Animals are not OURS!!!

[Cow Poke]

Yet they are not any more than pro-lifers are a "bunch of crazy people" [ignoring the extremists who murder doctors and bomb abortion clinics].

Let's see.... the pro-lifers I know (I'm one) hold prayer vigils outside abortion clinics, run clinics for pregnant women, collect and distribute food, pay for sonograms and other medical procedures, vitamins, medicines, and - most recently, in my area, purchased a building formerly used as an abortion clinic to care for pregnant women and give counsel and encouragement.

PETA, on the other hand, tends to go to the extremes of throwing fake blood on people, being as gross as they can (like posting really disgusting pictures)....

PETA [and other animal charities] use undercover reporting to highlight and bring to public attention issues that would otherwise not be known about. That in, and of itself, is a valuable contribution to raising awareness.

I think the point is that PETA is not really like "other animal charities" -- they tend to be more like the extremists in the pro-life movement that the rest of us clearly and loudly denounce.

[Cow Poke]

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-report-warns
https://advocacy.consumerreports.org...eatens-health/

Nor the destruction of vital habitats to grow crops for feed or to graze animals.

https://grist.org/article/growing-de...on-rainforest/
https://rainforestpartnership.org/th...deforestation/

So, aside from the fact that "argument by weblink" is a violation of Tweb rules - your links do NOTHING to show that PETA is anything other than a bunch of extremist nutters.

Try to concentrate --- the thread is about PETA.

[Gondwanaland]

Things tend to get confusing as many people jump in and offer opinions - I can't always keep everybody straight or remember what everybody said - my apologies.

Ah, it was a post where I gave examples of quite a few achievements of PETA.

OK, yes, I recall that.

Yep. Got quite a bit of flack from other animal rights activists on that one.

Perhaps you can give some examples of things they've done that would cause a reasonable person to say, "hmmm... good point, I need to think about that".

I did so, in that same post where I talked about their missteps. Here it is again:
https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...34#post1233234

The pictures that H_A posted (and were subsequently modded) only cause people to get grossed out and not want to "hear the story".

Interesting that they were deemed unsuitable for a basic discussion forum. Should make you think.

You do have a tendency to get a tad emotional, eh? Perhaps you would fit in well with PETA.

Most people do when talking about things they care about. I'm no more 'emotional' than any person arguing against abortion. *shrug* You just take exception because that 'emotional' argument is about you and your actions (i.e. you sound like a pro-choicer criticizing people arguing against abortion). Interesting how all of a sudden I'm 'emotional' when you're the one I'm disagreeing with.

This, of course, is your opinion. And, yes, I mostly buy my meat in the store, except for the occasional roadkill that would otherwise go to the buzzards.

Nope, not my opinion, just basic reality. Your meat comes from animals killed early in their lives, solely for your sensory pleasure. If that's 'kindness', I'd hate to hear how you're kind to your family members.

So, that raises another point --- when other animals kill other animals for food --- are they unkind and evil and cruel?

That looks like you're appealing to nature. Animals in nature also rape other animals, eat animals of their own species, and sometimes kill children. Does that mean humans, capable of significant advanced moral thought, should also rape other humans, eat other humans, and kill children? Certainly not. Appeal to nature is a fallacy for a reason.

[rogue06]

From your source: "and does not have a calf at her side"
Hmm.... now why might that be? Oh, because they are taken away because they consume the valuable milk and cut into the profit margin.

(and yes, cows do, in fact, 'dry up' naturally, just like literally every other lactating animal. This is basic biology, my friend.

https://www.dairy.com.au/dairy-matte...-been-pregnant

https://www.ciwf.com/farmed-animals/cows/dairy-cows/

A quote mine? Seriously? You're better than that.


The source mentions having a calf at its side wrt the cow not having to milk it daily at that point. The quote I gave

After the calf is naturally weaned, a dairy cow may not dry up naturally, so you’ll need to continue to milk daily. You may even need to increase milking to prevent problems.

discusses the cow after the calf has been weaned and how many don't stop producing milk and may need to be milked more often because of it. So no, not all dairy cows dry up.

And I noted that the cow had previously given birth so your sources are irrelevant. The fact remains that many dairy cows continue producing milk long after they gave birth and the calf has been naturally weaned. From the point it gave birth "most dairy cows will produce a good amount of milk for the next 5-6 years" (bolding in original)

If you don't milk them you are allowing the cow to suffer in agony as the udder swells up to the point they have problems even standing, not to mention laying down, and leads to its death either through the udder finally rupturing or through infection.

