you're not a chimp; however, perhaps one day, electrocuting you will prolong MY life, and we will see how you feel then while I'm wiring you up."

I've read that grains aren't really a big part of our natural diet, but something that came with the development of agriculture. Fruits and veggies are what should make up the biggest part of our diet. A good deal of the obesity around today is as a result of consuming far too many carbohydrates. Not to mention that wheat really only took over in the last century or so, and has been modified over the years to give more gluten and less husk. Crops like spelt, now making something of a comeback, are a little more typical of what was farmed in the distant past, and are much healthier.

Just to add my own obnoxious hippy story, I remember a really funny one from  a few years back. It was around 1990, give or take, when environmentalism was especially hip. I was in Toronto, buying breakfast at McDonalds. This was when they still had the polystyrene boxes, but would happily substitute paper. This guy ahead of me tells the cashier what he wants, and very rudely tells her, in no uncertain terms, that he wants it in paper. She goes back to get his order, then returns and explains that the paper will take a few minutes (they were busy), and asked if he would rather wait or take it in a box. The guy freaks out on her. I mean, he really bit her head off, just for giving him a choice. It just p**sed me off beyond belief. Then he stepped aside to wait, and I got up to order - "two Sausage McMuffins IN A POLYSTYRENE BOX." The guy didn't mess with me. I suppose it was because I was not some little teenage girl who had to be polite to him. Coward. But you should have seen the look on his face.

There was another incident around that time, when I was in a McDonalds in Kitchener, and some young guys were sticking a video camera in the faces of the staff, asking how they felt about being part of the destruction of the environment. Imagine asking some 16-year-old kid, working part-time, making minimum wage to earn a bit of spending cash, a question like that. Talk to the executives of the company, or at least to the owner of the restaurant. Of course, the owner would probably be able to handle these losers better than a cashier stammering out an uncomfortable answer. Again, like most bullies, these guys were cowards.

babydoll wrote:
>
> PETA can go live in India where they worship the cow!

Actually India has its share of problems too.  The Hindus, as you mentioned, worship the cow, but enjoy eating pork.  The Muslim population of India, however, do not eat pork for religious reason, but think beef is very tasty.

Kind of leads to a bit of a conflict of interest wouldn't you say?

Squishy wrote:
>
> Here's a fun thought:
>
> I like
> cheese and yogurt too much to care if the cow p**sed in it.
>

I guess that explains the tart flavor of Cheddar Cheese.  Well, maybe.

YUCK!!!

Jim H wrote:
>
> I didn't realize nature was attempting to achieve something.

Some of us like to think there is a purpose to all of this. Looking at nature, most successful species, whether plant or animal, have the ability to spread. It is not that difficult to believe, as we become a spacefaring species, that we will one day spread life from our planet to others, allowing life from Earth to survive the death of our sun, billions of years from now. That, to me, would seem to be the logical direction for nature to go. For all we know, that's how life came to Earth.

If this is all random chance, and all we do is of no significance (an idea that seems ludicrous to me), why not just nuke ourselves now?

The way I see it, there is a meaning to everything that we have not yet advanced far enough to grasp. Like a dog can look at a picture and not recognize the image, we have not yet developed the sophistication to truly understand why we are here.

To say that there is no purpose in nature, no plan, no guiding intelligence, simply because we cannot see or understand it is, to me, far more arrogant than believing ourselves superior to animals. That is where we, as humans get too big for our britches.


> And humans are not a great achievement..  The fact that most
> of us think we are negates any possibility of it.

I think the fact that we can even begin to understand the meaning of an achievement makes it very likely to be true, unless another species comes along that can argue against the point.

I imagine hosility to the idea is based on so many people using it as a licence to run roughshod over the Earth, which it isn't. We need to accept the responsibility that goes with our abilities. We have the power to destroy the Earth, but have as much power to protect and nurture as we have to destroy.

