| Author
|
PETA
|
rastapsi
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
178
Posted : Nov 11, 2003 15:14
|
do i have to say more?!?!?! Just to check it out
http://www.peta.com
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
  the thing is... nothing is too serious to be taken too serious ehehe |
|
|
|
VertigOA
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
29
Posts :
341
Posted : Nov 11, 2003 16:06
|
|
Anak
Anakoluth
Started Topics :
108
Posts :
2395
Posted : Nov 11, 2003 22:52
|
my honest opinion: PETA sucks.
not that u get me wrong...i'm an animal lover...me (and family) support one or two projects like that....but its exactly the same with MOST so-called "charity-projects" (including "help-for-third-world-countries-companys" etc.). lets say i give one dollar to PETA for supporting their project. 20 cent gets lost in administration. 20 cents get lost in advertisement (hell what do u think do they have to pay to the models/singer that ad for them??? and a friend who is grafician told me that they use to print their posters on best material paper and ink). 20 percents get lost in paying salaries of their workers. so maby poor 40 cents left for their projects for helping animals. even less.
if u want to support: support little companies. do something on your own (only buy the most expensive meat and directly from farm u trust in, dont buy fur or anything else that was made with cruelty etc) !!!
Anakoluth A Pebble in Your Eardrum's Shoe since 2001!
http://www.myspace.com/anakoluth
http://www.ektoplazm.com/profiles/anakoluth/
http://cronomi.com |
|
|
|
VertigOA
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
29
Posts :
341
Posted : Nov 11, 2003 23:01
|
|
Anakoluth - just so you know PETA has supported terrorist acts in the past - (fires, destruction, violence)
no sig |
|
|
|
Anak
Anakoluth
Started Topics :
108
Posts :
2395
Posted : Nov 11, 2003 23:06
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Nov 12, 2003 00:52
|
|
Eth-Lad
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
13
Posts :
118
Posted : Nov 12, 2003 09:53
|
vertigOAir - an absolute webtreasure!!
anakoluth - my voice out of your mouth!
kaz that's nice! even though i think Regan is a badstar with a early d  |
|
|
|
theraphosi
Started Topics :
6
Posts :
30
Posted : Nov 12, 2003 12:14
|
PETA in Portuguese means LIE!
Be well! |
|
|
|
rastapsi
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
178
Posted : Nov 12, 2003 13:05
|
wow.. i didn t know that..
kill them all..
kill the bastards..
but.. peta in portuguese means LIE? wwhhaat?!?! what kind of portuguese??
peace..
the thing is... nothing is too serious to be taken too serious ehehe |
|
|
|
theraphosi
Started Topics :
6
Posts :
30
Posted : Nov 12, 2003 14:30
|
I know this word since I was a little boy.
It´s gíria. At least in Alentejo, where I come from.
Do you know that Peta once made a campaign to try do stop serving milk in schools, and to replace it with beers?
They also want to stop breeds and dog breeders, claiming that there are enough dogs in shelters!
And also want to return all animals to nature.How about your pets?How do they fit in?
PETA has some arguments that I also believe in, but others make me sick.
They are extremely radical and dangerous.
My opinion only, let me say that I try to be well informed, and I also visit many animal rights forums.
Most informed people don´t like them either.
Try to know them better and maybe your view will change...maybe not.
Cheers
"Pump it up a little more,
get the party going on the dancefloor..." |
|
|
|
rastapsi
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
178
Posted : Nov 12, 2003 15:12
|
already has chaged.. i agree with somethings.. but i see now that some are stupid..as usual..
and here in Brazil.. peta doesn t mean anything.. not even gíria.. not in my state..
mentira = lie
cheers cheers!!!!
and my best wishes to all
the thing is... nothing is too serious to be taken too serious ehehe |
|
|
|
traveller
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
234
Posts :
3803
Posted : Nov 12, 2003 18:51
|
in finnish petä means cheat =)
"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program."
- Larry Niven |
|
|
|
-Abatwa-
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
42
Posts :
1087
Posted : Nov 16, 2003 17:26
|
its an ongoing argument. here's what I received about it. people can decide themselves. i also dont support all of what peta does, but still i care about animal rights.
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting PETA about the animals killed during harvesting. This issue has been brought into the spotlight recently through a paper by Dr. Steven Davis of Oregon State University entitled The Least Harm Principle May Require That Humans Consume A Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not A Vegan Diet. This paper was published in the Journal for Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. Since its publication and Dr. Davis’ subsequent press release, many people have misrepresented Dr. Davis’ statements and misunderstood his results.
In his paper, Dr. Davis proposes to cause the “least harm” to animals by causing the fewest deaths. He states that a large number of wild field animals such as mice and rabbits are killed during the harvesting process on large farms. These animals may be killed by the harvesting machinery, may be crushed or trapped in collapsed burrows, or may be indirectly killed as they are exposed to predators. The number of animals killed is unknown, but Dr. Davis estimates the number based on some cursory surveys performed in the past as well as some eyewitness accounts. Because farmed animals currently account for the majority of domestic grain consumption, Dr. Davis proposes that if we were to eat only large animals who are raised on pastures, we can thereby significantly decrease the number of animals killed in the harvesting process. Dr. Davis concludes that an omnivorous diet consisting of only pasture-raised large ruminants such as cows and sheep would kill fewer animals than a purely vegan diet based on farm-raised grain and legumes, and therefore cause the “least harm.”