Again, go talk to actual farmers and stop relying on PETA which actually spreads a joke started on 4Chan that drinking milk is a symbol of white supremacy as being the truth. They are not an honest source and will openly lie to push their agenda.

[Cow Poke]

Ah, it was a post where I gave examples of quite a few achievements of PETA.

Yep. Got quite a bit of flack from other animal rights activists on that one.

I did so, in that same post where I talked about their missteps. Here it is again:
https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...34#post1233234
Interesting that they were deemed unsuitable for a basic discussion forum. Should make you think.

Most people do when talking about things they care about. I'm no more 'emotional' than any person arguing against abortion. *shrug* You just take exception because that 'emotional' argument is about you and your actions (i.e. you sound like a pro-choicer criticizing people arguing against abortion).

Nope, not my opinion, just basic reality. Your meat comes from animals killed early in their lives, solely for your sensory pleasure. If that's 'kindness', I'd hate to hear how you're kind to your family members.

A) I eat beef, not for my "sensory pleasure", but because of the nutrition it provides. It just happens to taste good, especially the way I prepare it.
2) The reason there was objection to the gross pictures of dead animals is the very same reason that we don't post (as mossy suggested) pictures of unborn babies torn to pieces by "medical professionals".
C) The notion that, because I eat beef, I must be unkind to my family members is downright nutty --- perhaps you're a better fit with PETA than you thought.

That looks like you're appealing to nature.

Yes. Yes, I am.

Animals in nature also rape other animals, eat animals of their own species, and sometimes kill children.

EXCELLENT point - so I don't feel bad about eating them.

Does that mean humans, capable of significant advanced moral thought, should also rape other humans, eat other humans, and kill children? Certainly not. Appeal to nature is a fallacy for a reason.

We actually have laws governing humans because, well, we're HUMAN. We police our own. Animals can't seem to do that.

Gosh you make good points --- there's a STARK difference between animals and humans!

[mossrose]

Not true

Source: What Factors Determine How Often You Must Milk A Cow?

After the calf is naturally weaned, a dairy cow may not dry up naturally, so you’ll need to continue to milk daily. You may even need to increase milking to prevent problems.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

IIRC, the cow is question only produced a single calf in its life time. My great grand uncle was in his 70s and didn't want to take care of any calves. He said he wouldn't even keep the cow itself except that it was their source for milk, butter and cream.

His small farm had a serious problem with prairie dogs and he was no longer able to take care of them himself. Just running the farm itself exhausted him. So my two cousins, my brother and I went out there with .22 rifles and as one of my cousins blew over the top of a spent shell casing, causing a whistling sound, they would pop up to look around at which point we shot them. The state put a bounty of a few cents for each tail turned in (essentially enough to cover the cost for the ammo) so if you didn't get a clean shot they scrambled back down their hole to die. Even at the age of 9-10 all my shots were clean except the first one for which I got scolded.

As a kid I resented having to go out and work on the farm for a week since that was definitely not how I wanted to spend my vacation. As an adult, I completely understand it because he needed the help.

He passed away a couple years later after finally being forced to sell the farm and move in town but not before his vision got so bad that when he drove his wife had to tell him if the one traffic light there was red or green


Again, talk to farmers and not PETA. The latter has repeatedly shown itself to be less than trustworthy.

Any human mother will tell you that that she will produce milk for as long as she nurses her child, without getting pregnant repeatedly. Obviously only women and female mammals get that little fact of life.

[rogue06]

Gond, in all seriousness. If you are really interested in helping prevent the abuse of animals, turn to groups like the Humane Society not PETA.

[mossrose]

On one hand I can understand it - cognitive dissonance along with being raised to think exploiting animals is normal. I was them at one point, so I can understand in one way.

But it still boggles my mind that we can be so cognitively dissonant that people who are pro-life (disclaimer, I am pro-life myself) and see even the tiniest of human cells and understand that they deserve life, deserve the right to grow and live, and then at the same time look at highly intelligent animals with their own thoughts, lives, desire to live, and think "ok, let's kill that and eat its flesh". It boggles my mind that I was once exactly that person.

