Where is the line and when is it crossed?

 I've been doing a lot of research into a vegan lifestyle. I have read tons of websites, blogs, and forums that are both for and against it. One thing that I noticed was that the people that were against organizations such as Peta felt like they went too far and didn't consider the fact that there are family owned farms that treat their animals very well and only use them as a means for their own survival and that there are people in poverty that would benefit from leather and fur coats and apparel.

I personally see their point but I also see where supporters of Peta and other such organizations stand aswell. Most animal fashions are not available to the people that need them but to the people that can dish out the serious cash it takes to own them. Plus, the animal products that local stores carry are mostly from large corporations that treat their animals in the worst ways.

Anyways, I wanted to hear what you guys think about this whole debate. Do you support the far right, the far left, or do you think that there is a happy medium?

I think you have to make your own judgement within the environment you find yourself and base it on a broad education. Where PETA annoys me is that they work in terms of gross-simplification and sweeping generalisations... and then claim it's the gospel and universal truth.   Try to find anything positive about farming on a PETA communication is rather like asking the Al Quaeda membership to list the 'Top 10 things we like about America....' Ain't gonna happen.

There is good and bad practice in any area of life, animal husbandry include d. There is a world of difference between the battery egg farm supplying the Eggbeater company, lets say, where the eggs are produced by hens living in cramped unhygienic cages.... and someone who keeps a few chickens in the back garden and collects the eggs.  Now you may, as a vegan, decide not to eat eggs at all as your way of preventing the exploitation of animals.   But you could also quite legitimately decide to campaign against battery egg production and  support home and/or free range egg production in the interest of animal welfare.

For me, Ignorance is bliss. I don't want to know what my steak was doing the day before it landed on my plate. I like meat too well to become a vegetarian. I choose food first by what I think taste good, and second try to make it healthy; red meat in moderation is not unhealthy.

I'm not sure I buy into the whole 'fear transference' thing. Not sure if you heard or read about it in your research. Some people feel that the fear felt by the animal in the moments before slaughter are stored in the muscle and then transferred to who ever eats the meat. I personally have had many steaks and never been overcome with the fear that at butcher was about to tie me up by feet and slit me down the center (sarcasm).

i think you have to figure out what you're personal motives and rationale are and set your priorities from there.  and then be prepared to make adjustments if it's not working.  if it's impractical (or impracticible) to go organic where you live, don't do it; if eliminating some source of protein compromises your health, don't do it.

looking for hard-and-fast rules from external sources is looking for trouble; eventually, you'll probably have to break those rules, and then what?  better to negotiate your own rules and remain flexible.

I think many people fail to consider that PETA is an animal rights organization that believes that animals are not for human consumption.  Whether they are raised by some mom and pop farmers or in a factory farm, PETA is still against animals being killed for food.  At the same time, they do work to improve animal welfare, but ultimately, they are a pro-vegan organization.  They are perfectly aware that there are differences in quality of life, and many of their campaign targets are about improving welfare.  Unfortunately, KFC isn't buying their chickens from any small, free range farms, so that is where PETA steps in and selects a target. 

Many people are simply not aware of some of the things PETA does.  For example, PETA takes donated fur coats, marks them so they can't be resold, and gives them to the homeless or people in extreme poverty.  The also give those old coats to wildlife rehabilitation groups.  It really isn't people who are in genuine need basic necessities who are PETA targets.  There aren't PETA campaigns against indigenous groups for example.  I don't really think it is unreasonable for the people who can afford to buy fur to choose another material. 

Anyway, I far relatively far to the left on this debate, but I think a lot of people mischaracterize things as "PETA" when they really aren't.  For example, PETA does not throw paint on people.  Animal activists have, but the organization does not and does not condone that behavior. 

I guess now that I look at PETA as all around pro-vegan, their tactics make more sense to me. I think that it's great that they have a program that gives fur products to those who can really use it.

I think that they should at least have some sort of ad where they suggest that those who eat meat ( because lets face it, some people are just going to eat meat no matter what) purchase it from free range, organic farms that don't cause all the crazy polution and disease that factory farms do. Maybe by telling them that their health is at risk by eating factory farm animals instead of trying to play the animal welfare card on them, they would be more concerned as to how their food was being handled and demand better conditions.

Did you know that PETA actually kills hundreds of animals a year? It's a proven fact.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a group that complains bitterly when animals die accidentally in horse races or intentionally in slaughterhouses, killed more than 90 percent of the adoptable animals in its care during 2007.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com

I avoid eating meat as much as possible, only eating enough to reach all my nutriments (generally, 1-3 ounce a day, including fish) but I can't support PETA's efforts considering I disagree with a large portion of their actions.

I agree that we all have to make our own choices. However this statement : "because lets face it, some people are just going to eat meat no matter what" seems to imply that there's something inherently "wrong" with eating meat.

It's important to keep things in perspective regardless of what decisions you have made regarding your own lifestyle. For most healthy people meat is an essential part of their healthy diet. Meat helps the brain to develop. It's accepted the the consumption of red meat is one of the main causes for the ongoing development of the human brain, separating us from our primative ancestor species. Therefore If humans never ate meat, we would be much less developed and intelligent overall.

Some animals are not treated well, and PETA fights this, no argument there. But I it seems as though PETA's foolishness has all but destroyed their own political and social integritity. Most people see them as nutcases.

