meet your meat

StormWarrior

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=meet_your_meat&Player=wm&speed=_med

Wibbs

And.... Your opinion on the matter? In any case the source has a dubious record and even more dubious tactics equal to most of what the meat industry has up it's sleeve.

mountainyman

They wouldn't be made out of meat...

MM

Beruthiel

Nothing like a big juicey steak with onions and mash potatoes. mmmmm

StormWarrior wrote:

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=meet_your_meat&Player=wm&speed=_med

StormWarrior
Have you anything to say other than posting a link to a Peta video clip?

According to Stan, Peta are all into bestiality, so that knocks anything you have to say on the head.
No pun intended.

Sleepy

Open your mouth.

Examine your teeth.

You may notice that these are sharp and that canine teeth are there for ripping flesh.

We're omnivourous animals, deal with it.

[Edit: don't forget the mushrooms Beruthiel!]

RedPlanet

Sleepy wrote:

Open your mouth.
Examine your teeth.
You may notice that these are sharp and that canine teeth are there for ripping flesh.
We're omnivourous animals, deal with it.

[Edit: don't forget the mushrooms Beruthiel!]

Ever try to bite thru the hide of an animal and rip out some meat?
Our teeth are crap at tearing flesh. That's why we invented tools for the job.

Have a look:
http://dentalimplants-usa.com/Generalinfo/mouthteethpics.html
Do they look like something to pierce flesh or munch veggies?
compare:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/joserouse/Marine%20Life/great_white_4.jpg

Sleepy

RedPlanet, interesting that you chose to compare human teeth to those of a great white shark. Us being omnivourous animals and hence having both teeth for eating meat and vegetables while a great white being a pure carnivore only requires teeth to eat meat (and looking at it's main prey, usually blubber).

And yes, I've eaten unskinned chicken, fish etc. and found my teeth perfectly up to the job thanks.

Hobbes

Ever watch "Penn and Tellers BullSh!t". They did a bit on PETA. Very intresting. They actually kill more animals then they save, one of the leaders is alive today thanks to animal testing and one of thier PR people for schools is a convicted criminal and a meat eater.

Samos

Sleepy wrote:

Open your mouth.
Examine your teeth.
You may notice that these are sharp and that canine teeth are there for ripping flesh.
We're omnivourous animals, deal with it.

When was the last time you hunted down prey with your bare hands and teeth, killed it, and then devoured the raw flesh for your supper?

But seriously, have you ever heard of the "naturalistic fallacy", whereupon one derives an is from an ought? The fact that something is "natural" does not imply that it is "good" or ought to occur. One might make a similar claim that (say) earthquakes are natural, and whatever havoc they cause just has to be accepted. Rather, we do what we can to avoid such unnecessary suffering and take adequate precautions. Or it might be said that wars happen, so there's no point in trying to stop them.

Beruthiel wrote:

According to Stan, Peta are all into bestiality, so that knocks anything you have to say on the head.

Since the OP wouldn't give an opinion, I would say that PETA do a great disservice to the ethics behind animal liberation, just as extremists of any other flavour do to their cause. However, just as we cannot blacken the name of certain religions because of the actions of a few extremists, it would not be correct to dismiss outright the ethical arguments behind animal rights just because many of the members of PETA exhibit questionable behaviours. These propositions must be taken on their own terms only.

Wibbs

Samos wrote:

When was the last time you hunted down prey with your bare hands and teeth, killed it, and then devoured the raw flesh for your supper?

Well I've hunted quite a bit in my time but as a species we haven't done most of the latter in the way you describe it for a very long time. As RedPlanet points out we developed tools for the task of hunting and preparing the meat. In fact the greatest spurts in brain capacity in our ancestors occured precisely because we increased our protein intake. Some research has found that certain proteins derived from animals have no equivalent in the plant kingdom and have roles in brain devolopment especially in pregnancy. Since we discovered fire our stomach acids have reduced as cooking renders the same service as a pure carnivores stomach acid.

Now we're not pure carnivores although we can survive or even thrive on such a (varied)diet. Indeed the Europeans as a population survived on such a diet for thousands of years(as traditional Inuit and others do today). Successive ice ages saw to that. Examinations of excavated human bone show the mineral composition of pure carnivores(pretty close to the ratios found in wolves actually). Interestingly when farming starts disease increases and bone density and robustness decrease. EG. Look at all the skulls of ancient hunter gatherers out there in museums. Try finding one with bad teeth.

But seriously, have you ever heard of the "naturalistic fallacy", whereupon one derives an is from an ought? The fact that something is "natural" does not imply that it is "good" or ought to occur. One might make a similar claim that (say) earthquakes are natural, and whatever havoc they cause just has to be accepted. Rather, we do what we can to avoid such unnecessary suffering and take adequate precautions. Or it might be said that wars happen, so there's no point in trying to stop them.

I agree with this reasoning in many ways. Even though I consider eating meat fine, the amount most eat, the quality of that meat and most importantly how the animal has been treated are serious issues for me.

As an example I personally won't eat farmed fish. I'll only eat fish I've caught myself. Aside from the environmental issues(which are huge and a discussion of them would have me raging) and the amount of heavy metals in farmed fish, the conditions the fish are kept in are not humane IMHO. I also have issues with eating sea fish as the stocks are disastrously low. Cod is extinct in many of the fishing areas that previously supplied tons of same. Again rarely front page of the PETA times.

Then again fish aren't cuddly so they're not poster boys for the animal rights bunch as much as they should be. When they are they just concentrate on stopping me from fishing. Good luck to them. As I've told these hippies before "I hope you can swim when you're stunned".

Where was PETA and it's ilk when ecosystems and the wild fish stocks in the west of Ireland and Scotland were destroyed or massively compromised? Where were they when large scale farming pollution nailed the coffin ever harder on what was left of the fish stocks. And that's just (not so) common or garden fish. Ah sure foxes and lab beagles are cute so they get the attention.:rolleyes: Muppets.

I just can't take them seriously. When you had the likes of PETA spokeswoman Linda McCartney selling and making big money out of veggie food that is so ladled with vegetable transfats that you would likely have a heart attack by opening the packet, you have to wonder at the intelligence of some of these people.

Most people don't care about how the food they eat gets to their plate. They'll happily eat a chicken that has spent all of it's short miserable life in avian Dachau. No thanks, that stuff is hard for me to square with the dubious pleasure of chicken Mcnuggets. Ever eaten an "old" chicken that had a good innings scratching in the ground? Different ball game. The same goes for pork and pigs are a damned intelligent animal. Other than beef from an organic butcher and some other meat, I'm more an omnivore because of the moral and practical issues I have with the meat industry. (end sprawling rant)

it would not be correct to dismiss outright the ethical arguments behind animal rights just because many of the members of PETA exhibit questionable behaviours. These propositions must be taken on their own terms only.

Agreed again.