PETA vs. BEN AND JERRYS???

[JCarlson2004]

Originally Posted by Yorkiedaze

The choc. is my favorite. Boy is it ever good. I even pour it over cereal. I use the original flavor for everything that calls for milk. What a wonderful product!!!! I like that it doesn't need to be in the ref. until it's opened and the expiration date is MUCH longer than milk.

I LOVE the chocolate! Sometimes I use in for my cheerios instead of the regular flavor hehehe

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by MyFairLacy

...they don't even think we should be allowed to have pets. And seriously..it's a COW..they produce milk and meat for humans to consume (and for animals higher on the food chain to eat if they can get ahold of one).

Here is PETA's stance on pets; from your comment, it sounds like you haven't read it before: About PETA >> FAQs >> Companion Animals

And, I'm actually shocked at your comment about "it's a COW" - it sounds exactly like the comment many people make about "it's JUST a dog" - it's the same mentality. WHO says, exactly and objectively, that any animal is put here for our use and abuse? Who says that a cow is better or worse than a dog or a human or an anything? I happen to think all creatures are valuable and deserve to be treated humanely - and that they are not on some subjective value-scale that we humans are at liberty to determine at our whim.

I think one of the greatest gifts of our human intelligence is the fact we can recognize that creatures are more vulnerable than ourselves, and therefore, deserve protection even from us, if necessary. Unfortunately, their vulnerability too often seems to be mistaken for total subjugation.

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by JCarlson2004

I LOVE the chocolate! Sometimes I use in for my cheerios instead of the regular flavor hehehe

My daughter uses the vanilla for her cheerios but I bet the chocolate would be awfully tempting. Hmmm, I might need to start eating cereal.

[celstu1]

In all fairness... we are mammals, and we are part of the food chain. To say that we should not consume other animals beneath us when other mammals do, saying we don't need to, is not correct. I stand divided on this subject. On one hand the amount of humans would go hungry if farms did not step in to accelerate the birthing process of certains animals that we do consume. On the other hand, cows were not put here to be farmed and herded, artificially inseminated to reproduce and make milk etc...

I am also a person who will never wear fur or eat veal, yet I drink milk and eat steak. I see the blantant cruelty behind veal and fur trade. I do not see the blatant cruelty behind dairy cows.

Another thing to ponder... IF (and obviously its a HUGE if) women were PAID to donate breast milk to the food industry... and they wanted to keep producing, do you think our population would increase? Do you think maybe quality of life for children may go down as parents put their babies on formula so they can make some extra money selling their breast milk? How about poverty? As women have 5, 6, 7+ kids just to try to collect money from the food industry, and still cannot afford to properly raise that many children.

For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction. I definately think that A LOT of people do not look at problems from all sides. They forget the consequences or fail to take into consideration WHAT MAY or COULD happen in the long run.

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by celstu1

In all fairness... we are mammals, and we are part of the food chain. To say that we should not consume other animals beneath us when other mammals do, saying we don't need to, is not correct. I stand divided on this subject. On one hand the amount of humans would go hungry if farms did not step in to accelerate the birthing process of certains animals that we do consume. On the other hand, cows were not put here to be farmed and herded, artificially inseminated to reproduce and make milk etc...

I am also a person who will never wear fur or eat veal, yet I drink milk and eat steak. I see the blantant cruelty behind veal and fur trade. I do not see the blatant cruelty behind dairy cows.

Another thing to ponder... IF (and obviously its a HUGE if) women were PAID to donate breast milk to the food industry... and they wanted to keep producing, do you think our population would increase? Do you think maybe quality of life for children may go down as parents put their babies on formula so they can make some extra money selling their breast milk? How about poverty? As women have 5, 6, 7+ kids just to try to collect money from the food industry, and still cannot afford to properly raise that many children.

For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction. I definately think that A LOT of people do not look at problems from all sides. They forget the consequences or fail to take into consideration WHAT MAY or COULD happen in the long run.

I truly think the breast milk was proposed tongue in cheek. It was to shock people, get their attention and get them talking which it has. I am not a vegan and I am not a saint so I am NOT judging anyone for their food choices but it is inaccurate that humans would starve without meat- or be under nourished in any way. A plant based diet is actually much healthier than how americans eat as a whole. Other mammals do eat other mammals but we are the only ones who farm animals for future eating and the way we are doing it is sickening. We are also the only mammals who have the capacity to make a choice about what we eat. I think we've all seen with puppy mills and bybs that once humans figure out they can make money off of animals, they can easily lose all humanity in how they go about it.

I really think it's just important for people to be able to make an informed decision- and that's what a lot of peta's campaigns are about. Most people really don't know what factory farming is. I didn't. I gave up meat after I learned about it and I wish I had learned about it much, much earlier than I did. If after you know you still choose to support that industry (as my husband has- and I still love him to death) then you've made your decision based on the facts and you would never hear a peep from me personally about it again. For the most part people don't know what they are contributing to and factory farms are taking full advantage of that.

