Commence.
Printable View
Commence.
first one thats actually hard imo
I love animals, they taste great.
As a side note, what do you think of the concept of a steak restaurant that serves you a nice bloody steak with a side of blood. You could have some warmed blood in a little pot to poor over your meat like a source.
i went with RIAA just because they seem to get more done. PETA is there and pours red paint on people and makes lots of demonstraitions but most of the time i think ppl just lol at them. RIAA on the other hand goes to court and fines you 60k for a downloaded song.
I don't really get the "which is worse"...
RIAA - I don't know too much about as a Brit, but presumably they've fined some people for downloading songs illegally. Everyone knows it's illegal, so you can't really hate the people who try and stop you.
PETA - didn't they do some good wotk stopping models etc wearing fur? Is this a bad thing? I understand and kinda admire these people. They have a genuine cause.
which is worse/better? - you can't compare them!!!
i enjoy eating animals so i voted for peta to be worse.
PETA has some pretty hot ads and, although I'm an omnivore, they're about as annoying to me as a gnat or a 2 degree temperature difference. It can't be them.
Penn & Teller did some digging on their Bullshit show on PETA and it isnt nice.
They are f'n annoying to say the least....they win (lose?) hands down.
Go go far beyond telling people to not wear fur.....
tough one, i dunno
The RIAA always wins, even in a bout vs. Satan himself.
The Bullshit ep
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAt1z...eature=related
trick question, the riaa is satanQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I vote peta. Like the video said, theyre like a fucking cult. And they were behind chicago's ban (which has since been repealed) o foie gras. Its funny though because the average chicken farm is WAY less humane than the average modern foie gras farm. Yet you dont see any bans on chicken. Fucking knee jerk reactions to issues that people dont take the time to truly understand are the bane of society.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Can't see the comparison against the RIAA so this is a long way from being close.
They may be left-wing, radical and even have some people who go considerably over the top but sometimes the end justifies the means.
Dig deeper imoQuote:
Originally Posted by kevster
Me: What's so bad about the RIAA?
You: They are the reason some guy had to pay lots of monies for downloading music.
Me: Didn't they break the law?
You: Yeah, but, it was a hefty fine.
I voted PETA
That's true, except:Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/20..._470x331,0.jpg
this is really close...still haven't voted yet :/ - might even do extensive research on this one
I decided to vote for RIAA because while PETA's actions are extreme and a little ridiculous, they're trying to save animals. The RIAA is on a spanish inquisition to protect a dying paradigm in what's become a purely corporate circle jerk.
I voted peta, mostly because I think peta is insane. RIAA is just greedy.
theyre trying to save animals? Wtf.. They are horribly misguided retards. They want to guilt trip everyone into being a fucking vegan. Once they accomplish that, then what? Maybe theyll campaign against lions inhumane treatment of zebra; I mean come on obviously lions should be vegans as well. Fucking nonsensical dribble imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Has PETA ever heard of the food chain? Apparently it's common these days.
Are you ready for the long ass post?
PETA are a bunch of clown dumbfuck hippie douchebags who wouldn't know logic if they got hit by a freight train full of Richard Feynmans. Their view of cruelty to animals is almost like considering fire cruelty to wood. They focus on the wrong things, their rationale is worse than a Creationist, and they only hinder progress for their cause
Having said that, their non-fringe purpose is a fantastic one. This can't be understated. Whether we like it or not, we are responsible for vast undue suffering of animals. While PETA thinks that swatting a fly or shooting a buffalo is cruelty to animals, reality is that they're not, and sometimes they're actually less cruel than the wild itself. But on the flip side, we have absolutely horrible livestock factories and slaughterhouses which we tend to ignore
We put it out of our minds, we isolate ourselves and hand wave away the reality of what we're doing. We say that cows and chicken don't suffer when they're cooped up and tortured in their prisons, but this denies biological facts.
Humans love to incorrectly anthropomorphize animals all the time, but when it comes to livestock factories, we do our absolute best to wash our hands of any similarities between them and us. Uneducated defenders of livestock factories like to say that they don't suffer because they're too dumb to understand it or whatever, but the facts show this is not the case. It is true that no organism is capable of suffering like humans, but it is also true that complex mammalian organism suffer as well.