P.S. I love steak! :D

When I said that there are some people that are going to eat meat no matter what, the point that I was trying to get across is that PETA can't expect to change every single persons point of view on the subject. Some people like meat and see nothing wrong with it, which is just fine, and PETA should realize that there will always be people that  consume meat. I never meant that it was a bad thing.

Also, I did some research on what you had said about meat being important to the development of the human brain and I found that it's not the meat but whats in the meat like Omega 3's, which can be found in flax, walnuts, and sunflower seeds. I also found that the brain needs foods that are high in anti oxidants, contains plenty of complex carbohydrates, and low levels of saturated fat which come easily through plant based diets.

Sorry, I'm just a bit bothered by misconceptions about PETA.

PETA does humanely euthanize animals, but with good reason.  PETA does not opperate an animal shelter and does not claim to.  PETA has a program called the community animal project that does a few things that that website willingly disregards

1) Offers euthanasia services for those who can not afford to have their elderly or sick animals euthanized by a vet.  This is one of many services PETA offers to those who don't have the resources to care for their animals, including free and low cost spay/neuter, reduced cost medication, etc.

2) Responding to animal emergencies.  PETA euthanizes animals in situations like animals who have been hit by cars or been in other devistating accidents.  I agree that ending an animal's suffering is the best option on those cases. 

3) PETA does not take in adoptable animals because they are not a shelter.  They refer all adoptable animals to high traffic shelters in the area. 

4) PETA has provided humane euthanasia services for rural shelters in combination with a variety of other shelter improvement programs.  In these cases, those animals would be euthanized anyway, but in a way that causes more pain and suffering.  There are still shelters that kill animals using terrifying gas chambers and gun shots. 

Yes, PETA's euthanasia % is higher than a shelter because they don't have an adoption program and they do carry out programs that most traditional animal shelters won't touch.  I question what that web site considers to be an adoptable animal. 

The site you note is run by a group that does not have the best interests of animals at heart.  If you do some research, you will see that the Center for Consumer freedom is functionally a front group for industries that PETA campaigns against.  They also campaign against animal welfare groups, like the Humane Society of the United States. 

I think PETA does recognize that some people will still eat meat, but it doesn't make sense for them to endorse a particular brand or help people find "happy" meat.  Instead, they work on getting companies to improve the animal welfare standards that they set for their suppliers.  It would have a far greater potential to help a larger number of animals if major fast food chains, grocery stores, etc demanded more humane standards than focusing on a few individuals who are willing to invest the time and money to find small farms with humane treatment.

Original Post by danij323:

For me, Ignorance is bliss. I don't want to know what my steak was doing the day before it landed on my plate. I like meat too well to become a vegetarian. I choose food first by what I think taste good, and second try to make it healthy; red meat in moderation is not unhealthy.

I'm not sure I buy into the whole 'fear transference' thing. Not sure if you heard or read about it in your research. Some people feel that the fear felt by the animal in the moments before slaughter are stored in the muscle and then transferred to who ever eats the meat. I personally have had many steaks and never been overcome with the fear that at butcher was about to tie me up by feet and slit me down the center (sarcasm).

 The fear transferrance is just a stupid theory invented by radicals like the members of PETA. I personally can't stand people like that (PETA is actually recognized by the government as a terrorist organization, or so I've heard...). They take away all the credibility of people who are working hard to actually come up with a resonable compromise that would reduce or eliminate the cruelty of the meat industry. Dumping red paint on people wearing fur, or coming up with ridiculous theories that have no basis in fact just makes everyone hate vegetarians as a whole, its completely counterproductive

Everyone is going to make a choice that they, themselves, are comfortable with.

I am about 99.9% vegan, by choice.  I cannot support any form of cruelty, and in my opinion, eating or wearing (new) animal products is a form of cruelty.

However, I am also dedicated to being a good steward of the environment, as well as I am able to do so.  I can't recall which website I read (probably the NY Times or Time magazine), but it gave examples of vegetable protein (like soy) being carbon-neutral, whereas the same amount of protein available in animals creates tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases.  That's also not including the incredible amount of fresh water usage the animals need, or their sewage requirements (hey, it has to go somewhere).

By the same token, I do drive a car as I live in a very rural area where there is absolutely no public transportation.  I do occasionally have to go into the city to buy necessities or see the doctor, etc.  I try to be responsible with my driving, however, and not use it more than necessary.

It's really a matter of degree to which you're comfortable.  I wouldn't refuse a life-saving medicine of animal origin, myself, if it came to that, and neither would I expect anyone else to.

Sometimes vegetarianism is also a journey.  I was an ovo-lacto veggie for 30 yrs. before I was ready to be vegan. 

Examine your own ethics and determine where you need to be from there.

If you don't want to eat meat, don't.

I eat meat on occassion. We are animals and our bodies have been used to eating meat since the beginning.

I do think that there is a difference b/w farm raised meats and "fast food nation" meats.  You can buy organic, grass feed, free-range meats if you feel wrong eating it.  I do think it's part of the food chain and there's nothing wrong with it.  But I don't think there is anything wrong with choiceing not to eat meat either.

What bugs me are preachy hippies that always need to put their two cents in.  I don't comment about them not eating meat, so don't comment on me eating it.  So annoying.

Anyways, it's up to you.  I'm not much of a dairy fan, but if you are, you'll have to get used to not eating cheese, yogurt, eggs, and anything from animals.

But remember...you don't have to follow strict rules on eating.  If you don't want to eat meat, but want dairy just consider yourself a vegitarian.  Don't do anything bc you think it sounds cooler.