Animal rights

[Merging Cultures]

Slight difference between running over a bug, unknowingly, and keeping an animal in a factory, never to see daylight; before pumping it full of all kinds of nonsense and finally slaughtering it. Or maybe all veggie's just don't eat meat to be 'annoying', either or.

Buy organic, free range, hormone free meat. Or join a CSA (community supported agriculture) programme to support local farmers who look after their livestock so you know the source of your meat.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-28524348

 

Don't think this fella read this thread.

[David Guiza]

If you do anything in life because of a celebrity does it then you're in trouble...

I'm not saying do it because a celebrity does it, I'm saying that it speaks volumes that many wealthy people who have the selection of whatever food they desire, and not limited by funds etc, choose not to eat meat. Not a 'if they jumped off a cliff would you?' type scenario

 

Especially if one of them is a vegetarian  vegan that eats ears.  

He chose to become a vegan to flush away the crap he digested during his life, including Holyfield's ear.

 

Buy organic, free range, hormone free meat. Or join a CSA (community supported agriculture) programme to support local farmers who look after their livestock so you know the source of your meat.

That is a 100% better obviously, but people won't do that because they would rather buy cheap.

[Merging Cultures]

That is a 100% better obviously, but people won't do that because they would rather buy cheap.

Right, but that's OK. But if you don't want to eat meat because of how it is kept or because of chemicals then buy organic and local. There are alternatives to factory farmed meat (that don't require you to become veggie).

[Houdini Logic]

I'm not saying do it because a celebrity does it, I'm saying that it speaks volumes that many wealthy people who have the selection of whatever food they desire, and not limited by funds etc, choose not to eat meat. Not a 'if they jumped off a cliff would you?' type scenario

 

I don't think anyone would have thought otherwise? We know people aren't vegetarian because they're poor!

 

You didn't answer my question about fish

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Every bit of meat I buy, I know where it has come from. I make a point to do it. I enjoy good quality meat. If people want to be vegetarians fine, but all this 'I am morally superior to you because...' is utter nonsense, to anyone with that attitude, I quote a great man 'there is a vegetarian option, you can fvck off'.

[The Doctor]

I'm not saying do it because a celebrity does it, I'm saying that it speaks volumes that many wealthy people who have the selection of whatever food they desire, and not limited by funds etc, choose not to eat meat. Not a 'if they jumped off a cliff would you?' type scenario

 

He chose to become a vegan to flush away the crap he digested during his life, including Holyfield's ear.

 

That is a 100% better obviously, but people won't do that because they would rather buy cheap.

 

That seems a pretty stupid reason, given the digestive system doesn't work that way.

[David Guiza]

I don't think anyone would have thought otherwise? We know people aren't vegetarian because they're poor!

 

You didn't answer my question about fish

The point was that many wealthy and educated people have given up meat and are seemingly enjoying their healthy lives, in response to those who think it's impossible to be fit without eating meat.

And yes of course it's possible to be fit and healthy without fish, fish is a great source of protein etc, but so are many foods. The reason I first became pescitarian as apposed to straight vegetarian is that I had a pretty limited diet, but have expanded vastly since.

 

That seems a pretty stupid reason, given the digestive system doesn't work that way.

Of course, but it helps and his health has improved no end as a result. I'm sure I heard the commentator say during Soccer Aid that Gordan Ramsey became something like 80% vegan in his preparation for the match also.

[DennisNedry]

Of course many celebrities are going to be vegetarian. They want to be thin and eat as healthily as they can because of how self obsessed they are. They also have the time and money (and sometimes their own cooks) to make vegetables taste nice, something that's always alluded me. Give me a pukka pie over a salad any day. I don't care if I have a heart attack and die at 70. I want my meat and gravy.

[Houdini Logic]

The reason I first became pediatrician as apposed to straight vegetarian is that I had a pretty limited diet, but have expanded vastly since.

 

 

You eat children!!!!!

 

Of course many celebrities are going to be vegetarian. They want to be thin and eat as healthily as they can because of how self obsessed they are. They also have the time and money (and sometimes their own cooks) to make vegetables taste nice, something that's always alluded me. Give me a pukka pie over a salad any day. I don't care if I have a heart attack and die at 70. I want my meat and gravy.

