Create a Blog Ad...for PETA!

"Vaccines and antibiotics are for wimps!"

I have a sticker around here somewhere...

P.E.T.A.
(People Eating Tasty Animals)

I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to eat vegetables!

Or

"Don't go Vegan. Just eat less."

hehehe We have a few by our animal facility. One is a huge poster filled with medical achievements that used animal testing. Another is a pic of protestors with the heading "Thanks to animal testing, these people will live to protest 20.8 years longer!"

PETA: Because we don't understand science, and can't be bothered to learn.

PETA: Cute, fluffy animals have rights, too. Unless they smell funny.

Actually, looking back at that last comment, that first one would be suitable for practically every denialist group.

Intelligent Design: Because we don't understand science, and can't be bothered to learn.

Global Warming is a Hoax: Because we...

And so on, and so on, and scooby dooby doo...

PETA: Terrorism Schmerrorism

PETA: It's not terrorism when we're saving cute fluffy bunnies

If past sciblogs posts are any indication this is SURE to bring out the PETA appologists which usually results in hilarity and tasty smackydownness.

PETA: Because Terrorism is Fine When It's For a Good Cause

Hi,

I understand your opposition to PETA's positions on animal testing.

But I don't understand why you're making fun of my vegan diet & lifestyle.

Can you please explain why I must eat meat & wear leather to support science?

Thanks,

PETA apologist

PETA: This Dumb Slogan Comprises Our Entire Philosophy

PETA: Making A Virtue of Misanthropy

PETA: Four Legs Good! Two Legs Bad!

Well Joe, your personal choice to eat vegan and not wear leather is a personal choice. So no problem there.

Yet you sign your comment PETA apologist. So are you?

PETA: Because eating animals is one step away from eating your parents.

PETA: Because finding out if medicine is safe should be an adventure!

That's... odd. I'm signed in through Typekey, though my post above is signed anonymous. Very interesting.

PETA: Because we can't kill all those animals ourselves!

(ref the thousands of pets they killed and stuffed into dumpsters)

PETA: Your dead grandmother's body is safe with us!

(ok, so that wasn't PETA, but they supported the group that did it)

PETA: Because people are worth less than those smelly animals, who are worth less than my ego!

Ah, maybe the last one is a bit too long?

People Eating Tasty Animals. Haha, thats funny. Check this video out http://meat.org

I will stop eating meat when the lion lies with the lamb.

For all of their idiocy (camping in front of one of my prof's HOME, for instance), PETA does do some things right. Dog fighters, for instance, deserve every protest coming their way (just using an example that's been in the news recently).

Also, watching that video really is sick. I know the conditions aren't too much better, but I almost always buy the free-range eggs.
Eating meat is one thing. Abusing living beings is another.

Using animals to save lives doing research != Torture.
One should be allowed to proceed under supervision and strict guidelines, the other should be outlawed and actively protested.

PETA: Because vaccination is murder

I support the SPCA and the Humane Society. I don't support PETA. I prefer humanely slaughtered animals, but I oppose going vegan. I want pets to be treated and cared for by responsible owners, and I oppose PETA's stance against owning pets.

There's a difference between animal rights/liberation and animal welfare.

BTW, I really like the 2nd comment:
P.E.T.A.
(People Eating Tasty Animals)

*Thumbs up*

PETA's problem isn't that they don't eat meat / don't wear leather / whatever. those are clearly all personal choices anybody is free to make.

PETA's problem is that they would force us to do likewise, without any nearly good enough reason to, and have demonstrated their willingness to be apologists for and home-front supporters of outright terrorists in that doing.

And obviously the costs of producing meat compared to that of grains are negligible right? Just for reference, look up how much water is required to produce meat and how much water is left in aquifers and such. Fucking idiots.

I'm sorry, but The Best Page in the Universe nailed it some years ago:
For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

I must say that whenever I see the line "...that [insert industry or group] don't want you to see!" I immediately put on my BS filter. It just makes me cringe, almost as bad as the advertisments with "... the latest scientific breakthrough!"

Sorry, but badly shot video of slaughterhouses and feedlots is not going to turn me vegan. I grew up spending summers on my grandparent's farm, so I've helped slaughter hogs, kill chickens, and make sausage. Mmmmm... sausage.

PETA: Loving all animals....doggie style!

Isaac wrote: "Using animals to save lives doing research != Torture.
One should be allowed to proceed under supervision and strict guidelines, the other should be outlawed and actively protested."

But what if I want to research torturing animals? ;-)

@Joe, you don't, but in being vegan, you make it impossible for me to invite you over for a dinner party.

Vegetables aren't food. They're what food eats.

Salad Is Slaughter.

How about this as a PETA slogan: SEX! Now that we got your attention ...

Somehow, it seemed appropriately inappropriate, considering stuff like this:

http://faultline.org/index.php/site/comments/unemployment_means_being_a…

Vegetables aren't food. They're what food eats.

