|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:10 pm
Because I am a donator to several Humane societies in my area, I get PETA begging letters all the time. The one hand is out for my money, but the other is trying to guilt me into agreeing with their philosophies.
Bottom line: imo, beating, starving, fighting, sexually abusing animals is bad always. Eating, owning, training and showing are not bad always. IMO.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:16 pm
Since we're starting to get more activity, maybe I should resume my research....is there any interest in this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:27 am
I'd read more of it, if you have it up.
ninja I may be tied up researching for the docking thread in the next week, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:45 am
The only reason I stopped,. is because it didn't seem to generate much of a conversation or interst...but as long as we have acticity and there is someone reading it, I dont mind doing the work.
I'll start checking into some other groups...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:08 am
The only organizations, or groups, I have donated to were to my local pet shelter, a golden retriever rescue organization (they had a booth at a pet fair), and this specific no kill shelter that send my mom things, every once in a while. I am more skeptical about bigger organizations. I would much rather prefer to be lending my time, but it seems that they would prefer you donate money. For example, my local pet shelter, turned me down 3 different times, when I tried to volunteer. A pretty strange thing, in my eyes, but whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:12 pm
just wanted to say that i find all of this stuff quite interesting and i would like to see more, if you are up for the research. also, could you maybe put some links to the sources? that would be cool ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:15 pm
razorgod Since we're starting to get more activity, maybe I should resume my research....is there any interest in this? I'm interested in it, but I've already done a lot of research about it myself......but maybe it would be a good idea to post more info for people who love animals, but maybe don't have their facts straight on the AR movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:09 pm
I hope you'll find time to research more. This is very interesting to read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:06 pm
I find this a great source of information, I've always been interested in supporting proper treatment of animals, and I want to know where I should put my support, I distrust many of the bigger corporations and organizations simply on principle, but being able to see factual evidences is much more useful. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 5:18 pm
Is the anti-animal cruelty movement the same as the animal welfare movement? (does know we are talking about orgs. but was curious). Also about the whole omnivore deal, a lot of scientist are begining to believe that in fact humans are not true omnivores because the definition of a true omnivore is an animal that can not survive without both vegetation feed and the protein in flesh (like cats can't survive without taurine). If you look at the anatomy of the human and all other great apes, you can see that we are opportunistic omnivores. Having canines doesn't mean anything, canines are used for more than just tearing flesh (horses can have them, then they are called wolf teeth). Even on a metabolic level we aren't true omnivores. But yeah I'm hunter, my meat stays with me, not giving it up, sorry.
On to PETA, they want animals to have equal rights as humans, so the loss of a animal would be much more costly. Insurance in animal related fields would sky rocket, which means your bill will also increase. Also euthanasia.... even if the animal had no chance and would have to suffer, would be wrong because it is that way in humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 5:48 pm
Zariasunrise Is the anti-animal cruelty movement the same as the animal welfare movement? (does know we are talking about orgs. but was curious). Also about the whole omnivore deal, a lot of scientist are begining to believe that in fact humans are not true omnivores because the definition of a true omnivore is an animal that can not survive without both vegetation feed and the protein in flesh (like cats can't survive without taurine). If you look at the anatomy of the human and all other great apes, you can see that we are opportunistic omnivores. Having canines doesn't mean anything, canines are used for more than just tearing flesh (horses can have them, then they are called wolf teeth). Even on a metabolic level we aren't true omnivores. But yeah I'm hunter, my meat stays with me, not giving it up, sorry. also increase. Also euthanasia.... even if the animal had no chance and would have to suffer, would be wrong because it is that way in humans. Humans don't exactly need plants to survive, either; for example, the Inuits were aa almost completely carnivorous society (they occasionally ate seaweed). I think in the case of humanity, the word 'omnivore' fits well because humans often can live off of practically anything, and in the most inhospitable climate. Besides, looking at human societies over the course of human history, meat has ALWAYS been a highly-valued food type whether the society is composed New Guinea hunter-gatherers, Mongols, Romans, medieval Europeans, or modern Western countries. In hunter-gatherer societies, hunters who can acquire and bring back meat are universally given high status. Frankly, I'd like to know what the classification of humans is, since humans can and have lived on both entirely-plant and entirely-meat diets. Perhaps the definition the scientists you mention came up with would better fit a word like amphivore, (literally 'both eater') than omnivore ('all eater'). [/quibbling]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 8:20 pm
The point you made was very good, but with the tribes that just eat meat the animals that they did eat had the nutrition from plants. There is no enzyme, vit., or protein that we need to get from meat. Meat is a preferred source of protein and energy for sure, that's part of the reason we eat it. But a true carnivore needs something it can only get from tissue, like I mentioned before cats with taurine, without it they would die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 2:01 am
Admittedly, humans do need a high percentage of some chemicals of vitamins such as C and A that can't be found in meat, and meat is notoriously bad for dietary fiber. However, in many of the places that humans have lived, high-protein plant sources were unavailable. The Inuit, for instance, certainly had no access to soybeans or nuts, and the Fore people of New Guinea actually evolved a cultural acceptance of widespread cannibalism in order to get necessary protein in their diet. (Of course, that was the main reason they were decimated by kuru or laughing sickness, which is a human form of mad cow disease caused by eating infected brain tissue. But I digress.)