 

optimistic

[The Doctor]

The point was that many wealthy and educated people have given up meat and are seemingly enjoying their healthy lives, in response to those who think it's impossible to be fit without eating meat.

And yes of course it's possible to be fit and healthy without fish, fish is a great source of protein etc, but so are many foods. The reason I first became pediatrician as apposed to straight vegetarian is that I had a pretty limited diet, but have expanded vastly since.

 

Of course, but it helps and his health has improved no end as a result. I'm sure I heard the commentator say during Soccer Aid that Gordan Ramsey became something like 80% vegan in his preparation for the match also.

 

I think you mean pescetarian. Paediatrician is a doctor who specialises in children.

 

Due to giving up meat, or due to the extra work needed to cook vegetarian meals? Vegetarians, in particular, celebrities, are going to be a little bit healthier that your average meat eater due to having to prepare their own meals - they can't go down the chippy and get a greasy kebab of questionable meat content. If you cook properly with meat, you'll see a similar effect.

[Manwell Pablo]

The point was that many wealthy and educated people have given up meat and are seemingly enjoying their healthy lives, in response to those who think it's impossible to be fit without eating meat.

And yes of course it's possible to be fit and healthy without fish, fish is a great source of protein etc, but so are many foods. The reason I first became pediatrician as apposed to straight vegetarian is that I had a pretty limited diet, but have expanded vastly since.

 

Of course, but it helps and his health has improved no end as a result. I'm sure I heard the commentator say during Soccer Aid that Gordan Ramsey became something like 80% vegan in his preparation for the match also.

 

 

Hahahahahahahahahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahaha

 

That's a great auto correct. 

[David Guiza]

I think you mean pescetarian. Paediatrician is a doctor who specialises in children.

 

Due to giving up meat, or due to the extra work needed to cook vegetarian meals? Vegetarians, in particular, celebrities, are going to be a little bit healthier that your average meat eater due to having to prepare their own meals - they can't go down the chippy and get a greasy kebab of questionable meat content. If you cook properly with meat, you'll see a similar effect.

Haha didn't realise it had been changed to that. I am aware of what one is though, thankfully.

A mixture of both, I've never been a huge cook, and my diet was almost entirely meat or pasta, so obviously it was tough to begin with. Of course, I agree. After all most top sportsmen and women's diets are full of meat. My point was merely that it's possible to achieve the same benefits without killing an animal in the process.

[kingcarr21]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-28524348

 

Don't think this fella read this thread.

already posted above  glad you also found it relevant to put in this thread

[Houdini Logic]

Haha didn't realise it had been changed to that. I am aware of what one is though, thankfully.

A mixture of both, I've never been a huge cook, and my diet was almost entirely meat or pasta, so obviously it was tough to begin with. Of course, I agree. After all most top sportsmen and women's diets are full of meat. My point was merely that it's possible to achieve the same benefits without killing an animal in the process.

 

Actually I thought we established that animals are always killed unless you live in a tent and grow your own food and you're not preapred to do that...

[dsr-burnley]

Of course, but it helps and his health has improved no end as a result. I'm sure I heard the commentator say during Soccer Aid that Gordan Ramsey became something like 80% vegan in his preparation for the match also.

You can't be 80% vegan.  You might as well say you're teetotal except when you go out for a drink.

[Rincewind]

20% meat 80% veg on his dinner plate,

 

Poor thing

 

Some will still say it is his own fault for not ducking.

[OzFox]

20% meat 80% veg on his dinner plate,

 

Poor thing

 

Some will st it is his own fault for not ducking.

 

People are breathtakingly thick sometimes

[Rincewind]

Me?

[OzFox]

Think you're safe to assume I was referring to the truck driver

Giraffes aren't known for being too bright but I bet they've still got more smarts than that bloke

[ozleicester]

So if they arent educational and they dont serve to prevent extinction.. why?

 

http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-are-not-ours-to-use-for-entertainment/zoos/

 

 

http://www.peta.org/blog/next-facebook-share-zoos-usually-educational/?utm_campaign=1014%20Your%20Next%20Facebook%20Share%20Zoos%20Are%20Usually%20NOT%20Educational%20Post&utm_source=PETA%20Facebook&utm_medium=Promo

[David Guiza]

So if they arent educational and they dont serve to prevent extinction.. why?

