PETA loses it...again

73 posts / 0 new
Last post
Doug
PETA loses it...again

...the People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals want Whitefish High School to rename itself Sea Kitten High
School, encouraging everyone to refer to fish and other marine animals
as sea kittens
.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/01/08/news/local/news04.txt


Wow. Undecided

Michelle

Got your attention, right?

Doug

Yes, but not in a good way. It's silly.

Here's a bear eating a sea kitten:

 

Webgear

Hmmm sea kittens, sounds tasty.

penumbra

Michelle wrote:
Got your attention, right?

yeah, honestly. as wayne and garth would say: "Fished in!"

Doug

Oh go on, pet the sea kitten:

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I have to say, I don't see anything wrong or crazy about this latest initiative at all. It's obviously got one foot in satire. Which, frankly, PETA could often do with a healthy dose of.

martin dufresne

The article does make a good point about some animals, e.g. fish, being hurt for sport & fun, while (most) people wouldn't dream of doing the same to others, incorrectly perceived as more sentient.

Refuge Refuge's picture

Animals are my friends and I don't eat my friends.

But I also wouldn't call my friends sea kittens! Wink

old_bolshie

Quote:
The article does make a good point about some animals, e.g. fish, being hurt for sport & fun

Thanks for the wingnut input this thread needs more humour.

FYI-Fish do not feel pain, if they did they'd swim in the direction of the rod/reel.

Red Irish Lord Sea Kitten taken off Langara Island last May

[IMG]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e60/A_Fisher/Langara%20Island%20May%20...

Spot Prawn Sea Kittens for dinner

[IMG]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e60/A_Fisher/Langara%20Island%20May%20...

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Mod hat on. 

old bolshie, don't call other babblers "wingnuts".

 

Taa Daaaa

Doug

What a sad sea kitten. Frown

Doug

Oops, duplicate posted.

Tommy_Paine

Meat is murder.

Tasty, tasty murder.

 

I remember years ago when the caplin on the east coast were endangered.  Activists knew that the little slimy grey fish didn't score high on the cuteness factor, so instead focussed on the plight of the outrageously clownish and cute Puffin, which relied on the caplin, to bring attention to the problem.

 

Sineed

Good point Tommy; there's that term, "Charismatic megafauna," that refers to species people care about becoming endangered.

PETA launching this campaign in Montana of all places is particularly weird.  My dad is from Montana, the reddest of red states, where hunting, fishing and ranching are the state's main activities.  I remember going to the restaurant where my uncle worked as a chef, in Red Lodge, and he did us up these steaks that overlapped the plate.  Vegetables weren't a side dish; they were an afterthought, the clutter next to the meat.

When my grandpa died, my dad inherited a few of the family heirlooms, including a bear-size leg-hold trap, a gun, and a brand (for branding cattle).  I have this neat old coffee pot that you use to make coffee over a campfire.  And I used to have a set of glasses that commemorated the largest fish (eg, brown sea kittens, rainbow sea kittens, lake sea kittens, etc) of various species ever caught.

If PETA wants to be alternately ridiculed and ignored, they couldn't do much better than in Montana. 

Tommy_Paine

Actually, a study of Peta can be instructive for any activist group.  I tend to think any fledgling organization will use attention getting promotions, not so much to change public opinion as to uncover and make contact with like minded people.   And, Peta seems to have accomplished this much.

However, I think the utility of that approach has out lived it's usefullness: they seem frozen instead of transitioning to something with a more credible approach which would start to gain them more support.  

They should have outgrown this by now.

Unfortunately, I think that Peta was highjacked by a leader who is at heart an attention junky. 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Tommy_Paine wrote:

[...]Unfortunately, I think that Peta was highjacked by a leader who is at heart an attention junky. 

I can't quite put my finger on it, but there is something vaguely familiar about that... hmmm, damn this short term memory loss.

Tommy_Paine

There was a documentary on Peta's founder and leader, Ingrid Newkirk, on T.V. a while back. 

Tommy_Paine

dp

Le T Le T's picture

I have to hand it to PETA for coming up with a campaign that isn't horribly racist, sexist or manages to back-hand a group of oppressed people to make a point about chickens.

 

Quote:

Meat is murder.

Tasty, tasty murder.

 

Meat eaters who say things like this usually don't kill or butcher their own meat. Kinda like a pro-war politician who's never been to war.

