20 cents per pound wouldn't hurt either, heck make it 45 cents! But unfornuatly the hungry "meat" eaters would only get used to it (the extra tax) and would continue to buy no matter how high the extra tax would be. Take a look at smokers, the government taxes tobacco to no end here in Manitoba, Canada and nationally we have the highiest amount of smokers, still! I'm all for raising the costs of meat but taxing only gives the government more fatty wallets.

Posted by: Carla | January 3, 2008 11:38 AM

Now this is great...:)

Posted by: Dana | January 3, 2008 11:39 AM

Great! Gotta love it! I think it would be great to tax meat. Not only would it help global warming, but it might make people think twice before they just pitch hamburger into their carts because they can't think of what else to make for dinner.

Posted by: Susannah S | January 3, 2008 12:15 PM

I totally agree with taxing meat---it is a "sin" to subject animals to such cruelty in factory farms and also to violently slaughter animals every minute of the day. This tax would be a great revenue for the government; and being that the animals pay dearly with their lives, people who eat animals should pay dearly as well with their pockets. There should be a video at the meat/cadavers counter showing how animals suffer on these "farms" and how brutally they are slaughtered. It should be complete with sound so people can hear their screams and see how they struggle as their lives are being brutally taken from them at slaughterhouses. It always amazes me how people who eat animals hate to see what is done to these poor creatures in the process of becoming parts of their meals. These people should see and hear the misery animals endure every second of each day. These creatures never have a Merry Christmas or can look forward to a happy and healthy New Year!!!

Posted by: Ana | January 3, 2008 01:26 PM

I agree the congress to tax the meet.

Posted by: elena tripatzi | January 3, 2008 01:28 PM

Yeah! Dennis Kucinich might be willing to consider the idea. He's a vegan, you know.

Posted by: dw | January 3, 2008 02:12 PM

I think it's a great idea.

Posted by: K | January 3, 2008 02:34 PM

this is a wonderful idea .....perfect!!

meateaters will do anything to get meat lol including payin more

Posted by: izzy | January 3, 2008 02:57 PM

Unfortunatelly no tax will solve the problem. We are just tooooo many. Actually you need more land for crops than for animals, and more vegetarians means even more land. Natural parks & reserves get smaller, animals get trapped inside, migrations is cut and they are killed if they get out and damage the crops. This is already happening. Look from the window of any plane. What happen with meat is logic and feeds many people low cost (even for the planet). We moved to the city and do things that have no connection with our survival as living beings on this planet. It is a whole concept and the space here is too small to present it.
I'm glad that it even exist, anyway

Posted by: ove | January 3, 2008 03:03 PM

"YEAH!!! IT'S TIME TO TAX THE BACK-PACKS OFF 'EM!!!"

Posted by: Mystique Makepeace | January 3, 2008 04:11 PM

Ove: you are sorely mistaken. Raising animals requires MUCH more land, much more resources, and much more carbon dioxide to be burnt. The number one reason the Amazon is being destroyed is for the raising of cattle to feed the global fast food market. Don't forget, it takes 10 times as many crops to feed an animal then it does a human.
You are sorely mistaken. You need to base your ideas on research and reason rather than "looking out any window."

Posted by: brad | January 3, 2008 04:38 PM

ana, animals have no concept of christmas or new year anyway. Thats a particularly human trait.
The lives they pay dearly with are the lives afforded them because they are useful. If the slaughterhouse is doing its job properly there should be no struggle, halal and kosher being the exception.

Animals do not "endure misery every second of the day", sheep and cattle roaming a field are having a great time.
Dairy cows fair out even better, more feed, varied rations, housing when required- a life of luxury in the animal world.
Free range chooks do enjoy a better life than battery caged ones for sure, though in truth our "pet" hens huddle close together all the time.

Posted by: rojo | January 3, 2008 04:54 PM

rojo,
Why, to hear you tell it, sounds like the animals should be thanking their lucky stars for the wool "farms", slaughterhouses and dairy "farms" that plague this earth.

Gives me such a warm feeling that the animals fortunate enough to be trapped in such HELLISH conditions have SO got it made!

Free range chooks, huh? What are those?

Posted by: V. S. | January 3, 2008 05:23 PM

V.S.
Animals are not capable of gratitude, so they are not thanking their lucky anything. Cows exist solely due to their usefulness to humans. When is the last time you saw cows on the range? It looks like a pretty good life to me. Even I know what chooks are and you would refer to me as provincial. Try moving past your local dialect, because it is a big English speaking world. I am thankful to my lucky deer stand that people like you and ana aren't involved in the world enough to make an impact. I hope that your sphere of influence remains in saving urban cats for all our sakes.

As for taxes, I am all for a pure sales tax. I pay forty percent of my salary due to income taxes. As far as meat being a sin or a vice, you guys must have tasted my smoked venison ham this weekend, it WAS sinful.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | January 3, 2008 08:57 PM

rojo and ove are idiots who haven't done their research. I can't stand people who think humans just own everything. There is no reason for us to use animals in the way we do. Humans are so greedy...animals were here long before us...they own the land, not us.

Posted by: Kerry | January 3, 2008 08:57 PM

Perhaps...instead of taxing...we can just STOP GIVING MEAT PRODUCERS SUBSIDIES!!! These corporations are being given A LOT of money by our government to make sure they get plenty of land, water, fuel, etc... to keep the meat supply going. I read somewhere that if our government didn't do this, ground beef would be $60 or so PER POUND!!!!

Posted by: Candice | January 3, 2008 10:40 PM

rojo, your rhetoric is pure nonsense especially coming from an animal user like yourself. My comment about Christmas and the New Year was a little too sophisticated for your limited mind to understand. Slaughterhouses don't do their job "properly" and all sentient beings struggle in the face of violence and death. They are both sentient/intelligent and well aware of what is to transpire. Please don't bore me with another ludicrous response. Yawn!

Posted by: Ana | January 4, 2008 09:16 AM

Of course! I agree with that too! I wish the tax will be expensive! I hope this is going to be true!

Posted by: liliana | January 4, 2008 09:23 AM

And I am glad that cocky cochran is totally inconsequential in every sense of the word. Just another cowardly hunter with bows to kill the other animals. Not many neurons used there; even uneducated serial killers can do the same. Only on an animal rights blog does it think it makes any difference---not.

As an educator I reach a lot of minds and am pleased to say I am and am continuing to do so daily. Many have changed their pov concerning animals and many also have decided to become vegetarian/vegan! Good for me and the other animals!

Posted by: Ana | January 4, 2008 12:28 PM

Please would someone create a tax fund big enough to give Rojo, and Cochran some much needed empathy?

Cochran you are just an idiot...of course cows express gratitude so do all other animals...it is just that heartless people like you,.and Rojo do not have the ability to look into their eyes...for the eyes are the passage to these wonderful creatures soul you can tell a lot by looking into the eyes of an animal...sometimes you will see great love from these creatures eyes other times you will see great pain. Guess it takes someone who actually gives a crap to even pay attention though!

Posted by: Dana | January 4, 2008 12:43 PM

Rojo,

You might be interested in the book "Slaughterhouse" by Gail Eisnitz. She interviewed hundreds of slaughterhouse workers from all over the States. The consensus was that slaughterhouses do a very poor job of humane slaughter, and they don't treat their workers much better either.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 4, 2008 01:42 PM

Mike, We tried before to get Rojo to read this book so that maybe he would have a better understanding of these things...but he refuses to for he feels it is filled with propaganda instead of facts. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

Posted by: Dana | January 4, 2008 02:44 PM

Christopher Cochran (MD?), yes, people like Ana and I ARE making an impact. You know it, we know it, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. That must be what's really burning you up. If we weren't, you wouldn't be bothering us with your pitiful two-cents on this very blog. Oh, we've got your attention all right.

Posted by: V.S. | January 4, 2008 03:04 PM

Christopher Cochran: It's people - not animals who don't know the feeling of gratitude!

Posted by: FREE BURMA | January 4, 2008 03:12 PM

Ana,
I remember professors like you, wearing their Birkenstock sandals with socks and frumpy clothes and living all alone with cats. Voting for liberals even though you are in your forties (or older) because your university salary is so lousy you don't understand what a tax burden is. You gravitate to the university because you can't or won't deal with the rigors of the outside world. The generalization that those that can't do teach is a little cruel, but in my experience, and in this case, often appropriate. As your students enter the world, they will figure out all the hoo/haa you were teaching was a mighty fun fantasy, and will soon realize that they learned more in six months on their first job than they did in four years of college. When they have kids and a mortgage and a deadline, all the cats you rescued will quickly be forgotten. Peta and animal rights activists are made possible by the rest of us who work so hard each day to make this country so fat and bored. When the next crisis comes, and it will, you know as a person versed in history, animal rights will also quickly be forgotten. Animal rights is a social luxury that we all get to enjoy....for now.

Dana,
I have lived around cows all my life. I have fed them in the dead of winter and watered them in the heat of summer. I have stayed up all night saving their lives. I have crammed my arm all the way up into their uterus to turn a calf. Not one of those bastards ever said thank you, not even with their eyes. You would think that since cows are basically of human construct, they could have picked up a few words.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | January 4, 2008 03:32 PM

Candice

I agree with your comment. The subsidies must end!

Posted by: Ana | January 4, 2008 03:45 PM

While I am not against people eating humanely-raised meat, I do think it's important to realize what the Earth is up against.

In grad school, for the first time I heard the words "water" and "commodity" used in the same sentence. Scary. I'm not joking when I tell you there may come a day when only the rich will be able to afford water.

This is due partially to cattle consumption. Not only does the methane contribute to global warming (along with rice patties), cattle farm runoff pollutes our streams.

The destruction of the rainforest means no more potential plants discovered that may cure cancer or other feared diseases.

Notice I did not mention animals. For those who only worry about human health, there are some pretty fierce reasons to at least cut down on the consumption of cattle.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | January 4, 2008 03:52 PM

this is a terrible idea. not only will you get people to hate you guys even more, but you might cause a "meat black market" (or your destruction by everyone)

Just look at the anti-drug campaigns, they caused black markets, and this would too

Posted by: Caboose | January 4, 2008 04:12 PM

see, there's that whole "forcing" thing with PETA.

