Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[shrumeo]

It's great to hear you're healthy but eating chicken and fish is still meat so you're definitely not a vegitarian. It's wonderfully easy to get enough protien (I for one get monumentally more protien than when I ate meat) through simple foods. One glass of soymilk has more protien than a chicken breast for example. You can get a great full feeling with pasta and complex carbs. So you can still get all the benefit and spare the fish and chickens too.

It's not a matter of the amount of protein you get but the kind of protein you get. The protein has to have the right balance of amino acids to be wholly beneficial to you. An egg is the golden standard for the right mix of amino acids a human should have in his/her diet. You just can't get the right types of proteins from plants, even soy.

that said, here's me 2 cents on the matter.

As an organism, a human is designed to eat meat.

We can try to get around this if we think that we must, but it is difficult and less healthy than eating meat.

Does this mean we have to be cruel to our "prey." No.
We don't have to be cruel to chickens, cattle, swine, or any other animal we use for meat. But, we should not stop eating them.

We should also not eat any animal that is endangered, obviously, but this is a problem in Asia and Africa right now.

 

[neend]

I think the logic and philosphy behind the topic is not much stronger that we stope eating meal, as our body structure support us to eat meat and vegetables both so we should eat both but also try to save those species which are going to be finished. One thing more; as tiger eat only meat as its body supports only meat and similarly some animals eat only vegitables so we should go as nature tell us that is the system made by God for us.

 

[3mpathy]

I agree with shrumeo. we were made to eat meat, we have thrived on eating meat, why stop now? it is the niche that we are (meant to/ are) occupying right now.

on the other hand, i do enjoy playing the devil's adovacate so here it goes:
Since ppl complain that humans are to "animal-ish" in their behavoir, is this not some way to separate ourselves and say "Yo everyone look at me! I am above those puny animals for I have decided not to be like them!"? Also maybe this whole "man is meant to be a meat eater" thing is outdated? Yes eating meat has gotten us this far, but slaves made Rome great(for a while) yet most ppl would agree that slavery is a old fashion tradition that is evil. Is this not like slavery in a way?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Can an animal cognitively understand what we are doing do it and attempt to negotiate a course of action that would benefit us enough to logically allow it to live - no.

 

[juju]

Hi,

I don't think that eating meat is wrong. I enjoy it. What is wrong, in some cases, is the way the animals are treated before and during the slaughtering process. This should change.

juju

 

[abitofnothingleft]

not just some cases doll...the majority of farms now are "industrial farms" just about every bit of meat you eat is from an industry farm where they pump the animal full of hormones until they cannot stand. fun eh? mmmmm mmmmmmmm cow

 

[learningphysics]

If eating animals is acceptable if they are treated and killed humanely, is it acceptable to eat humans if they are treated and killed humanely? If not, why not.

Basically, why do we grant humans more value than animals?

 

[3mpathy]

because we are humans and we don't like to think that we would be eatin'( well the sane ones at least agree with me) we don't care about animals.

Newton's Third Law of Hamburger's : The "greatest scientist ever" makes another dazzling discovery!. cow+grease = yummmmmmmm

 

[abitofnothingleft]

its true though. why don't we eat humans? we think of ourselves as a "civil" and "brilliant" species. therefore, why waste a perfectly good species right? if you look at it though, not many species actually eat their own...save for the insects and a few fish. animals don't really eat there own species either.

 

[Dissident Dan]

It's not a matter of the amount of protein you get but the kind of protein you get. The protein has to have the right balance of amino acids to be wholly beneficial to you. An egg is the golden standard for the right mix of amino acids a human should have in his/her diet. You just can't get the right types of proteins from plants, even soy.

I'm sorry for being so blunt, shrumeo, but you have no idea of what you are talking about. Soy has all the essential amino acids, and other plants complement each other to get the right amino acids. Check our the American Dietetic Association's website: http://www.eatright.org

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, while all of you are debating whether or not we should kill animals for food, I'm going to sit here and enjoy my steak, and baked potatoes. I learned a long time ago, that food is for eating, and if the creator did not want us to eat it, he wouldn't have created it to begin with.

I hope you're joking. If not, then remember that, according to creation, the creator created humans, rocks, lava, and everything else. Why don't you eat those, as well?

