To be a strict PETA member, I would imagine one can't use any animal products (except milk I guess), including leather belt, leather shoes, leather wallet, dresses made with wool (unless the sheep don't mind being shaved)... what else that may cause great inconvenience? Oh I forgot one thing, you can't be a Rockets fan, actually a basketball fan (pretty much any sports involving leather balls for that matter), unless NBA decides to switch to balls made of rubber. Anything else?
All animals and all beings are different and unique. But all desire happiness. When we mistreat other beings, we mistreat ourselves. Maybe it's our ego we should kill.
What is there to be so livid about? Just because they show blacks and Jews and compare them to what is being done to animals. It is very arrogant of anyone to ignore the rights of animals. These are living things too. Why is cannabilism frowned down upon when eating steak is not? PETA is a great organization, and I'm glad they make features that get your attention.
Go find a shark or a big bear in the woods and see if he shares these views. We are genetically predisposed to eat meat (the enamel on our teeth is not made for the rigors of a vegetarian diet - the grit strips your teeth bare). Also interesting to note is that new studies have determined that plants do feel pain. Where would that leave us? Besides....bacon....mmmm wnes, vegans don't eat or wear any animal products or byproducts (like cheese or milk). Because we're not afraid of the cow next door eating us?
Mr. Meowgi........we are unlike any other being on this planet....its not an ego thing......ALL other animals share similar intelligence characteristic, EXCEPT US….we’ve been to the friggin moon…built civilizations…and you compare us to silly animals…please....if you think we are like any other being you do not value the human race....
Come on, weak argument. There's no evidence that plants feel pain. More importantly, as Chompsky argues, the reason you should choose vegetarianism is because it is the diet that causes the least pain to those around you. Also, this isn't an argument as to why exploiting animals is good. 1. If you're not for the mistreatment of animals than you shouldn't be for factory farms. For the sake of cheaper meat, which isn't necessary for a healthy human diet, animals are subjected to needless cruelty. Needless cruelty IS mistreatment. 2. The point of the campaign isn't to say that farms are the same as slavery, it's indicting the mentality that allows these two things to happen. Racism is discrimination, so is speciesism. They are not necessarily saying that the two are equal, but just trying to expose the bias behind our current acts. Reread the beginning of the campaign: "What is the common link between all atrocities in our society's past? Shameful chapters of history ... were the products of a dangerous belief that those with power have the right to abuse those without it: that might somehow does make right. Whether for profit, convenience, or just plain amusement, this supremacist attitude caused people as a society to tolerate, perpetuate, and indignantly defend outrageously cruel acts." They are critiquing discrimination. Nearly all human rights activists (e.g. Chompsky) would say that it's worse to sell a human into slavery than an animal. They're not calling people Nazis for slaughtering pigs, they are merely pointing out that the belief system that allows this to continue is the same. No one has been able to articulate any reason why the analogy isn't fitting. We used to think blacks were inferior and could be mistreated, now we don't. Why isn't our hang up now part of the same process. Using this as an analogy is totally warranted if it can sway people. Why? These people may be over zealous at times but their intentions are good. I have a lot more respect for someone that may offend some with their attempt to make a change for the good than for the guy that slices umpteen animals throats every day...
Wow, you are walking right into the argument. What you just said were the same beliefs that justified conquest during the Roman Empire, British imperialism, European Colonialism, slavery, genocide across continents, and a litany of other atrocities. What you just said is the same as the British looking at a bunch of "savages" who ate with their hands, did not wear clothes, and had no advanced industry and assumign they could do whatever they wanted. Of course we're smarter than cows, the average human being is also smarter than a child with Downs' syndrome, does that mean I can do whatever I want to that child because I can appreciate opera? We're different than animals, but that doesn't give us the right to put them through pain when it is unecessary.
Yeah I know that but I don't get it. What's wrong with milk (or even unfertilized eggs if you can tell them apart)? Because cows are getting squeezed on their t*tties? There sure is no life lost, absolutely none. So I suppose vegans don't play basketball if the balls are leather. But do they watch the game? Bullard4life I don't know if you are a vegan, but I wonder do you have any struggle with resolving these conflicts? Thanks in advance for sharing your thought on that. I seriously want to know.