Posted by: Caboose | January 4, 2008 04:12 PM

WHATS BALLS...... PETA WHICH IS A TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATION WHICH IS BASICALLY IN BUSINESS TO PUT TAX PAYING INDUSTRYS OUT OF BUSINESS....
FOR PETA TO CRY OUT FOR A PUBLICITY SEEKING SIN TAX ON ANYTHING IS ANOTHER ONE OF THEIR HYPOCRITICAL JOKES.....

Posted by: COMMON SENSE STEVE | January 4, 2008 04:45 PM

christopher cochran is again telling shit! you saved those cows because you want to profit from them! do you think that they don't know this! i'm frequenting hare krishna farms since their beginning and those cows they know exactly that they shall never be killed and they are always giving milk - also a long time after the birth of the calf! it depends on the fact with which kind of eyes YOU look at them - not they are looking at you!!!!

Posted by: la montanara | January 4, 2008 04:49 PM

Cochran,
I think your comments about Ana are pushing it just a bit to far we make comments on you based off of your total lack of respect for the animals, or the ARA’s on this forum. Not one time have we ever really ranted on your political choices, what you wear, or how dull we really assume your life really is. I do not care if Ana wears a potato sack to work, and lives in a trash can she has more compassion for all living beings in her left toe than you will ever have throughout your entire body. You are arrogant, insensitive, and ignorant...and it seems you are not just taking up too much valuable space in this forum. Ana is the better person by far so why don’t you crawl back up in your hunting stand, maybe if we are all lucky Dick Chainey will decide to go hunting with you.

Posted by: Dana | January 4, 2008 04:56 PM

Well, well, well, Cochran sure is hot under the collar -he is the one who is showing his true, bigoted colours now!

He is also showing signs of narcissism - apparently he is the only one who works hard in this world, as he seems to think that no one else could possibly know what it is like to have such a tax burden (yeah, we're really crying for you and how much you pay in taxes - not!). He seems to be saying that doctors are the only noble people in this world.

Hey, wait a minute, if he is really a doctor, doesn't that mean that he went to UNIVERSITY???? [insert appropriate horror movie music here] Perish the thought! That means he was being taught by people who "can't do" the real job, and by people who "can't deal with the rigors of the outside world"!!! OMG! Just what is the world coming to???

Please get this ass off of this blog ASAP. He has shown no empathy toward the animals and he does not even seem to have much capacity to truly care about humans (ironically he shows contempt for the very people who are paying for his salary - taxpayers!!)

Posted by: Michele | January 4, 2008 05:04 PM

Ok, Christopher Cochran you're going off again. I don't know what to think of you. Sometimes you make complete sense and sometimes you're off dude!

Posted by: Jaclyn | January 4, 2008 05:15 PM

Very well said Maya!

Posted by: Jaclyn | January 4, 2008 05:17 PM

Ana,
I only wish my grandson had a Professor such as yourself.

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | January 4, 2008 05:49 PM

i think that cocky fell into his whisky glass during holiday and now he forgot his profession: is he a hunter, a doctor, a surgeon, an animal breeder, a cow farmer, a veterinary - or just a drunken holiday-jerk who once again is fretting our nerves! this guy doesn't know his direction and everytime when his lady doesn't want he is aggressive and fed up with hatred against animals! and once again i'm telling: you should be blown!

Posted by: cappuccino | January 4, 2008 06:04 PM

Mike Q, I've read extracts from Gail's book and presume these are the "best" bits. I've done a bit of research and can't find couldn't find backup for her assertions. Yes there are cases of abattoir workers invovlved in crime, just as there are of vegetarians. Both are small proportions of the community.

Gail's stories about practices in the slaughterhouse are presented for effect, not accuracy. No doubt some people may be working there for "fun", best that this is their outlet, but to paint them as the norm is incorrect.

She does make a point that the workers work because there is nothing else for them to do. Well what are they to do?

Dana, to make the horse drink feed him salt.
Please do not underestimate my empathy for animals. Their lives are often as good as ours, and like us they will die, or work for a living and then die. Special note on living- being alive.

Ana, my comments are as reflective of the truth as yours, perhaps moreso.

VS, sheep and cattle should be thanking their lucky stars, they are one of the most populous animals on earth. How about that for sucess.

Posted by: rojo | January 4, 2008 06:07 PM

Some animals only exist due to their usefulness. COWS WOULD NO LONGER EXIST IF WE DIDN'T EAT THEM. How hard is it to understand? There is no point to a cow other than its milk and meat. Cows would have become extinct after the 20th century.

Posted by: Bob | January 5, 2008 12:17 AM

Rojo, let me first start with you...Only one looking to critique that book would find the issues she speaks of done just for “fun” I would suggest you read more about who she is before making assumptions she has done such investigations just for “fun”...no ARA goes into undercover investigation for pure enjoyment if this were the case they would be working for the slaughterhouses not against them. Animals do not share the same lives as us by no means we at least still have the rights to labor boards, and fair act regulations...they on the other hand are issued none of these things. There are cases when animals do end up with good lives, but this is not often like you assume...being a slave to humans, and the pay off in end being death to me does not seem much like the “good life”!

Cochran has a very low self esteem coming onto these forums and bullying everyone with his so called intelligence is proof that he needs to belittle others, and their beliefs to make himself feel better about his shabby little existence. The only logical explanation for the behaviors of Cochran, and Rojo wasting time on a website that does not fit their lifestyles at all is their need to use bait and switch tactics. Their whole enjoyment in life comes with getting under ARA’s skin with their uncompassionate comments, and theories. They are not here to learn, or change their habits for they are not open minded or compassionate enough to do so. If Cochran wants to live like Ted Nugent unfortunately there is nothing we can do about it for his way of life is considered legal in America. . I think everyone has done a great job at discrediting everything Cochran claims as truths...

Cochran is a great example of what happens when you live your life killing the innocent beings around you, and are forced at the end of the day by your conscience to drown your sorrows with a bottle of expensive scotch. Until the day comes that he realizes that humans are not superior to animals, and stops the hate of all the ARA’s because they cause him to question the ethics of his hunting ways he will never find peace. It is easy for ARA’s to feel empathy for this living being for unlike him we do not like to see any living being suffer such as this.

Posted by: Dana | January 5, 2008 08:07 AM

Dr. Cochran:
How do you know what Ana looks like? I know what she SOUNDS like - a compassionate and thoughtful person who cares about the world around her and the creatures in it. YOU, on the other hand, sound like you spend your life snooping around the internet trying to find someplace to vent your nastiness, and I guess you think the PETA blog is that place. Aside from the fact that you can be annoying, I want to thank you for coming here. You help all of us PETA people to firm up our resolve, to state our cases clearly, to fire up our passion to protect animals from the likes of you. You help us, in other words, to learn how to make our case in a society that denies the cruelty it inflicts on animals.

Posted by: Susannah S | January 5, 2008 09:40 AM

Bob: "There is no point to a cow other than its milk and meat."
Is there any POINT to a hummingbird? Any POINT to a humam being? A living being doesn't need a POINT to have a right to live its life without cruelty being inflicted upon it. Cows would exist if we didn't eat or wear them. There wouldn't be the millions of them that there are today, no, but those that did exist would live like cows, not like the whole POINT of their lives was to be eaten and worn. Only we, in our egocentricity, think that other beings exist for OUR use only. But since many of them existed BEFORE we did, hmmm. What does that tell you?

Posted by: Susannah S | January 5, 2008 09:53 AM

Dana, I probably didn't make myself clear to you before, when presented with such inaccuracy from Ana, I retorted in kind with an overly rosy picture for effect. I'm sorry.
I do however think my remarks are close reality, and no I wouldn't feed a horse salt.

Posted by: rojo | January 5, 2008 11:27 AM

Rojo,

Gail Eisnitz was fully expecting damage control and denial from the meat industry and thus obtained sworn affidavits from all she interviewed. The workers she talked with represented 2,000,000 man-hours on the kill floor. This clearly indicates that the cruelty is a systemic and nation-wide problem. I'm not faulting the average worker for being purposefully cruel—it's the unrelenting speed of the line to maximize profits that creates such misery for both animal and human.

There is even a review of "Slaughterhouse" on Amazon by a meat producer who is in full agreement with Gail's findings.

There is an interesting article called "They Die Piece By Piece", originally published in the Washington Post (but now you have to pay to access it there). You can read it here:

http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/writes/editorial/news/invest/piece_piece2.html

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 5, 2008 11:42 AM

I am too sexy and intelligent for you, cocky cochran. You have no idea who I am nor who I date. I am never lonely but you must be because you have so much time to make up scenarios in your head about me and then write about it on this blog. You are pathetic. I give you no thought at all because I am too busy living life and sharing it with friends, family and animal companions that I love. Killing is your forte. Get a life, loser.

Dana and Judith

Thank you for your support and for your intelligent comments. Bless you both.

Michele
As always, intelligent comments always shedding light on the darkeness. Cochran's bigoted comments indeed!!! Maybe a beautiful professor turned down his advances or gave him a failing grade??? My colleagues are both interesting and nice to me and I am popular with a lot of them but most of all I have compassion in my heart for all sentient beings. cochran's angst is overflowing and his hatred of both human and non-human animals is awful. Jack, listen to Michele and I, get him off the blog. His insults have gotten really abusive.

Posted by: Ana | January 5, 2008 12:11 PM

Ana,

You'd be amused to know that my own doctor is very close to what Chris describes - a 40 something, liberal, birkenstock-wearing guy! Also as gorgeous as the sky is blue! I was kind of enjoying Cochran's description of you! LOL

This doctor of whom I speak is also in extremely high demand, is one of the "doctors without borders" and has won tremendous accolades.

In any case, I'm quite frankly surprised you were bothered by Cochran. Your comments are intelligent and you probably are a very attractive woman with an impressive resume. I know a PhD who would kill to be in academia but he can't get hired, he's just not talented enough. I'm rather jealous that you teach, it's a really cool profession.