I kind of see humanity as being in adolescence. We can do a lot more things than we used to, and we're having fun with it, without too much thought of the consequences. Like the kid who doesn't want to be seen with his parents, many of us have also turned our backs on God. We think we know everything, but there is much more to learn. Someday we'll grow up.

Actually India has its share of problems too. ...

Kind of leads to a bit of a conflict of interest wouldn't you say

Eat 'em all and let God sort 'em out

If someone I didn't know tried to stick a sharp pin on my kid (yes - I understand he was pinning it to clothes, but that is right next to the skin), I doubt very much that it would have ended at just one punch in the face.  Messing with a man's kid?  That's eye-gouging territory.  The self-control some people have amazes me.

Not much I can add to this news story:
Pampered Porkies Get a Better Start in Life
LONDON (Reuters) - Piglets may be happy wallowing in .... but they get a much better start in life if they are nurtured on a warm waterbed.

Instead of snuggling up to their mothers for warmth in their cold pigsty and running the risk of being crushed -- a common cause of early porcine death -- German scientists said waterbeds could be a safer alternative.

When Martin Ziron and researchers at the Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics in Giessen, Germany tested various heating methods on 1,400 piglets during their first few weeks of life, waterbeds won hands down.

"Around 99 percent of the piglets preferred warm waterbeds to any of the alternatives, spending well over half the day lounging about on them and only getting up to feed or play," New Scientist said Wednesday.

. . .
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=story2&cid=570&ncid=753&e=6&u=/nm/20021120/sc_nm/science_pigs_dc

I can think of few places *I'd* rather be than a warm waterbed

>The way I see it, there is a meaning to everything that we have not yet advanced
>far enough to grasp.

 What's the meaning of Sept. 11th?

>Like the kid who doesn't want to be seen with his parents, many of us have also
>turned our backs on God. We think we know everything, but there is much more
>to learn. Someday we'll grow up.

 I've seen this attitude before and often heard things like "God has a plan", "There's a purpose to everything, we just can't see it.". I know this might alienate some people but as far as I'm concerned, this is crap.

I'm not a believer, but if God does exist, one of two things *MUST* be true; that he doesn't love humans as much as people seem to think, or he isn't all powerful. Most people just ignore logic when dealing with this issue, but if you think about it for a second it makes sense.

"All powerful" means that there are no limits to your power. Want to abolish evil, cure all diseases and make everything perfect? No problem. If he IS truly "all powerful" then the only reason evil, disease and the rest of the problems exist in the world is because he allows them to exist when he could easily fix them. Saying "God has a plan" is basically saying he wants these things to happen. Why else wouldn't he just make these problems disappear? It can't be because he wants to accomplish something by allowing them, remember, he's "all powerful" and could just wave his hand and have the end result instantly with no suffering required. So human suffering is something he wants to happen or he just doesn't care. Would any parent let their child not only burn themselves on a hot stove, but set themselves on fire and die, just so that they could learn for themselves? Of course not, but that's exactly the justification people use to explain suffering in the world.

On the other hand, if he *NEEDS* these things to happen so that he can accomplish something, then it means that he ISN'T "all powerful" because he shouldn't NEED anything to happen to get the end result. Don't like the devil messing with people's minds? Just cut off his access to the world, or instantly make him good. Having a problem with evil messing up your creation? Just wave your hand and get rid of it. If you wanted to get rid of an ant colony in your yard, would you try to lead some other creature over to do the job for you or would you spray the entire area with Raid?

An "all powerful" being doesn't NEED anything to happen, he CHOOSES to have/let things happen. if he NEEDS them to happen, then he isn't "all powerful".

I don't belive in God or an "All powerful,"  but I do belive in fate and things happening for a reason....just because we can't figure it out doesn't mean there's not a reason for things happening.  At least, in my opinion.