And as for chicken's living in TINY cages, have you ever seen this? I haven't, and I've worked in chicken farms before. I'd like an image of this thing you've described. Ten thousand chickens, living in ten thousand tiny cages. Aside from the cost of the cages, they would be wasting chickens.

http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/archive/battery.html

As my mother said when I was a child--- eat all your food, there are hungry, starving children in China. Too bad she never sent any of it off to our neighbors who were hungry.
Ahh... now that is a steak!

Well, with an ever-growing population, it will continue to be harder and harder to provide enough food as long as people continue to eat animal products. It's just inefficient. It takes dozens or hundreds of times more resources to produce meat than it does to produce wheat.

 

[juju]

not just some cases doll...the majority of farms now are "industrial farms" just about every bit of meat you eat is from an industry farm where they pump the animal full of hormones until they cannot stand. fun eh? mmmmm mmmmmmmm cow

If you want to see a doll, look in the mirror.

juju

 

[abitofnothingleft]

thats so sweet...thanks

 

[Madhavi Thakurdesai]

Should we eat meet

Meat does not contain fibers so not much helpful to body so we should not eat meat

 

[juju]

thats so sweet...thanks

Sweet it isn't and sweet it wasn't meant to be.

You need to find out whose pulling your strings, 'cause for sure it ain't you.

juju

 

[abitofnothingleft]

well i didnt mean it as an insult to you so i didnt take it as an insult to me

 

[physicsisphirst]

As an organism, a human is designed to eat meat.

while i agree with what you say about not being cruel to animals, your statement above really isn't accurate.

humans process meat and all animal proteins very inefficiently. as posted earlier:

We do not have teeth for ripping and tearing as do real carnivores (eg cats) or omnivores (eg dogs). Our jaws can move sideways (grinding capability) unlike a true carnivore. Nor do we possesses the short digestive tracts through which consumed flesh passes through quickly. Instead, humans have teeth that are suitable for grinding and a long digestive tract in which vegetable material can be processed (in fact, when meat winds up here it putrifies leading to a host of physical problems).

Our digestive system is not capable of properly breaking down large animal proteins which wind up in the blood stream resulting in protein antigeneity (the production of antibodies to attack the large proteins) leading to inflammatory conditions such as eczema, asthma and arthritis. Nor can it handle the high cholestrol fat that animal products contain leading to obesity and clogged arteries resulting in heart problems. When an autopsy is done of a heart attack victim one can pull out the cylinders of fat that constricted blood flow. Never, ever has it been found that the flow of blood was stopped by pieces of apples, brocoli or tofu!

Even our psychology isn't designed for an animal consumptive lifestyle: when you see a squirrel do you think 'how cute!' or do you start salivating?

dissident dan has answered well on your, neend's and 3mpathy's other points.

in friendship,
prad

 

[martillo]

Meanwhile we should!

I think that our world is not in an ideal state.
In an ideal state no animal or human should eat other animals! Just ideal vegetals should feed everyone perfectly.
But in today´s state we evolutionated eating meat. Meat give us some essential things that vegetals can´t. For example B-12 vitamin. If you become a vegetarian you should need B-12 suplementation.
I´m expecting the world to reach that ideal state some day in the future. Many things will change.
Meanwhile we need to eat our complex complete diet that is a mixture with some meat, some cereals some vegetals and some fruits.
We need all them!

 

[Richard Harris]

Being only 20, and definatly not my field of study, i know one thing.

Science has conclusivly proven, that we are Designed to be carnivores, and it has proven that we are omnivores, and yet again, we have been proven to be vegen.

saying one or the other is a Falicy, because science doesn't have the answers, and it never will. the only diet to ever come close is the one that starts and ends with the word 'Moderation' and contains nothing else.

Medical science Proves that All substances are Benifical and Harmful, depending on the Dosage. being the same test subject, and mainly the same compounds, Food is no different. If you eat Vegtables Exclusivly, you will never be as healthy as if you also ate even one chicken a year on top of that.

If you ate all meat, you would never be as healthy as if you also ate even one carrot a year on top of that.

modern science may have found a way to replace meat in our diet, but where was it 600 years ago?

If meat is a Replaceable part of our diet, why do we have a Taste for it.