Cochran is obviously living in the 50's when teaching and other jobs were stiff, inflexible professions. Nowadays most teachers must be professionals in the field as well, and most students are lucky if the professor has time to show up to class! These professionals are top in their field, and are always on top of the current research and literature. Cutting edge.

So if someone insults you in order to get your attention, be flattered an move on. Be gentle with them, it's obvious that trying to get someone's attention this way is probably a sign of desperation.

Anyway, I hope you have a good laugh over this, Ana, and I'm hoping to find some good birkenstocks myself today!! LOL!! ;)

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | January 5, 2008 01:57 PM

Bob: it's really frightening to see in what kind of a shadow-world you are living! What a lack of a whole universe! Did you never hear from the holy Vedic scriptures of ancient India and a huge powerfull advanced animal-respecting vegetarian civilization rich in wisdom, health and jewelry thousands of years ago (before the continental drift) in acient India! They respected mother cow as the milk giving mother and the bull as the earth ploughing father - and they had a word for spaceship 'vimana', a smaller entity as the atom - the 'truti' and a laser weapon called 'brahmastra' which found it's target with it's proper intelligence! Haah - what do you think! it's you who are from yesterday and our forefathers the modern thinkers with much brains and balls!!! By the way 'cow' comes from the indian sanskrit word 'go' which means 'world' and 'COW' - the most important and lovely being under the sun because she is warming our hearts with her motherly love and tender service! It's a great shame and crime to kill these loving animals with their big beautifull eyes full of love and tenderness and their warm breath! They belong to Krishna - the eternal cowherd, GOD and father and must never be killed! Just countries with a decaying rotten diabolic degraded neanderthalic 'civilization' are capable of such a mean lowlife action as killing a cow or a bull! Hare Krishna!

Posted by: animalfriend | January 5, 2008 02:00 PM

Taxing meat will cut the purchase rate and will not fund the murders who sell it. This is a wonderful idea. Those who do not wish to spend the extra money will find an alternative. I'm sure thousands of people will stop consuming, or at least reduce their consumption or meat.

Posted by: Aleasha | January 5, 2008 02:50 PM

Jack,
Please get rid of this guy.
He has now become very scary and sounds like he could pose a threat to Ana.
His obsession with Ana has now crossed the line.
We have lost so many good posters because of him.
Where is Ariel? AnimalFriend? Old Spider Woman? and so many more.
Please do the right thing.

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | January 5, 2008 04:17 PM

Poor Christopher Cochran, to never get thanks from an animal that you were using to get money. You must feel like the slaveowners who never got a kind word or thank you from their slaves-- and after all they did for them....

Posted by: Antigone1000 | January 5, 2008 06:00 PM

Posted by: rojo | Jan. 4, 2008 06:07 PM:

VS, sheep and cattle should be thanking their lucky stars, they are one of the most populous animals on earth. How about that for sucess.

rojo, so the more there are of these animals, the more ways that human beings will think up to abuse and torment them. Success, you say? For whom?

Posted by: V.S. | January 5, 2008 06:29 PM

Hi Mike , I've read your link, and fully agree the laws regarding humane slaughter should be completely enforced. And hopefully have been since 2001 when the piece was written. I understand that customers like McDonalds and burgerking have set in place supplier guidelines, and it will only be to their detriment if they are not enforced. On ensuring the best possible slaughter practices I stand beside you 100%.

Posted by: rojo | January 5, 2008 10:34 PM

put a tax on meat you all are nuts but lets just say that everyone in the world becomes vegan and you all win what is your master plan to do with all of the cows and pigs in the world because you have said that cattle are one of the main problems for global warming your an animal rights group so you cant kill them because then you would all be hypocrites and if you use birth control on them then you are still nothing more then a bunch of hypocrites because after awhile they will just become extinct so i wanna know what is your plan to do with all of the farm animals.

Posted by: sapper | January 5, 2008 11:26 PM

V.S, they've gone out and done what they were programmed to do, spread their genetics far and wide. Many live quite normal, but maybe truncated, lives. Over 90% of them are killed cleanly and efficiently(98% extrapolating from Martin Fuentes comments in Mike Q's link) it's that last few percent we've got to improve.

Posted by: rojo | January 6, 2008 09:16 AM

Sapper,
This can all be explained very easily.....the mass breeding would stop! Right now farm animals are breed in mass quantities to supply meat eaters...its not really that hard to understand! Supply & demand.....the demand would be gone so the supply would decreased...

Posted by: Dana | January 6, 2008 09:17 AM

Taxing meat is just plain wrong.

Posted by: Steve | January 6, 2008 10:36 AM

hi Judith, i'm so glad to have you back! Let's fight the good fight - together we are strong!

FREEDOM FOR THE ANIMALS! AND CONCERNING THE CUCK I'M JUST REPEATING: CETERUM CENSEO CARTAGINEM ESSE DELENDA....Jack knows what i mean!

Posted by: animalfriend | January 6, 2008 11:56 AM

why don't we just ban meat?

Posted by: sandi | January 6, 2008 01:26 PM

rojo

Never moreso, never.
Your agenda is an animal-use one so there is no compassion for the other animals. And I don't write inaccuracies; I do very precise research, it is my forte. That is why I was chosen to be a member of an international honor society in history. We will always disagree but don't denigrate my research nor my abilities.

Posted by: Ana | January 6, 2008 03:48 PM

Maya

Loved your comments to me and I appreciate your POV. His comments don't get to me but I get tired of his pure arrogance. I have no respect for anyone who uses any degree (or purported one) to denigrate others in any shape or form. I have read his comments to ARA's and his constant insults based on his being omniscient (in his own mind) is tiresome. The ARA's here such as Dana, Michele, Ariel, Kelly, Mike Q., write their comments in both an intelligent and compassionate manner in regards to animals but don't resort to cheapshots at those they disagree with. Cochran has in the past told me to drink Sanka ( I don't drink coffee) in order to calm down, that I need laughter in my life and other insulting remarks about me personally. I let those go but there is no need to resort to such infantile and unprofessional tactics.
I also am in my 40's, a size 6 and from what I have been told since I was 18, I look more like a model than an educator. What matters to me most, than what people think of my looks, is what I can do to alleviate/end the great suffering of animals. I use my research talent to write and present papers about vivisection, the fur industry, the circus, veganism and other subjects. And even the naysayers respect my talent in researching my material and also point out that I am most articulate when presenting my position. I started all of this research as an undergraduate student and whenever I could write a paper in any discipline that would present the position of animals and plead my case for them, I would do so. But your right, Maya, it must be a form of flattery but I still don't appreciate when he insults others. BTW, Maya, I bought an interesting 2008 calendar based on a book called Urban Tails. The book is all about photos taken of free-roaming, "feral" or homeless cats. The calendar and book are well worth having; the subject matter is close to our hearts. Some of the cats and kittens were adopted out but the fate of others well....sad.
Maya, it is tough to get into academia, lots of competition. But I have also done ample work in the history of Spain, Latin America and religion. I had a great prof from Columbia University (these areas of study were her forte) who had great faith in me; and there was also the Chair of the Hist. dept who thought the world of me and encouraged me in every way. I owe them a world of thanks.
Anyway, I am more into cruelty-free red lip gloss but that's just my thing.

Posted by: Ana | January 6, 2008 04:28 PM

Susannah S.

Thank you for your support and your usual intelligent comments. I enjoy reading your comments and responses to others. Peace!

Posted by: Ana | January 6, 2008 04:33 PM

Judith

You're right, the operative word is obssession. Peace!

Posted by: Ana | January 6, 2008 04:36 PM

I completely agree with the taxing of meat; however, the sad thing about it is people will still continue to buy it-no matter what the price.

The fact that people would be mad about it (and we all know there are people like that) makes them look ignorent, naive, and selfish.

Posted by: Ashley | January 6, 2008 05:03 PM

--Sapper and Bob- Extinction is a horrible thought that comes to anyones mind-we all do not want farm animals to be extinct, but would it be better for them to be extinct-or survive with a life alive, full of pain and suffering. The only differance between extinction and being alive on farms is, when they are alive..they feel all the pain every day until they do die.

I have talked with a friend at my work which was a vegan for 10 years and lived in Alaska. He spoke of the beauty and all the magnificant creatures that lived there, among all of the creatures were wild cows. Who's to say they will become extinct IF everyone will become a vegan?

--Christopher Cochran-You strike me as a very selfish person. When you delivered the calf from the cow you were expecting a thankyou? For me personally, and I may be speaking for others, when I do something for an animal, I feel as if I did whats right. I do not expect a thankyou. I feel spiritually the animal knows what I have done, and is all but enough to make me proud. A small act of compassion.

Your comments to Anna and others in the post are extremely unprofessional and immature coming from an M.D. such as yourself. It also seems to me that you expect a rise out of someone in order to feel good. This is an awful trait in your personality.

--Rojo-Who is anyone to say that animals dont experience a spritualness or the joy of christmas. I certainly do not know if they do or do not. I am a catholic, and as my religion does influence my views of vegetarianism and cruelty towards all living creatures. I am also a very spritual person and belive that humans and animals do share a common trait that I belive is spritual. Love for others and the want to live.

You have your opinions, and I have my own. For everyone who chooses to respect others opinions-bless you and I hope your peace directly benifits yourself, and others around you.

Posted by: Ashley | January 6, 2008 05:37 PM

I completely agree with the taxing of meat; however, the sad thing about it is people will still continue to buy it-no matter what the price.

The fact that people would be mad about it (and we all know there are people like that) makes them look ignorent, naive, and selfish.

Posted by: Ashley | January 6, 2008 05:38 PM

So wheres the petition? Talk comes cheap! Anyone know how to write a petition and circulate it to activists for signatures?
PS I too have been a smoker for 38 years. Buying the cheapest generics I can. Its just too much for me now. Over $1300.00 out the window for cigarettes. I've chosen my quit date.
The tax on meat would have to "begin" as substantial, not pennies and dimes business.