Salad Is Slaughter.

I'm not sure where it comes from...

Vegetables are not food; vegetables are what food eats.
Fruit are vegetables that fool you by tasting good.
Fish are fast-moving vegetables.
Mushrooms are what grows on vegetables when food's done with them.
-- Meat Eater's Credo

LanceR:

Sorry, but badly shot video of slaughterhouses and feedlots is not going to turn me vegan.

It's the same "argument" that anti-abortion activists like to use, a blatant appeal to pathos. Yes, seeing what goes on in a slaughterhouse is gross; yes, seeing an abortion performed is gross. Gross, however, does not equate to immoral. "Eeew, isn't this gross?" is not an argument; if it were, then everything from defecating to open-heart surgery would be absolutely immoral.

Thanks, PeTA. Come back when you have a substantial position, and not just a collection of pathological appeals, bad analogies, and hypocrisy.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what people are getting at when they cite the figures on how much water/energy/food it takes to produce meat as opposed to vegetables. By the same logic, we shouldn't be cultivating humans--look at how much food/water/energy they use!

Explain to me, when we all go vegan, where we'll be getting our cholesterol from. Too much kills you, but not enough kills you just as fast.

Gross, however, does not equate to immoral. "Eeew, isn't this gross?" is not an argument; if it were, then everything from defecating to open-heart surgery would be absolutely immoral.

Eating is gross. That's why civilized human beings know their lips are for concealing the act.

wilfrid wrote:

"And obviously the costs of producing meat compared to that of grains are negligible right? Just for reference, look up how much water is required to produce meat and how much water is left in aquifers and such. Fucking idiots."

Cattle grazing on fallow fields are an environmentally sustainable way to return nutrients to the soil. The organic farm that we get our vegetables (and beef) from move their cattle from field to field to graze and poop. Their hoofs break up and work organic matter into the soil. As the cattle are rotated through the fallow fields, free-range chickens follow and consume the insects that descend on the waste matter. The following year healthy, nutrient-rich soil grows the wonderful organic vegetables that we buy.

Factory farming is the problem, not the responsible raising and consuming of meat products. Each person's diet is a personal choice. Consuming locally or regionally grown food from a healthy sustainable source will do more for animal welfare than all the PETA terrorism and threats combined.

Factory farming is the problem, not the responsible raising and consuming of meat products. Each person's diet is a personal choice. Consuming locally or regionally grown food from a healthy sustainable source will do more for animal welfare than all the PETA terrorism and threats combined.

Except that "organic" farming is rarely sustainable. It may be viable for small communities in temperate regions, but certainly not for the world at large. The organic movement rejects the advances in agriculture and genetic engineering that increase yields, increase crop resistance to disease and predation, and increase nutrition. They reject advances in fertilizers and pesticides that increase the safety of the crops and lessen the impact on the environment, often preferring older chemicals and materials for arbitrary reasons.

Factory farms have their problems, but small-scale organic farming isn't the answer. Unless, of course, you're volunteering to be one of the 2-4 billion people who would starve to death as a result of a large-scale switch.

Tom Foss: "Incidentally, I'm not sure what people are getting at when they cite the figures on how much water/energy/food it takes to produce meat as opposed to vegetables. By the same logic, we shouldn't be cultivating humans--look at how much food/water/energy they use!"

I'm not sure that's the best counter to PETA's argument about the supposed inefficiency of meat. One question that PETA doesn't answer is whether we would be able to replace a pound of meat in our diet with the, what is it, twelve or so pounds of grain needed to make that pound of meat? (I'm half-remembering that number from a Bill Maher show, and I'm not sure I remember it right.) Could we really eat that much? Would our bodies even process it in the same way?

the word "organic", referring to farming practices and/or produce, has been watered down to where it doesn't mean much any longer, anyway; food sold as "organic" these days wasn't necessarily produced by the (admittedly loony) practices originally labelled as "organic farming".

what's needed isn't organic farming, it's sustainable farming, done with some semblance of bioethical concern. if that was the rule, the price of meat would likely skyrocket (because the supply would dwindle, and production costs would rise), but hopefully there would be an offsetting improvement in the variety and quality of vegetable produce available instead.

One question that PETA doesn't answer is whether we would be able to replace a pound of meat in our diet with the, what is it, twelve or so pounds of grain needed to make that pound of meat?

It doesn't quite work that way. For example, you don't have to replicate all the energy the cow uses to wander around, digest, make baby cows, etc. Just from a thermodynamic standpoint it's clear that eating meat isn't necessarily the best use of productive farmland.

Granted, grazing cows on unproductive pastureland would be the way to go, but it isn't the way we produce meat today. First off, there isn't enough pasture to support the massive amount of beef being raised today. Second, beef that's been on pasture doesn't taste as good as beef that is grain-fed.

