And welcome back to Not Asking For Permission, alternately titled "Documenting The Over-The-Top Insanity That is PETA."
Our good buddies from last week's lecture are at it again. We chronicled their exploits in an earlier entry about their request for Ben and Jerry's to use human breast milk in their ice cream. Tell me you wouldn't at least be interested in the names of those flavors.
Then, Chris posted yesterday about their plan to raise the health care rates of people who ate meat.
But now? Well, now they have gone just... too... far. They've taken aim at one of our celebrities. WHY, GOD, WHYYY?!
We talked in class about wearing fur and the actions that PETA takes and so on. This weekend, Lindsay Lohan was the object of their ire, as they threw flour at her on a red carpet. First of all, let's all call it for what it is. Lindsay got "antiqued." Any guy who's lived in a dorm can respect the prank aspect of this. However, as a political/animal rights statement? Give me a break.
It is extremely difficult to make me feel sorry for celebrities, but this almost gets me to that point. Lindsay Lohan is a person who is in the media spotlight for all the wrong reasons and seemingly has minimal redeeming qualities. Yet she was minding her own business on the red carpet and PETA more or less assaulted her for her wardrobe choice. You know you have problems when your actions force me to align myself with the coked out star of "I Know Who Killed Me."
This is a group whose leader, Ingrid Newkirk, is on the record openly admitting the group she helped found is a bunch of "press sluts." She stated in a 2003 New Yorker article, that without question, the world would be a better place without humans in it.
Memo to Ingrid and the rest of the PETA nutjobs: Just as you each have reasons you're vegetarians, we each have reasons we eat meat. For many of us, it's just cause animals are so gosh darn tasty. The point is, it's one thing to encourage others to adopt your beliefs in a manner not so socially inept. Just because you have different values than other people doesn't mean it's your job to force them to adapt to them.
I'm a Catholic, I refuse to drink Alcohol, and I hate the Red Sox. Having those specific characteristics does not mean it should be my mission to convert everyone into prohibition-supporting, Yankee-loving, Jesus freaks. That's not how the world works. Maybe in your warped mind in which a rat is more valuable than a human, sure.
There's a reason there's a food chain, and there's a reason we're on top of it. When lions build guns (god have mercy on our souls), then we'll talk. Until then, I respect the fact you believe animals should not be needlessly killed or eaten, but don't impose those values on me against my will.
Love,
Kyle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Haha I like your excessive use of links in random phrases, especially the Jesus Camp one. Also, sort of convincing.
Though, I think you're missing at least one if not two sides to this whole PETA/vegetarianism thing. I'm pretty sure there are people out there who don't eat meat for reasons other than their concern for animals. For one, I absolutely love steak and am sad to have given it up, but I don't care so much as for the treatment of animals as I do all the time and money and land that goes into say, raising cattle and all of the waste that comes out of the industry.
It's more of an environmental thing for me. And yes, animals do sort of factor in. I once witnessed a cow go through the entire slaughter process; she was a thick gray cow we named "Daisy" and later, a package of red meat. But I think that for all of the cows like Daisy that are sitting around overgrazing and consuming land that would otherwise be for humans, eating meat seems more than just a preference. It's a preference to continue an industry that, other than providing us with endless amounts of hamburgers (do we even need that?), is doing nothing to help the environment.
Individuals who manage to recycle and go shopping with reusable bags or try to keep their energy needs low are great, but imagine how much more of a resource cushion we'd have if half the world were vegetarians. That's the cattle, fishing, poultry and maybe even pig-raising industries using up half of their resources.
That said, I also think that, like every other product from a fuel-using industry, the increasing costs of the livestock industry are going to get passed down the the consumer. I know that the same can be said of farming and producing fruits and vegetables, but the price of beef is already high, and is likely to get higher depending on the economy's situation in the near future. Diesel fuel is higher than regular gas right now, but those costs affect more than just your Ford F350. The cost of the diesel fuel going into overall transportation and maintenance of cattle has to be passed on somewhere.
