babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » body and soul   » PETA has officially lost it

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: PETA has officially lost it
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 24 September 2008 09:08 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wasn't sure where to post this, so I chose body and soul as it involves women's bodies.

PETA sent a letter to Ben and Jerry's urging them to replace their cow's milk with human breast milk - after reading about a restaurant in Switzerland that will soon be serving meals made with human breast milk.

quote:
PETA officials say a move to human breast milk would lessen the suffering of dairy cows and their babies on factory farms and benefit human health.

"The fact that human adults consume huge quantities of dairy products made from milk that was meant for a baby cow just doesn't make sense," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "Everyone knows that 'the breast is best,' so Ben & Jerry's could do consumers and cows a big favor by making the switch to breast milk."

In a statement Ben and Jerry's said, "We applaud PETA's novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother's milk is best used for her child."


The first thing that comes to mind is that the milk required for one restaurant is quite a lot different than what would be required for an entire ice cream chain. I think they have officially gone nuts as an organization at PETA, as they clearly have not thought of the labour involved from women to make this a reality, as well as the fact that they would likely have to feed their own infants formula to get enough milk. I cannot imagine enough women that would ever be willing to do this or enough customers that would eat this!

Anyways, I thought this was an amusing story and there have been a few threads lately on how PETA is getting increasingly crazier and crazier.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 24 September 2008 09:15 AM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I am glad it is finally official.
From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 24 September 2008 09:19 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought they lost it when they decided to endorse Kentucky Fried Chicken for coming out with a "vegetarian alternative".
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 24 September 2008 09:21 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
I thought they lost it when they decided to endorse Kentucky Fried Chicken for coming out with a "vegetarian alternative".


Is that true? As in it is okay to raise disease-ridden and abused chickens if you have a veggie burger lying around?


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 24 September 2008 09:24 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:


Is that true? As in it is okay to raise disease-ridden and abused chickens if you have a veggie burger lying around?


I read somewhere that KFC had agreed to kill the chickens in a (relatively) cruelty-free manner, with poison gas or something. That would certainly be preferable to what has been going on.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 24 September 2008 11:47 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:

I read somewhere that KFC had agreed to kill the chickens in a (relatively) cruelty-free manner, with poison gas or something. That would certainly be preferable to what has been going on.


I believe they're now flooding the chicken coops with Leonard Cohen songs and Sylvia Plath readings in hopes that the chickens will get depressed and take their own lives.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 24 September 2008 11:57 AM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

I believe they're now flooding the chicken coops with Leonard Cohen songs and Sylvia Plath readings in hopes that the chickens will get depressed and take their own lives.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


Maybe they should play them a tape of Stephen (NCC) Harper's ivory tower comments... they might die laughing.


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 September 2008 12:01 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

I believe they're now flooding the chicken coops with Leonard Cohen songs and Sylvia Plath readings in hopes that the chickens will get depressed and take their own lives.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 24 September 2008 12:18 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Or, off them with bad jokes in rapid successsion from retired comics:
quote:
(drum roll)
- Why did the chicken cross the road?
- Because she trusted the Colonel.
(Cymbal clash)

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 24 September 2008 12:40 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To get back to the OP, PETA do not want B&J to use human milk any more than Jonathan Swift wanted the Irish to eat their own babies when he wrote "A Modest Proposal".
They are making the point that cows and veals shouldn't be treated the way they are for the human species to get milk at all costs, including ripping off another species.
Their *real* solution if for ice cream manufacturers to go vegan, which makes a lot of sense. From the PETA files blog:
quote:
In response to our letter, Ben and Jerry's issued the following statement: "We applaud PETA's novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother's milk is best used for her child." Hey, guys, that's our point: Cow's milk is for baby cows.
The indignation of people at the notion of human milk being drawn and sold for profit is exactly the one they would like to see extended to cows and their offspring. Makes sense to me. Very innovative approach to get people to realize the blind spot in their perspective.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 24 September 2008 12:52 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Their *real* solution if for ice cream manufacturers to go vegan

Pukerific.