 

old_bolshie

Quote:
Meat eaters who say things like this....don't kill or butcher their own meat

You have No Idea what you're talking about.

Farmers who hand raise their own stock then kill and butcher those animals love the food they produce and have no qualms or guilt about eating what was once a sentient creature-nor should anyone.

martin dufresne

That seems to be Le T's point, which you may have missed.

Yes, farmers love the food they produce AND they don't tend to indulge in alleged jokes such as your "tasty murder" quip.

P.S.: I love your nugget of Fish Psychology: it will be news to urban boors such as scientists... Got any more of these kernels of kountry knowledge for a rainy day?

Tommy_Paine

"Meat eaters who say things like this usually don't kill or butcher their own meat. Kinda like a pro-war politician who's never been to war."

I think you miss the point entirely, Le T.  Before Peta and others,  the paradox in the quip wouldn't be apparent to anyone.  It's strikes a nerve, because there's a large number of people who know it's true-- but ignore it. 

It used to be that we believed we had exclusive domain over things like language, reason, tool making, love, terror, and even pain.  But studies over the years have made it impossible to maintain this belief.  

The more like us animals are shown to be in these regards, the less likely we seem to be to shove harpoons in them,  eat them, experiment on them, or thoughtlessly discard them when they are too old to control in front of Hollywood cameras.

I think Peta is due some credit on this score.  However, they seem to be stuck in a public relations campaign that while they have not outgrown, the general public has.

To the detriment of the ethical treatment of animals.

 

 

Sineed

Le T wrote:

 

Quote:

Meat is murder.

Tasty, tasty murder.

 

Meat eaters who say things like this usually don't kill or butcher their own meat. Kinda like a pro-war politician who's never been to war.

 

Um, actually I have to side with old bolshie on this.  Vegans typically are urban intellectuals who romanticize and anthropomorphize animals because they've had limited contact with them.   People (like my dad) who have grown up in rural areas and been around the raising and slaughter of livestock don't get all swoony about what goes on in the minds of cows and pigs (and fish).

That said, as a progressive, I don't condone unnecessary cruelty and no longer sports-fish.  I will only fish if I can kill and eat my catch. 

 

Tommy_Paine

Was I all swoony and anthropomorphic?  I suppose if I am to be the stricktist empiricist, I am-- because we can't yet do a Vulcan Mind Meld and empirically know what's going through an animals mind at any given time.

However,  given the survival utility concerning things we call "emotions", or physical pain, it would be a gargantuan leap of faith to think those things we are "anthropomophizing" aren't really being experienced in the minds of those animals.

Don't get me wrong, Sineed, I am a species chauvanist.  I eat meat from that perspective.  I just don't kid myself while doing it.  I leave it to the orthodox to opine on whether that says something good, or entirely bad about me.

I think back to an experiment at the University of Western Ontario where a baboon was strapped to a chair and kept imobile for a long period of time to study the effects of cholesterol build up in it's arteries.   Peta, or some other group, broke in and disrupted the study.

And, I was glad. 

The work in such studies is usually done by grad students or others, not so much by the guy who puts his name at the bottom of the eventual paper.  They move on, and maybe one day they are a pediatrician, or working in the Emergency Ward at your local hospital.

Do you want them treating your kids?  Someone who has been trained to ignore the suffering of another animal to further the already understood idea that a high fat diet combined with little activity is bad for you?

 Let's cast our memories back to Nazi Germany, and their quiet program of "euthenizing" people with epilepsy, downs syndrome and other afflictions commonly treatable and easily manageable today-- and in that day, also.  Do you think those good Doctors and Nurses started off with humans?  Or do you think they had lots of practise becoming sociopaths by starting with animals?

How to lie to yourself: 101.

Which doesn't mean hunters and farmers are just one goose step away from managing death camps.  Theirs is a different context entirely, and I'm not saying that about them, or you.

I fish, too.  But not well.  And I do catch and release. And I may yet still take up deer hunting. 

But on the farming end of things, it seems that the hand writting is on the wall for growing animals for food.  It's going to become even more inefficient as time goes on.   We are turning vegan, whether we like it or not, purely from a species chauvanist point of view.

I think the point that animal rights people fail to see is that the way we treat animals isn't about animals.  It's all to do with what it says about us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

martin dufresne

It seems to me that discussing whether fish are sentient or even whether killing animals is justified sidesteps the central dynamic in sports hunting or fishing, which is IMO the Human vs. Nature nexus.

