If I sent PETA a box of Omaha Steaks, would that be wrong?

[Pathos]

Originally Posted by Method Man


Sending a box of steaks to PETA headquarters is a bit like burning a pile of Qur'ans in front of a mosque because you're angry about 9/11.  

I don't think its the same in that respect. The "sending" of the steaks is being used as a joke in this regard because the PETA is generalized as a pretentious group while burning mosques is expressing hate because Muslims are generalized as a bunch of terrorists or that Muslims religion are inferior. 

 

[i just got lucky]

People Eating Tasty Animals?  Why not?  

 

[speakup23]

Originally Posted by AZwildcats

Better idea, send them to my house. I'll make better use of them

Say word!!!

I can be PETA. Send them steaks to me!

Originally Posted by CWrite78

A douche bag complaining about self righteous pricks.


Pot meet kettle.

 

[jimmybeanz]

Originally Posted by RetroSan

Originally Posted by Method Man


Sending a box of steaks to PETA headquarters is a bit like burning a pile of Qur'ans in front of a mosque because you're angry about 9/11.  

I don't think its the same in that respect. The "sending" of the steaks is being used as a joke in this regard because the PETA is generalized as a pretentious group while burning mosques is expressing hate because Muslims are generalized as a bunch of terrorists or that Muslims religion are inferior. 

RetroSan captured my intent exactly.  I'm not a fan of PETA, not because we have a difference of opinion about food choices, but because they use bullying and intimidating tactics to get people to see their point of view.  It's ok for them to say my opinion is different than theirs.  When they say my opinion is different, wrong, and I better change it, watch out. I don't think it's a stretch to say they are food terrorists. And Meth, I believe you alluded to "taking the high road" in these types of situations. I don't believe in taking the high road.  

 

[bratz dos]

Originally Posted by i just got lucky

People Eating Tasty Animals?  Why not?  

they just havent had the right cut of meat yet. when they do... /PETA  

 

[Methodical Management]

I don't think its the same in that respect. The "sending" of the steaks is being used as a joke in this regard because the PETA is generalized as a pretentious group while burning mosques is expressing hate because Muslims are generalized as a bunch of terrorists or that Muslims religion are inferior.

Both are poorly targeted, hurtful acts that offend a much larger group of people than those responsible for whatever "offense" precipitated the response.  

Burning religious texts, while deeply disrespectful, doesn't entail physical harm; sending someone flesh does.  

If a dog lover angered you and you decided to send them the remains of a mutilated puppy in the mail, you're not just "getting even" with the person who upset you.  The action has wider ramifications.  In some societies, there's no stigma associated with eating dog flesh.  I think we can all agree that it would be insensitive, if not cruel, for someone to slaughter a dog in a very public and agonizing way specifically with the intention of upsetting those of us who disagree with such behavior, just as it would be offensive to chow down on a steak in the middle of a Hindu temple.  In either case, you're asserting your "rights," but you're doing so in a way that is gratuitously offensive to others.  

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

It's ok for them to say my opinion is different than theirs.  When they say my opinion is different, wrong, and I better change it, watch out.

They're not forcing you to change your eating/purchasing habits at gunpoint and they're not damaging your property, the way that an ALF member might damage the property of a fur farmer or a researcher who experiments on chimpanzees.  They are presenting an opinion, and their opinion holds that it is morally wrong to eat meat.  I don't see what the problem is with that in and of itself.

There was, and not all that long ago, a time when slaves were considered unworthy of moral consideration.  People from Aristotle to Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda argued that it was only natural to rule over "lesser" beings, and this rationale justified the enslavement and even the killing of supposedly uncivilized "barbarians."  If you were an abolitionist in 1540, would have to be "nice" about your moral objection?  Should you have said, "I choose not to purchase slaves or slave-made goods, but, you know, to each his own.  If you want to rape a slave that's really none of my business.  It is legal, after all."  

Now, of course, human beings, with few exceptions, are not cows.  It is, however, true all the same that, like us, cows feel pain, care for their young, and demonstrate social organization.  It's also true that we have absolutely no nutritional need to kill cows, forcibly impregnate them to stimulate lactation, etc.  In fact, this process carries disastrous consequences for the environment.  Animal agriculture is responsible for a greater share of greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.  

