Sunday, June 29, 2008

PETA defining your rights

As if PETA wasn't obnoxious enough with their stupid protests of circuses and general evangelizing, their language is becoming increasingly hostile to the majority of us, the meat eating folk.

Taking a swipe at Jessica Simpson's recent t-shirt reading "Real Girls Eat Meat", PETA spokesman Alistair Currie said:
"Jessica Simpson might have a right to wear what she wants, but she doesn't have a right to eat what she wants – eating meat is about suffering and death. Some people feel like they are standing up against a tide of political correctness when they make a statement like this – what she is really doing is standing up for the status quo."

"Doesn't have a right." Sure.

And the United Nations is getting in on the game too:
A recent pronouncement from the head of the UN climate change agency that the best thing people can do to halt global warming is to turn vegetarian has taken the debate a step further.
Good Lord, they're bringing global warming in too. Run for the hills!

In conclusion, and for your listening enjoyment, a Futurama audio clip: "You're vegetarians, who cares what you do?" (Includes the classic line, "... we taught a lion to eat tofu...")

(If the audio clip is blocked, go here and find clip 6.)


Anonymous said...

What makes you vegans think that plants don't suffer when you tear off their genitalia for food?

How would you like it if a machine came along and just chopped you and all your family down before you were even a year old.

Just because they can't audibly scream when they're being killed by you pig vegans don't mean they don't suffer.

Flora have rights too!!!!

Floridians unite!

Anonymous said...

Its true, we don't have a right to eat meat. Its a priviledge and a delight!

The government doesn't have the right to ban eating meat either. Of course other wackos who believe in global warming would destroy our economy so few people could afford meat.

Anonymous said...

I feel the same way about Peta as I do about people who follow whatever brand of religion they choose: if that's what you want to believe, I'm fine with it, but don't condemn me for not going along with you.


LordSomber said...

They may not eat meat, but they definitely drink the Kool-Aid™.

Anonymous said...

Bravo, Anonymous One. I heard the totality of plants screaming in a vision. It was a still, small scream, which made me sure it came from the higher power (that's the neutral deity). Higher power forbid I bring any specific faith into this one! Here is a tasty battle between the advocates of not only plants and animals, but also between God and gods. I just hope it has a rich, bloody flavor when we sink our teeth into it! (On both respects.) Anonymous Twain

RogerCfromSD said...

The problem with Leftists is that they think they get to define and bestow rights.

That's why they hate The Constitution; it expressly says our rights come from God. Lefties hate God.

If a PETA solicitor ever comes to my door, I'll eat her.

Dan Kauffman said...

Those heartless Vegans have no conception of the sufferiong they inflict on innocent vegetables

This Video by the Arrogant Worms opened MY eyes

Carrot Juice Is Murder

Vandria said...

Wow, I think I just got a little dumber just reading this crap. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THE U.N. (not "the government" as one commenter eluded to)STATED THAT CUTTING MEAT FROM YOUR DIET IS A GOOD IDEA??? I'll say it slowly, try not to let the big words confuse you...


Greenhouse gases (i.e. carbon for the dodos out there) cause of global warming. It isn't a fairy tale, it's a scientific fact you retard (I'm talking to you my anonymous nemesis).

Their statement said nothing of cruelty to animals and had nothing to do with PETA. NOTHING! PETA merely uses this statement to illustrate why it is important to evaluate your diet and perhaps gain some support from individuals who may not otherwise be into vegetarianism. Furthermore, PETA as an organization does not condone radical veganism.Just because someone behaves radically and happens to support PETA, does not mean that PETA in turn supports their particular views.

Yes, I am a vegetarian. I care about our planet, and want to do my part to make a difference- because it's the right thing to do. I also use canvas grocery bags and drive a low emission vehicle. Oh my god, I MUST be some radical hippy. Please. Shame on any of you who would downgrade someone based on a moral stance, when your desire to eat meat has nothing to do with morals and more to do with your own weakness and selfish inability to sacrifice a luxury... a superfluous extravagance... to do something for the greater good. If that makes me a radical nut job then oh boy, I accept my title with glee and wear it with PRIDE!

Anonymous said...

To Vandria:

Okay, as pretty much the only liberal to regularly read this blog, I feel compelled to offer up a non knee-jerk defense. I believe in global warming, but understand how conservatives may view it as fabricated. A liberal scientific community is more likely to gravitate towards data that falls in line with what they already believe. It's common human behavior. And supposedly, scientists were up at arms about global *cooling* being a threat relatively recently. From what I understand, the earth has a fair amount of self-regulation which results in a terran version of homeostasis...but even if the fluctuations are minor blips for Terra, it could be the end of the human race, for all I know. At the same time, it could be a total non-event for humanity. Most likely, it will fall somewhere in between.

