Just so you know...I am a member of PETA: People for the Eating of Tasty Animals :D
Christian and Jewish clergy say a billboard promoting vegetarianism by claiming "Jesus was the prince of peas" is historically inaccurate and sacrilegious.

The billboard, which includes a picture of Jesus with an orange slice in place of a halo, was erected here by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, to coincide with Passover and Easter.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20030417&Category=APN&ArtNo=304171088&Ref=AR&cachetime=5

don't ya just love the animal rights nazis?

They are quite Nazi-ish. It's these types of people that give people like Dave & Trav liberalphobia.

I watched an interview with Dan Mathews(head of peta). What an absolute jacka** this guy is. The crap that he pulls should have him doing 20 years in prison, he is really out there.

Animals have rights too you selfish human bastard! But they also taste good! AHHH! Which to choose!

Eating potatoes is as bad as eating cows.

Only the parts of plants that are meant to eaten (fruit, some veggies) are morally "better" than eating animals. If you eat carrots or onions you might as well eat veal.

Whaaaaaaat? You know, plants are not animals, Ed. Plants don't have a brain, or nerves, or anything like that. Your argument is not merely flawed, it is impossibly stupid.

I figured Borg for a vegetarian but I guess I was wrong!

Yup. I love meat. Especially a 12 oz. sirloin from Outback Steakhouse...::mouth waters::

Outback is nice, been there more times than I can count. Current favorite is a place called Texas Roadhouse. Similar ambiance, a touch less expensive. I'm still working my way through their menu.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Whaaaaaaat? You know, plants are not animals, Ed. Plants don't have a brain, or nerves, or anything like that. Your argument is not merely flawed, it is impossibly stupid.

You are impossibly stupid. You obviosly never studied LOGIC. Here's an introductory course:

If we say that eating animals is morally wrong it's because they can feel pain and cry. We say potatoes cannot feel pain or cry so therefore it's okay to kill them. This rationale assumes that the animals are more important than the roots of plants.

By that same logis it's actually okay to eat the animals because we can classify ourselves as more important still than the animals.

If we say it's wrong for humans to suppose that they are important enough to slay the animals we are really saying that we are not more important than the animals. We say the animals have as much right to live as humans. By that logic we cannot suppose that the roots of plants are less important than the animals.

Let's review:

Either we are more important than the animals or we are not.

If we are, then the animals are more important than the plants but it really doesn't matter because we can decide who gets killed.

If we are not more important than the animals, then the animals are not more important than the plants and we can't "rightfully" kill anything.

This is actually an argument against moral vegetarianism. The vegans are just as wrong for killing as the omnivores.

Now can you dig that...Suckaaaaaaa!?!

Your logic fails because plants cannot feel anything. Non-sentient animals can feel somewhat vaguely, but are not self-aware and thus are not on par with humans.

Please, just use common sense...suckaaaaaaa! :rolleyes:

It is called the circle of life, grass needs fertilizer. Cow eats grass people eat cow, people die and become fertilizer sooner or later. Even coffins that give a life time guarantee don't last for ever. It does not mean we are more or less important then another living thing it means that living things feed off of each other. With out plants animals die, without animals plants die. One thing is not more important then the other. If animals were more important then plants then why did the dinasour die out and the plant live?

Logic is mathmatical. It's either, or. Either it's morally "right" or not.

If you disagree with the argument I put forth the present your own ("use common sense" is not a logical argument).

BorgHunter:

You are saying that the plants are not as important as us because they can't "feel" (we say they can't feel, we don't know what they feel). Then I say the animals are not as important because they can't understand TV. Let's eat em.

If the animals don't have to understand "Everybody Loves Raymond" to have a right to life, then the plants don't have to "feel" (not that they don't).

What you don't realize is that morality is not black and white, but in fact many shades of gray, plus red and blue as well. It is far more complicated then "this is right" and "this is wrong".

In a political or artistic sence there are many shades of meaning. In a logical, mathematical, scientific sense there is 0 and 1. 1 ain't 0 and 0 ain't 1. The moon is going to fly off into space or it isn't. God exists or It doesn't. And things are morally "right" or "wrong" depending on how you define your terms.

My vegan argument is kind of indestructable because the same argument people use to attack flesh eaters also makes eating plants wrong (unless you only eat the fruit).

How do you get your nutritional needs met?

He gets his minerals from the rocks he eats. Though I suppose he might feel that eating the rocks was unfair to them...

Btw, what happened to the cartoon you wanted to post, es? You did get my PM, right?

PETA Urges Hamburg, N.Y., to Change Name
Tue Apr 22, 4:46 PM ET

HAMBURG, N.Y. - A national animal rights group has offered Hamburg officials $15,000 to change the town's name to Veggieburg.

"The town's name conjures up visions of unhealthy patties of ground-up dead cows," said Joe Haptas, spokesman of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, in a letter faxed Monday to Hamburg Supervisor Patrick Hoak.

PETA offered to supply area schools with $15,000 worth of non-meat patties for the name change.

"Our offer is serious as a heart attack," Haptas said.

Hoak immediately declined.

"With all due respect, I think it's a delicacy in our community," he said about hamburgers. "We're proud of our name and proud of our heritage."

The Buffalo suburb, named Hamburg since 1812, claims to be the birth place of the American culinary staple. Hamburg commemorates the birth of hamburgers at the annual Burgerfest.

In 1996, PETA proposed that the Hudson Valley town of Fishkill change its centuries-old name to Fishsave, since the group believed the name conjured up violent imagery of dead fish.