Posted by: junemarie | January 6, 2008 05:38 PM

Yeah, and let's tax donuts and candy too because they make you fat.

Nice try.

Posted by: e | January 6, 2008 10:51 PM

It's hard to believe Cochran is a doctor, considering how ignorant he is. He obviously doesn't keep up with the latest field studies on animals which show that they are capable of a vast range of emotions, including gratitude. Marc Bekoff's work comes to mind. Of course, Cochran's so busy killing animals he wouldn't have time for boring pursuits like reading. Also, if he found out about animal emotions and capabilities he'd probably have to change his lifestyle, which I'm sure he doesn't want to do.

Posted by: Patricia Panitz | January 7, 2008 12:03 AM

Sapper: Maybe you don't realize it, but there would not be so many cows and pigs if it were not for the fact that humans breed them intentionally. If left to themselves, most species are pretty good at regulating their numbers. Now--if only humans could understand that we need to regulate OUR numbers, there would be plenty of room on Earth for everyone!

Posted by: Antigone1000 | January 7, 2008 01:07 AM

dana, suggest you read the "fun" in context. Some people probably do get their kicks from killing. Not a comment about the book at all.

ana,"misery animals endure every second of each day" comes to mind. Sorry, just not true. More of a comment on your bias, than your honorable skills. I do my best to reciprocate with my research.

ashley, animals on farms do not suffer each day. That would be counterproductive. A stress free environment increases production. The majority of cattle and sheep we farm spend most of their lives happily grazing. Yes one day it comes to an end, as it will for us all. It is important that that process is swift and painless.

No doubt they may well be recipients of the christmas spirit, but I don't think they in themselves are spiritual. I respect your opinion and hope you enjoy the new year.

Posted by: rojo | January 7, 2008 11:25 AM

AnimalFriend a big hello to you.
Missed you so much.
We shall continue fighting the good fight.
I get what you said!
Peace!

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | January 7, 2008 12:40 PM

Rojo,

Fuentes' comment in my link was:

"I’ve seen thousands and thousands of cows go through the slaughter process alive,” IBP veteran Fuentes, the worker who was injured while working on live cattle, said in an affi-davit. “The cows can get seven minutes down the line and still be alive. I’ve been in the side-puller where they’re still alive. All the hide is stripped out down the neck there.”

I'm just curious how you calculated that 98% of cattle are killed "cleanly and efficiently" from that statement.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 7, 2008 12:57 PM

e,
I certainly believe that anything that harms children or animals should either have a higher tax or be regulated better. Sugar, donuts, or any other sweets are one of the main ingredients of the average American child’s diet so something does need to be done for it is harming them greatly from obesity to diabetes! Children are not capable of making the best choices for themselves, and when parents are giving them a choice on if to eat sweets or vegetables of course they will pick the sweets they are children after all........so in this case something needs to be done for not only are the children being harmed from this we all are for the more children that have poor health the higher each one us pays for health care...

Adults have the choice to do what is best for them, and maybe some have weaker will power, but they are fully aware that certain habits are bad for them...children & animals are a much different story, and therefore more force needs to be taken to ensure the safety of both. Children can be taken out of a home by social services if they are abused...but to me feeding them crap, and causing them all sorts of health problems now, and in the their future is no different than abusing them with your hands...therefore it should be treated the same way.

Posted by: Dana | January 7, 2008 01:58 PM

Antigone animals cant and don't regulate themselves when it comes to reproduction but i will agree with you on one thing and yes we as humans do need to regulate ourselves so lets start with a law that forbids vegetarians from reproducing

Posted by: sapper | January 7, 2008 06:44 PM

rojo

Your bias is that animals are commodities. Your research is not true.

Mike Q.

You mean cows suffer??? rojo disagrees.

Posted by: Ana | January 8, 2008 09:21 AM

Ana: You're quite welcome! I enjoy your comments, too, and look forward to your posts.

Posted by: Susannah S | January 8, 2008 09:31 AM

Sapper: Actually, the animals and the environment together regulate population. There are not as many animals born in hard times as in good times and excess animals will die through starvation or disease usually. Humans, on the other hand, never take a break from breeding, no matter what the environmental conditions. We have done our best to eradicate most diseases so that "survival of the fittest" no longer applies to us. Unfortunately, I think we are probably doing a disservice to the species in the long run, but time will tell, I guess. In any case, your concern over excess population should be directed at your own species first.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | January 8, 2008 10:42 AM

Rojo,
It really does not matter how you meant the “fun” for using it in a post about slaughterhouses is just not logical. I think we have taken every means possible to show you a different side to your views, but you have refused to look at any of them with an open mind instead you make a point of questioning the contents. I feel that you have made up your mind on animals place within society & you are convinced that they are objects that should be at the disposal of humans. You do not look at them as living beings that are capable of feeling joy or pain therefore you do not agree with the basic principles of animal rights. I feel that you are more likely to support the National Cattlemens Association for you both seem to have the same thought process. I will continue to support Peta for I like facts not just a bunch of BS with a hidden agenda that revolves around making money at every living beings expense. The meat industry prays at night for people to remain oblivious as you to what is really going on within their organizations....At this point you are just a small pawn in a huge chess game...Sometimes looking outside of the box is harder than going with flow, but for me not going with the flow is much more rewarding at the end of the day. I hope one day you will be blessed with great eyesight so that you then actually have the ability to see for yourself what is going on instead of being blinded by evil people with hidden agendas.

Posted by: Dana | January 8, 2008 11:20 AM

Sapper said, "animals can't and don't regulate themselves when it comes to reproduction."

Article from Nature Magazine:

"Animals can change their reproductive output depending on certain environmental conditions. And one of those environmental conditions is population density," notes Tim Karels, lead author of the paper who conducted the research as part of his PhD thesis at the University of Toronto. "So if you have lots of neighbours and you're competing for the same food, it can lower reproduction. And that's what we saw. At very high population densities, female ground squirrels basically shut down their reproduction, and that was done in order to sustain their own survival. When conditions were better, they would start reproducing again."

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 8, 2008 11:48 AM

Antigone so i take it that from your comment that you do not take or buy or use any of the over the counter drugs and prescription medications if that is the case i find that hard to believe also what is better for the animals then dying a long slow painful death from disease or starvation or being killed fairly quickly by a hunter or in a slaughterhouse it seems to me that you want to stop animals suffering by making them suffer longer than is needed.

Mike i have seen first hand the effects of overpopulation of a species before it was a herd of deer that lived on a farmers property who did not allow hunting and they never regulated their herd every year they would keep having fawns and every winter the farmer was finding more dead deer than the previous year since then he has opened up his property to friends and family to hunt on and after about 2 years of being allowed to hunt the deer herd on his property i have seen the herd do a drastic turn around the animals are healthier and their habitat has improved they no longer starve through the winter.

Posted by: sapper | January 8, 2008 12:56 PM

Snapper to me sounds like either the new Cochran, or the old Cochran with a new name.

Posted by: Dana | January 8, 2008 04:06 PM

Sapper: Actually I do NOT take any drugs. I use the novel approach of taking care of my body thru diet and exercise and find I do not need drugs AT ALL. And, yes, my diet is VEGAN and has been for 15 years. As for animals suffering and dying--I do not like to see it, but it is part of nature. I would prefer to provide food for a starving animal herd than let them die of starvation, but realize that may not be the correct thing to do. No matter what, though, I would NEVER advocate factory farming as a way to prevent extinction of farm animals. That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard, although it is certainly not the first I have heard it.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | January 8, 2008 08:39 PM

I think sapper is really Mars in disguise.

Posted by: Michele | January 8, 2008 10:04 PM

Sapper,

These deer obviously did not have the ability to migrate to greener pastures. Humans have boxed in many species and this prevents them from roaming to find adequate forage.

As for your statement, "animals can't and don't regulate themselves when it comes to reproduction", I think my quote fully disproves that. Perhaps not all, but certainly some.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 9, 2008 12:58 PM

Mike Q, I looked up the whole story and it was stated that 309(from memory) beasts came down the line per hour. Fuentes stated that sometimes dozens came down the line alive per shift. Allowing for an 8 hour shift that is over 2400 day. 4 dozen is 2%. I'll pick 48 because sometimes is not all the time.
That doesn't make it any more acceptable, it needs to be 100% unconscious at slaughter.

Dana, I derive no income from animals, the wheat I grow is for making bread, the cotton I grow clothes people, and the chickpeas go to feed Indians. I do eat meat and see no problem in using animals as a source of food. The majority of our animal products comes from animals whose destiny it is to provide meat,eggs or milk. That is now their reason for being, and their genetic prevalence in the world. To believe that they constantly suffer in their lives is patently untrue. Even in death. That you feel this to be the case is a heavy burden, and I'm sorry it weighs so heavily upon you and many of the others on this site.

I think "fun" is an appropriate word, especially emphasised as it was to take extra note of the context. Unfortunately some people do hurt animals for their "fun", I agree neither you nor I would think of that as fun. My reasoning is that if inflicting death is an outlet for anyone's frustrations in life, it's best that they work in a slaughterhouse, and aren't on the streets strangling cats. Or worse.

Posted by: rojo | January 9, 2008 06:06 PM

Rojo: Interesting theory. Instead of correcting/punishing improper or criminal behavior, we should find an outlet for it. So--maybe it is best if pedophiles work in an orphanage instead of a school system. That way, they will only be harming children that are unwanted anyway, instead of harming children with loving parents....

Posted by: Antigone1000 | January 10, 2008 09:05 AM

Michele

nah, i dont think mars knows about the British WWI trench diggers.

Posted by: Caboose | January 10, 2008 04:03 PM

antigone, unlike your analogy these animals are destined to die. May as well be at the hand of someone who enjoys their work.
Sorry, you're on the wrong tangent. Good try though.

