MEAT IS MURDER

[D.R. Cattle]

Potatoes are the hardest part. The rest I can do without.

 

[D.R. Cattle]

Potatoes are the hardest part. The rest I can do without.

 

[D.R. Cattle]

Just for the sake of curiosity, I visited a vegan discussion board. I put two posts on and one of them got zapped immediately. Both were related to the B12 issue, and both times I suggested eating beef as a means of overcoming this problem. Frankie you were right about most of them being young girls too. Someone said we weren't meant to eat meat because we can't harvest them with our bare hands and can't eat it without processing it and cooking it. Another vegan explained to him that he was an idiot for that view, and that he shouldn't be living in a modern home. It took tools, brains and processed materials to live in a modern house or drive a modern car. Pretty much shot down that theory. I never did get a reply on the beef for B12 idea yet.

 

[Ann Bledsoe]

What I don't understand about some of these people is this -- how can you profess be PETA/Vegan/Animal Rights, when your life depends on products that are animal derived? or on treatments that were developed using animals?

And I tell you, another one that they don't have a comeback for is red dye. Red dye comes from a little insect, it's such a common thing that it's not even listed as anything more than just "red dye". So when you eat most foods that are dyed red, you are consuming an animal product.
Most of them also don't like to hear that the glue used in shoe and furniture making is made from rabbit hides. ("but my shoes say all man made materials" of course they do, the glue is a man-made material, animal derived, but still man-made)

Ann B

 

[Frankie]

Just for the sake of curiosity, I visited a vegan discussion board. I put two posts on and one of them got zapped immediately. Both were related to the B12 issue, and both times I suggested eating beef as a means of overcoming this problem. Frankie you were right about most of them being young girls too. Someone said we weren't meant to eat meat because we can't harvest them with our bare hands and can't eat it without processing it and cooking it. Another vegan explained to him that he was an idiot for that view, and that he shouldn't be living in a modern home. It took tools, brains and processed materials to live in a modern house or drive a modern car. Pretty much shot down that theory. I never did get a reply on the beef for B12 idea yet.

Which board did you go to? You probably won't get an answer on the B12. They tend to ignore the hard questions. All the vegan boards I've seen were monitored. That's probably a good thing because there are so many young kids there. But most of them delete and block any discussions about meat that they can't win. And they can't win any of them in a real discussion. They claim not to use any animal products. But when you point out that glue in school books and computers, wallboard, paint, pavement, tons of other things have animal products in them, they just say they're doing the best that they can. And there is no vegan birth control; it's all been tested on animals. That one always gets them, too, if they're old enough for birth control because they're not going to inconvenience themselves too much.

 

[Frankie]

What I don't understand about some of these people is this -- how can you profess be PETA/Vegan/Animal Rights, when your life depends on products that are animal derived? or on treatments that were developed using animals?

And I tell you, another one that they don't have a comeback for is red dye. Red dye comes from a little insect, it's such a common thing that it's not even listed as anything more than just "red dye". So when you eat most foods that are dyed red, you are consuming an animal product.
Most of them also don't like to hear that the glue used in shoe and furniture making is made from rabbit hides. ("but my shoes say all man made materials" of course they do, the glue is a man-made material, animal derived, but still man-made)

Ann B

Well, they CLAIM that they wouldn't use any lifesaving procedures if it involved using animals. On some boards they've been challenged to wear a bracelet, like a diabetic, saying not to use any procedures to save their life that had been tested on animals. None of them are willing to wear that bracelet. And some claim it's OK to benefit from procedures already tested on animals, we just shouldn't test any new procedures on them! That's one reason I say they are liars.

There are lists around on the net, PETA puts out one, that tells whether thousands of products contain animal products or not. They select the ones they want to use, like computers, books, paint, and make a big thing out of not using the others, leather, gelcaps, etc. It's about convience to them. There's also a site that lists dozens of "quotes" from famous, dead people, about how animals should have rights. Most of them are incorrect or there's no one around to refute them.

 

[Running Arrow Bill]

Have you guys seen that Lipitor commercial with the surfer lady on it? Says shes a vegan for years, but still has cholesterol problems and she looks like a wrinkled up piece of leather.

Yes I have! She's a pathetic looking woman... :roll: They don't realize it (the adv people) but that commercial is a big NEGATIVE for avoiding MEAT! My daughter went on a veggie kick for about a year (before she came to her senses)...looked almost anorexic! Even LONGHORN meat would improve her looks! :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know why it does, but it alwasy surprises me at how many people think that milk is created in a plastic jug, meat comes from a styrafoom tray under shrink wrap, fish are naturally boxed and breaded, etc.
Boy, I must e in on of my intolerant moods today

dun

I've heard some pretty stupid things from some of these people, but I think this one takes the cake.

