View Full Version : vegan, animal abuse, porn.
http://www.care2.com/causes/peta-to-launch-porn-site.html#comment-2635322
"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is taking things to a new level with plans to launch its own XXX porn site, which is expected to go live in December."
“We’re hoping to reach a whole new audience of people, some of whom will be shocked by graphic images that maybe they didn’t anticipate seeing when they went to the PETA triple-X site,” said Lindsay Rajt, PETA’s associate director of campaigns."
This is an aticle very critcal of the idea, followed by a lot of comments for and against.
What does this list think?
Is porn ok?
Is veganism a good idea?
Is it ok to show shocking pictures of reality in the interest of getting attention to your cause?
Is it ok to mix porn with animal abuse in order to 1) get people attracted to the site? 2) 'lure' them into seeing the reality of animal industry by so doing?
Thorne
10-10-2011, 04:46 AM
Is porn ok?
I like it! Really, what's the harm? As long as the models (women, in my case) are posing/performing voluntarily, and are getting paid for it, why should it be considered any differently than any other marketable product?
Is veganism a good idea?
Not for me! I'm a meat and potatoes man! Vegetables are what REAL food eats.
Is it ok to show shocking pictures of reality in the interest of getting attention to your cause?
Why not? It may attract some people to your cause, and it may drive some away. I doubt it would have any real effect overall.
Is it ok to mix porn with animal abuse in order to 1) get people attracted to the site? 2) 'lure' them into seeing the reality of animal industry by so doing?
Personally I think it's stupid. Those who are disturbed by animal abuse are not going to go to the site. Those who are not disturbed will ignore it. I think PETA is wasting its money on this, money which they could probably use to better advantage elsewhere. But, none of it is MY money, so I don't give a damn.
PETA are a bunch of idiots and this just goes to prove that point. I'm absolutely not against treating animals better than we currently do, but the peeps from PETA have a long record of fucking up.
Is porn ok?
Most of the times it isn't, no. But since this is a much too broad subject to go into here I won't.
Is veganism a good idea?
Not for me. I like cheese and Yogurt and the occasional steak or sausage much too much. Also, I know of a boy who has been raised by vegans and who at the age of five has the mental capacity of a two year old. Could be the reason isn't veganism, but I don't believe that.
So: for adults who made an informed decision to live vegan (and got more than just a little clue about how to go about it), it's OK. For everybody else: No.
Is it ok to show shocking pictures of reality in the interest of getting attention to your cause?
Of course it is. I guess they'd still be cutting each other's throats in Bosnia if there hadn't been the pictures and the live coverage of the bombs' and snipers' victims in Sarajevo, Gorazde, Mostar etc.
Is it ok to mix porn with animal abuse in order to 1) get people attracted to the site? 2) 'lure' them into seeing the reality of animal industry by so doing?
Nope. It's dumb. It's ... well, it's PETA.
Is porn ok?
Most of the times it isn't, no. But since this is a much too broad subject to go into here I won't.
It is part of the subject, so feel free.
I'd prefer to look at just about anybody's porn site rather than peta's. They are a bunch of wackos who do not stand for animal welfare, but for animal rights, which is an entirely different thing. And the leadership has the stated goal of the elimination of domestic animals.
I don't think veganism is a great thing either.
IAN 2411
10-10-2011, 11:31 PM
Vegan? My second oldest daughter was vegan until a few years ago. She was anaemic and white faced, but since she has started eating a few meats she is now a lot better and stronger. I am not sure, but you can tell me if I’m wrong, but I am sure that I read somewhere that we need the nourishment from meats for us to survive. The only way that we could survive as a race without meat would be for the whole population to evolve a little at a time in that direction.
Then on the other hand, that could have been written by the owner of the Aberdeen Angus Steak houses in the UK, he is a very nice man...lol
Porn? It can be a stimulant or a turn off, as it all depends on what you’re watching and who is watching. I believe that the Coliseum in Roman times was a sort of porn only in real life, so it’s as old as the hills. Once again this was built over two thousand years ago, to be shown to a captive audience.
PETA? Bunch of loonies, no more sense that some of the animals they are talking about. Not dissimilar from the animal rights in the UK, so what’s next, bugs and insects? Never mind about animal rights, what about ours that are being eroded on a daily basis.