Posted by: rojo | January 20, 2008 08:29 AM

Rojo: Well, if it's the "destined to die" part that matters, then maybe these people should work on Death Row. After all, the people there are destined to die and, in most cases, with good reason. Maybe the Death Row inmates can provide the outlet that will protect the rest of us. Interesting that we consider ourselves to be superior, but continually show how inferior we really are. At some point, I hope we become intelligent enough to realize that we need to punish ACTIONS, not choice of victim.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | January 21, 2008 10:39 PM

antigone, now you have the essence of it. Yes, why not have people who would otherwise kill the innocent, do the job. If killing people is truly what they need in their life. Better a death row candidate who is going to die anyway than some schoolkid.

Perhaps some executioners already do, seeking that line of work deliberatly. Who knows.

Anyway it certainly is the "destined to die" part that matters, otherwise it is senseless slaying.

Posted by: rojo | January 23, 2008 06:20 AM

Rojo: Unfortunately, YOU do not get it. My point is that society would never allow anyone to inflict on human inmates on Death Row the cruelties that are inflicted on animals in slaughterhouses. As an "evolved" society, we need to have higher standards. Giving someone a lethal injection is hardly the same as gouging the eyes of a living, breathing pig, so executioners with sadistic tendencies will certainly not be satisfied with giving an injection and anything sadistic would be prohibited. So--I was basically trying to show you the ridiculousness of your argument but, not surprisingly, you don't get it.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | January 23, 2008 12:58 PM

antigone, then you are off the topic I was discussing, I wasn't trying to decipher the point you thought you were making.
Lethal injection is undergoing a thourough investigation following some botched execution attempts. I understand the pain is excrutiating if the sedative is not working. Anyway thats beside your point, but reflective of the fact that not everything goes according to plan.
The cruelties to which you refer are also minority cases, who has time to gouge 300 sets of eyes per hour in a slaughterhouse. Wouldn't be a particularly efficient work practice, would it.

I don't know whether the urge to kill has to have sadistic undertones in order to gratify, and I suspect neither do you. Unsurprisingly.

Posted by: rojo | January 24, 2008 09:19 AM

Antigone - I want to see evidence that workers at slaughte houses gouge out the eyes of pigs. I want to see evidence that all workers at slaughter houses go out of their way to make the lives of the animals that much worse before.
Oh yeah, if we let people take out their frustration on death row it wouldn't last to long. There is only a couple hundred people sitting on deathrow, they would probably blow through them in a couple of days. In the end we would have to start killing chickens again!

Posted by: Kurt K | January 24, 2008 11:37 AM

anti, i've posted a reply, i'll come back in a couple of days if it hasn't gone up.

cheers

Posted by: rojo | January 25, 2008 08:33 PM

Rojo: Why do you think society needs to provide an outlet for anyone's sadistic behavior? It should be punished. PERIOD. It does not matter if you choose to be cruel to an animal or a human. If we followed the philosophy that cruelty to a being slated to die is okay, then criminals who tortured their victims would be unpunishable because those victims were going to die anyway.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | January 28, 2008 10:55 AM

Kurt K: As I posted to Rojo, society is not required to provide an outlet for cruel behavior and I hate to think what a society we would be if we did so. As for proof of cruelty--PETA has plenty of video which I strongly suggest you watch before determing you want to defend the industry. I doubt you have any interest in doing anything other than defending what you know because you probably lack the ability to look beyond your reality to see what is right.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | January 28, 2008 10:59 AM

antigone, actually I never said we require such an outlet, only that if someone needed such an outlet, these options would be preferential. I wasn't talking about allowing cruelty either, all executions should be humane.

Posted by: rojo | January 31, 2008 06:35 PM

Rojo: I totally disagree with giving anyone an outlet for their cruelty (as you suggest--provided, apparently, that cruelty only extends to animals, the weakest beings on the planet) but the fact is that it would not work anyway. It is a well known fact that serial killers abused animals as children. Then they graduated to humans. I, personally, think we should start keeping track of these people so that, when the animal abuser turns into the serial killer, we can go back and hold accountable all those who refused to take the animal abuse seriously. Abuse is abuse, regardless of victim. If a person mistreats an animal, that act needs to be treated seriously and punished. It is indicative of a problem within that person.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 1, 2008 05:35 PM

anti, what part of "I wasn't talking about allowing cruelty" is unclear?

Have I ever diputed that serial killers start on animals? Fortunately few graduate.

I fully agree with you on animal abuse, it cannot be condoned. Deliberately inflicting pain for personal gratification is abhorrant, and should be punished severely.

Posted by: rojo | February 4, 2008 06:26 AM

Rojo: Actually, you had said that if animals were destined to die, it may as well be at the hands of those who enjoy their work. If you were not condoning animal abuse by that statement, what were you talking about?

Posted by: antigone1000 | February 4, 2008 09:27 PM

Hi anti, why shouldn't people enjoy their work? Where in that statement is abuse mentioned?

Anyway, if you carefully read my comments I talk about death, not condoning abuse of any kind. At any time.

I do understand that you consider death to be abuse.

Posted by: rojo | February 5, 2008 10:07 PM

Antigone
What is right to you and what is right to me seem to differ on most issues. I have my opinion of what is right and you have yours. I see nothing wrong with slaughtering animals for food, you think it is immoral. You think animals and humans are equal, I disagree.
Don't accuse me of being blind to my own reality. I understand what you are saying, I understand what you are trying to do. I just don't agree with you and I firmly believe that chickens, cows, pigs, etc. are here for agricultural purposes and one of them happens to be slaughter. I understand that you believe that killing animals is cruel and abusive. Lets be real here, it isn't suppose to be a pleasant thing to look at and I don't think you can make it that much better.
Don't get me wrong, I think if a worker is caught abusing an animal he should be punished. But I don't belive every person that works in these places are there because they enjoy killing animals. They probably get paid well and are able to support their families, you can't blame a person for that. I believe that these undercover videos are not a total representation of the meat industry. There are always a few bad apples in the bunch, but you can't take away from the whole, becasue of a few isolated instances.

Posted by: Kurt K | February 6, 2008 11:46 AM

Kurt K: Anyone who would work in a slaughterhouse absolutely has a high level of tolerance for cruelty because, even if they do not engage in it, they witness it and do nothing. Normal people could not tolerate that. You can disagree all you want about animals and people, but they are either equal (as far as having an inherent value) or they are not, no matter what your opinion. Look at slavery. Blacks ALWAYS had an inherent value that made slavery wrong, even when society refused to acknowledge it. Blacks didn't suddenly gain an inherent value when whites recognized it. Your opinion is not determinative.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 6, 2008 06:45 PM

No shit, everything has an inherent value. All creatures have an inherent value, I never disagreed with that. We just disagree on what kind of value animals have. I think they are valuable for food, you think they are valuable for...
I don't beleive animals and Man have the same value at all. You do, and I respect that, but you don't respect anybody that has a different opinion! In your world you think that you are right and I am wrong. If you want to save the animals go ahead and try, your not going to convince nearly enough people to stop, buying, selling, eating and raising animals for consumption. I'm sorry, but this is just the way it is!

Posted by: Kurt K | February 7, 2008 01:23 PM

Kurt, you are so wrong.

The changes may not happen in my lifetime or yours, but they will happen.

Your comments echo what people used to say about issues like abolishing slavery, women being allowed to vote, and the fight for civil rights in the United States. More and more people are being "convinced" all the time regarding vegetarianism - sometimes it is more for health or environmental reasons, but because there is easy access to information everywhere, these people will also eventually realize how they are helping animals at the same time.

People are more and more aware of racism, sexism, and ageism, and they WILL in time learn about speciesism.

"That's just the way it is" is such a lame comment, I can't believe it whenever I see it on these blogs. The apathy that you and others express makes me wonder how you can accomplish anything in life. You might as well just end your life right now with that attitude: Let's not bother fighting for stricter sentences for child abusers, let's not bother trying to keep parks and other green spaces free from litter, let's not try to ease the suffering for people with terminal illnesses, let's not care if the government raises taxes and if politicians engage in corrupt behaviour.

Antigone, I have very much enjoyed your numerous posts on this topic and elsewhere on the PETAfiles! Keep it up!

Posted by: Michele | February 7, 2008 07:00 PM

KurtK: Your comment reveals your lack of understanding of what an "inherent" value is. An inherent value is the value that a being has in his own existence, apart from any value attributed to that being by another being. Your belief that an animal is valuable for food is not an inherent value. I understand how things are, but I look toward what they can be.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 7, 2008 07:17 PM

Michele
I see now how you feel. I should end my life right now just because I don't agree with what it is you are fighting for.

All the issues that you mentioned in your post where horible and the world is better now that they are fixed. I will agree with you on that. However, they all share one important thing in common, they involved men and women suffering. Not animals! Are we going to have a war on the animal issue, are we going to have viloent protests in the streets over the animal issue. Is one persons life worth losing to save an animals life? 500,000 thousand people died to end slavery. Many more died in the civil rights fight.
I don't think people are going to fight that hard for animals, unless you are willing to go that far.

You say you speak for the voiceless. How do you know what the voiceless want? How do you know they want you to speak on their behalf? Isn't it arogant to think you know what is best for another being?
If animals knew what was going on, they would fight back. They would communicate with each other and orgainize. They don't because they can't, they can't because they don't know any better.
Thats just the way it is!

Posted by: Kurt K | February 8, 2008 03:12 PM

KurtK: I think it's a safe bet that, if given the choice, most animals would opt not to partake of the slaughterhouse experience.....

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 11, 2008 06:12 PM

They probably wouldn't. But then again they don't know what they hell they would be choosing. I guess if all animals have souls, then wouldn't they be in a better place if they get killed. As animal lover you should want all these animals to be killed so they live with God in heaven and be in a constant state of bliss. You never thought about it that way did you?
I win!

Posted by: Kurt K | February 14, 2008 03:55 PM

Kurt K: First of all, prove to me that animals have no souls. Secondly--your argument is ridiculous. If you believe your argument, then you must have been ecstatic at the deaths on 9/11. Surely, those people made it to Heaven, especially as they were killed in accordance with religious beliefs. Why don't you send cards to all their surviving relatives, telling them how joyful they should be?