A gal wrote to me to tell me how evil I am because I raise meat animals and also keep milk cows.
She finished her tirade on Animal Rights with "we don't need to keep cows for milk anymore, I buy my milk in a carton at the grocery store!"

Ann B

Don't forget leather in shoes! Its amazing how Vegans will wear shoes made of leather and claim they are pro-Animal Rights. One person preached to me about how bad meat is and killing animals is bad etc etc...I told her "look at your shoes" She did but was confused. I said,"Its made of leather. Think where leather came from? cattle". That conversation ended. Last I heard she quit the PETA group and seems to mellow the Animal Rights preaching. BTW, I love my sneakers/boots!
Soap can be on your list....if vegans didn't use any soaps they would stink very badly.
The weird part that Vegans will wear prefumes without knowing they are sweat glands from various animals (I think...that is what I was told, I could be wrong).
Scary how Vegans think.....they run their mouths without realizing the stuff at their own houses are one way or another made by animals......

 

[D.R. Cattle]

Frankie I just happened upon vegsource.com. Most of the posts related to problems were B12 just as you suggested. I'm just making an effort to understand their thinking. Seems like they actually have a phobia of flesh and blood. Some of them were reasonable and had just made the choice because we live in a country of abundance and they have that choice. That group chooses not to eat meat, but doesn't hold it against anyone else. The balance are just plain ignorant and have been listening to the wrong advice. There was an interesting post from one that eluded to the fact that they were all wrong. Scientific proof that humans were designed to eat both meat and vegetables. I dunno. Typical discussion board I suppose.

 

[D.R. Cattle]

Have you guys seen that Lipitor commercial with the surfer lady on it? Says shes a vegan for years, but still has cholesterol problems and she looks like a wrinkled up piece of leather.

Yes I have! She's a pathetic looking woman... :roll: They don't realize it (the adv people) but that commercial is a big NEGATIVE for avoiding MEAT! My daughter went on a veggie kick for about a year (before she came to her senses)...looked almost anorexic! Even LONGHORN meat would improve her looks! :lol:

Hooray for Lipitor!

 

[txag]

Frankie I just happened upon vegsource.com. Most of the posts related to problems were B12 just as you suggested. I'm just making an effort to understand their thinking. Seems like they actually have a phobia of flesh and blood. Some of them were reasonable and had just made the choice because we live in a country of abundance and they have that choice. That group chooses not to eat meat, but doesn't hold it against anyone else. The balance are just plain ignorant and have been listening to the wrong advice. There was an interesting post from one that eluded to the fact that they were all wrong. Scientific proof that humans were designed to eat both meat and vegetables. I dunno. Typical discussion board I suppose.

i've checked out those boards out of curiousity before too. some of them get pretty radical & they do it more for animal rights while others do it because they think meat is unhealthy. some of the posts will refer to eating animal carcasses & it's kind of easy to see how they could change young impressionable minds by talking this way & showing them the extreme videos that peta has on file of some of the inhumane treatment that goes on.

i checked them out during the bse incident to see what the views were about it and actually got into a discussion on one board. this was a board more for health than ar. their argument was that by eating meat you are slowly adding bits & bits of unhealthy material into your body that are harmful & can kill you. rather than arguing the healthy aspects of meat, i mentioned to them the research that shows that cell phones are linked to some brain tumors. do they still use cell phones KNOWING that they have been linked to tumors? many wouldn't even answer that question but one finally did & admitted to using drugs as well. what total hypocrites.

 

[Anonymous]

I did a research paper on animal rights organizations once(I was against them) and went onto one of their websites to find information, the president (don't know if he still is) of PETA claimed that even if the cure for cancer was discovered, if lab animals were used to test it, then PETA would be still be against it.
I would much rather have human lives saved compared to rats, no matter how many rats were killed.

 

[la4angus]

Now p e t a has written to the administrator of the town of Slaughterville
Oklahoma, wanting the good people there to change the name to Veggieville. The story is on todays start page. If I knew how I would cut and paste it here. Anyone that knows how to do this may want to.

 

[Ellie May]

Vegatarian an old indian word for bad hunter!!! :lol:

Ellie May

 

[Ann Bledsoe]

What I don't understand about some of these people is this -- how can you profess be PETA/Vegan/Animal Rights, when your life depends on products that are animal derived? or on treatments that were developed using animals?