Thanks to the advancement of modern agriculture, we've obviated whatever "need" once existed to raise and slaughter other animals for food.  It's actually FAR more efficient, in terms of energy, to eat a plant based diet.  (It's also widely considered to be healthier.)  People in our society continue to engage in slaughter more for the sake of their own convenience and preference than anything else.  It's like using slave labor to manufacture a product when robots are available to more efficiently perform the task - and for less money.  Why not reduce suffering if we have the capability?  If you look at the situation in that light, it's pretty easy to see where their anger comes from.  They feel that our society is committing atrocities on a previously unimaginable scale against other living, feeling, caring beings and they're trying to do everything in their power to stop it.  

Granted, they may be (and, in my opinion, often are) a bit misguided in the way they go about this, but there are certainly more articulate and respectful ways to make your point.  What you're proposing is offensive to far more people than the handful of individuals who seem to have upset you.  

And, really, what sounds more like a "food terrorist" to you:  someone who aggressively uses the media to promote a plant-based diet as an alternative to meat, or someone who sends a box of cow and pig flesh to a person with a deep moral objection to slaughter?  (e.g. "You're doing something I consider morally wrong, so I'm going to use the media to express my outrage" vs. "You're trying to make me feel bad, so I'm going to send you bloody pieces of animals you care about in the mail.")

Again, PETA does a lot of stupid things that I believe are horribly counterproductive to their stated mission.  I think it would be far more effective to tell them, in essence, "I happen to be a reasonable, intelligent, and compassionate person.  Your campaign is turning me off and actually making me RESISTANT to the idea of consuming less animal products.  Here's why:"  than to say, "You guys think I'm an insensitive, ignorant, jerk?  Well, let me go ahead and prove you right about that.  They could slow-cook piglets alive and force the mother to watch for all I care.  Bacon tastes good.  U MAD?! lolol"  

 

[Pathos]

idk Meth it just seems like steaks to PETA is to a far less extreme. In the examples of a mutilate puppy and slavery just doesn't seem to be on the same level. Yeah the steaks are flesh but to be honest apparently they're the best treated kind of meat.

 

[cada5]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Meat culture is already crammed, almost literally, down everyone's throats as it is.  Your lifestyle has already been forced on everyone there.

Dear lord.

 

[undefinedinc]

Dude, PETA has seen the worst, I highly doubt you sending them steaks is going to even raise their eye brow..The person who intercepts the mail will look at it, throw it away and probably tell someone else, "hey someone sent us steaks again today, how original"..And thats it..And you are out of $70.00. I think the person who loses in this situation is you if you would do something like that..

 

[Nouss]

Originally Posted by BroComeAtMe

Originally Posted by BronLe

Send them to Africa or donate the money you'd spend sending it to them to a hunger organization.

I dont think people in africa can appreciate a good steak like some of us americans can....

And why is this my good sir?

 

[jimmybeanz]

Originally Posted by Method Man

I don't think its the same in that respect. The "sending" of the steaks is being used as a joke in this regard because the PETA is generalized as a pretentious group while burning mosques is expressing hate because Muslims are generalized as a bunch of terrorists or that Muslims religion are inferior.

Both are poorly targeted, hurtful acts that offend a much larger group of people than those responsible for whatever "offense" precipitated the response.  

Burning religious texts, while deeply disrespectful, doesn't entail physical harm; sending someone flesh does.  

If a dog lover angered you and you decided to send them the remains of a mutilated puppy in the mail, you're not just "getting even" with the person who upset you.  The action has wider ramifications.  In some societies, there's no stigma associated with eating dog flesh.  I think we can all agree that it would be insensitive, if not cruel, for someone to slaughter a dog in a very public and agonizing way specifically with the intention of upsetting those of us who disagree with such behavior, just as it would be offensive to chow down on a steak in the middle of a Hindu temple.  In either case, you're asserting your "rights," but you're doing so in a way that is gratuitously offensive to others.  