Plants do feel pain - they have nerve receptors. 14 November 1998 And You Thought Bill & Ben Were Just Puppets While hunting through the genes which make up the DNA of Arabidopsis, a frequently used laboratory plant, NYU researcher Dr Gloria Coruzzi has discovered the amino acid glutamate. In the human brain, the amino acid glutamate acts as a chemical messenger and carries out a host of important functions, playing a role in everything from acquiring and storing memories to possibly contributing to certain mental health ailments. Past research has detected signs of glutamate overload in the post-mortem brains of people with schizophrenia, and faulty glutamate signaling has also been linked to Alzheimer's disease. Glutamate and other neurotransmitters are squirted out by nerve cells and exert their effects through protein molecules called receptors that are nestled within the outer layers of adjacent nerve cells, where they serve as sentries that permit the passage of only certain molecules. "This opens up a new connection between plants and animals," said Coruzzi.
Well, exploitation doesn't have to result in death for it to be bad. Aside from the cruelty (so the argument goes) involved in their captivity there is the issue that oppressions are connected. Racism, sexism, anthropocentrism all have in common the urge to dominate a subject rather than work in harmony with. The urge to dominate leads to many bad things. No, I doubt a vegan would own a leather ball. Whether they would play with one in a game depends on how far they go to push their own agenda.
A) The article never mentions that this could indicate pain. Nerve receptors don't equat to pain receptors. B) It is much more likely that animals feel pain and feel more than plants do. C) Just because plants feel pain doesn't mean we sholdn't eat animals. You should select the diet that harms the least, and that's a vegetarian diet. D) EVEN IF I accept this article, you should still eat a vegetarian diet. Why you ask? Because animals are fed plants. If you break it down, you pour in about 12 pounds of grain for every one pound of meat you produce because you have to feed the animal. So, eating an animal means your diet requires that both the animal AND all those plants to be killed. Whereas if you just eat plants far less plants and no animals die.
Hayes, no disrespect to your search. Discovering glutamate in plants has absolutely no bearing on "neural system of plants", let alone the connetion between plants and animals. I can tell you this, glutamate is ubiquitous in all forms of life. If this is all the content of the article, it's completely BS. I say it because I was a biochemist in training.
No, I'm not vegan. I buy cheese and sometimes eggs. I usually buy them at whole foods because they are free range, organic, and "cruelty free." I don't think that milking a cow or harvesting eggs is THAT bad. I understand Vegan's arguments and sympathize with them, I just don't think it's an intolerable practice if the animals are treated well. As for basketball, etc. I don't know anyone that takes it that far. I do have Vegan friends who either don't wear leather or will only buy leather shoes second hand so they are not directly contributing to the industry. I'm not a big fan of leather so it's not a big deal for me. So in general, to answer your question, every person takes it as far as they're personally willing to go, just like any other political stance. Sometimes I put convenience or personal tastes over that. But I've found that there are many sacrifices, especially diet, that I'm willing to make for others.
Not sure if that's true... Animals living in and around agricultural fields are killed during field activities and the greater the number of field activities, the greater the number of field animals that die. A partial list of animals of the field in the USA include opossum, rock dove, house sparrow, European starling, black rat, Norway rat, house mouse, Chukar, gray partridge, ring-necked pheasant, wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, gray-tailed vole, and numerous species of amphibians (Edge, 2000). In addition, Edge (2000) says, "production of most crops requires multiple field operations that may include plowing, disking, harrowing, planting, cultivating, applying herbicides and pesticides as well as harvesting." These practices have negative effects on the populations of the animals living in the fields. For example, just one operation, the "mowing of alfalfa caused a 50% decline in gray-tailed vole population" (Edge, 2000). Although these examples represent crop production systems in the USA, the concept is also valid for intensive crop production in any country. Other studies have also examined the effect of agricultural tillage practices on field animal populations (Johnson et al., 1991; Pollard and Helton, 1970; Tew, Macdonald and Rands, 1992). Although accurate estimates of the total number of animals killed by different agronomic practices from plowing to harvesting are not available, some studies show that the numbers are quite large. Kerasote (1993) describes it as follows: "When I inquired about the lives lost on a mechanized farm, I realized what costs we pay at the supermarket. One Oregon farmer told me that half of the cottontail rabbits went into his combine when he cut a wheat field, that virtually all of the small mammals, ground birds, and reptiles were killed when he harvested his crops. Because most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at all, few scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture's effects on their populations." In a study that has been done to examine the effect of harvesting grain crops, Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that mouse population density dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest. This decrease was attributed to both migration out of the field and to mortality. They estimated the mortality rate to be 52%. In another study Nass et al. (1971) reported that the mortality rate of Polynesian rats was 77% during the harvest of sugar cane in Hawaii. These are the estimated mortality rates for only a single species, and for only a single operation (i.e. harvesting). Therefore, an estimate somewhere between 52 and 77% (say 60%) for animals of all kinds killed during the production year would be reasonable. Using the population density shown in Tew and Macdonald’s (1993) paper (25/ha) times a 60% mortality rate of 15 animals/ha each year. If that is true, how many animals would die annually in the production of a vegan diet? There are 120 million ha of cropland harvested in the USA (USDA, 2000) each year. If all of that land was used to produce crops to support a vegan diet, and if 15 animals of the field are killed per ha per year, then 15 x 120 million = 1800 million or 1.8 billion animals would be killed annually to produce a vegan diet for the USA. Why are you so blatant with your herbicism? Says you. Ask your local carrot how it feels to have their skin stripped of with a metal peeler. Well, I'm not a biochemist which is why I quote someone else. Then again, she is a Dr. at NYU...
