HomeForumsWhat's newResources 
 
 
PETA compares McNuggets to the Holocaust!
IceDigger - Feb 25, 2003

 1  2  Next> 

  IceDigger Feb 25, 2003
This is just sick. Those damn peta people should all be shot.

www.peta.com... <-- it's on thier freakin front page!?!!??!

 racketboy Feb 25, 2003
I'm freaking sick of these people!

People just need to ignore them

 sizone Feb 25, 2003
they're absolutely right.

you saying that they deserve to be shot for voicing their opinion basically proves the point that the line between treating animals thoughtlessly and treating humans thoughtlessly is a narrow one

 mal Feb 25, 2003
:agree

racketboy, if you want to ignore them that's fine. It's your right.

Iceman, be disgusted all you like. That's your right too. Inciting people to shoot them on the other hand...

As far as I'm aware what they are doing is protected as free speech. If you don't like it, don't look.

 sizone Feb 25, 2003
the point isn't to dimish the tradgedy of the holocaust, it's to bring light to the fact that the mindset that pursues greed and evil, causing suffering on a living thing (even if that thing is a chicken) for the sake of a profit is exactly the same mindset that won't even so much as flinch at the concept of turning people into lampshades and what a dangerous thing that is to be unaware of. another example, the doctor that performs a vivsection on a dog would have no qualms whatsoever performng the same infernal task on a human were it legal.

 mal Feb 25, 2003
For those that are unaware:

vivâ¢iâ¢secâ¢tion (noun)

The act or practice of cutting into or otherwise injuring living animals, especially for the purpose of scientific research.

 Myname Feb 25, 2003
What is the problem with what they're saying exactly? I would have thought most of it goes without saying, but there you go.

As has been said, if it annoys you, don't look at it.

 farugoth Feb 25, 2003
Hmm...interesting topic. But I think the overlying question in this affair is who or what deserves moral consideration?? Do chickens deserve moral consideration? Do humans for that matter? I can see this topic broaden into a philosophical debate over vegetarianism, and boy this could get ugly. I took a class on environmental ethics - really disliked it, found it way too biased, the readings were pedantic, etc. So, I'm well aware of the vegetarian argument, though nevertheless I eat meat. It's my belief - eating meat is perhaps a connection to the primal self, a realization of nature. Although, in all honesty, in the next couple of decades we'll all be eating synthetic foods, hence no more need for meat, or vegetables for that matter - which, I might add, is a move so unnatural that it would confound a lot of vegetarians.... I digress. Yes, I can see how killing chickens can be compared to the holocaust, but I think it needs to be looked at the other way around. The nazis de-humanized jews, gypsies, and ne'er-do-wells down to animals - things to be used for utility. Now, if you believe that chickens have the same dessert as humans, this can be a problem. If you don't have a problem eating a chicken, I believe that's fine as well. You're intent is not to relish in the death of an animal. In fact, that animal is bestowing its essence on to you. It's a beautiful thing. Now, to counterpoint, these animals are held against their will and factory farms aren't exactly a liberating experience, but inevitably I think it's a positive step. Because human nature has this industrial enterprisal flair, we are eventually move away from "real food" to synthetic foodstuffs, as I stated earlier. Every innovation or beneficial machination has been built on the suffering of others, an inevitable fact. The question is how do we deal with it?

 mal Feb 26, 2003
The issue isn't whether people should eat meat or not.

Even though animals are bred and raised for their meat, they should still be treated in a humane manner while they are alive.

 Tony Skyrunner Feb 26, 2003

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by mal@Feb 26, 2003 @ 02:45 PM



 The issue isn't whether people should eat meat or not.



Even though animals are bred and raised for their meat, they should still be treated in a humane manner while they are alive.


Exactly.

 IceDigger Feb 26, 2003
C'mon guys, there freakin animals. We are at the top of the food chain.

 racketboy Feb 26, 2003

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by IceMan2k@Feb 26, 2003 @ 04:39 PM



 C'mon guys, there freakin animals. We are at the top of the food chain.


:agree

my thoughts exactly

don't ya just love topics that people can have such diffenrent opinions

 mtxblau Feb 26, 2003
PETA tends to go to the extreme, but the treatment of animals in the meat industry is exactly why I'm now a vegetarian. In any event, the treatment of animals is appalling. It's a strange institution - mass producing and raising animals solely the be slaughtered.

 Falstaf Feb 26, 2003
My family name on my mothers side, is Von Anton. If you go to the Alsace Lorraine region of Germany you can visit the former family estate. I have no living relatives in Germany, at least none could be found after WWII. My family was Jewish, although I have only one uncle who is still a practicing Jew.