Be well IAN 2411
I am not sure, but you can tell me if I’m wrong, but I am sure that I read somewhere that we need the nourishment from meats for us to survive. The only way that we could survive as a race without meat would be for the whole population to evolve a little at a time in that direction.
I think you're right and I think it would be enough if the female half of the population would evolve in that direction. Not having periods and thus loosing valuable blood and iron would be a good start, because it's rather difficult to get enough iron without meats. Same goes for vitamin B12 (cobalamin).
Of course, not having periods would pretty much put a stop to the evolution of humans...
Thorne
10-11-2011, 05:45 AM
There are some nutrients that we get primarily from the consumption of meat products. I'm not an expert so I won't try to explain which nutrients they are. Some of these nutrients can be gotten through eating specific vegetables, though generally in much larger quantities than would be required with meat. Some of them cannot, though, and to maintain a Vegan diet you have to take daily supplements. Usually these supplements are provided by the same companies that the PETA nuts boycott because of animal experimentation, though.
There are some nutrients that we get primarily from the consumption of meat products. I'm not an expert so I won't try to explain which nutrients they are.
I am (well, a degree in biochemistry plus some study of nutrition theory) so I will. They're mainly amino acids, the components of proteins: since we're made of meat, the easiest way to get the amino acids we need for our proteins is to eat meat. Most vegetable foods don't have the right mix. However, by a happy accident or the goodness of Gaia, if you eat both grains and pulses (as in such classic peasant foods as rice'n'peas, or just a peanut butter sandwich) the amino acids that are missing from one source are present in the other, and you end up with a pretty good balance.
The other main things you miss in a purely vegetable diet is fats and Vitamin B12. Ian's daughter was probably lacking B12, a deficiency that takes a long time to show up; even the Vegan Society admits that the only way to make up the lack is synthetic supplements, either as pills or artificially fortified foods.
But it's worth considering that for most of human history the vast majority of people ate very little meat. The idea of ancient diets as consisting of whole chickens and legs of pork, so far as it has any basis in fact, is based on the lifestyles of the upper 1%. And this is one reason people are so attached to their meat diets: it's a very ancient status symbol to be able to eat lots of meat, so the idea that it must be good is hard to shake. But exactly the same was true of white bread, and it's taken us a couple of centuries, once white bread became widely available, to recognise widely that it's actually not very good for you.
I'd prefer to look at just about anybody's porn site rather than peta's. They are a bunch of wackos who do not stand for animal welfare, but for animal rights, which is an entirely different thing. And the leadership has the stated goal of the elimination of domestic animals.
I don't think veganism is a great thing either.
I had not caught on to that difference, wellfare versus rights, will look into that. Off hand 'rights' sound better.
Thorne
10-12-2011, 06:28 AM
I had not caught on to that difference, wellfare versus rights, will look into that. Off hand 'rights' sound better.
Then what about the rights of the vegetables? They're living things too, aren't they? Why is it okay to rip carrots out of the ground, skin them with a peeler and chop them up for a salad? Don't they have the right to humane treatment?
These PETA people seem to want to give more "rights" to the animals than they are willing to give to other humans. They want to empty out the zoos, despite the fact that this would virtually guarantee the extinction of who knows how many species. Or should we, perhaps, tear down our cities and suburbs and give the land back to the animals? After all, they were here first. They have the "right" to their own land.
They have the "right" to their own land.
Exactly. They also have a right not to be hungry. Right now I'm envisioning a bear or a wolf munching on the perfect ass of a PETA porn model.
Hmm, there might be a silly story in this.
Thorne
10-12-2011, 08:27 AM
Right now I'm envisioning a bear or a wolf munching on the perfect ass of a PETA porn model.
Nah. The perfect ass has some MEAT on it!
I don't believe animals have rights. With rights come rules of law and responsibility to obey them. We don't want to get into prosecuting polar bears or tigers for eating people, or deer for destroying crops, so we should not give them the rights that people have. Welfare is a different issue for domestic or captive animals. We are responsible for them, therefore we should treat them well until they are to be slaughtered or die of natural causes, depending on the use of the animal. As far as wild animals, I believe it is in our own interest and an absolutely critical value to preserve habitats and species as much as possible. It's not the rights of the animals, though, it's our responsibility toward the planet and even our own welfare and survival.
