PETA to Jessica Simpson: You’re Stupid!

team jessica.
!!!!!!!!!

check this out;
http://www.animalscam.com/index.cfm

Forgot to say, #63 I liked your comment :) If people really want to look out for those in need, then why not put that passion into people who need help? You can still live your life in a way you feel appropriate towards animals. I just think that we should look out for our fellow peeps a lot more then we do. Just because the homeless aren’t cute and fuzzy or wide eyed moo cows or whatever doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a little attention/help.

All things equal (An otherwise healthy lifestyle) there is no evidence that eating meat in moderation will lead to anything bad, and much of it is good for you (Although there are substitutes).

Just like anything else.

But I guess that would defeat the purpose of a hack organization like PETA right?

I can’t believe some of the comments on here. Eating meat IS healthy. There’s nothing wrong with it………..it’s natural.

And PETA is crap.

As someone else said, animals are cute and all, but why don’t we first worry about all the people out there who suffer, and all the people out there who live on the streets. We can worry about animals once our own species is out of trouble.

P.S. For all of you that worry about killing animals and hurting their “feelings”, consider this: Science has proved that plants who are talked to, tenderly cared for, and even sung to, grow better and faster than plants who aren’t. Hey, maybe plants have their own “feelings” too, eh? After all, plants are living beings too. So if you don’t want to kill animals and eat them, how can you kill plants? But if you don’t eat plants either, then, *gasp*, guess what?

;-)

Those of you WITH PETA, need to realize it is an EXTREMIST organization, and they GO TOO FAR, with their message just like so many groups, and that’s why they tend to be RIDICULED BY THE MAINSTREAM. Do you really think the “pro-lifers” who bomb clinics and murder doctors are to be respected? Oh, and your “PETA stars” who throw lamb’s blood on people and physically attack the peaceful are sane and in the right? You are ONLY with PETA, if you ARE AN EXTREMIST. If you’re NOT, you can still be a vegetarian AND REALIZE THE FALLACIES OF PETA. Just like a PATRIOT CAN REALIZE THE FALLACIES IN HIS COUNTRY.

Real girls do not oppress animals or eat them

:)

Go PETA!!!

“Going vegetarian is the best way to get slim and stay that way.”
Ya, that’s why alicia silverstone is sooooo slender. Vegetarian is worse, people eat more carbs. Peta is stupid.

How about neither team? Both are incredibly ridiculous!

Peta are just soooooo annoying lately. I can see the not slaughtering animals JUST for their hides, but to go after someone because they like meat is stupid. You can eat meat and have a healthy life, everyone knows that. The fact is that it’s not the meat that kills, it’s the EXCESS FAT, which by the way we can trim off; in addition the EXCESSIVE AMOUNT of meat. There are many good ways to cook meat. baked, broiled, barbecued, etc. Meat in itself doesn’t make you fat or have cancer. My friend is a vegetarian and she had cancer. Besides that, I know some FAT vegetarians. Men brag about being meat eaters all the time, don’t see them dissing MEN. Peta really should watch what they complain about or no one is going to take them seriously.

OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet (3/5/02)

CORVALLIS - Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow?

This question is central to a study of bioethics that explores the moral foundation of a strictly vegetarian, so-called vegan diet. The research, by Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, adds a new perspective to a millennia-old debate: Is it right for people to kill animals in order to feed themselves?

Davis turns that question on its head. How many animals must die, he asks, in order for people to feed themselves?

To address the question, Davis applies a principle used by moral philosophers to measure the least amount of harm an action might cause, called the Least Harm Principle.

Davis’s research focuses on the work of Tom Regan, a philosophy professor from North Carolina State University and founder of the contemporary animal rights movement. Regan argues that the least harm would be done to animals if people were to adopt a vegan diet - that is, a diet based only on plants, with no meat, eggs, or milk products.

What goes unaccounted for in Regan’s vegan conclusion, according to Davis, is the number of animals who are inadvertently killed during crop production and harvest.

“Vegan diets are not bloodless diets,” Davis said. “Millions of animals die every year to provide products used in vegan diets.”

Davis presented his research last fall at a meeting of the European Society for Agriculture and Food Ethics, in Florence, Italy. There he questioned the conclusions of animal rights proponents and offered alternatives using the Least Harm Principle. Central to his argument is the unseen mortality that accompanies the production of row crops and grains, staples of a vegan diet, in agricultural systems large enough to sustain the human population.

“Over the years that I have been studying animal rights theories, I have never found anyone who has considered the deaths of - or, the ‘harm’ to - animals of the field,” Davis said. “This, it seems to me, is a serious omission.”

Consequently, Davis asks what is the morally relevant difference between the field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill one but not the other so that humans may eat.

Few studies document the losses of rabbits, mice, pheasants, snakes and other field animals in planting and harvesting crops. Said one researcher: “Because most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at all, few scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture’s effects on their populations.”

Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation, mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause additional harm to animals of the field.

In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In grazed pastures, according to Davis, less wildlife is lost to the mower blades, and more find stable habitat in untilled fields. And no-till agriculture also helps stabilize soil and reduce run-off into streams.

“Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage, would be the ultimate in ‘no-till’ agriculture,” Davis said.

Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a total vegan model. This difference, according to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in pasture and forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain, beans, and corn.

Applying the Least Harm Principle, Davis argues that people may be morally obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing ruminants in order to cause the least harm to animals.

Davis’s work goes beyond the vegan debate to grapple with issues of animal cloning, genetic engineering, and ethical treatment of production animals. Through the OSU Agriculture Experiment Station and a regional project on animal bioethics, Davis is part of a team of biological and social scientists from throughout the West who are working to integrate ethics and moral reasoning into the work and study of agriculture.

why doesn’t peta focus their energy on stopping puppy mills & the overall cruelty to animals. until oprahs special very few people knew what actually went on at puppy mills. why didn’t peta do a better job at bringing attention to that? i also don’t see anything wrong w/ eating meat or animal products as that is a form of nutrition & not a superfluous use of an animal product such as fur. not that jessica doesn’t deserve to be called out - she does own that YSL purse where a deer horn is used as a handle. However, overall i think peta is just too extreme.

SORRY, WILDLIFE OVER ELITISTS

OH AND GUESS WHAT THAT IS? YOUR STAPLE DIETS VEGANS/ VEGETARIANS