I preface my comment with this so you will understand I come from a viewpoint of having a family that had half of it dessimated by the Holocaust. Still, I do not find Peta's comments offensive. I am not a radical who shares their views or am even totally aware of their point of view. Organizations like this use these kinds of statements to get attention. They know that they are outragious to many people, but use them to start a dialog about the topic (such as you see here) in hopes that some will become more aware of the real issue's at hand. How we treat the other beings on the planet. I eat meat and don't even keep kosher. All higher beings on the planet eat meat even as just an oportunistic event. It is a fast easy way of getting a concentrated ammount of protien quickly.

Besides, Mcdonalds is a lot like the Nazi's. I mean, look how many people they poison with their "food".

 antime Feb 26, 2003

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by IceMan2k@Feb 26, 2003 @ 06:39 PM



C'mon guys, there freakin animals. We are at the top of the food chain.


If you don't agree with the ethical argument, think about all the growth hormones, antibiotics and other drugs they pump into these animals. Being on the top of the food chain, you end up eating it all. And though the official party line is that the problem doesn't exist, some people say mad cow's disease is well spread through the US.

 googlefest1 Feb 26, 2003
well i thought this was funny - why did the chicken cross the road ? - to protest col. sanders

being on top of the food chain is no reason to treat the animals the way companies do - i belive they have feelings like we do - they feel fear -stress- depression- hey! how would you feel if some alien thought we were tasty and treated us in the same exact way the compaies do those animals - keep you in a cage so small you cant turn around- living in your and the others pee and shit- being shuffled and thrown around on converyor belts and hoppers - have your feet cut off so you couldnt run-

imagine that for a sec

by the way i still eat meat

 farugoth Feb 26, 2003
The whole business of turning jews into lampshades was a psyhcological method of dehumanizing people; factory farms persist because of an aggressive market. Honestly, no matter how much talk PETA or any other organization gives, these markets will still exists. I personally believe it's because of the moral vent in which these groups attack the issue. How many of you like to listen to an old reactionary priest condemn you to hell for masturbating? It's the same viewpoint here. What is needed is an unbiased presentation of facts, which will unfortunately never come - because we are, after all, human.

 racketboy Feb 26, 2003
The way I look at it, I, myself, treat animals fine.

Each person has their own responsibilty and is accountable for his/her own actions.

If companies treat animals a certain way, that's up to them.

They do it like that because it saves them money.

If they didn't, they would have to charge more money for their product.

If they charge more, another company will cut corners to lower costs and outsell them.

I'm not going to change my eating habits because of this fact.

There's a lot of things that go on "behind the scenes" in this and other parts of life that may "shock" us.

It's not worth stressing myself out being concerned with what other people are doing.

 mtxblau Feb 26, 2003

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by racketboy@Feb 25, 2003 @ 10:36 PM



 There's a lot of things that go on "behind the scenes" in this and other parts of life that may "shock" us.



It's not worth stressing myself out being concerned with what other people are doing.


Funny (in an ironic sense), that's how the Holocaust came about.

"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church â and there was nobody left to be concerned. "

- Pastor Martin Niemöller

 farugoth Feb 26, 2003
So, you suggest we try to solve every problem that comes along in life, even if the chance of a "holocaust" scenario is dim? Have you forgotten what Stalin did in with the Gulags? Pol Pot? Hell, the Japanese internment camps in the U.S? We can't stop people from doing evil things - they have to stop it themselves.

The reason Hitler and the Nazi party gained power in the first place was because the people wanted to "solve" their problems - post-WWI Germany wasn't a pleasant place to live- their economy was literally blasted to hell, unemployment was rampant, and people were looking for solutions. The Weimar Government wasn't producing solutions - Hitler was offering some. And he didn't get in by physical force - his cadre consisted of social misfits and undesirables. He was a brilliant politician who was able to convince the majority of people that he could rebuild the German nation.

So, if you really wanted to stop Hitler, you would have needed to prevent WWI, which destroyed much of Germany, and sucked their economy dry after the heavy fees the allies imposed on them. Which means you would have to stop Kaiser Wilhelm from becoming King...... and so on.

By your logic, the War on Terrorism is a completely logical move. 9/11 did happen and there are terrorist groups out there that want to hurt us. The war in Iraq is plausible because ,well, haven't you heard? Saddam is the next Hitler!! I guess that makes his Republican guard SS Troops.

Forgive the emotional outburst. Have you heard of the phrase "Good intentions pave the road to damnation"? Whatever good act we've committed has caused someone somewhere grief. Those shoes you bought for your girlfriend were probably made in a sweatshop in Peru. That ant-war rally you went to helped bolster support for a radical left-wing group who supports despotic and totalitarian leftist or anti-right wing government ,a political doppleganger of American cold war politics. Hell, Hitler must have believed he was making the world better, until he stopped caring. Now, if you feel compelled to make the world a better place, realize that the "better place" you want to create is a biased view on the world. Some people believe we should live in a world where there are no homosexuals. Some believe that we should shoot capitalists in the streets. Ask yourself: what is the "better place?"

 1  2  Next>