Then what about the rights of the vegetables? They're living things too, aren't they? Why is it okay to rip carrots out of the ground, skin them with a peeler and chop them up for a salad? Don't they have the right to humane treatment?
What a lovely idea! Why don't you start an organisation? :rolleyes:
These PETA people seem to want to give more "rights" to the animals than they are willing to give to other humans.
I don't know about that, but as I see it, animals have just as much right to be here as other life. But we are in the process of taking All and Everything for ourselves, humans alone. What gives us the right to do that? Are we so fantasic creatures? Are you going by bible, which says that god gave us all the earth and everything in it to do with as we please? If you do not believe in god, who gave us the right?
They want to empty out the zoos, despite the fact that this would virtually guarantee the extinction of who knows how many species.
How about stopping either putting them in cages, or ruining their habitats?
Or should we, perhaps, tear down our cities and suburbs and give the land back to the animals? After all, they were here first. They have the "right" to their own land.
Yes, they do, just like the American natives. How about we make a reasonable compromise, whereby we stop ruining more land and start being resposible for domestic animals?
Or do you feel that we have a right to go on till all animals are extinct, and there isn't a blade of grass on all the planet?
I don't believe animals have rights. With rights come rules of law and responsibility to obey them. We don't want to get into prosecuting polar bears or tigers for eating people, or deer for destroying crops, so we should not give them the rights that people have.
You mean only creatures that can live according to our rules can have any rights? Or, in other words, that only our species can ever have any rights? Not that we all do.
Welfare is a different issue for domestic or captive animals. We are responsible for them, therefore we should treat them well until they are to be slaughtered or die of natural causes, depending on the use of the animal.
I think so too, and personally I include proper slaughtering as well as proper hunting in this.
As far as wild animals, I believe it is in our own interest and an absolutely critical value to preserve habitats and species as much as possible. It's not the rights of the animals, though, it's our responsibility toward the planet and even our own welfare and survival.
I am trying to get my head around being responsible for the planet, but not giving it any rights - that is, respect. I think we are at the core of the whole thing right here.
I don't believe animals have rights. With rights come rules of law and responsibility to obey them. We don't want to get into prosecuting polar bears or tigers for eating people, or deer for destroying crops, so we should not give them the rights that people have.If we could sue deer for destroying our crops, they could with equal justice bring countersuit for our destroying their habitat. (And I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers who would take their case on contingency.) In any case, you're talking about reponsibility to obey laws made and enforced by humans, and it's universally recognised as unjust to impose laws on people who don't have any say in making or judging them. If there were laws that applied to all living creatures - and it is a defensible concept - then it is widely argued that humans are the great lawbreakers, the gangsters of ecology. So let's not go there.
In any case, it's not the case that rights automatically imply responsibilities: children have rights laid down by law, so do mental hospital patients and convicts. None of those are held to the same standards of responsibility as free adult humans, but we respect their rights (well, most people do, see the ongoing thread on prisoners' right to vote) and defend their rights on their behalf. There's nothing conceptually difficult about doing the same for the rights of non-humans, if once we agreed that they have them.
Thorne
10-13-2011, 08:59 AM
What a lovely idea! Why don't you start an organisation? :rolleyes:
Probably because I don't really LIKE vegetables. Except maybe in a nice stew or soup.
I don't know about that, but as I see it, animals have just as much right to be here as other life.
Does the lion violates the rights of the gazelle when he eats it? Is the crocodile who eats a swimmer violating someones rights? I don't think so! They are doing what they are supposed to do, eating whatever they can catch. Just as humans do.
But we are in the process of taking All and Everything for ourselves, humans alone. What gives us the right to do that?
Survival of the species, one of the strongest evolutionary traits there are.
Are you going by bible, which says that god gave us all the earth and everything in it to do with as we please? If you do not believe in god, who gave us the right?
Evolution gives us the right. But with it, as you noted, comes responsibility. We won't survive for long, at least not as a civilization, if we destroy the ecosystem we depend upon for life.
How about stopping either putting them in cages, or ruining their habitats?
Sure, works for me. Why don't you start an organization?:cool:
Yes, they do, just like the American natives. How about we make a reasonable compromise, whereby we stop ruining more land and start being resposible for domestic animals?
I can go along with that. To a point. Just come up with a way to grow enough food to feed the billions of people already here without taking habitat from other species. After all, people have a right to eat.