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 14, 2008 07:38 PM

Kurt K: I asked you first--how do you know they do not? As such a humanitarian, you should want people to be killed so they can live with God in Heaven in a constant state of bliss. Why would you not want that??

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 20, 2008 07:08 PM

That is not up to me. My goal in life is to raise a family, protect them and provide for them.
I don't know if animals have souls or not, if they do I guess I will have some answering to do. I don't believe they do, so I think I'm in good shape.
No, I don't want people to die, human life is precious and worth preserving. You think animals life and human life are equal. Which brings me to a question. If a human and an animal were both in harms way and in danger of dieing, who would you help if you had to choose b/t them?
If killing is wrong, and humans are going to hell because we kill animals. I guess we will have a lot of animals in hell to keep up company. Crocidilians, all cats, dogs, snakes, chimpanzees, bears, sharks, etc. I guess they are going to hell because they sure kill other animals in a pretty violent way. Tell me their prey doesn't suffer as they are being eaten alive. What is your thoughts on that? Why are humans the only ones getting crap for killing, nobody minds animals killing animals. Why do they get a pass?
I guess to answer your question, I don't believe animals have souls because of my Catholic beliefs. We have 7 sacraments that we are suppose to fulfill in our lives. Those sacraments were set forth so we could build a close relation with God. Animals do none of these, they can't ask for forgiveness, they don't pray or have an understanding of the afterlife. For these reasons alone, I don't beleive they have souls.
Why do you think they do?

Posted by: Kurt K | February 21, 2008 07:58 PM

Kurt K: Bottom line is you do not know whether or not they have souls, but choose to act as though they do not so that you can mistreat them.

As for whether I would choose btw a human or an animal, it depends upon who we are talking about. If it is btw my mother and a stray dog I have never met, I would choose my mother. If it was btw the cat who has lived with me for 14 years or you, I would choose my cat. Only a human would turn his back on a true friend because of his species, which is a despicable thing to do.

As for your silly comments about animals--I have never met an intentionally cruel or malicious animal. Those traits seem to be reserved for humans. Carnivores NEED meat to live, humans do not. I have yet to see any animal commit any of the atrocities committed by humans and captured on PETA video. If you have, I would love to see the video. Otherwise, your comments are nonsense.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 22, 2008 07:10 PM

What do you mean animals aren't intentionally cruel? Have you watch wildlife documentaries? Have you ever seen the one that shows orcas tossing a baby seal with it's tail over and over. It could kill it with one bite, but it choose to play with it. Is that not cruel, or is that part of the animals instincts.
Violence is in all animals! Fight of flight, it is as natural as the instinct to eat. Back a lion into a corner and it will kill whatever is in its way. It doesn't reason with the other animal or person. It has two choices, fight or run.
Are you suggesting animals do not have hate for other animals?
Humans and animals fight for the same reason! What is the one thing that has caused every major war in the past? Land/territory! An animal will fight for its land and so will a man. Man just has a little more gruesome way of doing so.
And as far as animals not being cruel, how do you explain infanticide? That act of a male animal killing the offspring of anogther male. Is this not cruel? Is this necessary? Animals are some of the most cruel creatures on the face of the earth. Granted some can tolerate each other, but when it comes down to it animals fight jsut as much as we do. And its always about females and territory. Animals are ruthless killers.
Have you ever seen the video of two male lions eating an injured female lioness? They could have protected here from hyienas or other predators, but instead they killed then ate her. They actually started eating her before she was dead. Is that not cruel? Is that not torture?

Posted by: Kurt K | February 25, 2008 01:44 PM

Hey you two! ;)

Far be it for me to interfere, but I find this conversation interesting! I hope you don't mind if I offer my opinion.

Kurt, I don't usually go into "souls" or religion - no offense at all to any religion but I prefer to stick to science since that's my background.

In a factual sense, neither animals nor people may not have souls, but BOTH have brains. That means that animals, like humans, can feel extreme pain, terror, loneliness and despair. I'm not trying to be soppy - I'm just speaking of brain function.

Animals that kill prey are not being cruel because they are not capable of a moral sense - that is unique to humans. Moral reasoning is a very complex brain function and can be seen on an fMRI brain scan. Lions and other predators DO NOT have the abiltiy to empathize with their prey. Humans do.

When I counsel people on cat behavior, clients will sometimes say "my cat is being a snob". This is not possible - being a snob is actually a very complex thing LOL! So although we can project our idea of a lion being cruel, it is not possible for a lion to internalize the feeling of another animal.

Any affection between lions and offspring are a function of instinct and reproductive evolutionary success, not of human - like empathy.

In regards to saving a human versus saving a dog, of course if a pitbull was hurling towards my mom I would take out a shotgun, no hesitiation, and blow the dog's brain out. If a person was to attack my cat, unfortunately shooting them would land me in jail (leaving my cat in a shelter) so I would defend my cat with my life without killing another human.

But let's get real, Kurt. That's not likely to happen and that's not what we're discussing. What you're saying is that spending time helping an animal is less important than saving humans.

My question is - what's the logical reason why an animal's life is less valuable than a human's? ;)

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 26, 2008 03:15 PM

Kurt K: No--animals do not commit acts of cruelty for the sake of being cruel, only humans do that.
Have you seen a video of adult human males clubbing baby seals to death for a fur that we do not need?

If you were backed into a corner, might you not fight to the death?

It is not cruelty that makes one animal kill the offspring of another, it is called survival and, more accurately, survival of the fittest.
Animals understand that there is a limited amount of space on this planet. Humans have not yet grasped that, so we think we can breed as much as we want w/o regard to the effect on the earth or the other beings on it.

So--in summary, I guess animals are BOTH less cruel and more intelligent......

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 26, 2008 08:32 PM

Maya, it is good to hear from you again.
I think you helped my point a little bit with a statement that you made. You said that "man"(when I say man, I am not being sexist it is just a general term) has moral reasoning, man feels emotions and understands that pain is not only a physical feeling but an emotional one as well. I believe that our ability to distinguish b/t right and wrong gives us a soul. That is why we are to "do unto others (meaning man) as they would do unto us."
The reason why human life is more precious than that of an animal is because of family. Not all, but the overwhelming majority of humans don't just produce offspring, but aid in the development of their children. We don't raise children until they can fend for themselves and let them go on by themselves. Humans never stop being parents, the family bond is stronger than any bond that may exist in the animal kingdom. Human parents feel unconditional love for their children, they would die defending them and would give anything for their well-being.
I know some animals have what seem to be strong family ties, but you will rarely see any beast defend their offspring to the death. Once a predator has the upper hand, the parent will give up and reproduce again. I don't believe animals have a ture sense of loss, or any kind of sense of love.
I think that is what the key word in my arguement is. Love! We humans have the ability to love, not only our children, but our parents, relatives and friends.
Most people will help a stranger in need, risk their lives to help a complete stranger in peril and fight anybody or thing that threatens our exsitense.
You can't show me many cases when an animal has risked life and limb for another.

I do agree with you that if someone attacked a pet of mine I would defend the pet, not to the death of myself or the other person, but I would do as much as possible to aid my pet. However, on the other hand, if I had a pet that attacked an unsuspecting person I wouldn't hesitate to help that person no matter what the risk to my pet.
Antigone stated that she would choose an animals life over mine if she had the choice, I don't think that is what Jesus would do and I am certain that God would frown upon that.
Like I said in one of my last posts, I derive most of my beliefs from my religon; Catholicism. We believe man was made in Gods image. Therefore man's life comes first in the hierarchy of life.

Posted by: Kurt K | February 26, 2008 10:21 PM

Antigone and Maya, thank you for your comments. Hopefully there are people reading this other than Kurt K who might actually be open to these concepts.

Posted by: Michele | February 26, 2008 10:59 PM

Kurt K, if you have any shred of interest in reading some info that would tend to refute many of your comments from Feb. 26, you should read "The Pig Who Sang to the Moon" (can't remember the author offhand). It's about the emotional intelligence of non-human animals, and is a wonderful read. But, I won't hold out a lot of hope...

Posted by: Michele | February 27, 2008 11:16 AM

Hi Kurt!

Thank you for clarifying your "man" statement - I would not have misunderstood you, but it sure is refreshing to see a man (or anyone)!! who is aware of sexism in our society! It's one of my biggest pet peeves today! ;)

I've been accused in the past of sounding condescending, Kurt, so please don't take this the wrong way - I know you are every bit as intelligent and educated as I.

But, I have worked with animals my whole life - I'm a CVT, LWR and I'm in my second year of grad school for biology. I'm telling you right now, you should have fired your biology teacher. They were obviously clueless.

Much more so than humans, most animals in the animal kingdom will lay down their lives for their offspring. How many examples do you want - 10? 1000? 5,000? I'll give you all of them if you ask.

My boyfriend and I were mountain biking a few years ago and we came down a steep hill. Suddenly 5 or 6 grouses ran in front of our bikes - we nearly crashed!! They each had one wing spread out and were running in circles in front of our bikes!!

I went home to read abou this phenomenon - if a grouse sees a predator, in order to distract it from the nest, they will run in front of the predator and pretend to have a broken wing - so the predator will kill them instead of finding the nest.

As I said, I can name a hundred or thousands more examples if you like. If you look at all the instances of parental child abuse, neglect, abortion, etc etc, I say we have a pretty impressive lead on the animal kingdom when it comes to not having a soul.

I think it's important to know, it's not a contest - we have a higher moral reasoning than animals, and we should use it. Animals must be understood on their own terms, not ours.

This is a great discussion, and I hope it can continue!!

By the way, I have the utmost respect for a man who uses his religion to speak of love and who is also open minded in the way you are - it sets a very good example!

;) Peace!