For a Creationist, we are Unequely Created to eat both, and we are allowed to eat both.

for a Evolutionist, why do we not have 4 stomoch's like a Cow and a heard instinct, we are 'evolved' from hunters, with a gatherer side too. why do you knock the strength of those who 'survived'

I know what goes on in a meat processing plant, and I still eat it, I've seen the chemicals Sprayed on Vegtables, and I still eat it, none is more Moral than the other, just now that we agree animals feel pain when before we didnt, we may someday learn that plants feel pain (or have we already discovered this)

America is FAT because it is a glutinous Nation, breed by the mindset that drives America.

Moderation in everything is the ONLY diet, and the healthy way to live.

there is no should we eat meat, because a true Philosophor would Render the question down to the beliefs that drove it, and attempt to answer them.

 

[donjennix]

Actually the small cages physicskid mentions are not used for chickens intended for eating but for laying hens. Moreover, I have learned to be suspicious of the claims made by anti meat, anti whatever enthusiasts and if eating meat is really not economical we will see it soon enough in the price of meat.

 

[omni-8]

It confuses me that so many vegans assume they are doing justice by eliminating meats and consuming fruits and vegetables exclusively, in the name of "sparing life". Plants ARE a living species as well! In fact research indicates they respond to human communication...so vegans are "slaughtering" a living, breathing, "thinking" creature afterall.

Where can a line be drawn? Well, it can't (at least not yet). Life feeds on life...

 

[abitofnothingleft]

It confuses me that so many vegans assume they are doing justice by eliminating meats and consuming fruits and vegetables exclusively, in the name of "sparing life". Plants ARE a living species as well! In fact research indicates they respond to human communication...so vegans are "slaughtering" a living, breathing, "thinking" creature afterall...

yes but the difference is that plants don't have nervous systems...they don't feel pain like animals do. that is the basic reason as to why people don't eat animals but eat plants.

 

[omni-8]

yes but the difference is that plants don't have nervous systems...they don't feel pain like animals do. that is the basic reason as to why people don't eat animals but eat plants.

If executed properly the animal should not feel pain.

I think the level of consciousness of an animal lends to the perception of what is acceptable to kill and what is not. For example, lacto-ovo vegetarians make allowances for eating fish and eggs.

Overall I agree with Richard Harris, in that moderation is the ultimate course to pursue regardless of the variables.

 

[susanest]

Animals are not ours to eat...

'Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment.'
This is the motto of the PETA organization. I suggest you check out some of their excellent information on peta.org. I also agree with the person who suggested that our current attitudes toward animals will one day be looked upon as we now look back at slavery! It's wrong and the sooner we recognize it, the better.

There are many good sources of information available that support the fact that we would all be better off relying on plants for food, rather than putting the plant material through animals and then eating animal flesh which is also a major source of accumulated pesticides, hormones, cholesterol and so on! The three leading causes of death in the US today (heart disease, stroke and cancers) are associated with diet and would be reduced tremendously by eliminating meat, eggs and milk products from the diet.

The excellent book "The Food Revolution" by John Robbins is an amazing source of very well-documented truths regarding the lies we have been fed by the meat and dairy industries. Mr. Robbins (heir to the Baskins-Robbins fortune who turned away from that business to learn about healthier ways to live!) points out that those industries spend billions each year to maintain the myth that their poisons are good for us! Like so many problems these days, sources of truth are overshadowed by greed in our very corrupt system.

Also check out works by Dr. Dean Ornish who has created a very effective Program for Reversing Heart Disease which includes a vegan diet.

Another point: although it is, of course, true that plants are a life form, too, approximately 20 pounds of plant protein are required to create one pound of beef protein. Very inefficient! The pollution that results from the meat and dairy industries is mind-boggling. These are only a hint of the many reasons that eating meat is very un-healthy for our planet and also for the many hungry people in this country and around the world!

 

[Kurdt]

While i agree that some of our practises toward animals are very cruel and need to be addressed, I would not go so far as to say we should ban meat. It is an individuals choice what he/she eats and should remain so. In most of the world today we live in societies that are supposed to uphold the principal of civil liberty and free speech. while i value the points some people make I resent the fact that they imply that sanctions either way will be imposed.

A right to live a vegan life style is well catered for nowadays and the industry is getting better. I do remember several months ago, a documentary concerning the missing link and current accepted theory (correct me if I am wrong) is that human ancestors developed the brain capacity we have now from the switch to consuming mainly plant life to a mix between meat and plant life. in other words we would not be having a debate on whther it was moral or not.