I wonder if PETA members eat mass marketed brands of bread. Do they realize that millions of animals are killed when the wheat is harvested by machines? It is very, very difficult to lead a truely cruelty free lifestyle, and I guarantee that every celebrity that endorses PETA has done something that exploits animals in one way or another. I also wonder how many PETA members are pro-choice. It would be interesting to see how many people get worked up over the slaughter of a cow, but are fine with the slaughter of millions of unborn humans.
The value of life is based on intelligence? There are countless achievements of others animals. Can you fly? Can you see ultraviolet light? Can you live underwater? Ants have built a lot more civilizations than we have etc. I value the human race, but we interdependent with other beings. We are a part of them and they are a part of us. So to value them is to value us. ______________________________________________________ Eating in the ultimate dimension, you maintain alive all the generations of ancestors. You allow, you help coming generations to find a way to go up. "To go up," means to transcend suffering, to transcend discrimination, to liberate ourselves, our situation and society. We are still caught up with many negative things: discrimination, violence, hatred and so on. So eat in such a way that you can open the way for future generations to transcend all these negative things. When I sit with you and I eat my meal, I practice that. I chew with these words: I touch deeply the food, I touch deeply the Sangha embracing me, the Sangha in which I take refuge; I allow my ancestors to eat, my children and grandchildren to eat at the same time with me, and I touch the ultimate dimension during the time of eating. Those are the first four lines. The next four lines: eating in the ultimate dimension, you chew in the same way that you breathe, with real rhythm. You chew and you are aware of what you are chewing. You are aware of the food in your mouth. You chew, and you touch the very nature of the food in your mouth. Eating mindfully is to be aware of what you are eating. If you are mindful, then you can discover the true nature of the food, which is also the nature of interbeing. Yesterday I talked about the milk we drink every morning. Drinking the milk, you know that it is not only sweet, but that it is also somehow bitter, because of the way we raise the cows, we treat the calves, and so on. We can be aware, when we chew the food, or when we look deeply into the food: we can see the ingredients, the elements that have come together to produce that food. A piece of carrot, a piece of string bean, a piece of tofu, a grain of rice, all these things contain the whole universe, and if you look deeply, you can see the lives of other living beings in it. You can see the compost, you can even see the dry bones of other living beings in the refreshing piece of tofu. A piece of tofu is not only vegetarian. The dry bones of tiny living beings have become compost, and the grain of rice, the piece of tofu, the piece of string bean, contain all of that: the sunshine, the wind, the clouds. Vegetarian and non-vegetarian, all that is inside each piece of food. So if you know that, you will know how to eat in order to keep your compassion alive. If we know how to produce our food in such a way that we can reduce violence and destruction, and decrease the suffering of living beings, we are keeping alive the compassion inside. The one who grows food, and the one who eats the food, both can help to maintain the compassion within our hearts. We know very well that without that element of compassion within us, we cannot be happy persons. Without compassion we cannot relate to any living beings, including humans. Eating, walking, doing your daily activities—we should learn how to do these things mindfully, in a way that can help compassion to stay alive in us. This is very important, that is our practice, for eating is also to preserve our compassion, because you don’t want to eat the flesh of your own son. Yesterday Sister Annabel gave a wonderful talk on the Four Nutriments, in English, and those of you in the Lower Hamlet may like to listen to it. Sister Chan Duc elaborated the teaching I had offered the day before on the Four Nutriments. I only spoke about the first two nutriments, and she continued with the third and the fourth. I was talking one day about the therapist as someone who can cook for us, offering us the kind of food that can keep our bodies and our souls sane and healthy. The therapist should also be an architect, in order to create an environment where we feel safe, where we can live our lives with freedom, with stability, where we can be protected, where we will not be destroyed by sickness, depression, and so on. A therapist should practice like an architect, like a cook, like a teacher, like a monk, like a Buddha, creating space where you feel safe, where you get only the sane kind of food, that won’t destroy your body or your consciousness. In our daily lives we consume so many toxins and poisons, we consume a lot of violence and craving and suspicion and despair, and destroy ourselves. So the therapist, like a Buddha, should be able to create a Pure Land, so that people can come and be protected and be healed, be transformed. The therapist should be at the same time a Sangha builder, a Sangha convener, a summoner of practitioners, so that among us there are those who have a solid and joyful practice to support us, to remind us, and to teach us how