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

It's ok for them to say my opinion is different than theirs.  When they say my opinion is different, wrong, and I better change it, watch out.

They're not forcing you to change your eating/purchasing habits at gunpoint and they're not damaging your property, the way that an ALF member might damage the property of a fur farmer or a researcher who experiments on chimpanzees.  They are presenting an opinion, and their opinion holds that it is morally wrong to eat meat.  I don't see what the problem is with that in and of itself.

There was, and not all that long ago, a time when slaves were considered unworthy of moral consideration.  People from Aristotle to Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda argued that it was only natural to rule over "lesser" beings, and this rationale justified the enslavement and even the killing of supposedly uncivilized "barbarians."  If you were an abolitionist in 1540, would have to be "nice" about your moral objection?  Should you have said, "I choose not to purchase slaves or slave-made goods, but, you know, to each his own.  If you want to rape a slave that's really none of my business.  It is legal, after all."  

Now, of course, human beings, with few exceptions, are not cows.  It is, however, true all the same that, like us, cows feel pain, care for their young, and demonstrate social organization.  It's also true that we have absolutely no nutritional need to kill cows, forcibly impregnate them to stimulate lactation, etc.  In fact, this process carries disastrous consequences for the environment.  Animal agriculture is responsible for a greater share of greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.  

Thanks to the advancement of modern agriculture, we've obviated whatever "need" once existed to raise and slaughter other animals for food.  It's actually FAR more efficient, in terms of energy, to eat a plant based diet.  (It's also widely considered to be healthier.)  People in our society continue to engage in slaughter more for the sake of their own convenience and preference than anything else.  It's like using slave labor to manufacture a product when robots are available to more efficiently perform the task - and for less money.  Why not reduce suffering if we have the capability?  If you look at the situation in that light, it's pretty easy to see where their anger comes from.  They feel that our society is committing atrocities on a previously unimaginable scale against other living, feeling, caring beings and they're trying to do everything in their power to stop it.  

Granted, they may be (and, in my opinion, often are) a bit misguided in the way they go about this, but there are certainly more articulate and respectful ways to make your point.  What you're proposing is offensive to far more people than the handful of individuals who seem to have upset you.  

And, really, what sounds more like a "food terrorist" to you:  someone who aggressively uses the media to promote a plant-based diet as an alternative to meat, or someone who sends a box of cow and pig flesh to a person with a deep moral objection to slaughter?  (e.g. "You're doing something I consider morally wrong, so I'm going to use the media to express my outrage" vs. "You're trying to make me feel bad, so I'm going to send you bloody pieces of animals you care about in the mail.")

Again, PETA does a lot of stupid things that I believe are horribly counterproductive to their stated mission.  I think it would be far more effective to tell them, in essence, "I happen to be a reasonable, intelligent, and compassionate person.  Your campaign is turning me off and actually making me RESISTANT to the idea of consuming less animal products.  Here's why:"  than to say, "You guys think I'm an insensitive, ignorant, jerk?  Well, let me go ahead and prove you right about that.  They could slow-cook piglets alive and force the mother to watch for all I care.  Bacon tastes good.  U MAD?! lolol"  

PETa are food terrorists, easily.  Here are ads from one of their "well articulated campaigns":  

 

[pacmagic2002]

Originally Posted by CWrite78

A douche bag complaining about self righteous pricks.


Pot meet kettle.

Why is everybody starting to say this now?  did someone say it on a tv show or movie or something?

 

[jimmybeanz]

Originally Posted by pacmagic2002

Originally Posted by CWrite78

A douche bag complaining about self righteous pricks.


Pot meet kettle.

Why is everybody starting to say this now?  did someone say it on a tv show or movie or something?

It's just renovation of old cliches.  On a side note, dude didn't see the irony in him bringing his ____ in to my thread simply to call me a douche...although he agrees that PETA are self righteous pricks. 

 

[Pathos]

Originally Posted by jimmybeanz

Originally Posted by Method Man

I don't think its the same in that respect. The "sending" of the steaks is being used as a joke in this regard because the PETA is generalized as a pretentious group while burning mosques is expressing hate because Muslims are generalized as a bunch of terrorists or that Muslims religion are inferior.