Posted by: Maya, CVT | February 27, 2008 12:54 PM

Maya, you perspective on this subject is refreshing to me, at least your responses show respect. You don't get angry when people have a different point of view and you never resort to negative assumptions about another person. Michelle and Antigone have it in their minds that I am an horrible person, that wishes death upon animals just for spite. In actuality that couldn't be farther from the truth.
As I have pointed out many times, I don't really comment on posts about the fur industry, or other instances where animals are treated cruely. I am against cruelty towards animals just for cruelty. I think people who do things like that are just mean spirited. But I also don't think hunters, fishermen, and slaughter house workers are bad people.
You pointed out that some people are cruel to their children and others. My beliefs tell me that they will have to answer for their sins one day. God knows who is truely bad and who has a good heart. I believe 90% of humanity has a good heart and the 10% that don't make us look really bad sometimes.
Whether you are an animal lover or not, you have to agree that humans are the most unique of all Gods creations. We humans are given free will, it is an incredible freedom and yet a very heavy burden. We must choose to be righteous or to be deviant. Isn't that kind of the point of humanity? Be worthy of God's mercy and love or suffer an eternity in hell.
That is another reason I come on the site. I believe that some of the things PETA does for attention is less then righteous. Then the PETA supports hide behind the idea that anyway to get reconition is okay.
Another thing. I still don't see how animals killing animals is okay, but humans killing animals for food is so wrong. I'm going to need more than stretched theories on animal feelings and the opinions of biased people to convert me to the "darkside"(had to throw in the Star Wars reference).
So far Maya, you are the only one coming close to educating me. Thanks for respecting my opinions and for listening.

Posted by: Kurt K | February 27, 2008 08:18 PM

Kurt K: I don't think Jesus would look very highly on discrimination based solely on race, gender, or SPECIES, or that He would impressed by what goes in a slaughterhouse, but you think what you like. All I know is that my dog would have given his life to save mine w/o hesitation. If given the choice, I would save his over the life of a human I do not know. Why should I value his love/friendship any less because he is not a human?

Most humans interpret the phrase "made in God's image" to somehow mean that God looks like a human. That is completely ridiculous. "Made in God's image" means in a spiritual sense, not a physical sense.

If God truly intended us to treat animals as we do, why did He give them the ability to feel pain? The ability to feel love? The ability to appreciate family ties?
Do you really believe Him to be that cruel? Or, more likely, is it that we are too stupid to understand that "God's image" is NOT a reference to physical appearance??? I'm pretty sure I know the correct answer.......

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 27, 2008 08:36 PM

How do you know the correct answer? You value the lives of animals over your own kind. You speak with such certainty about animals. For things that don't have a voice, you seem to able to communicate with them quite effectively.
You ask why did God make animals feel pain? Why did he make them at all? And if you think that God views animals in the same light as humans then I don't know how anybody can have a constructive conversation with you. If you think the thought process of animals are even remotely as complex as that of a humans, then I don't know what to tell you. You can live in your fantasy world.

"If God truly intended us to treat animals as we do, why did He give them the ability to feel pain?"

Without pain, how do you think people and animals learn. I know you don't learn everything through pain, but you learn quite a bit from pain. When you are hungry, it hurts, you eat, it goes away. Fire burns you, so you don't touch it! Pain has to exist, otherwise humans and animals wouldn't know their limits and injure or possibly kill themselves.

On to God now. You can interpret the Bible however you want. But, the Bible never says God created animals in his image, now does it. I'm not aware of any scriptures in the Bible or teachings from Jesus that says don't eat animals. I guess the "Fishes and Loaves" story is made up as well, because Jesus woulldn't eat fish, or kill them for that matter.

No, I don't think Jesus would be impressed with what goes on inside a slaughterhouse. Hell, I'm not either. The last thing I want to watch is a cow being slaughtered. It is not a pleasant sight and definitely not for weak stomach.
And I'm sure your dog would give his life to save yours, but then again dogs are very domesticated. I bet your cat could give two shits about you if you got attacked.
I still can't believe you would save your dogs life over a strangers life! That really bothers me. I don't care if my worst enemy and my dog were in trouble at the same time I would help my enemy first. I'm very sure that is what the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit would want me to do...

Posted by: Kurt K | February 28, 2008 04:38 PM

Kurt K: You would turn your back on a true friend because of his species. That is a great tribute to humanity--we would save the lowest human over an animal. We would save the life of a human in a vegetative state over a monkey who can communicate with sign language. That is completely ridiculous.

As for the Bible--keep in mind that it was written by HUMANS. However inspired, all authors write from their own perspectives and biases.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 28, 2008 07:07 PM

Hi again Kurt!

Don't ever let people here tell you who you are or that you're not a good person. You're obviously very open minded, kind and seriously brave for facing a different point of view.

Despite the vitrol on the PETA site, I'm sure most agree with you - it's not the people who are bad, but instead, their actions. I'm concerned that people who pay animal industries are turning a blind eye to the extreme suffering of animals.

Unfortunately PETA's extremism sometimes makes it more easy to ignore animal suffering.

I have some links to demonstrate my point - I'm not trying to be obnoxious by pointing you to websites, it's just that I think they say volumes that I couldn't say on my own! ;)

Here is a link - this guy was on a Food Network competition - he loves meat more than anything in the world. He works with it as a chef. Check out what he has to say on this post of his.

http://www.offalgood.com/site/blog/resources/this-is-cheap-meat/

I think that humans are unique as well, but if I'm judging stricly on actions, we are the only animal that does not contribute to the ecosystem - indeed, we are destroying our planet.

Here are two more links - these are Evangelical groups who beleive that "Dominion" in the Bible means stewardship, protection of the earth and animals.

http://www.christiansandclimate.org/

http://www.creationcare.org/

I guess what I'm trying to say is, yes humans are very unique - we have very powerful talents and abilities. We have the ability to make the world better and examine many philosophies and moral values.

The more we can use critical thought to understand our fellow earthlings and show "Dominion" over them in the form of stewardship and a protective attitude, the better we will be.

;) Blessings to you! ;)

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 3, 2008 11:12 AM

ps

By the way Kurt, my sincere apology for the obscenities in the first blog post - I just think he is relatable because he is a butcher, thus more beleiveable.

;)

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 3, 2008 01:14 PM

Maya,
I agree 100% about what the chef says. I don't like seeing cows, or any animals for that matter, suffering. I would love to see all the resturants go with humanely raised beef, chicken, pork, etc.
He is right, I don't want the meat I eat to come from a cow that can't stand, or may be tainted from constant filth.
Most of the beef that I consome comes from a local processing plant, where I can assure you, it is humane. Thanks for showing me that link.

I also agree that humans haven't been the best friend to dear ole mother earth. But, we are trying to correct that trend. Humans did most of the damage when the environment was not a priority, a time when studies on the envronment were very rare. I am encouraged today by some of the steps being taken towards a cleaner planet. I know it may not be moving as fast as we want, but it is moving in the right direction at least.

I can see your perspective on the word "dominion". When I say we have dominon over animals, I never meant that we can do anything we want to them bacause we rule them. I think I trying to say something along the lines that though we rule over them, we still have to respect them. We may have to kill them for our well-being, but always in a respectful and humane manner.
Nature conservation is very important to me. I definitely want my children to grow up in a world where they can experience nature in all its beauty.

I don't like suffering, but I am not against eating meat. Contradictory, I don't think so. The problem is that many PETA followers see things only in black and white. If I don't agree 100% with their beliefs I get demonized and ridiculed. I think you know a little about that sometimes.
PETA needs to understand that you have to learn how to crawl before you can run!

Posted by: Kurt K | March 3, 2008 01:38 PM

Kurt K: If you want to crawl, I suggest you post on an animal welfare site, not an animal rights site. Animal welfarists will sacrifice animals in order not to offend humans. While you sit around scratching your head about what you feel you can and cannot live with in your torture-free life, how many animals die? That is of no consequence to you, clearly, but of the gravest consequence to the animals.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 3, 2008 07:45 PM

Antigone, with all due respect, do you want to save acutal animals, or do you just want to pick on someone?

What scientific study can you cite which proves that people who ease into animal rights will not become vegetarians? You are chasing away people whose minds could potentially be changed, and that kills animals.

If eveyone in America went vegetarian 5 times a week, it would save billions more animals than just a small percent of the population being vegan. Don't you care about saving actual lives?

Would you really chase away someone who is suggesting they may try vegeatrianism?

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 4, 2008 12:07 PM

Anitgone,
Crawling forward is better than a standstill. Everytime you insult people like me (believe me, I am towards the middle on this issue) you anger many more than you think. Just remember, there are many more blue colar, rural folk in this country than you think. These people make the wheels turn in this country. You may convince some people living on the coast to change, but the heartland is going to take some negociating.
If you insult their way of life, then you are fighting a lost cause.
The difference b/t you and me, is you think you no what is best for others people and don't listen to peoples thoughts unless the are along the exact same lines as yours.
I thought you would be happry to hear that I reject unecessary violence towards animals. But, since I eat meat I'm sure you could never like me as a person even though you don't know me at all.
What do you think, could we ever be friends if we met by chance? Could you look past the fact that I have different beliefs? Do you judge everybody you meet by what kind of food they eat?

A couple of my friends are vegan, they don't belittle me for eating a steak from time to time. We have our discussions and argue for the fun of it, but in the end we stay friends.
If you can't look past peoples food choices, then you have a lot of hate in you! And you call me the ugly one?

Posted by: Kurt K | March 4, 2008 01:21 PM

Maya: Although I don't like to criticize anyone who helps animals (however slightly) I truly believe that an animal-welfarist attitude does more harm than good for the cause of animals. In all the time the animal welfare groups have been working on the fairly non-controversial issue of pet overpopulation, has it gotten any better? No--because they won't offend the breeders by fighting for spay/neuter legislation, and they won't offend anyone by suggesting that ALL animals deserve respect, not just dogs and cats. What does that tell people? If I can decide what animals are worthy of consideration, so can anyone else. I can hardly force you to respect the animals I care about (dogs) while not respecting those you care about (pigs). In a nutshell--animal welfare does not help animals. It just lets people think they have done something good when, in fact, they have only done the minimum that should be expected of them.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 4, 2008 07:24 PM

Kurt K: You just said it--you argue for the fun of it. While you do that, animals die in reality. I'm glad you can enjoy bantering about their suffering.