 

http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-are-not-ours-to-use-for-entertainment/zoos/

 

 

http://www.peta.org/blog/next-facebook-share-zoos-usually-educational/?utm_campaign=1014%20Your%20Next%20Facebook%20Share%20Zoos%20Are%20Usually%20NOT%20Educational%20Post&utm_source=PETA%20Facebook&utm_medium=Promo

I agree, whilst there is an entertainment aspect of seeing the likes of tigers and lions a few miles down the road, it really must be torture for the animals. The space they're given is nowhere near big enough and nothing like their natural habitat - whilst being gorped at day in day out by passers by.

It's not a great deal more ethical than animals in circus' in many respects. Seaworld is even worse however, I'm sure I read somewhere that it's the equivelant of a human living in a coffin.

[Darkon84]

So if they arent educational and they dont serve to prevent extinction.. why?

 

http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-are-not-ours-to-use-for-entertainment/zoos/

 

 

http://www.peta.org/blog/next-facebook-share-zoos-usually-educational/?utm_campaign=1014%20Your%20Next%20Facebook%20Share%20Zoos%20Are%20Usually%20NOT%20Educational%20Post&utm_source=PETA%20Facebook&utm_medium=Promo

 

 

Yet more fantastic, biased, block-headed propaganda from PETA . Will these people ever realise that they probably do more harm than good? I could go through every single paragraph written in those two 'articles' and pick them apart, but it's too easy. The main jist is that there is a lot of shouting and claims, yet I don't think I saw a single actual fact there. Nothing whatsoever to back up their figures or claims.

I will concede that I don't agree with Sea World, and that yes, there are zoos on this planet that are disgraceful, but things are being done to rectify that all the time, by people far more level headed and concerned than PETA. The claims about UK zoos is laughable, and as previously said, there is no evidence put forward.

 

On the other hand, Here is a brief article which actually contains links to scientific studies, carried out and reviewed correctly, along with a link to the international Convention on Biological Diversity, rather than just some unsubstantiated muck slinging.

 

http://www.eaza.net/News/newsblog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=59bc9bb5%2Db623%2D468e%2Dbb0d%2De21a42ec2f5a&ID=75

[David Guiza]

Yet more fantastic, biased, block-headed propaganda from PETA . Will these people ever realise that they probably do more harm than good? I could go through every single paragraph written in those two 'articles' and pick them apart, but it's too easy. The main jist is that there is a lot of shouting and claims, yet I don't think I saw a single actual fact there. Nothing whatsoever to back up their figures or claims.

I will concede that I don't agree with Sea World, and that yes, there are zoos on this planet that are disgraceful, but things are being done to rectify that all the time, by people far more level headed and concerned than PETA. The claims about UK zoos is laughable, and as previously said, there is no evidence put forward.

 

On the other hand, Here is a brief article which actually contains links to scientific studies, carried out and reviewed correctly, along with a link to the international Convention on Biological Diversity, rather than just some unsubstantiated muck slinging.

 

http://www.eaza.net/News/newsblog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=59bc9bb5%2Db623%2D468e%2Dbb0d%2De21a42ec2f5a&ID=75

I think to completley ridicule PETA is a little too far. They are very extreme to say the least, and shock tactics are apparent throughout anything they do, but they do help to prevent some barbaric activity all around the globe. I do agree thet they're not at all balanced however.

As for Zoos, it's very much swings and roundabouts. In an ideal world the animals would be living in their natural habitat, free from human hands. However, because of the distruction of their home and species they, in some respects, are better off being cared for at a zoo/safari park. I stand by that most zoos simply don't have the capacity to give most animals the freedom and space that they need though.

[Manwell Pablo]

I agree, whilst there is an entertainment aspect of seeing the likes of tigers and lions a few miles down the road, it really must be torture for the animals. The space they're given is nowhere near big enough and nothing like their natural habitat - whilst being gorped at day in day out by passers by.

It's not a great deal more ethical than animals in circus' in many respects. Seaworld is even worse however, I'm sure I read somewhere that it's the equivelant of a human living in a coffin.

 

Exaggeration, the main weapon in the arsenal of any good animal rights activist, your certainly getting better at this! All you need now is an animal of your own to lock up so you tick the hypocrite box and I think you're about there.