PETA versus Tanooki wearing Mario

[The Shawn]

Actually, a Tanuki is a Japanese MYTHOLOGICAL creature that resembles a raccoon, which is associated with alcoholism and other forms of addiction. IT'S NOT A REAL ANIMAL!

Well... That sucks.

*me pulls out my Red Sox cap again....

[Gameguy]

Actually, a Tanuki is a Japanese MYTHOLOGICAL creature that resembles a raccoon, which is associated with alcoholism and other forms of addiction. IT'S NOT A REAL ANIMAL!

No, they are real animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanuki

[The Shawn]

No, they are real animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanuki

But how do they taste?

[Sunnyvale]

But how do they taste?

[j_factor]

I think his point is that some people care more about animals than people. That they take up the cause of animals when there are causes he considers to be much greater such as human life.

You could argue that about almost anything, though. Why is the NRA so worried about gun regulations when there are homeless people dying in the streets? Why is the ACLU so concerned about free speech when thousands of people are dying from a lack of adequate health care?

Just speculation here but if you are a member of PETA it might be ok to get an abortion but not ok to declaw your cat because your landlord demands it.

Actually I think PETA disapproves of pet ownership altogether. They're pretty stupid.

[Aussie2B]

I love how whenever somebody says anything against animal cruelty the conversation always degrades to the point that somebody chimes in with "You care about animals more than people!" At that point, your argument is no better than PETA's. Nobody in this topic has said anything that should remotely give anyone the idea that they place animals above people.

To address a couple things:

1) When a cat plays with a mouse, it's just acting out hunting instincts. It lacks the mental capacity to be humane or inhumane. Most animals feel no malice or desire to inflict suffering. It's just instinctual behavior. In fact, most animals kill as humanely as their bodies make possible because quick kills are in their best interests. When a lion chases after a gazelle, it goes for the throat because it'll take it down fast, before it can have its skull cracked open by a flailing hoof. So, go figure, people are often crueler than animals, especially given that we have the means to kill animals in ways that are practically painless and take next to no effort or cost. Although this is straying off a bit because we're talking about care more than slaughter. The natural world doesn't factor in there because animals don't hold other animals captive for their entire lives.

2) Getting meat should be a pretty low priority for those who are starving. People are omnivores, and like other omnivores, the majority of our diet should not be meat. Grains, vegetables, and fruit are all more important, and there are other sources of protein that are cheaper and more plentiful. I'm not saying people should be vegetarians, but if you can't afford much meat, it's not the end of the world. In general, poorer countries eat less meat, and if you are desperate for meat and will take anything, it can definitely result in bad things. Just look up bushmeat. A lot of very nasty diseases have spread to people through the uncontrolled bushmeat trade. HIV likely came through that. Not to mention they have no clue what the heck animal they're eating. You're WAY better off eating some beans, legumes, nuts, seeds, etc. in that situation. There's a reason why charities send Plumpy Nut to Africa and not steaks.

[Sunnyvale]

1) When a cat plays with a mouse, it's just acting out hunting instincts. It lacks the mental capacity to be humane or inhumane. Most animals feel no malice or desire to inflict suffering. It's just instinctual behavior. In fact, most animals kill as humanely as their bodies make possible because quick kills are in their best interests. When a lion chases after a gazelle, it goes for the throat because it'll take it down fast, before it can have its skull cracked open by a flailing hoof. So, go figure, people are often crueler than animals, especially given that we have the means to kill animals in ways that are practically painless and take next to no effort or cost. Although this is straying off a bit because we're talking about care more than slaughter. The natural world doesn't factor in there because animals don't hold other animals captive for their entire lives.

When humans sear beaks off chickens, we're acting out our instincts to save as much of a resource as possible, to squeeze all the blood out pf a turnip. If it was cheaper to do it more humanely, we would be.