That said, I likes me a big fat medium-rare steak. But there are real issues to be raised in how the cows are raised, fed and slaughtered. But anyone who says cows have as many rights as I do have clearly never met a cow.

Hey, vegans! If you come to Scienceblogs we will taunt you about your diet, you loser freaks!

"I support the SPCA and the Humane Society. I don't support PETA. "

Take a close look, Heathen Dan and similar believers. The Humane Society of the US has put up a hitlist map of research institutions on their website. This exposes more clearly and publicly what has been going on in the background for some time. The Humane Society is very PETA-ish in viewpoint and action.

If we just got people to spay and neuter all their pets, we'd stop real animal cruelty. Also, rescue pets, don't ever buy them from "Pet Stores." Puppy farms are also more cruel than most people can imagine.

There... simple. Let research continue, let me get my hormones to keep myself balanced, and stop real cruelty. Those committed by ever day people, every day.

Now I'm going home to eat some lamb, while my dogs eat pig ears and cats chow down on some nice tuna.

Theres plenty of room for all gods creatures.
Right there next to the mashed potatoes.

J.J. Ramsey:

I'm not sure that's the best counter to PETA's argument about the supposed inefficiency of meat.

True enough.

One question that PETA doesn't answer is whether we would be able to replace a pound of meat in our diet with the, what is it, twelve or so pounds of grain needed to make that pound of meat? (I'm half-remembering that number from a Bill Maher show, and I'm not sure I remember it right.) Could we really eat that much? Would our bodies even process it in the same way?

And furthermore, is it even suitable for human consumption? There are different grades of corn and grain, some of which are feed-grade, and some of which are graded for human consumption. If we stop farming meat, what do we do with the low-grade feed? Send it to poorer countries?

Nomen Nescio:

the word "organic", referring to farming practices and/or produce, has been watered down to where it doesn't mean much any longer, anyway; food sold as "organic" these days wasn't necessarily produced by the (admittedly loony) practices originally labelled as "organic farming".

I'd argue that the word was watered-down to begin with, due to those same loony practices. Like "natural" or "new and improved," it's a buzzword to sell products at artificially inflated prices.

what's needed isn't organic farming, it's sustainable farming, done with some semblance of bioethical concern.

Agreed. And while it would be a difficult, lengthy, and costly transition, it's a necessary one nonetheless. The problem, though, is that too many of the people in the sustainability movement have an irrational fear of technology and science. They think that we can become sustainable by going back to low-tech agrarianism, forgetting that such a situation is only sustainable for a much smaller global population. You can't un-ring the bell, and you can't un-birth three billion people. The only way we're going to reach sustainability is through research and development, and the widespread acceptance of relevant technologies.

Joe:

Hey, vegans! If you come to Scienceblogs we will taunt you about your diet, you loser freaks!

Hey, vegans! If you come to ScienceBlogs, we'll tell you that your dietary choices are your own, but you have no grounds to tell anyone else what they should or should not eat, wear, or conduct experiments on. Your moral and rational arguments to the contrary are weak at best, and fallacious or inconsistent at worst. Your choices are your own, but organizations like PeTA would seek to force such choices on everyone; they do not have a monopoly on ethics.

Hey, Joe! If you come to ScienceBlogs, we will make fun of your straw man argument and inability to recognize the explicitly-stated difference between "vegans" and "PeTA"!

Joe wrote:

Hey, vegans! If you come to Scienceblogs we will taunt you about your diet, you loser freaks!

Actually, the message is more like this:

Hey vegans! If you come to Scienceblogs to try to convince people to adopt your customs by using bogus science, logical fallacies and appeals to emotion we will taunt you about your childish ways, you loser freaks!

Yeah, I think that's a more accurate description of what happens here.

Second, beef that's been on pasture doesn't taste as good as beef that is grain-fed.

Sez who?

Obviously, it's time to post this

For the slogan, how about:

(Support animal rights)
Because Tapeworms are people too.

Isaac-- Dog fighters, for instance, deserve every protest coming their way (just using an example that's been in the news recently).

For all their huffing and puffing about Vick, make no mistake, PETA wants my dog dead. Their *defense* of pits in dog fighting cases is a charade.

Arnie attacked 5 children tonight on our walk. With kisses. Dreadful animal.