Or do you feel that we have a right to go on till all animals are extinct, and there isn't a blade of grass on all the planet?
Nope. We have an obligation to ourselves NOT to do that. Because once that happens WE'LL become extinct. Nature's a bitch that way.
Thorne
10-13-2011, 09:05 AM
I am trying to get my head around being responsible for the planet, but not giving it any rights - that is, respect. I think we are at the core of the whole thing right here.
How are WE responsible for the planet? Our sole responsibility is to ourselves, our species. Part of that responsibility is maintaining OUR habitat. Destroying the ecosystem isn't going to destroy the planet. It will only make it impossible for us to live on it. The planet, and life, will go on. Whether we continue to go on with it is up to us.
How are WE responsible for the planet? Our sole responsibility is to ourselves, our species. Part of that responsibility is maintaining OUR habitat. Destroying the ecosystem isn't going to destroy the planet. It will only make it impossible for us to live on it. The planet, and life, will go on. Whether we continue to go on with it is up to us.
We are so many people who use the planet so hard that the whole thing is in fact our habitat. And we are responsible for our actions, being the sentient species. No, life wil not just neccesarily go on.
Thorne
10-13-2011, 07:31 PM
We are so many people who use the planet so hard that the whole thing is in fact our habitat. And we are responsible for our actions, being the sentient species.
Nope. There are vast sections of the planet which are not habitable by humans, not without major technological help, mainly from those living in habitable areas. If we destroy the ecosystems of those habitable areas, there will be no place left for us to go, at least not where we can maintain our civilization.
No, life wil not just neccesarily go on.
One thing modern science has shown us is that life is extraordinarily tenacious. No matter what mankind can do, there will be some form of life which will not only survive but will thrive in the new ecology. Humanity may not be here to see it, but the possibility that we could completely sterilize the planet is so remote as to be next to impossible. Even if we managed to destroy the planet, breaking it up into fragments whirling around the sun as another asteroid belt, there will likely be microscopic life surviving on some of those fragments. Humanity's problem is to make certain that we don't destroy ourselves. The planet, and life, can take care of themselves.
NEven if we managed to destroy the planet, breaking it up into fragments whirling around the sun as another asteroid belt...
Pretty hard to do, according to this website. (http://super-ways.com/top-10-ways-to-destroy-earth/)
Thorne
10-14-2011, 05:15 AM
Pretty hard to do, according to this website. (http://super-ways.com/top-10-ways-to-destroy-earth/)
LOL! Some interestingly destructive ideas, there. Number 10 seems like the best way to go about it.
Strangely enough, though, I've seen this method proposed as a way to SAVE the Earth, from being eaten by the Sun as it expands into a red giant in another 5 billion years or so. Simply maneuver a sufficiently large asteroid into the proper orbit so that, once each year it will tug the Earth slightly further from the Sun.
denuseri
10-15-2011, 09:27 AM
They actually think now that as the sun expands it will cuase the gravitational pressure waves that make the planetary orbits exisit where they do to move further out along with it..thus moving the earth out of harms way in so far as being swallowed by the sun is concerned (all life will end on it anyway long before that due to solar temperature extremes so its a moot point imho)
Yeah, true, I really can't get myself around to give a damn what's going to happen in 5 billion years.
I also find it extremely presumptuous if not downright stupid to think that anyone would want to save the Earth then. Life on Earth has come pretty far in a billion years and to assume we have the slightest idea how it evolves in the next five is indeed more than just a wee little bit anthropocentric.
Thorne
10-15-2011, 12:06 PM
Yeah, true, I really can't get myself around to give a damn what's going to happen in 5 billion years.
Other than as an intellectual exercise, I don't really care either.
I also find it extremely presumptuous if not downright stupid to think that anyone would want to save the Earth then.
Well, those species which might still be around then might be interested, don't you think?
Life on Earth has come pretty far in a billion years and to assume we have the slightest idea how it evolves in the next five is indeed more than just a wee little bit anthropocentric.
Yeah, but assuming homo sapiens doesn't go extinct, like 95+% of all species that have existed on the planet, we will likely have some descendants still around, even if they no longer look even vaguely human. Those who are truly anthropocentric are the ones who believe that humanity is the endpoint of evolution. Not even close!