And I tell you, another one that they don't have a comeback for is red dye. Red dye comes from a little insect, it's such a common thing that it's not even listed as anything more than just "red dye". So when you eat most foods that are dyed red, you are consuming an animal product.
Most of them also don't like to hear that the glue used in shoe and furniture making is made from rabbit hides. ("but my shoes say all man made materials" of course they do, the glue is a man-made material, animal derived, but still man-made)

Ann B

Well, they CLAIM that they wouldn't use any lifesaving procedures if it involved using animals. On some boards they've been challenged to wear a bracelet, like a diabetic, saying not to use any procedures to save their life that had been tested on animals. None of them are willing to wear that bracelet. And some claim it's OK to benefit from procedures already tested on animals, we just shouldn't test any new procedures on them! That's one reason I say they are liars.

There are lists around on the net, PETA puts out one, that tells whether thousands of products contain animal products or not. They select the ones they want to use, like computers, books, paint, and make a big thing out of not using the others, leather, gelcaps, etc. It's about convience to them. There's also a site that lists dozens of "quotes" from famous, dead people, about how animals should have rights. Most of them are incorrect or there's no one around to refute them.

Now I don't want to be accused of slamming anybody because everybody has a right to believe what they want to believe, but the particular person that I had in mind when posting was Mary Tyler Moore. She's been very outspoken about Animal Rights -- and she's a diabetic. We all know that the treatments for diabetes were developed on animals.
This just seems extremely hypocritical to me -- her very life depends on treatments that were developed on animals and there is ongoing animal research for diabetes, so if they ever find a cure, she'll owe that to animal testing also.

I am a big proponent of Animal Welfare, but totally against Animal Rights (amazing how many people don't know the difference).
Animals don't have rights, only humans have rights. Only humans have that (potential) ability to understand what rights are.
Animals should be treated humanely, no matter their purpose -- treated humanely all the way from birth to the dinner table. I do believe that since these animals are giving their lives to feed us and enhance our lives, that they do deserve humane treatment during their life and a painless death.

When it comes to product testing -- I'm a fence sitter! Yes, new products should be tested -- but do we really need to keep testing substances that have been tested over and over and over again for years and years? For example, the rabbit eye test. The rabbit eye test is used to determine if a substance is caustic to the eyes -- and I'll admit, I wouldn't want to buy a product designed to use around the eyes, if it hadn't been tested on the animals. But, it makes no senses to me why they continue to test substances that they KNOW the results of! If they know a certain substance will burn the eyes, why retest it everytime they add a new fragrance or new color!?!? They didn't change the compound, so why would they need to test again?

Ann B

 

[Frankie]

Oh, vegans wrote the book on being hypocritical. One of the PETA vice presidents is a diabetic. She makes no excuses for using animal tested products while claiming it's wrong. They're a money machine and they'll say or do anything to keep the money flowing in. Even if a diabetic uses synthetic insulin, needles and syringes are lot tested on animals before they leave the factory.

Some chemical compounds aren't retested every time they're used in a new form. But some safe chemicals can react differntly when mixed together. Animal testing is expensive. Companies don't do it unless required by law. Have you been following the attacks on Huntington Life Sciences (HLS) by animal rights groups in England? They've about put them out of business by threats and violence. HLS's insurance companies dropped them when their employees were attacked, their homes damaged, etc. So the government came in and insured them. So Poland is looking to get into the animal testing business. It's a bad situation

 

[Jay]

Ann B wrote:
I am a big proponent of Animal Welfare, but totally against Animal Rights (amazing how many people don't know the difference).
Animals don't have rights, only humans have rights. Only humans have that (potential) ability to understand what rights are.
Animals should be treated humanely, no matter their purpose -- treated humanely all the way from birth to the dinner table. I do believe that since these animals are giving their lives to feed us and enhance our lives, that they do deserve humane treatment during their life and a painless death.

Well said Ann!! Makes some good sense :!:

 

[Ann Bledsoe]

Yeah, I agree, it's awful what the ARA's are doing to Huntington.

And we're not far behind -- this particular posting is from the Rabbit Education Society's mailing list, and I know that most people here think that rabbits are inconsequential (even though several million rabbits are produced yearly in the US for meat use, and there are 30,000 member of the ARBA, which only represent approximately 10% of the US rabbit breeders) but if you actually click on the link and read the thing, it does appears that it could affect ALL livestock.
And before anyone comments about how we should be raising them the way these people recommend -- if I raised my rabbits as they suggest, I would have a nightmare of parasite & disease problems, not to mention that the animals would be filthy and suffering from bite wounds. Rabbits do their best when caged individually -- they are extremely territorial and even females will fight to the death if caged together. Only spayed/neutered animals can reliably be housed together and then only if they were raised together from weaning, or after a long period of introduction.
These are not wild animals, they have been domesticated for over 3000 years.
And they say "does (female breeding rabbits) are forced to reproduce at many times their natural rate, and young rabbits are prematurely weaned causing additional stress to the doe and her young"
Obviously, they know nothing about the beast! The doe is capable of producing a litter every 30-35 days summer and winter, and left to her own devices, she would do just that, weaning each litter at approximately 28 days. I don't know of anybody that breeds their does that heavily -- most rebreed at 6 weeks, wean the litter at 8 weeks, and the doe has just over 2 weeks to rest before delivering again. I fail to see how this is "forcing" the doe to reproduce at "many times" her natural rate!