*flips off PETA*

I've got to say that some of the comments here really disappoint me. It seems to me that Joe has a legitimate point that folks here are assuming that it's obvious (or, what?, well-supported by science?) that eating meat is morally OK. Perhaps PETA uses arguments that put it in the denialist camp; fine, such arguments should be torn to shreds -- and no vegan need be offended (as Rev. BigDumbChimp points out to Joe).
But the early discussion has a strong theme of "it's foolish to think that a vegan lifestyle is more moral than a meat-eating one." Do people really think that such a claim is rationally grounded (especially, as some have pointed out, given the facts of factory farming)? It seems clear to me that we have extremely strong grounds for thinking that sentient animals have a strong moral claim on us. I doubt anyone would countenance torturing cats for amusement, for example. And there are serious ethical arguments in support of the claim that to the extent one can be vegetarian or vegan, one should. The quips offered here (e.g., meat eating is OK b/c it's natural, other animals do it, etc.) to attack the vegan/vegetarian position are transparent fallacies. You would scoff at such reasoning if it were applied to scientific claims; you shouldn't relax your standards when it comes to ethical claims. It seems to me that some folks here are dangerously close to playing the Jack of Hearts in this debate.
And I see absolutely no reason to suppose that making it convenient to invite one to a dinner party would be a moral obligation that might be on par with causing pain and death to intelligent animals. But maybe that's just me.

"It's the same "argument" that anti-abortion activists like to use, a blatant appeal to pathos. Yes, seeing what goes on in a slaughterhouse is gross; yes, seeing an abortion performed is gross. Gross, however, does not equate to immoral. "Eeew, isn't this gross?" is not an argument; if it were, then everything from defecating to open-heart surgery would be absolutely immoral."

Is that really all you felt when you saw that video at http://meat.org. If you saw someone light a cat on fire would you not oppose this on ethical grounds; just on aesthetic grounds perhaps.
An appeal to emotion isn't a scientific argument but imagine what kind of society we would live in if people demanded scientific evidence for every moral issues. Wouldn't we still have slavery, institutionalized torture, etc... Some of the success of the civil rights movement has been attributed to the television exposer it got. Was this somehow wrong?

I don't think there's much doubt that great strides can be made in humane treatment of animals in factory farms, and as for organic farming, I think it's highly overrated, but sometimes it does produce better results tastewise than conventional farming. I do buy organic sometimes, but not as a matter of principle, and the tomatoes in pots on my deck get Miracle-Gro (nothing that shade of blue could ever be organically-correct).

PeTA is definitely a symptom of the tendency for the extreme left to be just as intolerant, anti-intellectual, and moralistic as the extreme right -- in fact, in some ways they remind me of the Lyndon LaRouche organization without the cultish aspects or any number of fundamentalist youth organizations, inasmuch as it takes advantage of the activist impulses of the well-meaning but emotionally immature and uses them to disseminate scare stories and scientific garbage. In the grand scheme of things, the answers will eventually be found, hopefully before it's too late and we get hit with a global famine. But putting activism before science is not the way.

I'm reminded of a mural on a movie theatre in Harvard Square in Cambridge, MA that focuses on women's rights and especially breast cancer -- the tag line is "Indication of harm, not proof of harm, is our call to action." From a left-wing activist point of view, it sounds like a great rallying cry. But from a rationalist's standpoint, it sounds like an incitement to blind action, or even panic.

since the Humane Society of the U.S. has been brought up, i think it bears mentioning: despite its name, the HSUS is not an umbrella organization for the various local Humane Societies that run animal shelters all over the USA. if you ask your local shelter, you will most likely find there is no affiliation between the two at all.

this matters, because (as noted) the HSUS has taken some very questionable positions over the years which your friendly home town animal shelter probably shouldn't be tarred with.

You can't make a moral assertion based on science. It's not possible. Science is about facts, ethics and morality about emotions. They're opposing sides of the brain, and while one side can complement the other, their different logics and different cognative processes mean that they won't work together. Morality and ethics is inherently emotional. In a truly logical world, you'd realise that the only logical way to protect the planet and the animals from your existence is to end your existence. Commit suicide, and you'll save so much water, so much power, so many chemicals, so much food production, that there's no logic in living.

Brian X,
So because I don't think bulls should have there genitals cut off (without pain killers) makes me "emotionally immature". What if your pet died and I told you you were acting like a baby because you were upset.

As far as I know, the information about factory farming that is being put out by animal rights organizations as well a respected authors like Peter Singer, Jim Mason and Gary Francione has never been refuted. Can you provide me with any links that would refute their "scare stories and scientific garbage"?

Anyone who would knowingly equate eating meat with "light a cat on fire" is in denial. That is the sort of over-emotional claptrap that has weakened every argument about factory farming and livestock confinement. I live in Nebraska, so I know a bit about livestock. Feedlots can be horrific places, yes. Screaming that it is even similar to the torture of an animal (lighting a cat on fire) only weakens your position and causes most people to ignore the real problem. A more moral and useful position would be to buy meat locally from farmers who do not use feedlots or confinement techniques. I find that it also tastes better.

defcon:

Is that really all you felt when you saw that video at http://meat.org. If you saw someone light a cat on fire would you not oppose this on ethical grounds; just on aesthetic grounds perhaps.