Whether people "catch-and-release" these animals or kill and eat them, isn't it all about a battle of wits, an attempt to assert superiority over a living being?

Unless we take this politic into account - one perfectly exemplified by jokes about murder - and challenge it, we're just spinning our wheels. 

I think this also applies to non-sport meat-eating. Consider the reaction of non-vegetarians asked to consider eating instead vegetarian dishes where meat has been perfectly imitated in terms of resilience and taste. It still "isn't the same" in their eyes.

Could that be because such food doesn't implicitly confirm their "place at the top of the food chain?"

Webgear

I thought of this conversation when I read this thread. 

From "Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy"


Zaphod, Trillian, Arthur and Ford are asked by the waiter if they would like to be introduced to the "Dish of the day."

The creature, a Ameglian Major Cow, is wheeled out and introduces himself by saying, "Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I am the Dish of the Day. May I interest you in parts of my body?"

Arthur and Trillian, with a slightly sick look on their face, raise an eyebrow and go, "HUH?!"

Zaphod gets right into the idea and wonders over to ?meet the meat?. The Dish offers his shoulder and suggests that his rump is very good because he has been exercising and eating plenty of grain. Trillian begins to look a little grey as the Ameglian Major Cow further suggests a casserole of himself!

Arthur is disgusted! The though of eating an animal that has just conversed with him is revolting. He requests a green salad. The Cow then reaches over and places his chubby three-pronged hoof on Arthur's shoulder and attempts to change his mind, "May I urge you to try my liver, it must be very rich and tender by now, I have been force feeding it for months?"

Arthur, still disgusted asks, "Is there any reason why I shouldn't have a green salad?"

The cow replies, "I know many vegetables who are very clear on that point sir, which was why it was decided to cut through that whole problem by breeding an animal that actually wanted to be eaten."

Zaphod is hungry and exclaims, "Hey listen, we wanna eat, we don't want to make a meal of the issues! We'll have four rare stakes and hurry please!"

The cow seems satisfied, "A very wise choice, I'll just nip off and shoot myself." He glances over to Arthur and quips, "Don't worry, I'll be very humane."

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

martin dufresne wrote:

I think this also applies to non-sport meat-eating. Consider the reaction of non-vegetarians asked to consider eating instead vegetarian dishes where meat has been perfectly imitated in terms of resilience and taste. It still "isn't the same" in their eyes.

Could that be because such food doesn't implicitly confirm their "place at the top of the food chain?"

 I think that's a bit of a stretch, maybe the case for 'some' but not all especially considering that I have yet to eat a vegetarian substitute that has 'perfectly imitated' meat. Some are down right gross and I don't even see the point of bothering to try.   I think I've tried pretty much everything  that I've come a across over the years. I've found some that are perfectly delicious and yummy in their own right but not because they're perfect imitations.

 I was veggie for 5 years though have since gone back to eating small amounts of meat. This non-vegetarian actually does eat meat substitutes though because I like them and they add variety to my diet,  not because I'm looking for a faux meat experience.  I personally think that the faux meat idea is pretty bogus for the most part anyway. If you're going to be veggie just be veggie. It's not difficult. 

 I also don't buy that most people are even thinking about their grand place in the world in terms of hierarchy when they eat and looking for some sort confirmation of that place.  Most people eat things because they like them, out of habit and because that's what they used too.   

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Tommy_Paine wrote:
There was a documentary on Peta's founder and leader, Ingrid Newkirk, on T.V. a while back. 

Nope, I think it had something to do wih a federal election.

_________________________________

Whom the hive does not cherish it eats.

jas

Tommy_Paine wrote:

However, I think the utility of that approach has outlived its usefulness: they seem frozen instead of transitioning to something with a more credible approach which would start to gain them more support.

They should have outgrown this by now.

I think this is definitely a danger, but I don't know if they're there yet. Maybe.  

I kind of see this with Adbusters mag which, imo, outlived its shock value=social message credibility after the first two or three years of its publication,  ie; cute for a while, especially in the early days of digital  image manipulation, but it's been doing the same thing for at least 18 years now. I don't know how they stay in business, actually. Someone feel free to correct/inform me.

Refuge Refuge's picture

ElizaQ wrote:
 

Most people eat things because they like them, out of habit and because that's what they used too.     

