I agree with PETA in theory, but I think that a lot of the stuff they do is ridiculous and makes us all look bad. People have been eating meat for thousands, if not millions of years and there is an argument that eating meat is part of what lead to our larger stature (compared to very early humans) as well as to an increase in brain size.

I disagree with the cruelty of animal slaughter practices as well as the conditions in which an animal is kept, but I do not feel that my personal beliefs should be forced on everyone. Our beliefs are just that...beliefs that are personal to us. My boyfriend hunts deer and while that's not something that I'm ever going to do with him, it's his choice and I don't think any less of him for it. I'm all for getting information out there so people can make their own choices, but attack a meat processing plant just makes us look bad. Besides, there was a thread on here earlier about how vegans and vegetarians are so much more peaceful than people who eat meat, and attacking a processing plant completely disproves that. That off the wall stuff might be entertaining, but it does very little good in getting the message out there in a way that people with different beliefs would be willing to accept.

a friend of mine once told me,
''if it weren't for the radicals, the voices of moderates would never be heard''
i think concerning large-scale social change, there is some truth in that.
in fact i think that PETA was solely responsible for the outlaw of vivisection, due to drawing attention to it using ''outrageous'' tactics.
Booky: i agree 100% with your statement ''having people feeding on dead animals is normalized", because that is exactly why getting people to endow animals with any moral status is such a challenge.

Hi kanned,

I guess I certainly do not see this as just a question of personal beliefs - no.

There is a thing called REALITY as in butchering and killing innocent animals to gratify human lust and barbarism which is not a matter of opinion, and the reality is NOT that they believe in blind senseless cruelty because they do it and they live that blind senseless cruelty of theirs.

It is compared to "BELIEVING" in God is not near equivalent to taking innocent animals and sacrificing the animals to that belief.

IMO, we are not really pushing our beliefs on people when we try to save innocent animals from the barbaric acts of our dominant society.

Their cruelty is real and so it is far more than just a belief.

Hi Booky,

I feel like when you say things like "reality is killing innocent animals to satisfy human lust" you're throwing your beliefs in there and not facts. I completely agree that animals are killed cruelly, however I do not believe that most people involved do it because they get some sick satisfaction out of treating the animals that way. So, maybe that's something where we need to agree to disagree. I just don't feel like because someone kills an animal that automatically makes them a bad person. All life feeds off of other life.

I don't think that it's so much that vegetarians trying to contradict the "normalcy" are seen as crazy, as it is that a lot of times they way they argue their points can be insulting. If you go up to someone who eats meat and tell them they're wrong to eat "the dead carcass of an innocent animal", of course they're going to dismiss what you say. If everything is presented in such a negative light, it just comes off as you attacking them. I keep hearing all these comments about vegetarians and vegans wanting people to eat meat to respect their decisions, but a lot of them aren't willing to do the same. There are plenty of peaceful, non-violent ways to protest things and to me, protesting in that way is much more respectable than doing something fanatical.

I'm not saying don't try to save the animals, I'm just saying it's pretty easy to cross the line into inappropriate "barbaric" acts yourself when you've convinced yourself that your way is the right way and everyone else needs to follow it. We all learned "two wrongs don't make a right" back in pre-school.

moral norms in this sociely are determined by majority opinion. so in a way everyone is subject to what the majority determines. if you want to say the majority is ''forcing'' their opinions on you, then you can, and it's true, but that's how democracy works. but generally it's only minority beliefs which are labeled as ''opinions''. all our societal institutions are based on opinions, the difference is in how many people hold them. and the majority opinion CAN be influenced and changed, but it's very difficult, which is why people who try to do this are so zealous. for example, some people might believe there's nothing ''wrong'' with killing other people, but since most people think there is, it is illegal and it's easier to get people to accept what's immoral about it.
however, killing animals is legal, so of course lots of people think that such a widespread practice must be okay. however, if you do happen to come to the conclusion that it's wrong and unnecessary to kill animals for food, profit, or pleasure, fighting this practice becomes an urgent priority.
by the way, i don't buy that ''all life feeds off of other life'' arguement. unlike other organisms, people can and do make choices about their actions, and form civilizations and laws and other things that animals can't do. what does it mean for us to defend our choice of killing animals using the example that other animals do it? would it also be appropriate for us to adopt other practices of different species, like cannibalism, incest, devouring prey alive, killing the offspring of rivals? yes, every living thing feeds on organic matter that was once alive. but i think that people choose to ignore the ethical implications of how livestock are raised and slaughtered for the sake of convenience. and i don't think it's sadism, just indifference and greed.