No, what little I watched of the meat.org video made me feel like I was probably getting one side of the story. It made me feel like I ought to find out how old this video is, whether or not it's typical, and how well it represents slaughterhouses in general. Given other videos I've seen of the same process, I'd say that it's pretty well sensationalized. I also felt like there needs to be reform in the way we raise and cultivate animals for food, something I've said for quite some time. Moreover, I felt that none of these animals would even exist if they weren't being bred as prey.

There's a difference between pointless animal cruelty and using inefficient, inhumane killing methods in a slaughterhouse.

An appeal to emotion isn't a scientific argument but imagine what kind of society we would live in if people demanded scientific evidence for every moral issues. Wouldn't we still have slavery, institutionalized torture, etc

The point is not that it isn't a scientific argument, the point is that it isn't a rational argument. There are great rational arguments against slavery, institutionalized torture, etc., and I'd argue that those are far more convincing than "slavery is gross! Eeew!" Slavery didn't end because a bunch of people saw whip-scarred backs and decided they had to do something about it, it ended because reasonable people could no longer justify their actions. If Frederick Douglass and John Brown just stood in front of crowds going "look at this man's back! Isn't that terrible?" without supplementing it with some sort of appeal to logic, they would have convinced very few.

PeTA on the other hand rarely (if ever) resorts to reason and logic. They'd rather air their slaughterhouse videos and callously compare a chicken farm to Auschwitz, they'd rather support the ALF and call for violent action, then set foot near a proposition or syllogism. When all you have is an emotional appeal, your argument is empty.

Jay:

You can't make a moral assertion based on science. It's not possible...Morality and ethics is inherently emotional.

Morality and ethics are the rules a society creates, explicitly or implicitly, which allow the society to function. Science, particularly the social sciences, is well-equipped to study different kinds of society. Science can say "these are the rules which appear necessary for people to form a collaborative society." Science can say "societies which have particularly good track records on X tend to have morals which say A, B, and C." For any property that a society wishes to have, science can say "based on the evidence, here is the best path to that property."

The assertion that morals are somehow devoid of or exempt from logic is a laughable one. Try reading anything by Peter Singer, or any number of other moral philosophers. Yes, there's a logical argument for mass self-extinction; it is not the only logical argument, nor is it the most compelling or realistic. The idea that logic only reveals a single answer is quite simply wrong.

Arnie attacked 5 children tonight on our walk.

Death to Arnie!

With kisses.

oh.

I always liked "If man weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?"

"There are a lot of good reasons to be a vegetarian. Moral superiority is not one of them." - Tom "T-bone" Smith.

There are rational arguments on both sides of the debate, but none of those arguments are from PeTA.

Graculus:

"There are a lot of good reasons to be a vegetarian. Moral superiority is not one of them." - Tom "T-bone" Smith.

There are rational arguments on both sides of the debate, but none of those arguments are from PeTA.

Hear, hear.

We should return more to the sustainable farming practices. Thats the real "meat" of the issue.

The term Organic is 100% useless.

Yes, I personally love the idea of the meat I purchase wasn't from a cow stuck in a bin forced to eat, given steroids to grown to abnormal sizes, then antibiotics to counter the environment. And after all that, they add fillers to the meat to make it "easier" to cook.

BUT... What I do love, and I think more people need to embrace is Hydroponics. Lets get rooftop gardens providing our vegetables. Then I'll make the drive out to central Texas where I've found a rancher raising cows the right way. And damn, that meat is to die for! Yes, I have to buy a years worth of beef at a time. But if more people take the initiative, the more common this higher quality meat will be available.

We can use science to make sustainable, healthy, tasty food for all of us. Oh, and we should all start expanding our horizons on "meat." Eat more of the lesser quality cuts, the organs, etcetera. Start expanding your diet to include more insects (on purpose, not in your hot dog.)

I hope PETA doesn't get mad at me for wanting Garlic Flavored grubs (of course they won't, grubs aren't cute and fuzzy.)

I'm a vegetarian, and not a vegan. I honestly think that vegans are nuts and I don't really see any sensible argument for being one. I haven't got a problem with killing animals for food either, that is part of life. I've had to kill fish when I was younger and I'd do it again if the need arose.

The animal rights bods in PETA are pretty sinister, some of the stuff that their members have done in the name of other organisations in the UK is sickening.

My choices for being vegetarian are based on a few things. I've personally found my weight remains more stable when I'm vegetarian; something to do with a lack of all-you-can-eat chinese crispy duck buffets. I'm also concerned about climate change and methane emissions from cattle. I'd rather not contribute to this until (or if) they find a solution. Vegetables also do require less energy to maunfacture and, thus, less carbon dioxide is released in their growth and distribution (I also eat local produce). Another apparently growing problem, according to some scientific research, is that animals kept in poor cramped conditions which regularly treated with antibiotics are contributing to increased incidences of antibiotic resistant bacteria. I've seen the results from a study carried out in Holland which showed that 40% of hospital MRSA infections were as a result of bacteria which originated on a farm. I've just quickly looked on ISI to see that there is a bucket load of research on this very problem. Given that antibiotic resistant bacteria present threat to human health I do not see it as sensible to squander the important resource of antibiotics, which we currently possess, on animals that are kept in very poor conditions. Animals that are packed into pens full of s**t. This procedure is commonplace, and is any wonder that they get sick and then require daily treatment with antibiotics?