So really, it's fine if you like eating meat. I do. But this problem reaches beyond a person's love for a juicy New York strip or their concerns for the Daisy's fate.
P.S. This probably should have been a whole post, but let's put PETA to bed. Really.
Let me start off by saying that I have nothing against those who choose to not eat meat. It is their choice to do so. However, I cannot ignore the fact that human teeth contain eye teeth for a reason: to dig into flesh. Humans are able to digest meat, and even contain enzymes in their saliva that make this breakdown possible. I truly believe that a person cannot get his or her complete nutritional needs from a non-meat based diet.
Also, this is what boggles my mind about so-called vegetarians: chicken and other bird meat is still considered meat; fish is not considered a meat. Ironically, bird eggs are not considered meat, if they have not been fertilized. So why do people call themselves vegetarians and then they have KFC? One cannot be a “salad-bar” vegetarian (no pun intended), picking and choosing whatever vegetarian rules that s/he likes to follow.
But, this is what really irks me about PETA. HUMAN BEINGS ARE ANIMALS, TOO! If PETA is so into protecting animals, then why, as I stated in my response to the “Ben and Jerry’s” blog entry, would this group suggest that in order to avoid using cow milk, people milk be used, when this could be potentially more harmful to people? And let’s not forget all of the medical advances that have come from animal testing, and the newer laws that have been put in place for animal testing. Come on now; there is a hierarchy here. By no means am I saying that simpler life forms should be disregarded. I am saying that PETA should stick-up for its own kind a bit more. If PETA were truly into protecting animals, then it would advocate human rights as well as that of animals. Or perhaps PETA should consider changing its name.
Sorry for the lack of spacing in the previous post. It sould have read like this, but I cannot seem to edit or erase it:
Let me start off by saying that I have nothing against those who choose to not eat meat. It is their choice to do so. However, I cannot ignore the fact that human teeth contain eye teeth for a reason: to dig into flesh. Humans are able to digest meat, and even contain enzymes in their saliva that make this breakdown possible. I truly believe that a person cannot get his or her complete nutritional needs from a non-meat based diet.
Also, this is what boggles my mind about so-called vegetarians: chicken and other bird meat is still considered meat; fish is not considered a meat. Ironically, bird eggs are not considered meat, if they have not been fertilized. So why do people call themselves vegetarians and then they have KFC? One cannot be a “salad-bar” vegetarian (no pun intended), picking and choosing whatever vegetarian rules that s/he likes to follow.
But, this is what really irks me about PETA. HUMAN BEINGS ARE ANIMALS, TOO! If PETA is so into protecting animals, then why, as I stated in my response to the “Ben and Jerry’s” blog entry, would this group suggest that in order to avoid using cow milk, people milk be used, when this could be potentially more harmful to people? And let’s not forget all of the medical advances that have come from animal testing, and the newer laws that have been put in place for animal testing. Come on now; there is a hierarchy here. By no means am I saying that simpler life forms should be disregarded. I am saying that PETA should stick-up for its own kind a bit more. If PETA were truly into protecting animals, then it would advocate human rights as well as that of animals. Or perhaps PETA should consider changing its name.
Whoa, It's pretty obvious in the recent days of class discussions and such that PETA is evidently linked to vegetarians and their practices and ideals. Just because I post a great deal about PETA doesn't mean I always agree with what they say just because I am a vegetarian.
I choose to not eat meat, fish, and eggs because that is my personal preference based on my past experiences, not because PETA told me to and everything they say is right. Yes I do think people should be aware of what goes on at PETA's website but I don't expect people to always agree or advocate it.
PETA is a useful tool when it comes to curiosity about where exactly your food comes from and how it gets into the shiny packaging at the grocery store. PETA is great at exposing the horrible meat packaging plants across America. Yea PETA can be annoying but you have to admit they have a point when it comes to issues like those that effect the animals killed and the workers that are stuck at those plants.
I agree with Melissa, I am a vegetarian and PETA needs to be put aside as an issue to argue about. Just don't be naive to the way your food ends up in your stomach.
Post a Comment