Perhaps the cognitive dissonance occurs because many people who are pro-life believe that peoplekind is created in the image of their Maker, and that the same Maker gave us animals to serve us. He did NOT give us the instructions to abuse animals, but to care for them and use them for food and clothing.

I find it odd that you are quite vehement towards those who are not vegan as you are. I don't mind if you're vegan, it's your choice. But please allow me my choice to eat meat and drink milk and eat eggs and butter and wear wool. I mean, don't you think it's cruel to a cotton plant to have it's bolls harvested and spun and woven? Or a flax plant to be cut down and it's fibres made into linen? That's horrible! Plants are people, too!

[Gondwanaland]

A) I eat beef, not for my "sensory pleasure", but because of the nutrition it provides. It just happens to taste good, especially the way I prepare it.

There are countless ways to get that nutrition without paying for the death of the animal.

2) The reason there was objection to the gross pictures of dead animals is the very same reason that we don't post (as mossy suggested) pictures of unborn babies torn to pieces by "medical professionals".

That should REALLY make you think.

C) The notion that, because I eat beef, I must be unkind to my family members is downright nutty --- perhaps you're a better fit with PETA than you thought.

Nope I stated that because you claimed to be kind to animals. Yet you pay for their slaughter and all that comes with it. That's not kindness, even remotely, so indeed, I shudder to think what your idea of 'kindness' is toward your family members.

Yes. Yes, I am.



EXCELLENT point - so I don't feel bad about eating them.

Then you don't feel bad about people having abortions. Right? You're cool with abortions. Right?

We actually have laws governing humans because, well, we're HUMAN. We police our own. Animals can't seem to do that.

Gosh you make good points --- there's a STARK difference between animals and humans!

I don't think you quite understand how you just shot your own position in the foot.

[Cow Poke]

Gond, in all seriousness. If you are really interested in helping prevent the abuse of animals, turn to groups like the Humane Society not PETA.

EGGzackly --- we got our dog, Jake, from an animal shelter, not a puppybreedercompany. And it's not necessarily proven that I treat him better than I treat my wife and kids.

[Gondwanaland]

Perhaps the cognitive dissonance occurs because many people who are pro-life believe that peoplekind is created in the image of their Maker, and that the same Maker gave us animals to serve us. He did NOT give us the instructions to abuse animals, but to care for them and use them for food and clothing.

I think that could indeed be part of it. But one should note that animals were only 'given' in the bible after sin. One would think a rational Christian would strive toward eating plants and treating animals as they were BEFORE sin.

I find it odd that you are quite vehement towards those who are not vegan as you are. I don't mind if you're vegan, it's your choice. But please allow me my choice to eat meat and drink milk and eat eggs and butter and wear wool. I mean, don't you think it's cruel to a cotton plant to have it's bolls harvested and spun and woven? Or a flax plant to be cut down and it's fibres made into linen? That's horrible! Plants are people, too!

I've honestly spent the last several years as a vegan on the interwebs hearing stuff like this so I'm not entirely sure if you're serious or making a sarcastic point.

[rogue06]

2) The reason there was objection to the gross pictures of dead animals is the very same reason that we don't post (as mossy suggested) pictures of unborn babies torn to pieces by "medical professionals".

We are completely consistent on this. We've had members post just those type of images in the past and they were also taken down even though, AFAIK, the entire staff is pro-life. They're just not appropriate here.

[rogue06]

I've honestly spent the last several years as a vegan on the interwebs hearing stuff like this so I'm not entirely sure if you're serious or making a sarcastic point.

I think the at the end is likely a very good clue.

[Cow Poke]

I think that could indeed be part of it. But one should note that animals were only 'given' in the bible after sin. One would think a rational Christian would strive toward eating plants and treating animals as they were BEFORE sin.

Yet, the New Testament is full of instances of people eating animals, and Peter's vision, and the Prodigal Son...... eating meat in the NT is sanctioned by God. I'm a "New Testament Christian".

And Jesus grilled fish for the boys.

[Cow Poke]

We are completely consistent on this. We've had members post just those type of images in the past and they were also taken down even though, AFAIK, the entire staff is pro-life. They're just not appropriate here.

And TOTALLY unnecessary to make the point.

(wait, when you say "they're not appropriate here", are you still talking about the entire staff? This is about me, isn't it?)