First and foremost, it must be noted that Dr. Davis is a professor of animal science and his work is funded by the cattle industry. He therefore has a direct financial interest in increasing demand for beef and dairy products. That aside, there are a number of flaws in Dr. Davis’ line of reasoning.
One obvious philosophical flaw is the assumption that death is the only harm that comes to farmed animals. From the animal rights perspective, a farmed animal’s death is probably the least harmful part of his life. Farmed animals suffer a myriad of cruelties during their lives, including branding, holes punched in the ears, and castration. During transport to the slaughterhouse, they are deprived of food, water, and protection from the elements. Upon reaching the slaughterhouse, the animals are driven with steel hooks and electric prods. Sick or injured animals that are unable to walk are dragged with chains. A large number of animals, maybe as many as 10%, are dismembered while they are still conscious, blinking, and making noises.
Another significant mistake in Dr. Davis’ writing is in the math. Currently in the United States, people consume about 66.3 pounds of beef, 52.1 pounds of pork, and 66.4 pounds of chicken per person each year. If we assume that other sources of meat are negligible, this is a total of 184.8 pounds of meat per person each year. The population of this country is about 280 million people, which means a total of about 51 billion pounds of meat. If everyone stopped eating chicken and pork and switched to the same quantity of beef, that would require a national production of about 74 million head of cattle (assuming that one cow produces about 700 pounds of meat). Currently we slaughter about 35 million head of cattle domestically and import about 2.5 million more.
In his paper, Dr. Davis proposes that we turn 60 million hectares (about 148 million acres) of farmland into grazing land for this increase in cattle production. A single cow requires approximately 37 acres of grazing land to meet his need for about 60 pounds of food per day. Of course this number can be higher or lower depending on the quality of the soil, but this is a reasonable average. To grow 74 million cattle on pasture would therefore require about 2.7 billion acres of grazing land, which is more than the entire land area of the United States (much of which is desert and mountains). We now have about 1.2 billion acres of grazing land in this country. To meet this demand for beef would therefore require the purchasing of beef from many other countries, where we cannot control the methods of production, and who would often choose the most efficient and cruel production methods.
On the other hand, Dr. Davis also assumes that the same amount of land would continue to be farmed if the entire population of the country became vegan. This is far from the truth. In fact, a vegan person requires only about 1/5 of an acre (in a conservative estimate) for food production. This means that if every man, woman, and child in the United States were vegan, we would need a minimum of 56 million acres to feed the entire country. Most Americans eat more than their minimum nutritional requirements, so we can use a conservative estimate of 90 million acres for food production. Currently we farm about 300 million acres in the United States for grain. About 70 million acres of it is used for exports. This means that if the entire country adopted a vegan diet, we could feed every person in the country and maintain our current level of exports using slightly more than half of the currently farmed land.
Notably, Dr. Davis also fails to consider that animals cannot be pasture-raised all year long. During the winter months they must be fed from grain stores, which must still be farmed. In addition, in order to increase the animals’ weight quickly and efficiently, pasture-raised animals are always “finished” on feedlots in the same manner as intensively farmed animals. According to the Canadian Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Fisheries, “About 2 to 6 months before an animal is ready for market it is sent to a feedlot. A feedlot is an enclosed area where the cattle are fed high energy food, mainly barley, oats, and wheat. The average feedlot in BC holds about 400 head of cattle, but there are some large feedlots which hold up to 5,000 animals. In other areas feedlots can be much larger. Each animal will gain 1.3 to 1.8kg of weight a day. This stage is called finishing the cattle.”
Another significant error in Dr. Davis’ proposal is in his economics. In a capitalistic system, it is unreasonable to believe that any industry can exist without continually moving toward more and more efficient methods of production. Public companies must continually increase profits to maintain shareholder value. This eliminates any possibility of a food system in which there is demand for meat without continually making the animals’ environment more crowded and cruel. If they are not able to implement factory farming methods in the United States, they will simply move their production overseas. The only system in which animals can be guaranteed humane treatment is one in which there is no economic demand for them.
The bottom line is that in our current economy, more than half of our domestic grain is used for animal feed. Therefore, eating meat not only contributes to the suffering and death of the farmed animals, but also to the majority of animals killed during grain harvesting. I hope that this helps to answer your question. Thanks again for your message and for everything you do in the animals’ behalf.
Sincerely,
Heather Moore
Staff Writer
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
501 Front St.
Norfolk, VA 23510
`Bottomless wonders spring from simple rules, which are repeated without end` Mandelbrot |
|
|
|
FluoSamsara (Oxygen)
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
1164
Posted : Nov 26, 2003 03:51
|
|
yes PETA is portuguese from portugal means lie, mentira means lie as well
|
|
|
|
theraphosi
Offtopic posts:
0
Posted: Nov 26, 2003
|
|
|