The thing is, these people start small but they don't stop -- when they get through with the dog breeders and us rabbit breeders, they'll turn their focus on the cattle breeders.
____________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:36:59 -0500
From: buckybun <[email protected]>
Subject: AR group drafts rabbit farming standards-you won't believe them!!!

Animal Welfare Institue:
http://www.awionline.org/farm/standards/rabbits.htm

Would be funny if it wasn't serious, says rabbits -meat rabbits-should
be weaned at 8 weeks, they should live in groups in a pen with dirt to
dig in, identified with marking pens-not tattoos apparently, no wire
cages-that's cruel, diet composed of hay and veggies, pellets acceptable
but more as a supplement.

http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly ... 603p16.htm

> The impetus to expand the husbandry program is not only AWI's
> successful pig program but also the growing number of requests AWI
> receives from farmers and retailers for humane criteria. This presents
> AWI with an unprecedented opportunity to influence how farm animals
> are treated. In addition to humane criteria for pigs, AWI has already
> completed standards for rabbits. The interest in rabbits came about
> when a regional meat manager for a national grocery chain contacted
> AWI for such guidelines. When none were found, AWI developed them.
> Among other provisions, AWI rabbit standards require that the animals
> are weaned at a natural age, have bedding, and are allowed to run and
> burrow. In America, over six million rabbits are raised for meat. The
> majority, if not all, of these animals are confined in barren,
> elevated wire-mesh cages frighteningly similar to the way in which
> laying hens are kept in factories. As is common in animal factories,
> does (female breeding rabbits) are forced to reproduce at many times
> their natural rate, and young rabbits are prematurely weaned causing
> additional stress to the doe and her young. Does and bucks (male
> breeding rabbits), in confinement operations, are isolated in solitary
> cages while the young are often overcrowded. In developing humane
> husbandry standards for rabbits, AWI seeks to provide a humane
> alternative to the inhumane practices commonly used when rabbits are
> raised for meat.
>
> All AWI standards are developed in conjunction with farmers and
> scientists; address all stages of life; and delineate on-farm,
> transport, and slaughter requirements. Two distinguishing
> characteristics of all AWI criteria are that the animals are allowed
> to behave naturally, and that each farm is a family farm on which the
> family or a family member owns the animals, depends upon the farm for
> livelihood and participates in the daily physical labor to manage the
> animals and the farm. Furthermore, AWI is calling attention to and
> will not endorse dual production systems-operations that raise some
> animals humanely and subject other animals to cruel, factory
> conditions. By the end of the year, humane criteria will be available
> for dairy cows, laying hens, chickens, turkeys, ducks, and beef cattle.
>

And at the bottom:

> To learn more about rabbits you may wish to read Stories Rabbits Tell:
> A Natural and Cultural History of a Misunderstood Creature by Susan E.
> Davis and Margo DeMello. Available July 2003


Well people the show dog breeders laid down yrs ago and let the ARAs
walk all over them, are we going to be as weak? I hope not, we have to
fight these wacko groups who know nothing about raising animals but feel
the need to define "humane standards". The only ones who know how to
properly raise rabbits for whatever use are the breeders who are
actually doing it. Feel free to crosspost and hopefully we can see many
sites and club statements pointing out the many inaccuracies in the AWI
standards.
Corinne

 

[Ellie May]

Never was for PETA maybe the Humane Society but not Peta. I think if they were about to die & had to use an animal to see the cure I wonder how they would feel. They don't think till it happens to them.
Ellie May

 

[Ann Bledsoe]

H$U$ (Humane Society of the United States) is no better than PETA. They are also an Animal Rights group -- like PETA, they collect millions from well-meaning people, and spend virtually none of it to benefit animals. They spend it to further their Animal Right's agenda and generate more donations.

Your local Humane Society is a different matter -- they receive no funding from H$U$. If people want to donate to "help the animals" give to the local animal shelter, they need it, H$U$ doesn't.

Ann B