So, my reasons are a mixture of concern for human health and the environment based on some substantive science. That said I would eat organically produced meat because in the UK organic meat animals have to be kept in conditions of a certain standard and the infection rates are much lower. The trouble with organic meat is that it is expensive.

I note above that Tom Foss states that organically produced food couldn't feed the world. As far as I am aware organic food is the default option in many parts of the world already. My colleagues from Bulgaria inform me that organic is not a word used much in Bulgaria simply because much of the produce is organic at the moment anyway, anecdotal I know, but I have heard very similar things about South America and Africa. And we all know, maybe some people don't, the Chinese love to put human waste onto their fields to use as "natural" fertiliser. This is why you should never ever eat a salad in China.

Much of the food shortages anf famines in the world are caused by ineffective government which fails to adequately manage the farming industry (Zimbabwe and Venezuela); wars which disrupt normal human lifestyles (Darfur); or unexpectedly huge droughts that no amount of nitrate fertiliser, pest resistance or insecticide would ever fix (Ethiopia in the 80s).

Another point I want to mention in response to Tom Foss' claims. There is another element to the organic-is-good argument and that again is linked to human health.

Tom Foss:

"The organic movement rejects the advances in agriculture and genetic engineering that increase yields, increase crop resistance to disease and predation, and increase nutrition."

There are a growing number of peer reviewed studies showing that, in fact, organic produce contains higher nutrient levels compared to their non-organic counterparts. Take milk as an example which as shown that organic milk from cows and buffalo contains, amongst others, more linoleic acid and beta-carotene. There are more studies like this too. I've seen analyses carried out on vegetables showing higher levels of antioxidants which are now being cited, by some, as having beneficial health properties.

As far as I am aware organic food is the default option in many parts of the world already. My colleagues from Bulgaria inform me that organic is not a word used much in Bulgaria simply because much of the produce is organic at the moment anyway, anecdotal I know, but I have heard very similar things about South America and Africa.

I suspect your Bulgarian colleagues are deeply mistaken. And I wouldn't use Africa as an example of successful organic food production. Most parts of Africa are unable to produce enough food, and are net food importers. My father was involved in agricultural research in Africa in his career, and the areas that were able to successfully produce enough food for their needs were certainly not using organic production methods.

Organic production methods are in general a good idea gone wrong. Should we use as little pesticides as possible? Yes. Should we use minimal tillage? Yes. Should we avoid chemical fertilizers? No. But there isn't a label on produce that accompanies these ideas.

There are a growing number of peer reviewed studies showing that, in fact, organic produce contains higher nutrient levels compared to their non-organic counterparts.

Only if you ignore the studies that show that conventional food has higher levels of *other* nutrients. It all depends on which nutrient you're tracking. And which food. And which producer. And which farm. Most of the studies that I've seen have lousy controls and either didn't show error bars, or had such large error bars that you had to squint to make a decent conclusion.

Whoops, ^^^ anonymous was me.

Vegetables also do require less energy to maunfacture and, thus, less carbon dioxide is released in their growth and distribution

Really? I live on an acreage near a cattle ranch and a bunch of grain fields. Only the grain fields have the giant tractors and combines going.

I'm not doubting your veracity, I'm honestly surprised if that is true and wonder what type of farming the stats were based on.

PeTA: Don't think you should have pets. Say goodbye to Fluffy!

I'm not doubting your veracity, I'm honestly surprised if that is true and wonder what type of farming the stats were based on.

The simple way to think about it is that meat gets farmed twice. You have to put in the work to grow a crop, and then the work to feed it to the animals.

Veggies only get farmed once. Granted, this is a *gross* simplification (i.e. comparing wheat and tomatoes).

Many people still think that cows are grazed on unproductive pastureland. That hasn't been true for over a decade. Most cows are fed crops from highly productive farmland, and then finished on wheat (a food that humans could eat). So you put all your diesel and fertilizer into producing a crop, then put a bunch more into feeding the cows.

Meat really is a major energy intensive product (as produced today). That said, I likes me some steak...

LanceR:
I understand your point but I wasn't equating lighting a cat on fire with factory farming. I was using that as an example to make a point about ethics and aesthetics. Horrible things do happen in factory farms usually involving mutilation but I suppose I would rather be amputated without painkillers than be set on fire if I had the choice.

