P. E. T. A.

sad astronaut · Jul 30, 2003

I have a question. Why is PETA just trying to prevent HUMANS from eating meat? We aren't the only ones. Why don't they stop lions and tigers and bears from eating meat too? In fact, they don't inject them or chop their heads off, they bite or claw them to death. I don't see PETA trying to stop them.

TCapp · Jul 30, 2003

That's what I thought. Let my friends, that family of 6, go hungry. They can eat pine cones. The Inuit can eat snow and ice -- don't want to "murder" those fish or seals (seals, which by the way, mercilessly murder fish).

Would PETA have praised Cain for murdering Abel since Abel offered those sacrificed animals to God?

Do you remember the time they tried to convince us that Jesus was a vegetarian? That was amusing.

EvolvEarth · Jul 30, 2003

RonC2 said:
WARNING: The following links contain vulgar language and strong emotional outbursts.

For all you "Why should we needlessly slaughter millions of helpless animals" hippy utopians. The statements in these two articles are indeed facts, verified with a link in the first statement, of how PETA/vegetarians slaughter millions of animals themselves, but don't eat the meat.

http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html

and PETA's response

http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi#PETA[/QUOTE]

Many vegetarians try as little as possible to be the direct result of animal pain and suffering just to eat meat. While we can prevent many lives for dying for the sake of taste, we can't help the ones that die for crops. We're trying to limit the death of animals without having the human species go extinct. Now, the worse case scenario is that not only are those innocent animals dying for our crops, which no one can really help, but cows, chickens, pigs, and other animals are dying for the sake of taste. We feed the crops to the other animals, so even more animals are dying. What we need to do is limit the death as much as possible without having to make the human population disappear because of malnutrition. We still need those crops, but we wouldn't be using much of it to feed the farm animals just so they can die, too. Sadly, animals are still dying, but at least we wouldn't be taking away as much as we were before. What we could do is with all those bodies that have died for the sake of crops we could give to many other animals so more animals wouldn't have to be killed to be eating by other animals. I'm sure they could be more solutions to the problem.

RonC2 said:

Oh and look for my statement here. According to the Bible you shouldn't condemn anyone for what they eat. Just goes to show what kind of people PETA are.

http://www.christianforums.com/t48926&page=2[/QUOTE]
According to the Bible, women shouldn't speak in church, slavery is okay, homosexuality is wrong, and when God commands you to take over land, it's okay to keep the women of a country or city as sex slaves and kill the innocent children. This just goes to show you what kind of people Bible humpers are.

Click to expand...

EvolvEarth · Jul 30, 2003

sad astronaut said:
I have a question. Why is PETA just trying to prevent HUMANS from eating meat? We aren't the only ones. Why don't they stop lions and tigers and bears from eating meat too? In fact, they don't inject them or chop their heads off, they bite or claw them to death. I don't see PETA trying to stop them.

I don't know if you understand this, but many PETA members aren't against humans eat meat for the sake of survival, they're against eating meat for the sake of taste. Hunter-gatherer humans need meat to survival because they don't have grocery markets like us; many PETA members are not concerned with hunter-gatherers because they can't survive any other way except to hunt.

As for lions and tigers, well, they are carnivores. Having them stop eating meat would be a death sentence for them since they can't eat anything else. Again, wild animals don't have the same system as humans and can't survive on vegetables, fruits, grains, beans, and other food products that aren't animal based alone. Not to mention as I stated before, even if the animal can survive without meat, they can't do that in the wild where they don't have supermarkets. Now if you had a dog, you can feed the dog a strict vegetarian diet because the dog can live a long, happy life as a vegetarian. Since cats are carnivorous, they wouldn't be able to survive on a vegetarian diet.

Hopefully, I explained to you while many PETA members don't care about eating meat if you really need it for survival.

TCapp said:
That's what I thought. Let my friends, that family of 6, go hungry. They can eat pine cones. The Inuit can eat snow and ice -- don't want to "murder" those fish or seals (seals, which by the way, mercilessly murder fish).

Would PETA have praised Cain for murdering Abel since Abel offered those sacrificed animals to God?

Do you remember the time they tried to convince us that Jesus was a vegetarian? That was amusing.

Please read my reply to Sad Astronaut about the first paragraph. As for the second paragraph, I don't think many of the PETA members would actually condone a murder of any kind. I know I certainly don't. For the third statement, I never heard that one, but hey, PETA has done stupid things in the past so I won't deny it.