I'm not saying that life feeding on life means that you need to eat meat. My point was that in order to any of us to survive we have to consume something else that was once living, be it plants or animals.

There's so much talk about how people ignore the cruelty situation with regards to animal farming. However, from what I've seen, it's more a matter of most people just don't know about it. Being unaware of something is not the same as deliberately being a party to it.

To be honest, I find a lot of what members post in this group about people who choose to eat meat to be rather insulting, so I can just imagine how those same people must come across when they talk about this stuff with omnivores. I'm not trying to say that animals rights is not an important cause. However, if the people involved can't get their message across peacefully and respectfully, in my mind they're not much better than the people they're condemning.

kanned-
respectfully, your belief that people just aren't aware of the extent of animal cruelty just doesn't match my experiences. i've met so many people who accept mistreatment of animals while being aware of it, it's just a convenient rationalization for their choice to continue eating things they like. so to this end, they've simply decided that animals have no moral status. it's not a well-thought-out philosophy, but they defend it stubbornly. have you heard the arguments accusing supporters of animal-rights interests of being ''un-american''? (watch glenn beck. he may seem like a joke to us but he has tons of loyal viewers.) their reasoning is that regulating agricultural practices to protect animals from heinous cruelty is going to tear down the farming industry.

where i live, no legislation of any kind to protect animals can get passed, because there are so many hunters in this area, and they oppose all animal welfare regulation -- even if it only concerns companion animals! -- because they think the eventual result of such legislature is that hunting would be outlawed. as for being ignorant of the actual phenomenon of animal cruelty, people are so busy calling PETA lunatics they refuse to look at the facts objectively. it's not my responsibility if people are defensive when confronted with it; it's their choice to take it or leave it. i still think it's an immoral choice to continue eating meat, but fyi, i don't bother to get into debates with meat eaters about it. i have friends who eat meat; i still think it's tragic. why wouldn't i? cruelty is cruelty, it's not a matter of opinion. i can't think of hurting animals as ''different strokes for different folks.'' i think it's optimistic of you to explain people's choice to eat meat as being based in ignorance. but the information is available. people just don't want to see it. hopefully that's changing.

sorry, i guess i've just spent too much time paying attention to the jerks that seem to carry public opinion on these matters. in political debate, ''peaceful and respectful'' gets ignored. moderate democrats are bending over for the repubs, which will make the current administration completely ineffectual. i think sometimes you have to put your foot down. i realize persuasion works better than force (not that animal rights supporters are in any position to force anyone -- again, we're a minority), but i fail to see how shock tactics are inappropriate when the subject is appalling violence and abuse. M.A.D.D. used them, organizations fighting hideous human rights violations use them, and they get results. i don't mean to sound hostile to you personally, i just feel really strongly about it. maybe you are more serene about it because you've been a vegetarian for so long, and since a young age, but i just finally committed to it, and maybe i'm making up for lost time and coming to terms with it internally. again, i apologize if i sound like a jerk.

Hi Spiky,

You don't come off as a jerk, there's nothing disrespectful in what you've said. I'm happy to hear other people's opinions even when they're not exactly the same as mine when they're presented in a way that's respectful of everyone.

I disagree that peaceful tactics can't get things changed. What about the MLK Jr. & Civil Rights movement? What about people like Gandhi and the Dalai Lama? Sometimes you can bring more attention to an issue in such a way that people are actually willing to reconsider long-held beliefs without having to use "shock and awe" tactics. When I hear stuff like PETA throwing paint on people wearing fur, it just completely turns me off. Worse, from what I see, it makes people who eat meat/wear fur, etc, feel like they're being judged and basically told they're wrong and PETA's right and if they don't change because PETA says so, then they deserve whatever they get. I think that any time you have extremists out there doing stuff like that, you turn off the moderates that you could convert if your protesting was more peaceful.