[JCarlson2004]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Here is PETA's stance on pets; from your comment, it sounds like you haven't read it before: About PETA >> FAQs >> Companion Animals

And, I'm actually shocked at your comment about "it's a COW" - it sounds exactly like the comment many people make about "it's JUST a dog" - it's the same mentality. WHO says, exactly and objectively, that any animal is put here for our use and abuse? Who says that a cow is better or worse than a dog or a human or an anything? I happen to think all creatures are valuable and deserve to be treated humanely - and that they are not on some subjective value-scale that we humans are at liberty to determine at our whim.

I think one of the greatest gifts of our human intelligence is the fact we can recognize that creatures are more vulnerable than ourselves, and therefore, deserve protection even from us, if necessary. Unfortunately, their vulnerability too often seems to be mistaken for total subjugation.

I agree. This quote is copied directly from PETA's website:

Why Should Animals Have Rights?

Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by JCarlson2004

Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering.

That is a very general statement--without going any further, I don't think there would be many reasonable people who would disagree with it. It is when you further disect what it means and who is interpreting it that causes the differences of opinion.

I.e. What is considered "pain and suffering?" What to you consider as "usefulness?" How do you determine an animal's "value?" What is defined as an "animal's will to live?"

So does the statement alone as it stands make sense? Yes. Do we all agree with that? Yes. Does that mean that that we feel it means the same as PETA? NO, not neccessarily.

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

That is a very general statement--without going any further, I don't think there would be many reasonable people who would disagree with it. It is when you further disect what it means and who is interpreting it that causes the differences of opinion.

I.e. What is considered "pain and suffering?" What to you consider as "usefulness?" How do you determine an animal's "value?" What is defined as an "animal's will to live?"

So does the statement alone as it stands make sense? Yes. Do we all agree with that? Yes. Does that mean that that we feel it means the same as PETA? NO, not neccessarily.

I doubt anyone could dispute that factory farming constitutes "pain and suffering" so that's a great starting point.

[Nikki+2]

I think there are very few members here who would have trouble defining pain and suffering if we were talking about dogs. The cows have the same capacity to experience suffering as our dogs do.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

I doubt anyone could dispute that factory farming constitutes "pain and suffering" so that's a great starting point.

Well that would be an obvious...and if it were their statement regarding this instance, or factory farming alone, it would be easy to define. But it's not--it's their general mission statement...not relating only to dairy cows or pigs.

[JCarlson2004]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

I think there are very few members here who would have trouble defining pain and suffering if we were talking about dogs. The cows have the same capacity to experience suffering as our dogs do.

I agree.

My hubby eats meat (although he does like some of my meat-free foods, he is not a vegetarian and he never will be). He'll eat duck and rabbit and steak, etc. but when we talk about people who eat dog meat in certain countries, he gets soooo defensive and angry. He says it's terrible and disgusting, etc. (you get the picture).

So why is he ok w/ eating little bunnies, chickens and cows but not dogs? Why are we ok w/ drinking milk from a cows boobs (lol) but not from humans?

I don't have all the anwers. I don't judge people and I don't want to be judged myself. I live my life accoridng to what my conscience allows and that's it. Just throwing these thoughts out there and playing devils advocate.

PS - I hope to own a rabbit one day and hubby said if we ever do he will never eat rabbit again because he couldn't eat an animal that he loves (lol).

[JCarlson2004]

I also want to put in that I'm not a vegan (although I do eat vegan a lot and I go to a lot of vegan restaurants -- the food is awesome). I still eat american and mozzarella cheese and some other dairy products.

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

Well that would be an obvious...and if it were their statement regarding this instance, or factory farming alone, it would be easy to define. But it's not--it's their general mission statement...not relating only to dairy cows or pigs.

That would be because their mission statement isn't about factory farming alone. This thread is about factory farming and as I said, it's a really good starting point. You don't have to wave a peta flag to be against factory farming- you can hate peta and still be against factory farming.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

That would be because their mission statement isn't about factory farming alone. This thread is about factory farming and as I said, it's a really good starting point. You don't have to wave a peta flag to be against factory farming- you can hate peta and still be against factory farming.

LOL...and I thought this thread was about "breasticles." Seriously, I realize it's their general statement, but since it was brought up...

Against factory farming regarding raising any animals for human consumption, or against inhumane practices in factory farming? That is the difference. They are not trying to promote better practices in factory farming, they are trying to eliminate it altogether. Taking something that probably does need to be addressed (factory conditions) and running with it to support their cause.

Now as far as inhumane treatment, yes, by all means I support that. (Despite the fact that it would mean prices on alot resulting products would at least double. $7 for a gallon of milk!)

[JCarlson2004]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

LOL...and I thought this thread was about "breasticles."

LOL hahaha no this thread is about the "boom boom tree" LOLOL remember that??!!??!! hahaha