For every 'humane' example of a lion killing there is, there's also bot flies, tapeworms, constricting snakes, venom that stuns but doesn't kill...
And look into the plight of the poor aphids before you assume we are the only species to keep others as chattle.

2) Getting meat should be a pretty low priority for those who are starving. People are omnivores, and like other omnivores, the majority of our diet should not be meat. Grains, vegetables, and fruit are all more important, and there are other sources of protein that are cheaper and more plentiful. I'm not saying people should be vegetarians, but if you can't afford much meat, it's not the end of the world. In general, poorer countries eat less meat, and if you are desperate for meat and will take anything, it can definitely result in bad things. Just look up bushmeat. A lot of very nasty diseases have spread to people through the uncontrolled bushmeat trade. HIV likely came through that. Not to mention they have no clue what the heck animal they're eating. You're WAY better off eating some beans, legumes, nuts, seeds, etc. in that situation. There's a reason why charities send Plumpy Nut to Africa and not steaks.

Look into the amino acid differences between a steak and an equal amount of soy protein. There is a significant difference, and it's not trivial. Easy to compensate for in the civilized world. Not so much in Ethiopia.

And charities send nuts instead of steaks cause most of those countries are rife with corruption, and the meat won't reach it's destination. Nuts will.
And nuts are cheaper.

[Collector_Gaming]

Actually I think PETA disapproves of pet ownership altogether. They're pretty stupid.

after all the stories i hear of them killing domestic animals because they are domesticated.

yea i think they disapprove of animal ownership in general

[Gameguy]

Actually I think PETA disapproves of pet ownership altogether. They're pretty stupid.

What if you didn't consider an animal so much as a pet but more of an equal? Like with marriage? Would they have a problem with someone marrying an animal to be treated as an equal?

And charities send nuts instead of steaks cause most of those countries are rife with corruption, and the meat won't reach it's destination. Nuts will.
And nuts are cheaper.

Plus nuts are easier to store and transport than meat, nothing to worry about spoiling or needing to refrigerate.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

In a perfect world, sure. But in the real world, people are still starving, and would trade their kids for 2 ounces of meat. So finances is an issue, except not for us. I can eat bacon, steak, or lobster, right now. Others... not. And I know the argument that this is asking for: Big business, Haliburton, GM foods, yaddayaddayadda. But that's besides the point.

Idealistically, none of us would have to eat, right? Realistically...

Fuck them chickens if it feeds one kid.

word.


I'm with this guy

[LaughingMAN.S9]

Just for the hell of it, let's take this argument to a ridiculous level. What if corporate scientist devised a torture technique that made the food tastier and cheaper, but increased the agony of the animals 100 fold? I understand that it is difficult to imagine anything being tasty at McDonalds but try. Does a point come when we say that what benefits us costs others too much? This question could be applied to many other cases of course.

To me, it is one thing for a starving family to do what they must to survive and quite another thing for a multinational corporation to do what they can to make more money.

ever had veal?

[Amon_Re]

http://www.theecologist.org/trial_in...heap_meat.html

People or animals, people or animals...

The choice isn't needed. It costs little extra effort to treat animals with some sense of decency.

Tell me, which is healthier/tastier? A healthy animal or a miserable heap of fat pumped up on antibiotics & steroids?

Also, don't buy your meat at a super market, the quality of meat is lower even if it's cheaper. I'd rather eat less meat but good meat.

Besides the weed, ain't happening. Realistically, if you try to take the fat cat's profits, he gets them somewhere else. Realistically, meat is a commoditity in the world marketplace, a big one. One that's gone up quite a bit in recent years.

When world hunger isn't an issue, I'll give animal rights a serious thought.

With that kind of lazy, defeatist attitude nothing will ever change. The food industry in Europe is heavily regulated and it's about bloody time the rest of the world starts regulating that industry as well.

[Amon_Re]

Other then that, we should put all the chicken's up at the Comfort Inn. I mean really? Do you see Eithiopia complaining about how chickens are treated? Why you ask?