And I was certainly never saying that humans are carnivores! I was simply saying that yes, omnivore is the best classification because until very recently most members of cultures could not survive without meat of some form and that throughout history, humans have been omnivorous. It isn't necessarily 'oppurtunistic,' not like the way chimps occasionally eat meat, when humans have also evolved adaptations for scavenging and hunting meat more effectively--the increased intelligence is a hallmark of predators, and it's thought that one of the reasons that humans are such effective long-distance runners with such good eyesight was in order to see a source of prey or a carcass that could be scavenged off in the distance, then be able to get to it before anyone else. Humans also have the best ability to throw objects accurately of any species, which could be explained both as a means to protect themselves and as a means of hunting (stoning can be an extremely effective method of death).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 5:45 pm
I agree and disagree with on some of the points you made in your first post. We are omnivores and while some people may not want to eat animals because they think it's cruel. They still love their dogs and cats who eat their chiken or beef or whatever. For me, though, It does bother me to think of the kinds of lives these animals had. Obviously our ancestors didn't have huge farms of animals just waiting to be slaughtered. They roamed free untill caught and killed and eaten. They had a good quality of life before hand.
I agree that we do need some animal hides/fur for survival and to be able to do certain jobs. However the fact remains a lot of people wear fur and leather simply for fashion.
It is true that animal testing is necessary and in the long run saves lives. However I don't like that we are so willing to sacrifice the life of an animal to make medical advancements, but never that of a person. (I'm not saying that we should start experimenting on people or anything. Just that animals lives are valued so little and experimenting on them only promotes that state of mind.)
I agree it is not cruel to have animals as a source for entertainment but it is important to know where to draw the line. Obviously dog-fighting is cruel and inhumane. Some circuses do not take good care of their animals, nor do they all use humane training methods. My own dog is a born performer. For him laughter is the best reward. He's a big clown really and absolutly loves to show off for kids and guests. So in some cases, an animal being a source of entertainment is beneficial for both. But it is important that there be some kind of laws to ensure the care and treatment of these animals.
On another matter. I wonder what everyone thinks of the movie The Shaggy Dog. It didn't call PETA by name but it did have a similar situation and it seemed to be promoting PETA and the incident of the lab that was set on fire. ( That's all we need, more people blindly supporting PETA.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 12:23 pm
Wow, the creator of this thread is supremely ignorant. =(
If you say you love animals you should not hurt them and exploit them and that includes abstaining from eating them.
Oh jesus. I just read crazy cats post. Wow.
Animal testing is not necessary at all and btw, I am sure you wouldn't be so quick to "support" it knowing that animals that are "tested" on include cats. Tell your kitties why its ok to remove part of their skull, and replace it with machinery for something that is not even relevant to humans. There is only a 34 percent accuracy from animal to human results. Flip a coin, 50 50 would give you a much more accurate result then sewing kitties eyes closed to study blindness in infants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