What we have done is enslaved livestock and selectively bred them to be able to withstand the suffering enough that they don't go extinct and don't cause a big hassle. Instead of acknowledging this, we either disregard it altogether, or claim that we have bred the suffering out of them. Both false
PETA has a noble cause in trying to free livestock from suffering, but they sully their cause by using extreme methods, extreme analogies (even though some of those analogies may fit, they still don't garner any sympathy), and mistaking natural suffering like what is found in the wild with manufactured and pathological suffering like what is found in prison and torture camps
Inhumane livestock factories are evil as fuck, most of us have fooled ourselves into rationalizing it away, and we go about our merry way. We're the ones who didn't walk away from Omelas*.
*The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas is a short story about the phenomenon of the relationship between suffering and pleasure, and the human propensity to ignore that relationship
Google or wiki it, an absolutely profound story. This is my synopsis: Omelas is a perfect, Utopian society full of love and happiness and pleasure. However, it has a dark side, and upon reaching the age of adulthood, each citizen of Omelas is shown this dark side. They're taken to a place where a child is kept in perpetual darkness, filth, and misery, and they're shown that all the goodness of Omelas requires the suffering of this child, that without this suffering child there is no utopian Omelas.
Upon learning this evil secret to their happiness, most of the citizens of Omelas continue their lives as if nothing had changed. But there are a few whom, upon learning of this horrible injustice, walk away from Omelas.
Naysayers may claim that the story of Omelas is predicated on purely fiction philosophy, but they would be wrong. Reality has shown us that not only is good happening often predicated on bad happening, but humans have a propensity for taking this very far and creating entire societies based on exploiting suffering for our happiness. Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, we live in a pseudo-Omelas, and one of our child in misery is livestock factories
Now, having said all that, don't confuse it with being against killing or hurting animals. I'm fine with all that because it's not any more significant pain than what animals feel in the wild. In fact, some animals experience isolated incidences of massive suffering, like African wild dogs eating their prey alive on a daily basis. I'm all for livestock farms and killing animals for their delicious insides, but what I am against is the perpetual and miserable conditions that our greed and prejudice have created for hundreds of thousands (millions?) of animals with nervous systems and probable emotions (though tiny and superficial those emotions may be)
riaa
i thought for sure you would vote that peta was worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by givememyleg
I agree with you wuf. What I was getting at in my foie rant is that these horrible conditions do exist on many farms that raise live stock. However just because a farm produces foie gras does not mean they are one of the farms with inhumane conditions.
Yeah, I'm 100% for livestock farms as long as they're humane. In fact, humans breeding livestock has the potential to be more humane than the wild. We forget exactly how cruel the wild is. Animals starve to death, get eaten alive, etc all the time.
I personally may go so far as saying that things like dog fighting, cock fighting, bull fighting, etc, are not even inhumane. If I took that position it would be predicated on actually treating the animals well outside of the fighting (which isn't what happens in reality), but two animals fighting each other to the death isn't any more cruel than what they'd experience at some point in the wild.
What pisses me off about PETA specifically is that they're so HORRIBLE at getting the right message out that they scare away so many people. I mean, I don't know nearly enough about the state of livestock treatment as I should, but that's simply because I don't bother researching it much since there's so much fanatical nutjob information out there that it would take much longer than normal to actually develop a correct understanding of the situation.
They need to stop being dumbfucks who think that owning a pet is inherently wrong, and stop turning the debate about animal cruelty into each side flinging feces at each other. This issue is about as devoid of reasoned debate and data as possible.
This is also a reason that I don't know nearly enough about vegetarianism as I should. There are very legitimate and good aspects of being a pseudo-vegetarian, but you wouldn't find out about that by googling it since you'd just find a bunch of fuckbag hippie dickwads blaming it all on conspiracy theories vs. people who hate fucking hippies (i.e. everybody with a brain, and even some without)
I think owning a pet, while maybe not inherently wrong, is pretty fucked up in many cases. The whole pet breeding industry is pretty gross imo. The idea of taking in another being and caring for it is not at all bad. So I think adopting a pet is great. But I think puppy factories are inherently worse than cattle or poultry factories, simply because the product is not used to sustain us but instead to amuse us. Also I think people all too often treat buying a pet like having a child. They romanticize it, yet dont realistically weigh out any of the not so pleasant aspects. And then comes neglect (which can be mild to severe with a child or an animal and does not necessarily have to be beatings, in fact I think having a mid sized or bigger dog living in a city apartment almost always is a form of neglect or abuse.)