<>

If life were a cakewalk in which nothing bad ever happened it would be pretty boring. It would be heaven, come to think of it. I like to think of life as a heaven prep course; it's our chance to make mistakes, do wrong, have wrong done to us, and decide whether we want to lead a good or bad life. I think of God in much less linear and doom-and-gloom terms than most organized religions. We're basically given life as a test. Live a good life and help others on this tough road and you go to heaven, live a bad life and hurt others without remorse and you go to hell. And if you're an atheist, well, you can go to hell too. Just kidding!

J.R. makes a good point. To abolish evil would be to abolish free will, which would make no sense. Why create rational beings who can make choices, then limit their choices?

Consciousness and free will are the most special of our gifts. In a universe governed by the cause and effect of physics, we have the ability to influence things. If that is just an illusion, as some philosophers have suggested, why do we have consciousness? Why do we have the ability to perceive and think and make choices if we are just going along for the ride? The nature of consciousness itself is a mystery.

I think George Burns said it best in OH GOD. "Is my existence any more improbable than your own?"

I'm pretty sure God is not exactly the way most religions see Him, and I doubt very much that He is as interested in the small details of our lives as some people would suggest. Still, I believe there is an intelligence to the universe, and there is much more out there, and within ourselves, than we can see.

As for Sept. 11, don't be silly. When I say there is meaning in everything, I mean in all of existence, not each specific event. On the other hand, we do learn much from evil deeds, and they do have a way of bringing out the good in many people. Following that one horrible act, there were countless stories of people pitching in to help, and people taking stock of their own lives and their own priorities. That is not meant to defend or condone evil, but simply to say that it might also have some purpose in the grand scheme of things, if only to spur good people to action.

Again, if all we can see is all there is, we might as well nuke ourselves now. Frankly, I've seen enough to tell me that there must be much more than I can see. Otherwise, things just wouldn't make sense.

Just something to play around with in our heads: according to the story of Adam and Eve, life devoid of evil, death, and pain is exactly what God (supposedly) had planned for us; had they not fallen into temptation, they would still be in Eden.

"Some of us like to think there is a purpose to all of this. Looking at nature, most successful species, whether plant or animal, have the ability to spread. It is not that difficult to believe, as we become a spacefaring species, that we will one day spread life from our planet to others, allowing life from Earth to survive the death of our sun, billions of years from now. That, to me, would seem to be the logical direction for nature to go. For all we know, that's how life came to Earth. "

I think our purpouse is to exist.  It's not much of a purpouse, but it's not bad either.  I don't really like to think of us having an over arching purpouse, as I don't think humans are really 'good' as a whole, so I'd rather we just existed for a few thousand more years then evolved into something else.  That's already where we're headed, only we're simply diverging rather then going into a unified evolutionary process.  

"If this is all random chance, and all we do is of no significance (an idea that seems ludicrous to me), why not just nuke ourselves now? "

Why does it seem ludicrious?  Can't we just be happy existing, completely by ourselves?  Why does there HAVE to be a real point to the universe?  

"The way I see it, there is a meaning to everything that we have not yet advanced far enough to grasp. "

If that were true, you would not have been able to grasp that we haven't grasped it.  I think that's a circular kind of thing.

"To say that there is no purpose in nature, no plan, no guiding intelligence, simply because we cannot see or understand it is, to me, far more arrogant than believing ourselves superior to animals."

Why though?  Myself, I can't really deny with any real confidence there is no guiding intelligence in the universe, just as no one really say there is one.  I don't see why it is arrogant to not think there is one...  

"I kind of see humanity as being in adolescence. We can do a lot more things than we used to, and we're having fun with it, without too much thought of the consequences. Like the kid who doesn't want to be seen with his parents, many of us have also turned our backs on God. We think we know everything, but there is much more to learn. Someday we'll grow up. "

I think that is a good analogy.  Except I imagine we're a drug addled youth, and we might end up ODing before we get into rehab.  

Maybe when we grow up, we'll grow out of religion.  Maybe not.  We'll see, or rather we won't as we'll be dead and it will be irrelevant to us anyways.