You also mention that meat is a superfluous extravagance, but can you back up this statement with some kind of neutral reference? Clearly, a body can function without meat, but are we certain that it performs to the same level? If simply living to an old age satisfies you, then you could classify your eyes as a similar extavagance. Blindness may not prevent someone from leading a lengthy life, but there are few people who would claim that eyes are superfluous.

Perhaps your anger at the post and the comments has colored your response, but it appears that you are displaying the same intolerance and insensitivity as you seemingly accuse the people here of showing. I would take particular issue with your use of the term 'weakness' for carnivores, but I have neither the time nor the energy at this late hour to carry it through.


Anonymous said...

To Vandria (Part II):

And although I will leave the bit about 'weakness' for another time (or perhaps never at all), I will caution you that it is unwise to make condescending statements such as "try not to let the big words confuse you..." immediately after exchanging 'elude' for 'allude' and mere seconds before typing a would-be sentence that has no verb ["Greenhouse gases (i.e. carbon for the dodos out there) cause of global warming."]


Vandria said...

Why yes, I can back up my statement with a neutral reference. I have friends, vegan friends, that are distance runners and marathon bikers. They are in what I would consider to be no less than top notch physical condition. They are not the pasty-skinned, yellow-eyed weaklings that so many people seem to characterize a vegan or a vegetarian as. I am quite healthy too sir, for that matter. I monitor my iron on a regular basis and eat a wide variety of wholesome, protein rich non-animal foods. The 2 young ladies to which I referred a moment ago carefully monitor their diets to ensure they receive adequate nutrients and could probably kick both of our asses without trying.

This is a typo. {"Greenhouse gases (i.e. carbon for the dodos out there) cause of global warming.} It should have read "Greenhouse gases (i.e. carbon for the dodos out there)are the cause of global warming." Some careless editing on my behalf, as with the use of elude. Touché. You got me! I made typos. That must mean I don't know what I am talking about. I have found that with any forum, when people run out of witticism, they resort to criticism- attacking peoples typing, spelling and the like as some sort of assassination on their intellect. Let's not shall we? Further, I understand the homeostasis theory quite well, but that is slightly off subject as we know that carbon emissions create a greenhouse effect. The real x factor with that is whether our carbon production is creating a state of negative or positive feedback in the homeostasis process that could create a cataclysmic cycle of events significant enough to eradicate the human species.That is a whole other debate there, my friend.

If you don't see another of God's living, breathing creature dying so you can stuff your face as an extravagance, then I pity you. Further, my verbal attack on the anonymous poster stemmed from his alluding to the idea that the government is trying to ban his "right" to eat meat. Huh??? So, maybe I didn't make myself and my point clear. The U.N. is not our government. Our government did not issue this statement. The U.N. did. PETA, did not have anything to do with this statement being issued. Therefore, why the attack on PETA, because you are up in arms over something the U.N.released in a press statement that PETA had nothing to do with? Illogic.

As for my supposed "intolerance and insensitivity as you seemingly accuse the people here of showing".

My intolerance is only for that of the anonymous illogical conclusion I mentioned before. I believe I am plenty tolerant, as 99% of the people I know and love are "carnivores".What insensitivity have I shown? Insensitivity is defined as lacking in responsiveness. I believe I have been plenty responsive here, and that's what offends you.The weakness I refer to is not that of the body, but that of the will. I have eaten meat in the past. It was how I was raised, because my parents didn't know any better. My mother just died of colon cancer, and the link between colon cancer and animal proteins has been made in many studies. Am I saying that eating meat caused my mother to die at 67. NO. But how do I know it didn't? Off point again. My point is, I have tasted animal flesh, but I gave it up even though it tastes good because I know in my heart, that is the right thing to do. That sir, takes strength of character that some clearly do not have or wish to exercise. That is the weakness, again, to which I refer.

Anonymous said...

You have a strange definition of 'neutral' when you pick two people who already conduct their lives according to your professed principles to back up your assertions.

Additionally, the 'weakness' was quite obviously that of willpower, which was what bothered me in the first place. It is such a loaded word and strongly implies superiority on the part of those who elect to follow your viewpoint. This also ties in with the insensitivity I mentioned - your use of the word was so casual that you appear to have no consideration that there may be validity to the other side's perspective. After all, they don't have a true reason for consuming flesh, they're merely weak.

Bear in mind that you are also talking with someone who inherently agrees with your position and follows many of the same tenets. It discourages me that your tone will automatically cause people to discount your argument, particularly when you bookend a snide comment with two glaring mistakes that further serve to undermine your words.

It would be helpful to be mindful of your assumptions. You assume I'm a sir while only having my initials (MJA). You assume that people follow your God. You assume that I am attacking you. You assume your position is fundamentally correct. You may, in fact, be right on *all* counts, but if you do not take the time to consider all sides and craft them into your arguments then you will never persuade anyone to your position and will merely entrench them further on the other side.


Aside: I am truly sorry about your mother.