I also seem to remember that the human body isn't completely incapable of dealing with meat. herbivores have a tough time digesting any meat, carnivores have similar trouble with vegetation omnivores can do both but aren't brilliant at either. I was under the distinct impression that we were the latter category of animal.

Another thing that caught my attention is if we eventually deem it immoral to cull animals for food then what can we say about carnivores. Round them all up and feed them three bean soup? There is not a chance that we could make a decision whilst nature itself has so much diversity. If we were the only species that did it then i would have no problem with an ultimate moral decision but as it stands there's plenty of room for both parties to live as they wish.

 

[shrumeo]

while i agree with what you say about not being cruel to animals, your statement above really isn't accurate.

humans process meat and all animal proteins very inefficiently. as posted earlier:

We do not have teeth for ripping and tearing as do real carnivores (eg cats) or omnivores (eg dogs). Our jaws can move sideways (grinding capability) unlike a true carnivore. Nor do we possesses the short digestive tracts through which consumed flesh passes through quickly. Instead, humans have teeth that are suitable for grinding and a long digestive tract in which vegetable material can be processed (in fact, when meat winds up here it putrifies leading to a host of physical problems).

We come from a mixed line of plant eating and meat eating primates.
We are omnivores, not herbivores.
Human predecessors split into 2 species (homo robustus and homo habilus) a few million years ago. Robustus had huge jaws for grinding leaves, stems, and roots, and habilus became more lanky and active because it supplemented its vegetable diet with meat. Robustus died out because it filled too narrow a niche. We come (more likely) from the habilus line, which was able to digest meat as well as vegetables, and therefore could better adapt to different food supplies. we could SURVIVE on either a strictly vegetable diet or a strictly meat diet (compare vegetarians with Innuit people [or Atkins dieters])

We do have an GI tract capable of digesting vegetables, because that's what it's designed to do. It's also designed to digest meat. Our teeth have BOTH capabilities.

Our digestive system is not capable of properly breaking down large animal proteins which wind up in the blood stream resulting in protein antigeneity (the production of antibodies to attack the large proteins) leading to inflammatory conditions such as eczema, asthma and arthritis. Nor can it handle the high cholestrol fat that animal products contain leading to obesity and clogged arteries resulting in heart problems. When an autopsy is done of a heart attack victim one can pull out the cylinders of fat that constricted blood flow. Never, ever has it been found that the flow of blood was stopped by pieces of apples, brocoli or tofu!

Go on the Atkins diet and you will find that your LDL's go down. All the bad cholesterol levels go down, along with triglycerides and arterial plaque. Then, counterintuitively, go on the Mayo Clinic diet (high carb, low fat) and you will see all these numbers go up. Just because you eat it, doesn't mean it sticks to your arteries.

Even our psychology isn't designed for an animal consumptive lifestyle: when you see a squirrel do you think 'how cute!' or do you start salivating?

Depends on how hungry I am. If I am starving in the woods and any edible animal comes my way, it's dinner time.

Let's do the same with plants. When you see a fern or a tulip, do you say 'how pretty' or do you start salivating?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

The should depends on the "who." Our ancestors had taboos on certain things, but eating meat wasn't one of them. Should they not have eaten meat? Even when our population would've died out? Have we evolved to a point where we are a knew "who" and should change our proper course of action regarding food? Or has our environment changed? Just some ideas that probably have been addressed but I'm not going to read all 44 pages of this thread.

For example, we have changed our stance on gender roles, somewhat. So, are we a different "who" or is this another thing we "should" do now and should have done then?

 

[shrumeo]

I agree with shrumeo. we were made to eat meat, we have thrived on eating meat, why stop now? it is the niche that we are (meant to/ are) occupying right now.

on the other hand, i do enjoy playing the devil's adovacate so here it goes:
Since ppl complain that humans are to "animal-ish" in their behavoir, is this not some way to separate ourselves and say "Yo everyone look at me! I am above those puny animals for I have decided not to be like them!"? Also maybe this whole "man is meant to be a meat eater" thing is outdated? Yes eating meat has gotten us this far, but slaves made Rome great(for a while) yet most ppl would agree that slavery is a old fashion tradition that is evil. Is this not like slavery in a way?

Where do we draw the line? Don't plants have a right to live out their lives and reproduce too? I guess most fruit-bearing plants rely on being eaten to reproduce, but lettuce doesn't, neither does celery or a ton of plants we eat. Shouldn't we limit our diet to plants that bear fruit (beans and nuts too) and leave (no pun intended) the leafy plants, roots, and tubors alone to live out their lives fully?