to live deeply every moment of our daily lives, to breathe, to walk, to listen to the bell, to enjoy our lunch together. Therefore the therapists, like the physicians, have to come together to operate as a Sangha, because alone they cannot fulfil their task of being an architect, a cook, a Sangha builders, of being a Pure Land. Therefore, all of us have to follow the same principle of creating the Pure Land and building a Sangha. Eating in the ultimate dimension, I chew as I breathe, with rhythm. You might use this gatha, this poem, in order to chew your food, and keep your awareness alive, and touch the ultimate dimension while eating your lunch Aware of the suffering, we nourish each other. The main thing is to maintain compassion alive, and to help beings going to the other shore. When we eat, we have to be aware of the suffering also. That does not mean that we have to suffer, because eating can be very joyful, but the background should be always there. To have an opportunity to sit down quietly like that, to have enough time to spend with the Sangha, and to eat this amount of food together in an atmosphere of safety, of friendship and of awareness, is something not many people can afford. That can give rise to a lot of happiness, but you know that happiness is always seen against the background of suffering, in order for happiness to continue. The moment when you exile suffering, happiness will no longer be happiness. It’s as with black and white: white will appear very clearly against a dark background. Happiness is also like that. So, we are with the Sangha, enjoying a meal in mindfulness, the joy of being with the Sangha, the joy of feeling protected and supported by the collective energy of the Sangha; and yet we know that suffering is there in life, in every grain of rice, in every piece of tofu, in every spoonful of milk. That is why we take the vow that, although we have to suffer when we feed each other, we accept that in order for a chance for every living being to go to the other shore, the shore of enlightenment, the shore of safety. Living beings eat each other, that is a fact. Tigers eat the deer, big fish eat the small fish, and we also consume other living beings. Even if we are vegetarians we can only reduce the eating of living beings to some degree. That is why there is the words ‘Aware of the suffering’ inside, because there is a little bit of suffering in that taste of happiness, enough to keep our awareness alive. Even if I have to become your food, I will practice in order not to let hatred become my nature. I offer myself to you so that you can survive. That is the reality of the world: living beings are eating each other. As practitioners, we cannot entirely escape that situation, but our practice is to keep compassion alive, and to relieve as much suffering as we can through our way of daily living Aware of the suffering we try to feed each other, even with ourselves. The main thing is to keep compassion alive, and to help beings to the other shore, the shore of safety, stability and freedom. I think human beings can be described as having a safer life than other living beings. Although we have no right to hunt each other or kill each other--the law forbids it--if we continue to create war, to exploit each other, to make use of others to get rich, to consume more, and we continue to do these things at the expense of other living beings, it is as though we are eating the flesh of our father or mother, our brothers. We are actually one with all of these beings, whether they live in an over-developed country or an under-developed country. We know that if we learn how to refrain from making war, from creating more social injustice and repression, we can bring much more safety to human beings, and at the same time we can better protect the lives of other living beings. Now, war and alcohol and drugs and consumption and violence are making us much less safe in our lives as human beings. In fact, human beings can put themselves in a much safer situation than other living beings, but because of our cravings and discrimination, we have made our situation much less safe than it could be. That is why our practice is to be aware, to be mindful, to live each moment of our lives deeply, so that we can keep compassion alive in our hearts, so that our lives and the lives of those around us become safer. When we enjoy more safety, we will be able to provide more safety to other living beings. We can protect the environment, protect the ecosystem ,so that other living beings can also enjoy safety. http://www.plumvillage.org/teaching...summer98/1998 July 21 The Nature of Self.htm
well that's where we differ....i don't equate humans to other living things...we are definitely superior...(I don’t understand how the article relates slavery to abuse of animal…have to compare apples to apples …and the article is not)…. if you read in my earlier post I mentioned that I don't condone cruelty, though better it be on an animal than a human being(if it has to be done…such as scientific testing)....
I am puzzled about this statement. Can you elaborate? Concur 100%. I also wonder which is more difficult, to live like Jesus or to live a "animal cruelty-free lifestyle" (not that they are mutually exclusive). Why do you hate celebrities? Good question. That's why I said "pure" vegan life is not easy. I am sure there is more in her research work than what you have posted. However, the way it was written makes one wonder if the reporter (not the Dr. herself) knows anything in the said field.