I am not really interested in changing everyone's mind. After all, not everyone was in agreement about ending slavery, but it ended, didn't it?? It took a war and there are still people who are unhappy with the outcome, but too bad.
Far too often the selfish and mean-spirited are in a position of power. Hopefully, the good people who truly support the rights of animals to live the lives they were given will triumph in the not too distant future.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 4, 2008 07:28 PM

Antigone,

Although I do help animals (although just barely, LOL) I don't mind criticism at all, as long as it is given respectfully. And you did comment with respect, so I appreciate that.

I'm livid as well about pet overpopulation; we have over 2,000 strays in every single town in Massachusetts and all shelters (ones where I've worked) ever do is kill them.

The strays get euthanized while the breeder's purebreds and kittens and puppies fill up the shelters and get adopted right away. It makes me sick. Meanwhile my no-kill (a house, clean, with lots of room) takes in AIDS and leukemia infected cats and we spend a fortune caring for them. It's an ugly situation.

Anyway, I am disgusted with that situation, and I completely agree that a half-assed attitude toward animal rights is no good at all.

But, two things:

1. I define animal welfare as people who refuse to commit vile acts. Breaking windows or breaking down doors to save an animal, great! Breaking the law, fine! But arson, viscious teasing, rudeness, assault, those things do not save lives. It drives people away.

2. Being polite to Kurt will get you further than being mean. I think you have been fairly polite, but quite harsh. I just believe in being more diplomatic.

We don't have to be sarcastic or rude in order to insisit on saving all animals.

;) Peace!

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 5, 2008 01:08 PM

Maya: If Kurt wants someone to coddle him, then he can post on an animal welfare site. If he is on here and talking to me, then he is going to get the ugly truth. I find it funny that you guys complain about how mean I am. Look what you condone in slaughterhouses--him by eating meat, you by telling people that eating meat is okay. Who is really the mean one here? And, as for animal welfare, Maya, unless you stick to your guns and insist that ALL animals be given their due consideration, not just those YOU consider worthy, then you have done the greatest disservice to the cause of all animals by confirming a human being's right to choose which animals he will treat well and which he will not.

Posted by: antigone1000 | March 5, 2008 07:18 PM

Hi Antigone!

I'm afraid you're twisting my words again. Try to listen to me this time.

1. I never never never said eating meat was okay. (Find the date and location of that quote and I'll apologize).

I said that I was glad that farm animals could potentially be treated better. Those statements are completely different.

2. I never said you were mean. I said you were harsh. I don't know who raised you and taught you manners, but I'm not coddling Kurt. I'm showing common politeness.

I've spent my life helping animals directly, as a vet nurse, shelter worker, wildlife rehabber and conservation biologist. Just because I post an opinion on this blog that you disagree with does not negate 30 plus years of helping animals.

No disrespect intended!

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | March 7, 2008 07:57 PM

From you to Kurt on February 1, 2008 under the article about how eating meat can cause impotence: "I don't have a problem with people eating meat!"

No one needs your apology. You are so quick to tell us all the good things you do for animals, and I am merely pointing out something you habitually do that hurts them. As an animal welfarist, you certainly help some individual animals, but you will never alter the status quo because you are too afraid of being unpopular. You can't even risk offending someone on this blog, so I can't imagine you are very effective in person.

As for how I was raised--I was raised to use my senses and my conscience to recognize what is right instead of relying on status quo or someone else's opinion. You seem to think that sugarcoating things is better because it is less offensive. The only thing you accomplish is to make people feel better about the minute courtesies they show to animals instead of setting forth an expectation for something better. At the end of the day, I care more about what is morally right in relation to animals than whether or not I may have offended somebody's sensibilities by forcing them to see reality instead of their sugar-coated version of it.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 8, 2008 01:13 PM

Okay Antigone, I won't issue an apology. And I also won't beleive that you've ever gotten someone like Kurt to go vegetarian with your supposedly brilliant approach.

But my boyfriend and sister are vegetarians, they said it was because of me. And Kurt seems to be listening to my point of view, whereas you're just driving him away.

I don't see how your presence here has ever made a dent.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | March 8, 2008 06:22 PM

Maya: Thank you for (yet again) telling me all the great things you accomplish for animals. And I am sure you have done some good. However, if you truly want to advocate for animal RIGHTS, you need to stick to your position ALWAYS and not waiver in the face of unpopularity. If a friend of mine asks me if his ordering meat is going to bother me, I NEVER say I have no problem with it. I say that, although I would prefer it if no one ate meat, I realize that some people do and I leave it at that. The fact is that not everyone is going to go vegetarian, no matter what you say/do, so abandoning AR values to make them feel better about their choices is not really helpful. If Kurt has viewed any videos and is still on the fence about going veg, then he is probably not worth a whole lot of effort. You are either someone who gets it or you are not. Some people are only on here to argue (Chris Cochran). Do you really think CC will ever go veg, even with your best mediocre comments??

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 10, 2008 09:09 AM

LOL, well geez my mom always said she loves my mediocre comments, I hope she wasn't just saying that to make me feel better! ;)

I'm actually really surprised at your comment - that's all you say to your meat eating friends? That's quite judicious, I expected something a bit more harsh. I think it's a very understanding response.

By being direct, but not mean, your freinds will probably continue to have dinner with you. Will that guarantee they will go vegetarian? No, but it's our best chance, don't you think??

Antigone, I probably should not have said I was okay with people eating meat. But sometimes when I'm on here I feel like we are going to lose people like Kurt and CC who might change their minds.

Antigone, why the hell would they be on the PETA blog if they weren't on the fence? If they were just here to be jerks, they would ALWAYS post nasty comments. I haven't seen that.

And trust me, I am not afraid of offending people. I am not afraid of being unpopular. I regret that you and I cannot meet so you can know the real me.

But I do not say nasty things lightly. I am not a people hater and I practice Buddhism, so using cruel words is always a last resort for me.

Everyone is different - some people I've spoken to have seen videos like that and question their authenticity. So a different approach is needed.

The best way for animal rights activists to use their time is to POLL vegetarians and FIND OUT why they stopped eating meat!!!!!

Let me give you an example - I was 14 and I loved animals already. A celebrity I admired did an interview about how he became vegetarian, and I followed his lead. I never say any PETA videos and I've been veggie ever since.

What if we polled people and 99 percent were influenced by celebrities - wouldn't that be worth knowing?

;)

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | March 10, 2008 11:07 AM

Maya: One of the biggest roadblocks to animal rights is the inability of the "animal people" to hold consistently to one doctrine. When I advocate on behalf of the animals using the PETA doctrine to which I adhere, you call it mean. It is simply reality.

Although I do not hate all people, I have very little respect for those who can witness slaughterhouse video and believe it to be justified. I think those are the lowest lifeforms on the planet and could care less what they think of me. I am writing here on behalf of the animals and their suffering. It is laughable to me that someone like Kurt gets all upset over my comments while he is writing in support of animal cruelty. If he thinks my comments are too harsh, he should trade places with a pig in a slaughterhouse so he can really understand what harsh means.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 10, 2008 07:25 PM

Hi again Antigone -

I think the word "Doctrine" is perfect for PETA folks because of its cult-ish implications. You are in deep denial if you think you're a complete saint.

Do you drive a car? Then you're killing polar bears. Do you drink water? Many reservoir management programs require that waterfowl near drinking supplies be shot.

Do you use electricity? Are you aware that great horned and short eared owls are killed by electrocution from power lines?

Do you heat your home? The Prince William Sound oil spill was not the only such disaster in history. There have been many since.

The last oil spill happened 12 hours ago in Roanoake. A dead duck and muskrat were found and many more are expected to be found deceased since the oil spill occured in a wildlife refuge.

Or are you only advocating for the cute cows and puppies? If you care about our wildlife friends you will realize that you are every bit as guilty as Kurk.

Vegetarianism is only a sliver of benefit in the huge ugly world of industrialization. All of us are guilty as sin and you know it.

Have some humility there, doc.

See, I'm not afraid of offending people. ;)

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 11, 2008 01:08 PM

Maya
I going to start calling you mom! Thanks for sticking up for me in my absence.
You made many good points in that last post. I wouldn't exactly call myself the greenest person on the block, but I do make a conscious effort help the environment whenever I get a chance. I reycyle all products that can be recycled and I walk to work everyday. I'm just about the biggest tree-hugging conservative that I know! Now that is an oxymoron!

Antigone, I don't get upset about your comments towards me. I'm a big boy, I can take it. I'm just trying to understand how one person can so despise another without ever meeting them. You've called a "lowlife" in your last post and even worse things in the past. I just don't understand how such an "enlightened" person can be filled with so much hate!

Posted by: Kurt K | March 11, 2008 03:46 PM

Maya: You are entitled to your opinion. I just ask that you do not pass yourself off as an Animal Rights person because you know nothing about Animal Rights. Your comprehension stops at Animal Welfare. I do not want anyone to associate Animal
Rights with a lackluster attitude like your own.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 11, 2008 05:05 PM

Kurt: Stop complaining because you feel I do not show you enough understanding/compassion/whatever you want to call it. As long as you do not show compassion to others, you have no right to the expectation of receiving it.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 11, 2008 05:08 PM

Who says I don't show compassion? I don't beat animals, I don't kill animals for the fun of it. You are just a mean person!

Posted by: Kurt K | March 12, 2008 01:57 PM

Kurt K: You call ME mean?? Look at the slaughterhouse video and know that YOU cause that to happen. Of course you don't kill animals--you have someone else do it for you!! So-- I guess to mean and selfish, we can add cowardly. You really need to grow up. If you are truly on this site to learn and not just to argue, aquaint yourself with the true facts as portrayed in the videos and quit whining about other people not liking you.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 12, 2008 05:42 PM

Hi Kurt!

Anytime. I have equal respect for you and Antigone. Being here and having this conversation will make all 3 of us think and act more responsibly, I beleive.

I beleive we are all responsible for our actions. Whether it's showing people more respect, or showing more respect to the other animals on the Earth by changing our habits, we can ALL do better!

;) Om Shanti. (Peace)

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 13, 2008 10:52 AM