So ya, peta can go fuck itself, but at the same time most pet owners are probably pieces of shit too.
I didn't know who the PETA was. Then rilla shared the link. I saw the whole episode, now I know more or less who they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I would vote RIAA even quicker now. The PETA are just dumb misguided retards, while the RIAA is simply downright evil motherfuckers who have a whole army of the best paid fucking lawyers in the law business all the while trying to masquerade as "victims" in a victimless crime, all the while singling out 80 year olds and dead people as lawsuit targets.
*Hint: 80 year olds and dead people have a tough time using a computer, much worse to share songs (LOL) to be fined at $80K a pop.
*Hint 2: AllOfMP3.com used to charge $1 for a 50MB wave file of the song you'd want. A compressed file of it would cost anywhere between 10c to the full $1, obv. you could choose between VBR mp3, CBR mp3, FLAC files, ogg files, whatever your heart and your wallet pleased. You'd pay for quality, and they'd transcode it for you and you would receive an email with the completed files. And they didn't ignore every single country that is not the United States, as its the center of the Universe. The business model worked , because they developed a lot of clientele. The RIAA, instead of copying their business model to a tee (which works, since a fucking CD averaging 16 songs would cost 16 fucking dollars, and a song on a CD is actually an uncompressed wave file, so if you would buy something of lesser value qualitywise ((smaller file)) it should cost less, you can ID tag etc. on your own) sued the place into oblivion in order to uphold their old business models, at the time 128KB iTunes files available only to residents of X amounts of countries (ignoring the rest of the fucking world, obviously, who can pay for the thing if they are allowed to) would cost a fucking dollar. Its the fucking internet, better known as the WORLD FUCKING WIDE GODDAMN WEB.
Fuck the RIAA. Evil fucking "but I'm the victim" bastards.
ya, the business model is gross, and the fact that they dont try to adapt but instead claw at what once was is even more disgusting.
can you humanly forcefeed geese so their livers swell (and make them tasty and fatty for us) then kill them?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
why yes, yes you can. I be happy to put money on the fact that the average duck/goose raised for foie in the united states is treated more "humanely" than the average chicken raised in the united states.Quote:
Originally Posted by WillburForce
Is noone liking the steak with a side of blood concept?
well its illegal in the US.. and Id guess that you probably dont like the taste of blood anyhow. The drippings from your steak.. sure it contains blood, but is not just blood. Its water thats stored in the muscle tissue, its blood, its fat, gelatin, ect. Straight up blood would be rather gross imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanAronG
What about "black pudding" or "blood sausage"?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
it might be better than some chicken, but does that make it humane?
What about saving some of the blood from when they chop up the meat? So it would be the same stuff thats inside the steak???Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I'm thinking especially for when they accidentally ofer cook the meat slightly, so its not bloody enough for your tastes, you could then poor on a little extra blood.
On the F Word, they did a bit showing how the ducks were force feed down their throats. They would just hang out and be force feed 16 times a day. Their livers EXPLODED in size. It made me really think about my drinking habits. Then they showed these ducks in Spain where they purposefully gorge themselves, and the farmers harvest them as humanely grown. Their livers were still enormous but half the size. Apparently, the force fed ones tasted much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Did this. They have at least some members who are questionable characters with questionable motives. The problem with stuff you find on the net is substantiating what you find. I found little that shocked me on standard news networks. That's not to say stuff doesn't/hasn't taken place but I'm still voting RIAA.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
TyQuote:
Originally Posted by kevster
Michael Vick votes PETA.
I voted for the RIAA but I would have to disagree that animal rights activists are simply misguided. Now that their annoying protests have failed to convince society that animals have the same rights as people, some of them have turned to vandalism, intimidation of people who work on factory farms or in animal-testing laboratories, and even violence. Look up the Animal Liberation Front and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, these guys are no different from terrorists. Usually PETA steers clear of these tactics, but not always, i.e. these quotes from a vice president of PETA:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
http://www.activistcash.com/biograph...s.cfm/bid/1460
Some of the tactics the ALF has used include publishing a manual on how to blow up buildings and instructing their members to blow up animal-testing laboratories, sending letters to everyone in a researcher's community falsely informing them that he is a rapist, etc.