Both are poorly targeted, hurtful acts that offend a much larger group of people than those responsible for whatever "offense" precipitated the response.  

Burning religious texts, while deeply disrespectful, doesn't entail physical harm; sending someone flesh does.  

If a dog lover angered you and you decided to send them the remains of a mutilated puppy in the mail, you're not just "getting even" with the person who upset you.  The action has wider ramifications.  In some societies, there's no stigma associated with eating dog flesh.  I think we can all agree that it would be insensitive, if not cruel, for someone to slaughter a dog in a very public and agonizing way specifically with the intention of upsetting those of us who disagree with such behavior, just as it would be offensive to chow down on a steak in the middle of a Hindu temple.  In either case, you're asserting your "rights," but you're doing so in a way that is gratuitously offensive to others.  

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

It's ok for them to say my opinion is different than theirs.  When they say my opinion is different, wrong, and I better change it, watch out.

They're not forcing you to change your eating/purchasing habits at gunpoint and they're not damaging your property, the way that an ALF member might damage the property of a fur farmer or a researcher who experiments on chimpanzees.  They are presenting an opinion, and their opinion holds that it is morally wrong to eat meat.  I don't see what the problem is with that in and of itself.

There was, and not all that long ago, a time when slaves were considered unworthy of moral consideration.  People from Aristotle to Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda argued that it was only natural to rule over "lesser" beings, and this rationale justified the enslavement and even the killing of supposedly uncivilized "barbarians."  If you were an abolitionist in 1540, would have to be "nice" about your moral objection?  Should you have said, "I choose not to purchase slaves or slave-made goods, but, you know, to each his own.  If you want to rape a slave that's really none of my business.  It is legal, after all."  

Now, of course, human beings, with few exceptions, are not cows.  It is, however, true all the same that, like us, cows feel pain, care for their young, and demonstrate social organization.  It's also true that we have absolutely no nutritional need to kill cows, forcibly impregnate them to stimulate lactation, etc.  In fact, this process carries disastrous consequences for the environment.  Animal agriculture is responsible for a greater share of greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.  

Thanks to the advancement of modern agriculture, we've obviated whatever "need" once existed to raise and slaughter other animals for food.  It's actually FAR more efficient, in terms of energy, to eat a plant based diet.  (It's also widely considered to be healthier.)  People in our society continue to engage in slaughter more for the sake of their own convenience and preference than anything else.  It's like using slave labor to manufacture a product when robots are available to more efficiently perform the task - and for less money.  Why not reduce suffering if we have the capability?  If you look at the situation in that light, it's pretty easy to see where their anger comes from.  They feel that our society is committing atrocities on a previously unimaginable scale against other living, feeling, caring beings and they're trying to do everything in their power to stop it.  

Granted, they may be (and, in my opinion, often are) a bit misguided in the way they go about this, but there are certainly more articulate and respectful ways to make your point.  What you're proposing is offensive to far more people than the handful of individuals who seem to have upset you.  

And, really, what sounds more like a "food terrorist" to you:  someone who aggressively uses the media to promote a plant-based diet as an alternative to meat, or someone who sends a box of cow and pig flesh to a person with a deep moral objection to slaughter?  (e.g. "You're doing something I consider morally wrong, so I'm going to use the media to express my outrage" vs. "You're trying to make me feel bad, so I'm going to send you bloody pieces of animals you care about in the mail.")

Again, PETA does a lot of stupid things that I believe are horribly counterproductive to their stated mission.  I think it would be far more effective to tell them, in essence, "I happen to be a reasonable, intelligent, and compassionate person.  Your campaign is turning me off and actually making me RESISTANT to the idea of consuming less animal products.  Here's why:"  than to say, "You guys think I'm an insensitive, ignorant, jerk?  Well, let me go ahead and prove you right about that.  They could slow-cook piglets alive and force the mother to watch for all I care.  Bacon tastes good.  U MAD?! lolol"  

PETa are food terrorists, easily.  Here are ads from one of their "well articulated campaigns":  

 get the %$#@ outta here, OP they not worth the $70