Knight · Jul 30, 2003

Does PETA have any statistics on how many crops it would take to feed everyone in the US?

EvolvEarth · Jul 30, 2003

knight, it would seem more feasible to use crops to feed the world than having animal farms. Animals also eat much crops and take up more space than crops would, so there wouldn't really be a problem feeding the world with just crops rather than crops and animals.

Knight · Jul 30, 2003

EvolvEarth said:
knight, it would seem more feasible to use crops to feed the world than having animal farms. Animals also eat much crops and take up more space than crops would, so there wouldn't really be a problem feeding the world with just crops rather than crops and animals.

Where's the data on this?

EvolvEarth · Jul 30, 2003

Knight, I don't have any data. I'm just using common sense.

Knight · Jul 30, 2003

Does your common sense tell you if we could produce enough food for all Americans to live off of a vegetarian diet? That assumes we don't dedicate every swuare acre of unused land into farmland.

EvolvEarth · Jul 30, 2003

Knight, it takes a lot to raise farm animals, you have to give them space, food, et cetera. Then you have to kill them for food. Now, if you replaced animal farms with crop farms, there would be a lot of space. Not to mention how the American government pays farms only to grow a certain amount, if we grew as much as we could, it would be certain that the entire world can go on a vegetarian diet. I don't feel like looking up statistics because it's not very hard to deal with. There's a lot this world can do to alleviate such problems like starvation, malnutrition, and the such. The people just have to make the choice. It's really up to you in order to do so.

Woodsy · Jul 30, 2003

Some vegetarians have claimed that livestock require pasturage that could be used to farm grains to feed starving people in Third World countries. It is also claimed that feeding animals contributes to world hunger because livestock are eating foods that could go to feed humans. The solution to world hunger, therefore, is for people to become vegetarians. These arguments are illogical and simplistic.

The first argument ignores the fact that about two-thirds of our Earth's dry land is unsuitable for farming. It is primarily the open range, desert and mountainous areas that provide food to grazing animals, and that land is currently being put to good use.

There are many who feel that because the world population is growing at a faster rate than is the food supply, we are becoming less and less able to afford animal foods because feeding plant products to animals is an inefficient use of potential human food. It is true that it is more efficient for humans to eat plant products directly rather than to allow animals to convert them to human food. At best, animals only produce one pound or less of human food for each three pounds of plants eaten. However, this inefficiency only applies to those plants and plant products that the human can utilize. The fact is that over two-thirds of the feed fed to animals consists of substances that are either undesirable or completely unsuited for human food. Thus, by their ability to convert inedible plant materials to human food, animals not only do not compete with the human; rather, they aid greatly in improving both the quantity and the quality of the diets of human societies.

Furthermore, at the present time, there is more than enough food grown in the world to feed all people on the planet. The problem is widespread poverty, making it impossible for the starving poor to afford it. In a comprehensive report, the Population Reference Bureau attributed the world hunger problem to poverty, not meat-eating.3 It also did not consider mass vegetarianism to be a solution for world hunger.

As far as the impact on our environment is concerned, a closer look reveals the great damage that exclusive and mass farming would do. British organic dairy farmer and researcher Mark Purdey wisely points out that if "veganic agricultural systems were to gain a foothold on the soil, then agrichemical use, soil erosion, cash cropping, prairie-scapes and ill health would escalate".

From here

Knight · Jul 30, 2003

So you don't know.

Woodsy · Jul 30, 2003

Here's an interesting tidbit from the New York Times:

" The Masai of East Africa have developed new health problems since they abandoned their traditional cattle-meat-and-blood-and-milk diet for corn and beans."

The article is here.

EvolvEarth · Jul 30, 2003

Tribe, if I did enough research on the subject, I could get rebuttals on the data you mentioned, but right now I'm not concerned with world-wide conversion to vegetarianism. I'm also concerned with population control and the such. It seems we wouldn't be having these problems if people would reproduce less.

There is many solutions to one problem, but of course it takes people actually doing it. People just don't care about the population level, the mistreatment of animals, the murder of animals, and the such.

Knight · Jul 30, 2003

EvolvEarth said:
Tribe, if I did enough research on the subject, I could get rebuttals on the data you mentioned, but right now I'm not concerned with world-wide conversion to vegetarianism. I'm also concerned with population control and the such. It seems we wouldn't be having these problems if people would reproduce less.