One extreme is Soylent Green and the other extreme is starvation by altruism.

its true though. why don't we eat humans? we think of ourselves as a "civil" and "brilliant" species. therefore, why waste a perfectly good species right? if you look at it though, not many species actually eat their own...save for the insects and a few fish. animals don't really eat there own species either.

Exactly. But, we are not "above" animals since we are inevitably animals ourselves. We may not be able to escape the 'cycle of life' unless we come up with Star Trek like replicators or begin to design the evolution of our own species.

I'm sorry for being so blunt, shrumeo, but you have no idea of what you are talking about. Soy has all the essential amino acids, and other plants complement each other to get the right amino acids. Check our the American Dietetic Association's website: http://www.eatright.org

All right. I was going on old info that claimed that soy did not provide all essential amino acids. Perhaps new research has shed light on this.

BUT, maybe we can't rely on soy for our "meat replacement."
Because it contains isoflavones.
Depending on who you ask, these are good for you and bad for you.
While they may be great for post-menopausal women, I don't think I want to start dosing myself with what could be called an "estrogen replacement."
------------------------------
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/300_soy.html
"Soy by itself is not a magic food," says Christine Lewis, acting director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements. "But rather it is an example of the different kinds of foods that together in a complete diet can have a positive effect on health."

The problem, researchers say, is that isoflavones are phytoestrogens, a weak form of estrogen that could have a drug-like effect in the body. This may be pronounced in postmenopausal women, and some studies suggest that high isoflavone levels might increase the risk of cancer, particularly breast cancer. Research data, however, are far from conclusive, and some studies show just the opposite--that under some conditions, soy may help prevent breast cancer. It is this scientific conundrum, where evidence simultaneously points to benefits and possible risks, that is causing some researchers to urge caution.

Unlike the controversy surrounding soy isoflavones, available evidence on soy protein benefits is much clearer. That's why FDA limited its health claim to foods containing intact soy protein. The claim does not extend to isolated substances from soy protein such as the isoflavones genistein and daidzein.
---------------------------

Anyway, why is soy protein called a "meat replacement" if we don't normally rely on meat for complete nutrition? This is what we are naturally designed to do. If that ONE plant (soy) didn't exist, we'd be left with the multitude of animal-based options that we have had throughout our evolution to complete our dietary needs. Not all our ancestors had access to soy beans. If they did, we'd probably all be eating tofu for lunch every day and not hamburgers.

Edit:
Ah!
here we go:
http://www.eatright.org/Public/GovernmentAffairs/17084.cfm
This position paper reviews the current scientific data related to key nutrients for vegetarians, including protein, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B-12, vitamin A, n-3 fatty acids, and iodine. A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be helpful in meeting recommendations for individual nutrients.
-------
So, if you are a vegan, you must SUPPLEMENT your diet with manufactured pills in order to meet recommended requirements.
-------
Vegetarian diets offer a number of advantages, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein and higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, boron, folate, antioxidants such as vitamins C and E, carotenoids, and phytochemicals (27-30). Some vegans may have intakes for vitamin B-12, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and occasionally riboflavin that are lower than recommended (27,29,31).
-------
And they would have to take pills to make up the difference (or use an animal product).
-------
Anyway, it sounds far easier to just eat the way nature intended.

 

[shrumeo]

Meat does not contain fibers so not much helpful to body so we should not eat meat

Wheat doesn't provide all essential amino acids, so we should not eat wheat.

Eggplants don't provide much nutrition at all (but provide plenty of fiber) so we shouldn't eat eggplants.

A broom has a lot of fiber so we should only eat brooms.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

If executed properly the animal should not feel pain.

yes but the point is they are NOT executed properly. and they feel pain by living. the conditions of their living space is disgusting.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Stop immediately trying to rebutt the vegetarian arguments and actually think about them for a bit.

 

[Kurdt]

In some parts of the USA a lot of PEOPLE aren't executed pain free. It first has to stop there before it ever has a chance of being implemented with animals. A famous comedian in britain once suggested in his satirical magazine show that abatoirs should slaughter a member of staff every six weeks to redress the balance to some extent.