The town was named by Dutch settlers in the early 1600s. "Kill" is the Dutch word for "stream."


Hamburg, NY is my hometown.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
What you don't realize is that morality is not black and white, but in fact many shades of gray, plus red and blue as well. It is far more complicated then "this is right" and "this is wrong".

Well, actually, I disagree. Well, I agree there's shades of grey and therefore degrees of rightness and wrongness. But make no mistake, something is either right or wrong (I would also reserve a category for neutral). The question is where you draw the line at how grey an act must be before it crosses the boundary of "wrongness".

Originally posted by es347fan
PETA Urges Hamburg, N.Y., to Change Name
Tue Apr 22, 4:46 PM ET

HAMBURG, N.Y. - A national animal rights group has offered Hamburg officials $15,000 to change the town's name to Veggieburg.

"The town's name conjures up visions of unhealthy patties of ground-up dead cows," said Joe Haptas, spokesman of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, in a letter faxed Monday to Hamburg Supervisor Patrick Hoak.

PETA offered to supply area schools with $15,000 worth of non-meat patties for the name change.

"Our offer is serious as a heart attack," Haptas said.

Hoak immediately declined.

"With all due respect, I think it's a delicacy in our community," he said about hamburgers. "We're proud of our name and proud of our heritage."

The Buffalo suburb, named Hamburg since 1812, claims to be the birth place of the American culinary staple. Hamburg commemorates the birth of hamburgers at the annual Burgerfest.

In 1996, PETA proposed that the Hudson Valley town of Fishkill change its centuries-old name to Fishsave, since the group believed the name conjured up violent imagery of dead fish.

The town was named by Dutch settlers in the early 1600s. "Kill" is the Dutch word for "stream."


Hamburg, NY is my hometown.
I saw this on the news last night what a bunch of SH**!!!!

Those are the morons that give radicals a bad name.

Like 'radicals' really need any help with that.

No, these are the moron radicals that give the mainstream a bad name.

Originally posted by es347fan
How do you get your nutritional needs met?

I am an omnivore.

Let me reitterate:

My argument about eating plants versus eating animals is meant to say that killing is kiling. Just because a life form is less complicated doesn't give us the right to kill it instead of other more complex life forms. We have the right to kill whatever we want and eat it because we can not because one is cute and one is photosynthetic.

"My argument about eating plants versus eating animals is meant to say that killing is kiling. Just because a life form is less complicated doesn't give us the right to kill it instead of other more complex life forms. We have the right to kill whatever we want and eat it because we can not because one is cute and one is photosynthetic."

Read that aloud and then come back here & explain exactly what you're trying to say. What you've written makes absolutely no sense.

You people...




Standard argument for moral vegetarianism:

"Killing cows, chickens, aligators, snakes, emu, turkeys and pigs for food is wrong because they have the right to life."




What we can infer from the above argument:

"We have to eat something. The only other thing to eat besides animals is plants. We have to eat plants."

Also:

"Plants somehow don't have the same right to life as animals (because we eat them instead of the animals)"




My argument:

"We consider the plats to be less important than animals. Vegetarians, thusly, condone the killing of plants for food instead of animals (are you with me so far?)."

"If we can classify plants as less important than animals and kill the plants for food, we can as easily classify the animals as less important than us and eat them anyway."

"If we say that the animals are equally important as humans and have the right to life, then we must also include plants in the 'right to life' category since we cannot decide who is unimportant enough to die for our food"





One last time:

"Either

[1] some beings are more importan than others (and we can eat them all)

or

[2] all beings are equally important (and we don't have the right to kill any of them for food)."





I am starting to think you guys don't understand the fact that this is a Logical argument (I don't mean "logical" in the common sense I mean "Logic"-capital "L"- which is a branch of philosophy. It is a area of study in college which is a sort of math used to examine philosopical assertions. Logicians study and debate the merit of all kinds of statements. Any assertion can be examined using the math of Logic-capital "L").

It is not meant to make you change your attitude toward eating meat or vegetables. I am simply showing that the vegetarians are actually agreeing with the omnivores when they classify plants as worthy of being food just as we deem the animals as worthy foodstuff.

Read that aloud and then come back here & explain exactly what you're trying to say. What you've written makes absolutely no sense. [/QUOTE]

Good enough for ya?

You stated your case with a degree of eloquence, which is a vast improvement over the earlier post.

Wow, eloquence. Screw it, all he did was reiterated what he stated earlier. What took you so long to figure out what he was saying?

Mine olde eyes art accoustomed to coloquial American English, not some type of 'new-age' code.

Then why are you debating politics? Deception and lying is the art of diplomacy and politics. And you can't even decode a simple logic game.

The communicator has the responsibility to succinctly deliver thier message to the recipient in a manner that can be understood. It is not incumbent upon the recipient to decipher the message. There is no logic involved.

I never thought something like this could get this complicated...

Amazing, isn't it?

Look at the way threads get off-topic here, all the time...

I have a question. Why is this in the religion forum? Is PETA a religion now?

PETA a religion? Now that is FUNNY :D

You'd think it is the way some of them act.

From the first post: Christian and Jewish clergy say a billboard promoting vegetarianism by claiming "Jesus was the prince of peas" is historically inaccurate and sacrilegious.

The billboard, which includes a picture of Jesus with an orange slice in place of a halo, was erected here by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, to coincide with Passover and Easter.