Then do your research if this is something you feel strongly about.

As to population control. Good luck selling that one.
However, that is way off topic.

EvolvEarth · Jul 30, 2003

Knight, sure I feel strongly about the topic, but I research other things in my spare time. I don't make it my business to try to persuade people yet. I just want to explain the animal rights activists' rationale on such topics. I don't like it when people bad mouth animal rights groups without really understanding where they come from.

To be honest, I'm really more interested in helping out animals directly by giving them food, shelter, security, et cetera. I also want to join an animal rights group. Being a vegetarian is right now something personal, but until I do more reading the the subject to get in actual debates on the subject, I'm not going to try to do converting. Many people are stubborn anyway and wouldn't be worth my time.

Woodsy · Jul 30, 2003

What can you say about overpopulation?

The Myth of World Over-population

EvolvEarth · Jul 30, 2003

Tribe, those two articles are really ridiculous. It takes nerve to say that there is no overpopulation problem. In fact, the carrying capacity of this planet for humans is around 10 billion. That comes from the source The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson. The reason this is believed is because the actual food problem, transportation problems to get the food everywhere, government problems, et cetera. Also, the higher the population of humans are, the more it is oppressing other species of animals and reducing their population levels because we're taking up their environment.

So for people that like biodiversity, stabilization, and the such, overpopulation is not a myth. It's just reading links that you have shown, Tribe, that gets people to think other wise. I suggest reading the book I mentioned to get some pretty interesting facts about overpopulation.

judifedway · Jul 31, 2003

Bear:

I left this board (totally unsubscribed etc) as a direct result of your insulting me by calling my ideas "flimsey" and accused of having "emotional outcries."

The only reason why I am back is because although there are several scriptures that imply the possibility of animals being in heaven and I knew there was at least one verse New Testament (Colossians 1:20) God reminded me of the most obvious and kept bugging me to post.

Are you a Christian in the Biblical sense? You certainly are not exhibiting the love of Christ towards people who happen to like animals. Did it occur to you that your words might cause a person to reject Christ, choosing to be with their pet rather than be in heaven?

Several years ago someone wrote Billy Graham asking if she and her dog would be reunited in heaven. Graham said something to the effect that if her happiness depended on seeing her dog, then it would be.

Are you willing to tell an 80 year old woman whose only lifeline is her pet Fido is not going to make to heaven? Are you willing to stake categorically pets/animals are not in heaven? Do you think Jesus would tell someone their pet is not going to heaven?

Since you seem to think I have it backwards and need to prove/imply there are animals in heaven, so be it. There is plenty of proof.

Genesis 9: 5 holds animal to account - why hold something to account that does not have a soul.

Eccelesiates 3: 19 "man has no advantage over the beasts."

Ecclesiastes 3: 21 "who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beasts go downward."

Colossians 1:20 " and through him to reconcile to himself "all" things . . ."

Going back to the Old Testament:

Psalm 36:6 "man and beast you save O Lord"

Genesis 9:15 "I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and *every living creature* of all flesh." Why specificially mention making a covenant with creatures if they don't have souls.

Revelation 19:11 "Then I saw heaven opened and behold a white horse."

Have fun discrediting these verses.

Oh, and by the way, the easter bunny is a symbolic reference to ??? (I used to know, but forgot). But if someone asked me, I know I could find the origin. There are a lot of things not mentioned in the Bible, but whether or not animals will be in heaven isn't one of them.

I'm out of here.

Knight · Jul 31, 2003

EvolvEarth said:
Knight, sure I feel strongly about the topic, but I research other things in my spare time. I don't make it my business to try to persuade people yet. I just want to explain the animal rights activists' rationale on such topics.

Then don't expect others to bow to your opinion. That's advice not a condemnation.

Many people are stubborn anyway and wouldn't be worth my time.

I know how you feel.

P. E. T. A.

Robot in Disguise

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Knight of the Cross

Well-Known Member

Knight of the Cross

Well-Known Member

Knight of the Cross

Well-Known Member

Returned From Afar.

Knight of the Cross

Returned From Afar.

Well-Known Member

Knight of the Cross

Well-Known Member

Returned From Afar.

Well-Known Member

ask the animals-Job 12:7

Knight of the Cross

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency