PDA

View Full Version : PETA - Not aware that Mario'sTanooki Suit isn't real. It's not even faux ffs.



Heister
15-11-2011, 02:39 AM
"PETA, the People for the Ethnic Treatment of Animals, has launched an attack on Mario for his use of the Tanooki Suit." http://www.computerandvideogames.com/326059/peta-frowns-at-marios-use-of-tanooki-fur/


Actual quote from PETA's "Mario Kills Tanooki" page -


"When on a mission to rescue the princess, Mario has been known to use any means necessary to defeat his enemy—even wearing the skin of a raccoon dog to give him special powers.

Tanooki may be just a "suit" in Mario games, but in real life, tanuki are raccoon dogs who are skinned alive for their fur. By wearing Tanooki, Mario is sending the message that it's OK to wear fur. Play Super Tanooki Skin 2D and help Tanooki reclaim his fur!" http://features.peta.org/mario-kills-tanooki/


Also on the PETA website -

"Luckily, there is no need to be cruel to stay warm and look cool. Cruelty-free fabrics and faux furs are available in stores everywhere, and PETA continues to work with designers and clothing retailers to encourage them to use and sell only animal-friendly fabrics." http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/fur.aspx


Fucking bunch of idiots! I lose more respect for them every time they pull this type of publicity stunt. They did the same with Super Meat Boy.

outoffeelinsobad
15-11-2011, 04:55 AM
They're an embarrassment to vegetarians and vegans everywhere. The only reason they get any press whatsoever is because of sensationalist shit like this. And the best part is when the reasonable ones among us get lumped in with those saps.

zookeeper
15-11-2011, 04:59 AM
Sea Kittens (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sea%20kittens)!!


P.S. - I'm a vegetarian, but I would fully support eating peta members.

thegooseking
15-11-2011, 07:10 AM
The Tanooki Suit is implicitly not made out of Tanooki fur. I haven't played it, but in Super Paper Mario, Francis (a bad guy, apparently) wants a Tanooki Suit made with real Tanooki fur, implying that regular Tanooki suits aren't made out of fur. So, um, yeah. That's a fail on PETA's part.

Given that the "special powers" Mario gets in Tanooki form are based on those attributed to the tanuki in Japanese folklore, though, it's pretty obvious that Mario becomes a tanuki, not just wearing the fur of one. Even PETA should know this, so I'm going to attribute this to disingenuousness rather than stupidity.

Nalano
15-11-2011, 07:25 AM
PETA has been a laughingstock for a long while.

In New York state alone, they're responsible for petitioning Fishkill, NY (http://articles.cnn.com/1996-09-06/us/9609_06_fishy.name_1_mayor-george-carter-peta-animal-rights-group?_s=PM:US) and Hamburg, NY (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/22/national/main550557.shtml) to change their names (both of them said 'fuck you' and the former pointed out that 'kill' means 'stream' in Dutch) and putting up anti-fur billboards (http://adland.tv/content/petas-top-five-most-offensive-and-most-sexist-ads) in NYC that managed to be offensive and degrading to women.

But the best part is how they reacted (http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/ruby-rose-the-truth-behind-those-petas-dirty-little-secret-stories/story-e6frfkp9-1226190964272) when it came out that they have the worst track record (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm) for euthanizing-to-adoption ratios of any animal shelter in the country. Here's this PETA rep admitting that, yes, they do indeed euthanize animals if their owners can't afford vet care, as a rebuttal to the accusation that they don't care for animals! Hell, in trying to rebut this accusation, she also insinuated that PETA are really bad with money, if they can run these ad campaigns but have a less than 1% average success rate over the last five years.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I can understand and support vegetarians and vegans for their views. But what we all agree on is that PETA needs to die.

QuantaCat
15-11-2011, 09:43 AM
PETA has been a laughingstock for a long while.

In New York state alone, they're responsible for petitioning Fishkill, NY (http://articles.cnn.com/1996-09-06/us/9609_06_fishy.name_1_mayor-george-carter-peta-animal-rights-group?_s=PM:US) and Hamburg, NY (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/22/national/main550557.shtml) to change their names (both of them said 'fuck you' and the former pointed out that 'kill' means 'stream' in Dutch) and putting up anti-fur billboards (http://adland.tv/content/petas-top-five-most-offensive-and-most-sexist-ads) in NYC that managed to be offensive and degrading to women.

But the best part is how they reacted (http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/ruby-rose-the-truth-behind-those-petas-dirty-little-secret-stories/story-e6frfkp9-1226190964272) when it came out that they have the worst track record (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm) for euthanizing-to-adoption ratios of any animal shelter in the country. Here's this PETA rep admitting that, yes, they do indeed euthanize animals if their owners can't afford vet care, as a rebuttal to the accusation that they don't care for animals! Hell, in trying to rebut this accusation, she also insinuated that PETA are really bad with money, if they can run these ad campaigns but have a less than 1% average success rate over the last five years.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I can understand and support vegetarians and vegans for their views. But what we all agree on is that PETA needs to die.

This sounds like a very american company. How do they not know that hamburgers are named after the original citiy it came from? Why are there stupid people allowed near animals?!

Also, incidentally, dont pet animals contribute the most to the greenhouse effect? KILL ALL PETA AND PETS.

Nalano
15-11-2011, 09:46 AM
This sounds like a very american company. How do they not know that hamburgers are named after the original citiy it came from? Why are there stupid people allowed near animals?!

Also, incidentally, dont pet animals contribute the most to the greenhouse effect? KILL ALL PETA AND PETS.

Soon they'll picket Frankfurt.

QuantaCat
15-11-2011, 09:54 AM
Soon they'll picket Frankfurt.

aaaaaaaAAAAaaaAaaaaAahhAHaAaaAAAAAaaaa

R-F
15-11-2011, 10:00 AM
The only reason PETA is still alive is because people pay attention to them. If people just ignored them, they'd go away.

There's also some of the fucking horror stories of former PETA members. Being told to mistreat puppies and take pictures of them for ad campaigns etc.

thegooseking
15-11-2011, 10:08 AM
Also, incidentally, dont pet animals contribute the most to the greenhouse effect?

I believe meat livestock contribute significantly more than pets, especially when you consider how many animals the average person eats in a year compared to how many they own in a year. And the fact is that there are artificially many more cows in the world than there would be if we didn't have to keep up with the demand of the meat industry.

But now I sound like I'm defending PETA! This will not do. This will not do at all!

Nalano
15-11-2011, 10:16 AM
I believe meat livestock contribute significantly more than pets, especially when you consider how many animals the average person eats in a year compared to how many they own in a year. And the fact is that there are artificially many more cows in the world than there would be if we didn't have to keep up with the demand of the meat industry.

But now I sound like I'm defending PETA! This will not do. This will not do at all!

See? That's the problem! They're poisoning their own issue!

Kinda like the #OWS folks.

Also, apropos of nothing, there is only one Wien (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien,_Wisconsin) in all of America, which makes me sad, because it means it's very unlikely that I get to make another PETA-doesn't-understand-meat joke while I'm talking to a Viennese guy.

pakoito
15-11-2011, 10:38 AM
They're not pro-animals, they're extincionist anti-human.

Rii
15-11-2011, 12:09 PM
Seems to me by reacting to it you're just playing into their hands here.

Drake Sigar
15-11-2011, 02:38 PM
The Tanooki Suit is implicitly not made out of Tanooki fur. I haven't played it, but in Super Paper Mario, Francis (a bad guy, apparently) wants a Tanooki Suit made with real Tanooki fur, implying that regular Tanooki suits aren't made out of fur. So, um, yeah. That's a fail on PETA's part.

Given that the "special powers" Mario gets in Tanooki form are based on those attributed to the tanuki in Japanese folklore, though, it's pretty obvious that Mario becomes a tanuki, not just wearing the fur of one. Even PETA should know this, so I'm going to attribute this to disingenuousness rather than stupidity.
Even PETA should know this? I'm a casual Mario follower and I didn't know all that crap.

DiamondDog
15-11-2011, 02:59 PM
It doesn't help that they get very public support from people like Chrissie Hynde and that professional moron Morrissey. Can you imagine how many fans of their music lap up anything PETA say just because their favourite musician gave it a thumbs up?

I do feel the welfare of animals is a worthy cause, but PETA have turned themselves into a joke by focusing their public campaigns on trivial things like Mario. Like Morrissey they've drained any goodwill some people might have had for them and as such any genuine issues they talk about will fall on deaf ears. If Morrissey wasn't such a monumentally crass arsehole people might (might) listen. Instead they just laugh at him (well I know I do, laugh and weep).

Still, good work clouding your own arguments, PETA.

westyfield
15-11-2011, 03:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kXUPy-dCx4

thegooseking
15-11-2011, 03:36 PM
Even PETA should know this? I'm a casual Mario follower and I didn't know all that crap.

I was talking more about Japanese folklore rather than Mario. You pretty much can't research the tanuki without finding out its significance in folklore. And if they care about the tanuki as much as they claim, they must have researched it.

QuantaCat
15-11-2011, 07:21 PM
By the way, monochrom did a report about annoying PETA and ProLife stands, namely one in front of a viennese abortion clinic. So they (or atleast, Apunkt Schneider, one of its' members) decided to create their own stand, which is for maximising earths population, the so called "totalpopulation". I think it is an asimov concept, as mentioned in the article. It's in german only, sadly, but apparently, he approached the other two stands for this "cause", and both of them were very interested in what it was trying to propagate, because "totalpopulation" promotes "ultimate efficiency", and it would mean that all are vegetarians, due to the most efficient foodstuffs would be algae. But also means that every human is positioned and used most efficiently.

Anyhow, hilarious (http://www.br.de/radio/bayern2/sendungen/zuendfunk/kolumnen-sendungen/fernschreiber/fernschreiber_wachstum_schneider102.html).

Bahanima
15-11-2011, 07:28 PM
Just wow. The sensitivity of the world is... silly. Never thought I'd consider sensitivity stupid. But if you want to see sheer gaming IGNORANCE, go here. It will boggle the mind, and make you want to murder that magazine;

http://i51.tinypic.com/10n9hfr.png

I want to die...

SMiD
15-11-2011, 07:29 PM
It doesn't help that they get very public support from people like Chrissie Hynde and that professional moron Morrissey. Can you imagine how many fans of their music lap up anything PETA say just because their favourite musician gave it a thumbs up?

I do feel the welfare of animals is a worthy cause, but PETA have turned themselves into a joke by focusing their public campaigns on trivial things like Mario. Like Morrissey they've drained any goodwill some people might have had for them and as such any genuine issues they talk about will fall on deaf ears. If Morrissey wasn't such a monumentally crass arsehole people might (might) listen. Instead they just laugh at him (well I know I do, laugh and weep).

Still, good work clouding your own arguments, PETA.

SSSHHHHH!!!! Morrissey hears every bad word ever said/written about him. He's prolly on his way to you now!

Also, whilst I detest PETA, I do sometimes enjoy their random naked-celeb ads. Ya know.... for the whole um... art... aspect...

Scumbag
15-11-2011, 07:35 PM
I was talking more about Japanese folklore rather than Mario. You pretty much can't research the tanuki without finding out its significance in folklore. And if they care about the tanuki as much as they claim, they must have researched it.

And now I suddenly understand what all those weird statues I saw in Hakone were, and why the racoon in some old Japanese advert had huge, swinging balls.

DiamondDog
15-11-2011, 08:02 PM
It's alright, I've just had a fry-up so my house is filled with the smell of cooked flesh.

Should keep him at bay.

westyfield
16-11-2011, 12:30 AM
It's alright, I've just had a fry-up so my house is filled with the smell of cooked flesh.

Should keep him at bay.

Same! But without the fry-up part.

deano2099
16-11-2011, 02:12 PM
Even PETA should know this? I'm a casual Mario follower and I didn't know all that crap.

Nor me. I'd probably research it before launching a campaign that got national press coverage based on it though.

PETA used to be clever in using stuff like this to direct attention to themselves and the (arguably) valid causes they supported. But now it seems like this is pretty much all they do. Like, if the Tanooki were endangered or something, this would be a funny and attention-grabbing way to boost the profile of a campaign aimed at doing something about that. But this is just "look at us".

Grizzly
16-11-2011, 02:52 PM
Sea Kittens (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sea%20kittens)!!


P.S. - I'm a vegetarian, but I would fully support eating peta members.

I would recommend against it though. Although the suprise on their faces when a 'harmless bear' tears their throat out is certainly suprising and rather amusing at first, they just taste bad and feel way to much like an easy kill. They don't really have the nourishment or sense of achievement you get from other prey.

Besides, it is not as if anyone would actually take them seriously.

Xercies
16-11-2011, 05:53 PM
There was a lovely cartoon sketch from I can't remember probably The Simpsons where these animal rights activists saved all these animals. And it had all rainbows and happy music showing that these people thought they would all live in harmony and everything else. Then a second later the animals starting attacking one another. That basically shows animal rights activists have no clue what they are talking about.

Nalano
16-11-2011, 06:28 PM
There was a lovely cartoon sketch from I can't remember probably The Simpsons where these animal rights activists saved all these animals. And it had all rainbows and happy music showing that these people thought they would all live in harmony and everything else. Then a second later the animals starting attacking one another. That basically shows animal rights activists have no clue what they are talking about.

Did you see the Futurama episode where the animal rights activists teach a lion to be vegetarian - they trot him out and he looks sickly and thin. 'Course, the episode ends with one of them being eaten, so :D

Rii
16-11-2011, 07:01 PM
There was a lovely cartoon sketch from I can't remember probably The Simpsons where these animal rights activists saved all these animals. And it had all rainbows and happy music showing that these people thought they would all live in harmony and everything else. Then a second later the animals starting attacking one another. That basically shows animal rights activists have no clue what they are talking about.

Animals kill each other so it doesn't matter how we treat them? Wow.

Nalano
16-11-2011, 07:36 PM
Animals kill each other so it doesn't matter how we treat them? Wow.

It's more the idea that having this "we can all live in harmony" ideal does not replace skill in animal handling, any more than "can't we all just get along" replaces political savvy.

Rii
16-11-2011, 08:00 PM
It's more the idea that having this "we can all live in harmony" ideal does not replace skill in animal handling, any more than "can't we all just get along" replaces political savvy.

Well there're always a few precious snowflakes aren't there? But for the most part I don't think the idea that many animals kill, feed, and even toy cruelly with one another actually comes as news to most 'animal rights activists'. It's a strawman.

And it would be a mistake to conflate 'industry' with 'skilled animal handling'. Unless eye gouging (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg3p0LfI-E4) is a recent addition to the manual, that is.

Nalano
16-11-2011, 08:05 PM
Well there're always a few precious snowflakes aren't there? But for the most part I don't think the idea that many animals kill, feed, and even toy cruelly with one another actually comes as news to most 'animal rights activists'. It's a strawman.

You assume that by taking a political stance - in this case, being an animal rights activist - one automatically becomes an expert on that subject.

To that I can only say hello, and welcome to the internet.

deano2099
16-11-2011, 09:00 PM
Well there're always a few precious snowflakes aren't there? But for the most part I don't think the idea that many animals kill, feed, and even toy cruelly with one another actually comes as news to most 'animal rights activists'. It's a strawman.
There's more to it than that though. I mean, how many animal rights activists have you seen that are vegans/vegetarians? As opposed to the number that will only eat animal meat if it's ethically killed. So many campaigns go the 'meat is murder' route. I'm opposed to unnecessary animal cruelty. Killing and eating is not cruelty, it's just nature.

That's the issue, a lot of PETA campaigners think killing any animals to eat is wrong, even though animals do it to each other. There's a disconnect there that goes beyond 'we shouldn't be cruel' into 'aww, why do we have to kill the cute little animals'.

Nalano
16-11-2011, 10:42 PM
There's more to it than that though. I mean, how many animal rights activists have you seen that are vegans/vegetarians? As opposed to the number that will only eat animal meat if it's ethically killed. So many campaigns go the 'meat is murder' route. I'm opposed to unnecessary animal cruelty. Killing and eating is not cruelty, it's just nature.

That's the issue, a lot of PETA campaigners think killing any animals to eat is wrong, even though animals do it to each other. There's a disconnect there that goes beyond 'we shouldn't be cruel' into 'aww, why do we have to kill the cute little animals'.

Two links (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOvwc8_QXiY) come to mind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q7kUFS-0XQ&t=8m41s).

outoffeelinsobad
17-11-2011, 08:01 AM
You assume that by taking a political stance - in this case, being an animal rights activist - one automatically becomes an expert on that subject.

I think you're swinging a little too hard here. One need not be an expert on animal behavior to understand that their behavior is based on instinct, some of which is predatory.

@deano: Not sure what your argument is. Maybe I'm parsing it incorrectly, but it seems to me that you're using the "animals do it, so why shouldn't we?" position. My response to which is that, frankly, some of us don't want to behave like animals.

Nalano
17-11-2011, 08:21 AM
@deano: Not sure what your argument is. Maybe I'm parsing it incorrectly, but it seems to me that you're using the "animals do it, so why shouldn't we?" position. My response to which is that, frankly, some of us don't want to behave like animals.

He's highlighting the incongruity of applying human morals to animal life, as animals have no concept of murder.

He's also pointing out that humans are and have always been omnivorous. While we can find creative ways to replace that protein intake, eating other living beings is central to our functioning as a species and morality has no place in that.

He's limiting the argument as to the "ethical" treatment of animals to mean that they should not be made to suffer unduly before they're slaughtered for food, not that they should not be slaughtered for food.

outoffeelinsobad
17-11-2011, 08:52 AM
Was someone insisting on applying human morals to animal behavior? I must have missed that.

Consuming animals and animal products is only "central to our functioning as a species" in the sense that it is a global economic factor. It is not necessary in any way other than to sustain the status quo. Also, I would argue that morality is something one applies to one's life as a whole, not to specific topics.

deano2099
17-11-2011, 09:26 AM
Maybe I'm parsing it incorrectly, but it seems to me that you're using the "animals do it, so why shouldn't we?" position. My response to which is that, frankly, some of us don't want to behave like animals.

Nalano covered most of it. I would add that your point is fair enough, you may want to not behave like an animal and that's fine. But the point of PETA is they're trying to convince other people to not act like animals, not for our own good, but for that of the animals. So why are they not also trying to stop animals from acting like animals to each other?

Xercies
17-11-2011, 10:46 AM
Consuming animals and animal products is only "central to our functioning as a species" in the sense that it is a global economic factor. It is not necessary in any way other than to sustain the status quo.

Well its a bit more then that, we do need meat for a lot of brain functions and a lot of body functions, we are designed to really eat meat if we really want to do a lot of things.

Heister
17-11-2011, 02:50 PM
PETA back-pedals - http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2011/11/peta_relax_mario_fans_it_was_all_a_joke

"PETA Statement re New PETA Game Lampoons Skin-Stealing Mario

Mario fans: Relax! PETA's game was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, a fun way to call attention to a serious issue, that raccoon dogs are skinned alive for their fur. We wish real-life tanukis could fly or swat enemies away with their tails and escape from those who profit from their skins. You can help them by never buying real fur."


As Kotaku mentioned the other day, it was just a "mean, spiteful and cruel" move by PETA. http://kotaku.com/5859575/petas-fur+wearing-mario-outrage-is-an-epic-cultural-misunderstanding

Rii
17-11-2011, 03:18 PM
You assume that by taking a political stance - in this case, being an animal rights activist - one automatically becomes an expert on that subject.

No, I'm saying that the opposite pole - that most or all animal rights activists are clueless about animals - is nonsense. I don't doubt that there are many ill-informed animal rights activists, nor do I doubt that, on average, their level of familiarity with the subjects of their interest is greater than that of the general population. There are no absolutes here, if for the purposes of example we can reduce it to a 10pt scale the general population mean might be '4' and that of animal rights activists '6', with significant variance between individuals and overlap between the two populations.


That's the issue, a lot of PETA campaigners think killing any animals to eat is wrong, even though animals do it to each other.

I'm not sure why being of the belief that it is wrong to kill animals to eat is necessarily incompatible with acknowledging that animals often kill each other to eat.


PETA back-pedals - http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2011/11/peta_relax_mario_fans_it_was_all_a_joke

Didn't read like a joke to me. But, y'know, who cares; PETA certainly got what they wanted out of it.

Nalano
17-11-2011, 05:37 PM
No, I'm saying that the opposite pole - that most or all animal rights activists are clueless about animals - is nonsense.

Not only did I not say that, but there's still the gorilla in the room: We're not lampooning all animal rights activists. We're lampooning PETA, which only happens to be the largest and most publicized animal rights activist group, and their actions speak for themselves.


Didn't read like a joke to me. But, y'know, who cares; PETA certainly got what they wanted out of it.

What, ridicule?

"It was a joke" is classic backpedaling. Like Herman Cain's "I was joking about the electrified fence thing..."

deano2099
17-11-2011, 07:07 PM
I'm not sure why being of the belief that it is wrong to kill animals to eat is necessarily incompatible with acknowledging that animals often kill each other to eat.

They're not because you're comparing two different things. I think it's wrong to kill people but acknowledge that some people do.

But what's the objective? To stop animals being eaten or to stop humans eating animals? If it's the latter, doesn't that make it more about humans and animals, and if it's the former, why no attempts to stop animals eating each other? It seems like it might be easier to be honest?

R-F
18-11-2011, 12:04 AM
It's because human beings are magical creatures completely seperate from the animal kingdom. We would've thrown off the shackles of meatery if we hadn't had the STUPIDITY AND PRIDE to want to be the most intelligent creatures on earth. How dare our ancestors facillitate their brain growth using high-protein foods such as meat and fish?! They should've been content eating twigs and such, for that is what the animal kingdom is all about.

Rii
18-11-2011, 12:54 AM
Not only did I not say that, but there's still the gorilla in the room: We're not lampooning all animal rights activists. We're lampooning PETA, which only happens to be the largest and most publicized animal rights activist group, and their actions speak for themselves.

Well I've been responding to Xercies' claim that because animals eat other animals it shows that animal rights activists have no clue what they are talking about. I'm not particularly interested in defending PETA ... not least of all because I don't know much about them beyond their publicity stunts like this one.


But what's the objective? To stop animals being eaten or to stop humans eating animals? If it's the latter, doesn't that make it more about humans and animals, and if it's the former, why no attempts to stop animals eating each other? It seems like it might be easier to be honest?

I think the objective, so far as I could personally assent to it, would be to minimise the suffering caused to animals, and harm done to species, by human activity, insofar as is practical and consistent with the broader interests of humanity.

There are any number of theoretical underpinnings for opposition to humans eating meat and other practices that harm animals and threaten species. One would be the idea that man is only man insofar as he is able to transcend his animal instincts. As Gandhi put it:

I learn that the law of the beast is not the law of the Man; that man has by painful striving to surmount and survive the animal in him and from the tragedy of the himsa* which is being acted around him he has to learn the supreme lesson of ahimsa for himself. Man must, therefore, if he is to realise his dignity and his own mission, cease to take part in the destruction and refuse to prey upon his weaker fellow creatures. He can only keep that as an ideal for himself and endeavour day after day to reach it. Complete success is possible only when one has attained moksha, a state in which the spirit becomes and remains independent of physical existence.

Note that this is also the root philosophical idea underlying sexual restraint. Although oddly enough most of its western adherents tend not to extend it to the field of economics, where the beast is allowed to roam free and even lauded for doing so.

* Violence

Nalano
18-11-2011, 12:57 AM
and harm done to species, by human activity.

The cow, nor any other common meat animal, is not in any danger of going extinct.

Rii
18-11-2011, 01:06 AM
The cow, nor any other common meat animal, is not in any danger of going extinct.

The enormous quantities of grain and water that go into raising cows for food consumption and the enormous quantities of methane thereby released into the environment and all the follow-on effects from that, could well be said to threaten the human species, and certainly the welfare of any number of individual humans.

Personally I doubt we'd have a problem if everyone had to raise and slaughter the animals they ate themselves. I helped to slaughter the occasional sheep on the farm growing up and ate the corned mutton that was the end result, but they certainly weren't kept in anything like the conditions that modern industrialised meat factories impose.

Nalano
18-11-2011, 01:12 AM
Personally I doubt we'd have a problem if we had to raise and slaughter the animals we ate ourselves.

The enormous waste of space and increased infrastructural costs inherent in dispersing the human population away from urban centers will hasten the destruction of the environment and, vicariously, threaten the human species. Density is efficiency, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE INDUSTRIALIZED MEAT FACTORIES.

Funny enough, by living in my tiny Manhattan apartment, I'm so environmentally-friendly that no amount of driving and noshing on steaks can defray my greenness.

Rii
18-11-2011, 01:24 AM
The enormous waste of space and increased infrastructural costs inherent in dispersing the human population away from urban centers will hasten the destruction of the environment and, vicariously, threaten the human species. Density is efficiency, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE INDUSTRIALIZED MEAT FACTORIES.

Except for the minor detail that all the additional hardships imposed would cut meat consumption to probably less than one-tenth of its present level. It wouldn't actually be necessary to have people raise and kill their own meat - that's just a philosophical thing - merely regulating raising conditions akin to that would raise prices sufficiently to reduce demand to minimal aka historical levels. Meat is a luxury good, indeed red meat consumption is one of the first things to balloon in developing nations: it becomes a status symbol for the wealthy.

Nalano
18-11-2011, 01:33 AM
Except for the minor detail that all the additional hardships imposed would cut meat consumption to probably less than one-tenth of its present level.

While we're daydreaming, can you get it to rain cookies?

outoffeelinsobad
18-11-2011, 06:07 AM
So why are they not also trying to stop animals from acting like animals to each other?

See Nalano's post above my previous post. No one is that stupid -- not even PETA.


Well its a bit more then that, we do need meat for a lot of brain functions and a lot of body functions, we are designed to really eat meat if we really want to do a lot of things.

We need protein and other essential vitamins and minerals, not the corpse it comes in.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that PETA is a disgrace. And we can agree to disagree on the eating animals and animal products. Internet arguments aren't going to change anyone's mind.

zookeeper
18-11-2011, 06:50 AM
The enormous quantities of grain and water that go into raising cows for food consumption and the enormous quantities of methane thereby released into the environment and all the follow-on effects from that, could well be said to threaten the human species, and certainly the welfare of any number of individual humans.


And the huge amount of feed that is used in the process of meat production serves to divert grain away from people who would probably benefit more from having direct access to the grain (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html).


...about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption...

Nalano
18-11-2011, 08:57 AM
And the huge amount of feed that is used in the process of meat production serves to divert grain away from people who would probably benefit more from having direct access to the grain (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html).

And I'm sure that when population pressure forces all arable land to be used in its most efficient manner, we'll all be eating 147 varieties of soy legume sandwiches, but until then I'm happy with my steaks.

Xercies
18-11-2011, 03:25 PM
I think green fuel is a lot more dangerous to food lands then any cows to be honest.

outoffeelinsobad
18-11-2011, 06:18 PM
And I'm sure that when population pressure forces all arable land to be used in its most efficient manner, we'll all be eating 147 varieties of soy legume sandwiches, but until then I'm happy with my steaks.

Thanks. The rest of us will try to be as decent as we can to make up for your lack.


I think green fuel is a lot more dangerous to food lands then any cows to be honest.

Any research to back that up?

Nalano
18-11-2011, 08:20 PM
Thanks. The rest of us will try to be as decent as we can to make up for your lack.

If you live in a first world country, don't worry.

We have about six billion people already doing just that.