I don't know, I think that martin dufresne might have a good case and Webgear backs that up as well, when the higherarchy is messed with all of a sudden it becomes uncomfortable. 

I do agree that most peope do eat what they like, out of habit because it is what they are used to.  It is their reaction when they look at their habit is what interests me. 

I have been a vegetarian for more than 15 years and when it comes up I will give a variety of responses.  When I say it is healtier for me I get almost no arguments about it even thought that is the most arguable case of all (over consumtion of meat is very unhealthy as with any other over consumtion but arguable is meat bad for you?). 

But if I say that it is because I don't like the idea of an animal dying so that I can eat I usually get a very large reaction.  People get upset because I have brought up that uncomfortable, hidden idea that meat was breathing at one point. Notice I do not say anything about the other person, just me and the idea that I am uncomfortble with.  I have a right to be uncomfortable with any idea.

I do have an understanding that there are vegetarians out there who are self-righteous and believe that everyone should stop eating meat because it is unethical blah blah blah.  I do have an understanding that meat eaters get defensive because they have heard this and feel judged by the other person because the self-righteous person does judge them.

Personally I don't feel as if another person who eats meat is making a judgement on the type of person I am just because they don't share the same eating habits that they have.  They are just reacting to a number of factors including who they have talked with previously.

When you take away the judgement aspect I find that when people don't really look at their meat eating when it is brought up they get uncomfortable, not because they think that it is right or wrong but because it isn't something that they have given a lot of thought to.  Including the heirarchy idea, the idea that animals feel pain, and the way the meat industry works right now not being the best for these animals.

I think open discussion about peoples beleifs about meat, animals and the meat industry when the judgement is taken away is good because it tends to take that discomfort away.  If I talk to a person, who is or is not vegetarian, about the reason I don't like to eat meat being I don't like the meat industry and they are informed about it they are usually not defensive and we can have a good conversation and share ideas.

Honestly if I was a farmer who brought up cows, chickens etc (humanely) I would likely eat meat because then I would be close enough to the animals to be able to make the decision - then it would be a day to day reality for me.  I think in that case I wouldn't see animals as being lower than myself, I would be confronted frequently with animals feeling pain and I wouldn't be involved in the meat industry.  When you are farmer there is no unconscience part of eating meat.

But as a non-farmer I don't have that ability. So instead I will just annoy the crap out of people when it comes up I am vegetarian! 

Hoodeet

Refuge: 

You make the strongest argument for being vegetarian or not, and for the most appropriate and effective way to act with other.

The best we can do is (1)provide an example to friends, neighbours, shopkeepers, of alternative eating patterns; (2) educate by informing people -non-confrontationally- about the hidden and not-so-hidden costs of animal husbandry and factory farming, and (3) promote the all-around benefits of fair-trade organic food and farmers' markets where the consumer can meet face to face with those who raise the animals that being sold, and ask questions where we feel they're necessary.

 

 

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Refuge wrote:

When you take away the judgement aspect I find that when people don't really look at their meat eating when it is brought up they get uncomfortable, not because they think that it is right or wrong but because it isn't something that they have given a lot of thought to. Including the heirarchy idea, the idea that animals feel pain, and the way the meat industry works right now not being the best for these animals.

I don't disagree and have had similar experiences. However Martin's example was specifically about asking people or encouraging people to eat "fake meat" where the reaction is 'well it's just not the same' and extrapolating from that a generalized thought process behind the 'it's just not the same' attitude rather then just simply that, "It's not the same and/ or a disgusting idea in the first place. It's not the same. Fake meat products are not the same as regular meat as much as the corporate industry wants to convince people it is.

If the conversation around the eating of fake meat is broader, about meat eating in general, and not just it being a substitute, like several of the examples that you provide then yes you're challenging people to think about things that they generally don't think about which was my point. Most people don't really think about what they eat in general let alone about just about meat eating.

Quote:
I think open discussion about peoples beleifs about meat, animals and the meat industry when the judgement is taken away is good because it tends to take that discomfort away. If I talk to a person, who is or is not vegetarian, about the reason I don't like to eat meat being I don't like the meat industry and they are informed about it they are usually not defensive and we can have a good conversation and share ideas.