Because they don't give a fuck if you stack them on eachothers heads with barbed wire restraining them, to them they're either gonna get meat, or they're gonna eat the feed for the chickens.

You'd be surprised, a lot of more 'primitive' cultures treat their life stock better then us.

No space in starving countries for "Humane" chicken farms. Everthing is reserved for whatever agriculture they can grow.

The only reason why there are still starving countries is because we let them starve.

To hell with chickens I say, get 'em nice and fat, cut their heads off, give the kids some entertainment while they run around the yard (As I alway's got as a small child) and eat 'em.

Do you let them free roam before you eat them? Or do you keep them confined in small spaces with their beaks chopped of and feed them antibiotics & steroids?

If the answer is NO, then you are already doing a better job at treating your chickens humane then the food industry.

[Amon_Re]

I'm not of the religious 'we're above them' mentality; I'm of the Darwinian 'we're above them' mentality. On this one, even The Shawn and I can find common ground.

Watch a cat play with a mouse. That's what happens to food, it's seldom pretty or humane. And if you want to say 'we're better than them', I agree. So much better, we are the king's and they our foodstuffs.

It's a lot simpler then that really. Treating your life stock decently prevents the outbreaks of massive epidemics (bird flu anyone?) and removes the need to feed animals massive quantities of antibiotics which improves the usability of antibiotics (you slow down the rise of resistant germs).

So even if you care little about the animal's well being (it's going to be killed anyway) you still have a lot of things to gain by improving the quality of life these animals have.

[Amon_Re]

Seriously. It always amazes me how people can cry for the welfare of chickens and crap over that of any starving kids in third world countries, dying to eat something, anything besides mud cookies.

1) Comparing the will to reduce unneeded suffering in life stock to starving kids in Africa is nothing more then lazy ass deflecting
2) Humans are the most cruel species in this world, we seem to enjoy the suffering of others. Want proof? Click this link to an image (not going to embed it into this post for the more easily offended people):
http://lh5.ggpht.com/-uzhNFXP4CW8/Rd...8/patience.jpg
3) Proper treatment of life stock improves the quality of the meat and reduces illnesses in the life stock

[Amon_Re]

For the homeless what should they eat instead? They don't exactly have a kitchen where they can cook their own food from scratch.

I've never seen a homeless person goto McDonalds. Well, not in my part of the world anyway. Over here they get free (helthy) food. The only thing homeless people over here buy is booze & smokes.

What about cannibalism?

You still shouldn't fuck the person you're going to eat.

[Amon_Re]

I think his point is that some people care more about animals than people. That they take up the cause of animals when there are causes he considers to be much greater such as human life.

Just speculation here but if you are a member of PETA it might be ok to get an abortion but not ok to declaw your cat because your landlord demands it.

It's NEVER ok to declaw a cat.

[Amon_Re]

Actually I think PETA disapproves of pet ownership altogether. They're pretty stupid.

And they euthenize about 85% of all the animals that end up in their shelters.

[Amon_Re]

So, go figure, people are often crueler than animals, especially given that we have the means to kill animals in ways that are practically painless and take next to no effort or cost. Although this is straying off a bit because we're talking about care more than slaughter. The natural world doesn't factor in there because animals don't hold other animals captive for their entire lives.

The slaughter of animals is also a hot topic. In Belgium it's forbidden to slaughter an animal without putting it out cold first. Except when it's to be slaughtered in a religious way. Apparently, superstition is more important than a quick efficient death. Go figure.

[Amon_Re]

When humans sear beaks off chickens, we're acting out our instincts to save as much of a resource as possible, to squeeze all the blood out pf a turnip. If it was cheaper to do it more humanely, we would be.

If you want to save as much of a resource as possible you wouldn"t need to sear off their beaks. It's more efficient/healthy to actually grow less animals in the same space as you reduce the need for antibiotics and the risks of sicknesses wiping out the whole stock.