Tom Foss:
I agree with much of what you said in you last post. I appreciate you skepticism about the video. There is an issue with the animal welfare debate though: there really is only one side of the story. Nobody is really taking PETA or Peter Singer or anyone like that to task in the public arena. Nobody wants to think about this stuff or have their traditions questioned. I'd like to see a proper public debate about this stuff but we don't have that yet. I'm sorry if I insulted your intelligence (or anyone else's here) but most people aren't very thoughtful (sorry if I sound cynical here; take it as one person's conclusion) which is why, I think, PETA has to resort to sensationalistic tactic (thus discrediting themselves to some extent).

Jess:
The notion that PETA is against having pets seems to be a rumor. They are concerned with population issues but recommend adopting pets from shelters. There position on pets is outlined here (http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp). Where did you get that information from by the way. I'm curious where that idea came from.

Factician,

It's good to hear the other side of the story regarding food production and food availability. I'll admit that part of my information came from an anecdotal source. It's also interesting to hear that organic produce might not have higher nutrients in all cases. I've looked at a few review studies of nutrients in organic vegetables and they seem to be suggesting that the abundance of primary nutrients vary between organic and non-organic, but most studies show that anti-oxidant levels are higher in organic veg.

I would, in general, support non-organic food use in places where food is in a shortage.

PeTa doesn't want you to have pets, but they haven't called for confiscation. Well, yet.

Give 'em an inch.....

PETA is certainly insane. For one thing, they completely ignore the fact that animals have adapted, or been domesticated, to *our needs*, and therefore the idea of "nature" is never pure or certain (at least the way they put it). Primitivism is something I often associate with PETA's insanity, which is telling in that both animal extremism and religious zealotry are associated with it.

That being said, I don't eat meat. There seems to be something "too close to home" about it, as in it reminds me of myself. The closer an animal resembles myself, the less likely I am to eat it. Of course I would never hold someone else to this moral standard, but once it got into my head I couldn't get it out. I'm reminded of the film American Splendour where Harvey Pekar (played by Paul Giamatti) responds to his date asking why he's a vegetarian by saying, "well, I have a cat, so..."

As Tom Smith said, there are a number of good reasons for vegetarianism, but none of them based on moral superiority. Up until relatively recently meat was far too expensive (in hunter gatherer energy use and then in modern times financially) for most of the world's population to use it as a basis for diet, which might explain all the links to meat eating and cancer, taking into account our adaptations. There are serious concerns about animal manure and its effects on the environment when factoring in mass production, which has especially gotten out of hand in my own state of NC with our massive pig farming industry. Maybe most importantly, that most of the world's most dangerous diseases were originally animal borne, most likely from domestication, should be worrysome as well (then considering the possible effects genetic manipulation could have on this, which might not actually be negative.)

I'm sure others on this board can put it better than I, but when attacking a group like PETA, who are without a doubt nuts in practice and theory, its easy to overreach.

defcon:

I can certainly call you out for selective quoting. PeTA has a radical and (probably more importantly) uncompromising agenda and appeals to celebrities (most of whom are demonstrably not that bright) and young people (most of whom still have a ways to go to learn to modulate their emotional responses with logic), playing on their ignorance and good intentions to get out a toxic message that happens to sound good on first blush. Do you fall into that category? I have no idea. But I know you're using scare tactics and emotional appeal rather than legitimate argument. PeTA is very much indicative of the kinds of fringe lunacy that people use to tar liberals with.

As for your other arguments -- yes, television exposure probably did help the Civil Rights movement greatly, because it exposed the abuses of Jim Crow for what they were and humanized black people to many white people who might never have gotten to know a black person before. Your slavery arguments are ludicrous -- while you might find a few racist scientists out there, you will never find a scientific consensus that slavery was good for the slaves.

Brian X,
Obviously I'm not using scare tactics (who am I scaring?) but I am using an emotional appeal. I'm making the assumption that normal people have a certain belief about morality which is: "I beleive it is immoral to inflict unnecessary harm on sentient beings". I don't beleive this is a radical position. If one subscribe to this notion then I am justified in using it as a premise in a syllogism to bring you to the same conclusion I have come to.

P1 "I beleive it is immoral to inflict unnecessary harm on sentient beings"."
P2 "Here is evidence that animals are tormented in factory farms"
Q "I don't beleive factor farms are moral"

P1 is an assumption about what you (the reader) already beleive, P2 is my addition to the argument.
It's my contention that if people were made aware of the existing conditions in factory farms the above syllogism, and its conclusion (Q), would play itself out in the minds of people automatically.

You also suggested in a round about way that people who hold the views I do are ignorant. What you actually said was PETA plays on the ignorance of young people but you suggest I may fall into that category. I've asked for evidence that contradicts the central critique of the animal industry by animal welfare groups and well-respected authors. No one reading this blog has given me any evidence of what we are ignorant of though I would really like to know about it (as would be expected).