Yes I've found the same. It's the rushing to judgement from both sides of the table that leads to difficultly. People eat things or don't eat things for different reasons. When I was fully a veggie my reasons were different then the reason that other veggies didn't eat meat. It's even possible to get into some pretty conflicting debates within the veggie world of what are the 'better' reasons for being veggie. Been there. I know. Smile

For instance when I was veggie fake meat products were coming onto market. At first I thought woo, cool. I can still get a 'bacon' fix or eat a cold cut sandwich when I wanted. It wasn't quite the same but it was good enough. Then I did some exploration into what I was actually eating. My conclusion, it wasn't much different then eating meat products derived from the industrial meat system. My reasons for eating veggie was as much a reaction to the industrialization process of using animals connected with the industrialzation of our food system as a whole. Those fake meat products you get at the store are highly processed and made from highly processed soy protein where the largest suppliers are actually affiliates of chemical companies like Dupont, Cargill and Solbar. If one has a concern with the corportization of our food supply as a whole and corporate ethics from a political standpoint then there are some serious implications if you trace back what actually goes into such products. Now at least Solbar claims to be non GMO which is a good thing but if your're participating in say an Isreali boycott then those non-gmo veggie protein hotdogs you eat might be in question.

Can't tell you the grief I got from my veggie friends when for pointing this sort of information out. It was like I was attacking a sacred veggie cow or something and they just didn't want to go there.

To note I don't put tofu in the category of being a 'meat substitute'. Tofu is a foodstuff in it's own right and it's only in the West that it's been marketed as a substitute for meat. Tofu is just tofu. Tofu and Tempeh can also be easily made in ones own kitchen, the same way as if you milked your goat and made cheese. It's a processed foodstuff but you don't need an industrial factory and hightech extruders and other high tech gadgets to make it, like you do for fake meat products.

These are just some of the reasons that I think the whole fake meat thing is just bogus in the first place. I actually don't see much difference in a highly processed real chicken nugget and a highly processed texturized soy protein fake chicken nugget. It's still buying into the corporate and industrialized food system as a whole. Veggie is veggie why try to fake it.

 

Quote:
Honestly if I was a farmer who brought up cows, chickens etc (humanely) I would likely eat meat because then I would be close enough to the animals to be able to make the decision - then it would be a day to day reality for me. I think in that case I wouldn't see animals as being lower than myself, I would be confronted frequently with animals feeling pain and I wouldn't be involved in the meat industry. When you are farmer there is no unconscience part of eating meat.

But as a non-farmer I don't have that ability. So instead I will just annoy the crap out of people when it comes up I am vegetarian!

Which is great as far as I'm concerned. You see a possibility for another way of looking at it. Can't knock that. Funnily enough I'm actually dealing with that very process. I just got chickens for the first time, mainly for the eggs as well as some ecological reasons in the food growing I do. They are being raised humanely, lots of room to run around and just be chickens, they're free range but I have yet to figure out whether I personally will be able to put some of those chickens on my table. It's not something I've done before as I grew up in a typical industrialized 'clean' environment where one doesn't need to even contempate how that food, meat or otherwise got onto the shelf and into my grocery cart. I do eat chicken now, though I pretty much only buy from other free-range, humane farmers. So when the time comes to make the decision one way or another I will be confronting my own potential hypocrisy and disconnect with what I eat now.

old_bolshie

Quote:
Consider the reaction of non-vegetarians asked to consider eating
instead vegetarian dishes where meat has been perfectly imitated in
terms of resilience and taste. It still "isn't the same" in their eyes.

 

Not at all-the simple fact is that it doesn't taste the same because of the mouth feel of the fat-animal fat tastes quite different than vegetable oil-whether hydrogenated or not.There is no way to replicate the taste of animal fat using vegetable products.

 

In a similar vein people who live principally on fish-like Fijian villagers-prefer small reef species to their taste buds offshore species like Tuna and Marlin aren't nearly as tasty.

martin dufresne

And why is perfectly replicating that taste THAT important?

I suggested a thought experiment; I could have offered another one, e.g. getting a meat-eater to think he is having his usually fare and telling him, after he says he loves it, that he is eating something else. Do you see how many people would be peeved? It"s that attitude which I am trying to "unpack".

Hoodeet

"fake meat" is usually "textured protein", as I understand it, made mainly from soy.  Soy --much of it G.M.--is taking over more and more areas of productive land, displacing less "competitive" farmers engaged in production for food security and toxifying water and land for years to come with pesticides. 

Plus the added chemicals (colour, flavour) are probably harmful too. If you want the taste of meat just eat meat, for goodness sake! Or reprogram your taste buds.