 

[shrumeo]

'Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment.'
This is the motto of the PETA organization. I suggest you check out some of their excellent information on peta.org. I also agree with the person who suggested that our current attitudes toward animals will one day be looked upon as we now look back at slavery! It's wrong and the sooner we recognize it, the better.

This is just ridiculous.
PETA goes too far and actually serves to impede progress toward animal rights by pushing too hard for extreme measures. By dumping red paint on people for wearing fur coats and performing militant acts toward researchers, they end up hampering their own efforts. All these methods do is backfire.
The first steps are to push for humane treatment of fur bearing animals in the trapping/hunting process and to ensure humane treatment of laboratory animals like mice, rats, monkeys, and cats (especially monkeys and cats).

There are many good sources of information available that support the fact that we would all be better off relying on plants for food, rather than putting the plant material through animals and then eating animal flesh which is also a major source of accumulated pesticides, hormones, cholesterol and so on! The three leading causes of death in the US today (heart disease, stroke and cancers) are associated with diet and would be reduced tremendously by eliminating meat, eggs and milk products from the diet.

Actually, heart disease, diabetes, strokes and cancers do largely come from a dietary source, but it's not meat, eggs, and milk (3 of the most healthy things for you) but from eating highly processed carbohydrates like sucrose and white flour mixed with starchy vegetables cooked in saturated fats.

It's McD's, Little Debbie, Lay's, and Ben & Jerry's that leads to those diseases, not eating high quality meats, fishes, and especially not milk and eggs.

The excellent book "The Food Revolution" by John Robbins is an amazing source of very well-documented truths regarding the lies we have been fed by the meat and dairy industries. Mr. Robbins (heir to the Baskins-Robbins fortune who turned away from that business to learn about healthier ways to live!) points out that those industries spend billions each year to maintain the myth that their poisons are good for us! Like so many problems these days, sources of truth are overshadowed by greed in our very corrupt system.

Get real. Everything is a freaking poison to someone. Hell, Baskin Robbins is poison if anything. Long before a nice steak is poison.

Another point: although it is, of course, true that plants are a life form, too, approximately 20 pounds of plant protein are required to create one pound of beef protein. Very inefficient!

But if the animal was never fed the plant protein how would it live? Would these animals even exist if it weren't for their purpose as human consumables? How many animals would be left in this world if all we did with their land is plant crops? Some of that farmland is now inhabited by domesticated food animals.

The pollution that results from the meat and dairy industries is mind-boggling.

What would that be? poo poo? That's not pollution unless it's highly concentrated in an area that would be harmed by that high concentration. Dilution is the solution to pollution. The amount of pollution from human poo poo is comparable.

 

[shrumeo]

Stop immediately trying to rebutt the vegetarian arguments and actually think about them for a bit.

Does this mean that you are thinking a bit about the pro-meat arguments?

 

[abitofnothingleft]

This is just ridiculous.
PETA goes too far and actually serves to impede progress toward animal rights by pushing too hard for extreme measures. By dumping red paint on people for wearing fur coats and performing militant acts toward researchers, they end up hampering their own efforts. All these methods do is backfire.
The first steps are to push for humane treatment of fur bearing animals in the trapping/hunting process and to ensure humane treatment of laboratory animals like mice, rats, monkeys, and cats (especially monkeys and cats)

thats not totally true. PETA has made MANY great steps in the move forward to stop animal cruelty. as i said before, they are not total extremesists. how do i know? because I am part of it. yes...im a peta person. we have stands to educate people. we don't walk up to someone eating a burger and throw it on the ground and i haven't heard of any controlled peta members recently throwing paint on peoples fur coats. it is people who take that too far that give peta that reputation. we have a campaign that emphasizes the horrors of fur coats, clothes, etc. its called "i'd rather go naked then wear fur." and it is vastly spreading. Pamela Anderson even posed for the calendar.
check this link out for more info:
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=naked_campaign

peta overall works to benefit the stopping of animal cruelty by advertising, and educating people about the horrors of wearing fur. its true that in the past people went extreme, but they now have official members who cannot do such things and blame it on peta, because peta would never tell someone to throw red paint on a person who is wearing a fur coat. they would tell them to educate that person, rather then totally humiliate them. this is because no one wants to listen to someone when you are embarasing them. therefore, instead of doing that, they are educating.


and no shrumeo...i think he means for the pro-meaters to think about the pro-veggies arguements a little more before before you dismiss them.