"I think George Burns said it best in OH GOD. "Is my existence any more improbable than your own?""

If there's a God, I sincerely hope he is like the one in Oh, God.  He seemed like a good guy who wasn't the total prick he is in nearly every religion out there.  Multiple gods would be better, though.

"Again, if all we can see is all there is, we might as well nuke ourselves now"

Why?  Are you THAT dissatisfied with our current lot?  It seems ok to me, I rather like it here actually...

I've read interpretations that suggest the apple represented human ingenuity (for lack of a better word) and being cast out of paradise represented all of the problems that go with being a thinking being.

Jim H wrote:
>
> God.  He seemed like a good guy who wasn't the total prick he
> is in nearly every religion out there.

The problem is that every religion has pricks in it. Don't blame God.

> Why?  Are you THAT dissatisfied with our current lot?

Not really. I'm having fun. I just sometimes wonder if it is serving any lasting purpose. I hope it is.

Dude, I'm sure Eden is nice and all, but all the stuff that tempts me that I submit to everyday are the best things in my life.  I'd much rather deal with having bad stuff happen to me, as long as, in the end there's still sex and music and weed and movies and everything else that I guess would go under the headding "knowledge."  Personally, I'm glad Eve ate that apple.

Sorry if I have offended anyone.

"Why would God need a Starship?"
"Who are you?"
"Don't you know me!?!  Aren't YOU God?"
"Jim, you don't ask the Almighty for his I.D.!"

Those priceless lines make Star Trek 5 worth sitting through over and over.

As for the existence of God, that will be debated and argued over by better minds than mine until the end.  However, in minor defense of my faith, I would like to share why I believe courtesy of Max Lucado (whom I just happen to be reading right now).  He says it better than I ever could, the setting is the Garden of Eden prior to the Creation of Adam...

