PETA are sexist douches, and that’s quite enough for me!
I just read an article about how being a grammar nazi is basically the same thing as being a racist, so I thought I’d let you know that you meant to say sapience, and that years of poorly-researched science fiction has hidden the fact that cows are sentient from you.
Anyways, my thoughts?
PETA are shock jocks in the very same way that ~EFG~ here is: is there any substantive difference between joking about sicking Dobermans on hippies and actually pouring blood on people?
Look, I get the animal rights message, I really do. But PETA’s work is the equivalent of hiring Howard Stern to be the spokesperson for GLAD (These lesbians are awesome–the totally love sitting on my Dildotron 5000 for 10,000,000 viewers–talk about empowerment!). Hire some people with some goddamned sense, rather than a bunch’ve wannabe ecoterrorists (Blowing up chemical plants is scary! Let’s just pick on fur-wearing defenseless women!).
Err, sorry. For the sake of full-disclosure, I’m an evangelical meat eater: I proclaim to everyone I meet just how good meat is, and how much they should enjoy it, too.
On the other hand, I actually sort’ve hate the taste of meat, which I guess basically means that I’m eating it for the sake of killing other living creatures, right?
I for one believe that we have a moral and ethical imperative to eat as many cows - and consume the delicious products derived from their milk - as we safely can over the course of our lives.
In a world in which no-one eats meat or consumes cow-derived dairy products, farmers have no economic incentive to allow cows (or any other animal for that matter) to graze on their lands. In fact, given the amount of grain that would need to be produced in order to sustain a planet of vegetarians, cows would become an extremely rare thing indeed and would probably only exist in Bovine Sanctuaries and petting zoos.
So do your thing to ensure the bovine species: eat a juicy medium-rare steak tonight!
Here’s some enlightenment for you:
=
Oh, and I shudder to think of human milk coming from something this: (call me a prick if you must.)
What about HIV?
Spoken like someone who’s never paid attention to that niggling tingling at the base of their neck while perusing Far Side comics in the deep of the night.
I want to train some Dobermans to attack at the smell of pot and unwarranted self-satisfaction and just let them roam.
Wont somebody think of the Mac owners!
Just so we’re clear, human females, like cows, do not have to be perpetually pregnant to continue lactating. That said, I’m not sure how treating human women like livestock is better than treating cows as such. In any case, it’s not exactly an economically sound way to produce food.
Anyway, I otherwise concur. For PETA the issues long ago took a back seat to self aggrandizement.
I really admire your ability to post without actually contributing or, well, even having a point.
Yeah, I don’t like them either, and additionally, who the hell wants breast milk from some potential crackhead?
VVV :)
Hahah patchouli, good sir, I like the way that you think.
Seriously, would anyone here doubt that PETA is a bunch of lunatics? This is way, way past eco-hippies and well into must-be-kept-an-eye-on-by-authorities wacko territory. Think anti-new-world-order-militia and you’re pretty close to home.
Respectfully
krise madsen
Do they have any (reasonable) ideas for where all this breast milk is going to come from?
Also, everyone involved in this nonsense should be forced to find a cow that needs to be milked, look it in the eye, and say, “I’m sorry, but to milk you would be cruel.” And then stand there for ten minutes looking at it.
Let me know how they feel about the cruelty of cow’s milk after that.
Presumably, the cows got along fine without humans to milk them for a couple million years or so, salwon.
That has nothing to do with my point that the link is to a hilariously fake industry astroturf group.
It looks PETA actually does euthanize lots of animals because they can’t place them, however. They say no kill shelters avoid the problem by diverting adopted animals or warehousing them indefinitely; other people say no, they don’t. Anyone have a good overview of the no-kill vs kill shelter subject?
I’m not drinking anyone’s breast milk, especially since doing so when you aren’t a baby can cause cancer. In addition to that, who’s going to pay for the screening, PETA? I’m sure as shit that nobody wants to get HIV/AIDS, syphilis or any other sexually transmitted diseases by drinking contaminated breast milk. Hell, there’s even the encephalitis threat.
Are women going to sell their milk to B&J’s? Jesus christ.
Yes, as someone who worked with a no-kill rescue group, what they do is they place the pets with volunteers to foster them until they can be adopted. I fostered for a long time, and it was a very rewarding thing to do.
The group I volunteered for specifically takes animals that are “out of time” at the other animal shelters and gives them the chance they wouldn’t have had otherwise (they do take other rescues as well.) The SF SPCA is the model on which most other no-kill animal shelters are built. These animals are treated very well, and PETA is full of shit. They would rather they be dead. How is that ethical?