Refuge Refuge's picture

martin dufresne wrote:
I suggested a thought experiment; I could have offered another one,

How about the thought experiment that I thought of "asserting superiority over a living being".........

In society Men are generally percieved to be the ones that need to assert their superiority and women do not (general society not more lefty people). 

I have had friends who are men who have been the experience of everything from given funny looks to being told real men eat meat (remember the Harvey's comercial).  How much of this has to do with men having to supposidly having to assert their superiority or dominace?  When a woman is vegetarian she is usually never questined for superiority reasons.  I have never been told that I wouldn't be a real woman if I didn't eat meat.

  I don't know if that fits Martin, but it is an attempt to get back to the idea meat has more "value" than non meat foods to some since the whole fake meat thing doesn't seem to be going over to wellWink

martin dufresne

I wasn't trying to "sell" anyone on fake meat, just trying to ascertain whether taste and texture were really the issue among veggie-bashers. Let's just agree it's a well-entrenched alibi and that PETA is going to make some people uncomfortable for a loooong time before they ever decide to change their virile ways (definitely a gendered issue even if yes, I know, many women eat meat and many males are vegetarian - agressively so even, in the case of a few I know)...Wink

Stargazer

Eating mock chicken is NOT eating chicken. Period. Eating soy meat is NOT eating a cow. I think this is pretty clear.

 

I feel as if I have walked into a timewarp or something. 

old_bolshie

Quote:
I feel as if I have walked into a timewarp or something.

That's how I feel whenever I click on this site.

old_bolshie

EDITED for double post/problem with lousy forum software as per SOP.

jrose

PETA loses it again ... and again ... and again ... and again! should be the title of this thread.

NBC has pulled the plug on a PETA commercial planned to air at the Superbowl.

Huffpo has the video posted on their website at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/27/petas-veggie-sex-super-bo_n_161180.html

"

The New York Post's Page Six reports that NBC has rejected a Super Bowl ad from animal rights organization PETA due to its hypersexualized nature:

NBC pulled the plug on a PETA pro-veggie commercial planned for the Super Bowl because it "depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards," according to NBC Universal's advertising standards executive, Victoria Morgan. The ad, which carries the tagline, "Studies Show Vegetarians Have Bet ter Sex," shows lingerie-clad stunners getting "intimate" with vegetables.
Sineed

Holy crap!!

I mean, I like asparagus, but not THAT much...

 

Michelle

Ha!  That's an awesome commercial!  But it's probably more suitable for cable channels at night than the superbowl.

Hoodeet

The trick is not to overcook them.  Keep them stiff. (I guess that would be PETA's advice.)

Hoodeet

Oops.  I forgot to add the caveat about the heads being really fragile and falling off...

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Please tell me how that commercial is 'worse' than this one.

Although now that Janet Jackson didn't show her nipples at halftime, perhaps the Superbowl needs to watch it's step. I wonder if they will also cancel their cheerleaders?

oldgoat

I'm a bit surprised I didn't see a cucumber in the ad. 

 

Not even a gherkin.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

al-Qa'bong: my favourite vegetarian.

al-Qa'bong

Refuge wrote:

I have had friends who are men who have been the experience of everything from given funny looks to being told real men eat meat (remember the Harvey's comercial).  How much of this has to do with men having to supposidly having to assert their superiority or dominace?  When a woman is vegetarian she is usually never questined for superiority reasons.  I have never been told that I wouldn't be a real woman if I didn't eat meat.

A guy actually once said to me, "How can a grown man not eat meat?" Lots of carnivores find plant-eaters perplexing, and try to figger out what the heck makes you so weird, and hence ask a lot of annoying questions or feel as if they have to explain why they love eating corpses.

What. Ever.

Quote:
 Vegans typically are urban intellectuals who romanticize and anthropomorphize animals because they've had limited contact with them.  

Nice baseless generalization there.  I  used to raise hogs for slaughter to earn spending money as a kid.  I would also butcher my own fowl, and found the experience horrifying.

Low-def vegetal TV

 

I dig that PETA advert that the football network deemed too racy.  It's a carpe diem message that kinda reminds me of these lines:

"Had we but world enough, and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime.
We would sit down and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love's day;
Thou by the Indian Ganges' side
Shouldst rubies find; I by the tide
Of Humber would complain. I would
Love you ten years before the Flood;
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews.
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires, and more slow."

Pages