He writes -

He placed one scoop of clay upon another until a form lay lifeless on the ground.
All of the Garden's inhabitants paused to witness the event.  Hawks hovered.  Giraffes stretched.  Trees bowed.  Butterflies paused on petals and watched.
"You will love me, nature," God said.  "I made you that way.  You will obey me, universe.  For you were designed to do so.  You will reflect my glory, skies, for that is how you were created.  But this one will be like me.  This one will be able to choose."
All were silent as the Creator reached into himself and removed something yet unseen.  A seed.  "It's called 'choice.'  The seed of choice."
Creation stood in silence and gazed upon the lifeless form.
An angel spoke, "But if he..."
"What if he chooses not to love?" the Creator finished.  "Come, I will show you."
Unbound by today, God and the angel walked into the realm of tomorrow.
"There, see the fruit of the seed of choice, both the sweet and the bitter."
The angel gasped at what he saw.  Spontaneous love. Voluntary devotion.  Chosen tenderness.  Never had he seen anything like these.  He felt the love of the Adams.  He heard the joy of Eve and her daughters.  He saw the food and the burdens shared.  He absorbed the kindness and marveled at the warmth.
"Heaven as never seen such beauty, my Lord.  Truly, this is your greatest creation."
"Ah, but you've only seen the sweet.  Now witness the bitter."
A stench enveloped the pair.  The angel turned in horror and proclaimed, "What is it?"
The Creator spoke only on word: "Selfishness."
The angel stood speechless as the passed through centuries of repugnance.  Never had he seen such filth.  Rotten hearts.  Ruptured promises.  Forgotten loyalties.  Children of the creation wandering blindly in lonely labyrinths.
"This is the result of choice?" the angel asked.
"Yes."
"They will forget you?"
"Yes."
"They will reject you?"
"Yes."
"They will never come back?"
"Some will.  Most won't."
"What will it take to make them listen?"
The Creator walked on in time, further and further into the future, until he stood by a tree.  A tree that would be fashioned into a cradle.  Even then he could smell the hay that would surround him.
With another step into the furture, he paused before another tree.  It stood alone, a stubborn ruler of a bald hill.  The trunk was thick, and the wood was strong.  Soon it would be cut.  Soon it would be trimmed.  Soon it would be mounted on the stony brow of another hill.  And soon he would be hung on it.
He felt the wood rub against a back he did not yet wear.
"Will you go down there?" the angel asked.
"I will."
"Is there no other way?"
"There is not."
"Wouldn't it be easier to not plant the seed?  Wouldn't it be easier to not give the choice?"
"It would," the Creator spoke slowly.  "But to remove the choice is to remove the love."
He looked around the hill and foresaw a scene.  Three figures hung on three crosses.  Arms spread. Heads fallen forward.  They moaned with the wind.
Men clad in soldiers' garb sat on the ground near the trio.  They played gamed in the dirt and laughed.
Men clad in religion stood off to one side.  They smiled.  Arrogant, cocky.  They had protected God, they thought, by killing this false one.
Women clad in sorrow huddled at the foot of the hill.  Speechless.  Faces tear streaked.  Eyes downward.  One put her arm around anotehr and tried to lead her away.  She wouldn't leave.  "I will stay," she said softly.  "I will stay."
All heaven stood to fight.  All nature rose to rescue.  All eternity poised to protect.  BUt the Creator gave no command.
"It must be done...," he said, and withdrew.
But as he stepped back in time, he heard the cry that he would someday scream" "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"  He wrenched at tomorrow's agony.
The angel spoke again.  "It would be less painful..."
The Creator interrupted softly.  "But it wouldn't be love."
They stepped into the Garden again.  The Make looked earnestly at the clay creation.  A monsoon of love swelled up within him.  He had died for the creation before he had made him.  God's form bent over the sculptured face and breathed.  Dust stirred on the lips of the new one.  The chest rose, cracking the red mud.  The cheeks fleshened.  A finger moved.  And an eye opened.
But more incredible than the moving of the flesh was the stirring of the spirit.  Those who could see the unseen gasped.
Perhaps it was the wind who said it first.  Perhaps what the star saw that moment is what has made it blink ever since.  Maybe it was left to an angel to whisper it:
"It looks like...it appears so much like...it is him!"
The angel wasn't speaking of the face, the features, or the body.  He was looking inside - at the soul.
"It's eternal!" gasped another.
Within man, God had placed a divine seed.  A seed of his self.  The God of might had created earth mightiest.  The Creator had created, not a creature, but another creator.  And the One who had chosen to love had created one who could love in return.
Now it's our choice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not much I can add to that.

Very moving. I got a little misty reading that.

It just amazes me how an amusing little news clipping about a PETA stunt can turn into such a deep philosophical discussion.

Those priceless lines make Star Trek 5 worth sitting through over and over.
*****  I disagree.  But nice passage.

I still disagree.

Why is it all the children being breastfed for years and years appear to be male? Has anyone ever seen one of these women breastfeeding an 8-yr-old girl on TV?

If we are descended strictly from vegetarians, why do Chimps and baboons (which resemble our ancestors most closely in biology and behaviour) eat meat?

If recycled paper is 'OK' then is leather also acceptable because it is a by-product of the slaughter of cows, and not the main event?  (Must be - there is a huge leather-product industry in India...lots of exports to this continent.)  Not to mention that India is also the main source for human skeletons on the educational -aid market.

So...if 'recycled' products are ok, then is a second-hand fur coat better than  a new one?  Or how about a nice bit of roadkill trim?

From what I've watched on History/TLC?Discovery, apparently some of our ancestors, such as australia somethingorothericus were vegetarians, but they had to spend an awful lot of time eating.  Meat eaters get more nutrition per bite, so the creatures were able to evolve into bigger brained (and more intelligent) beings. It seems that the brain requires a lot of energy to keep it going.

Of course, these days it is possible to create a nutritious, vegetarian diet.  My Aikido sensei is veggie, while also being a research psychologist.

Still, I'm not giving up burgers (though I don't eat veal).