About slavery. I'm not a historian of economics but I beleive much of the material wealth that slave-owning civilizations had was attributable to the holding of slaves. So there have been sound economic arguments for slavery. My argument about slavery was that it required human morality to abolish it. Again, I don't think I'm making a radical statement here. I think it's good that we have developed a civilization which takes the moral impulse in humans seriously. I don't think this impulse has been applied to animals by the animal industry for economic reasons (reasons which are easy to imagine). Additionally, I don't think this impulse has been applied by the public because people don't want to give up their dietary traditions nor do they want to consider what the lives of factory farmed animals are like because they're abhorrent.

Actually, slavery is a lousy economic system. There is a lot of paper wealth, sure. But the very basis of that wealth is actively trying to undermine your position. Slaves never work as hard as freed men. Slavery is a lazy answer to a problem that doesn't really exist.

As for factory farms, you've set up a nice false dichotomy.
A: Factory farms which have horrible conditions for animals.
B: Nobody eat meat.

You really can't see a middle ground there? As I said earlier in the thread, buy meat locally from small producers who do not confine their animals. Buy kosher. Work to prevent factory farms from keeping their licenses. Of course, that is all harder work than a bumper sticker "Meat is Murder". That is the ignorance that PETA plays on.

They are concerned with population issues but recommend adopting pets from shelters.

Except my pet.

LanceR:
You accuse me of false dichotomy. Not quite true. I don't think I ever said people shouldn't eat meat. I said people shouldn't support factory farm which, it appears, you agree with. I'm not opposed to bringing an animal into this world and then deciding when they die (or for what purpose they should die). I'm simply opposed to the cruelty that is endemic in the animal industry. I don't think opposition to mass cruelty is a position only of the radical left or of maniacs.

As far a slavery is concerned it seems you didn't understand what I was getting at. I was upfront about my lack knowledge on economic history. I wanted to emphasize that human morality was key to overcoming slavery (as well as many other injustices).

Accuse? No. What you have *is* a false dichotomy. There is no accusation there, you are not being attacked. I'm not going to feed any incipient martyr syndrome.

Have you ever, personally, been involved in the slaughter of animals for food? It may appear cruel, it is certainly "gross" to most people, but it is rarely as abusive as you and other activists seem to think. There are the occasional horror stories, but that's all they are. Stories.

You have equated the castration of bulls to the death of a family pet. You have equated slaughterhouse conditions to lighting a cat on fire. You seem to be ONLY appealing to emotion, which does not help your case.

Oh, and slavery as an institution was doomed by economic concerns long before the moral issue cropped up. One of the main reasons for the Civil War was the rural slave holding South simply could not compete economically with the urban, free-state North. The moral argument was secondary.

LanceR:
I'm not looking for martyrdom. I hope the tone I'm writing in doesn't give the impression that I feel like I'm being attacked or that I'm being hostile to you or anyone else on this board.

Anyway, back to the issue. I was very clear on why I wasn't using a false dichotomy. You insisted I was but you didn't explain why.

You said "[animal slaughter] is rarely as abusive as you and other activists seem to think.". I have asked for evidence of this three times on this board. You seem very confidant that you know what your talking about. Could you please direct me to a website, a book or any resource that backs this up. I would be in your debt for putting so many of my concerns to rest.

I haven't made any of the equations you claim I did. You seem to be willfully ignoring the points I was making (or perhaps I'm not a very clear writer).

I was upfront about making an appeal to the emotions, specifically normal human empathy. Who needs a better reason to not be needless cruel to a sentient being.

"The moral argument was secondary."
If human morality was the only reason to end slavery would that not be enough for you?

It's still a false dichotomy. Showing a few horrifying scenes at a few slaughterhouses for shock value is intellectually dishonest. Some factory farms are bad. Duh. In the wide spread of America, I'm sure we could find at least one good farm for every bad example. Trying to tar all slaughterhouses and feedlots with the same brush is a classic fallacy.

As far as my sources, I believe I stated before that I have worked in packing plants, and on farms in my younger days. Once you step outside the PETA propaganda, you realize that not all operations are the same. Forget books and websites... get out into the real world.

Morality would be a sufficient reason to end slavery for me, however, it proved to be ineffective in reality. The moral issue had been debated for many years before the economic factors actually put an end to the practice in America. See the Dred Scott decision for one example. Moral arguments, like emotional appeals, tend to fall short when faced with reality.

"In the wide spread of America, I'm sure we could find at least one good farm for every bad example."

That's not what the evidence shows. Anyway you're saying half the slaughter houses in America are bad.

"As far as my sources, I believe I stated before that I have worked in packing plants, and on farms in my younger days."

So which allegations are you objecting too? What practices would you say the meat industry is being falsely accused of.

"Moral arguments, like emotional appeals, tend to fall short when faced with reality."
This is what I'm struggling the most with concerning your argument. You seem to be objecting to the idea that people should be moral for morality's sake because it wouldn't be pragmatic. If you were to put forth that position on any other topic other than animal welfare no one would accept it.