I would recommend no vegans get between me and a pint of Chunky Monkey. Just sayin'.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 24 September 2008 01:11 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
To get back to the OP, PETA do not want B&J to use human milk any more than Jonathan Swift wanted the Irish to eat their own babies when he wrote "A Modest Proposal".
They are making the point that cows and veals shouldn't be treated the way they are for the human species to get milk at all costs, including ripping off another species.
Their *real* solution if for ice cream manufacturers to go vegan, which makes a lot of sense. From the PETA files blog: The indignation of people at the notion of human milk being drawn and sold for profit is exactly the one they would like to see extended to cows and their offspring. Makes sense to me. Very innovative approach to get people to realize the blind spot in their perspective.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


I find soy ice cream, and many soy products, to be revolting in general, with the exception of edamame and soya sauce.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 24 September 2008 01:14 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suggest that if you were served soya-based "Chunky Monkey" by B&J, at the right temperature and in the right circumstances, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. (But that if you were told, you couldn't force yourself to have another lick.)
Speaking of "revolting"...

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 24 September 2008 01:24 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can tell the difference between quality cream based ice cream and milk solid based ice cream so I think you are probably rather wrong about the difference between soya cream and ice cream. Maybe, the crappy stuff, but not real, proper ice cream.
From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 24 September 2008 01:27 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, as a species, cows and chickens have done alright by their relationship with humans. There are certainly more cows and chickens alive today than there were before the advent of domestication.

One could even propose that the cows and chickens have domesticated us, along with other animals like yeast.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 24 September 2008 02:00 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Well, as a species, cows and chickens have done alright by their relationship with humans. There are certainly more cows and chickens alive today than there were before the advent of domestication.

One could even propose that the cows and chickens have domesticated us, along with other animals like yeast.


Well, yes, if the consideration is numbers rather than quality of life. Apply that kind of reasoning to human beings and consider the consequences ....


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 24 September 2008 02:08 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I suggest that if you were served soya-based "Chunky Monkey" by B&J, at the right temperature and in the right circumstances, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. ([ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

I could suggest that little green men are living in your neighborhood, too. Wouldn't make it remotely probable.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 24 September 2008 02:32 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:

Well, yes, if the consideration is numbers rather than quality of life. Apply that kind of reasoning to human beings and consider the consequences ....


I was close to some cows on the weekend. They looked about as happy as any animal I've ever seen.

They'll only be unhappy for the last bit. Just like us.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 24 September 2008 02:39 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Chunky Monkey is one thing - nice stinky CHEESE quite another!

Martin, what kind of Québécois are you! We've held rallies to defend raw-milk cheeses!

(For me, goat's or ewe's, as I'm somewhat lactose-intolerant and have a hard time with cow's milk. But an even harder time without CHEESE.

And PETA are sexist filth. Racist filth too, if one recalls their publicity about a) the Holocaust and b) Picton's murder of Aboriginal women.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 24 September 2008 02:39 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

I was close to some cows on the weekend. They looked about as happy as any animal I've ever seen.

They'll only be unhappy for the last bit. Just like us.


Well, I certainly hope you don't die the kind of death cattle die in slaughter-plants. Or as prematurely as the cows you were "close to".


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 24 September 2008 02:43 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Simplistic nonsense. Cattle have no idea what is going to happen and it is over in a second or less. Are you suggesting a slow death by cancer is somehow better?

Cows do not end their lives prematurely. Steers might, but not cows. If you are going to make such comments at least have the decency to use the right terms.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 24 September 2008 02:44 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Timebandit, respectfully, you are making my point that preference for milk-based products is a matter of deeply-held conviction (dare I say entitlement?), not evidence-based comparison (since you have never tried soya-based "Chunky Monkey" but forcefully assert it couldn't taste equally good).
And you are quite free to do so, of course. I once took advantage of a "pataphysical weekend party" (how I miss the seventies!) to blind test a dozen of beer brands among my friends. Only one in the lot recognized his/her usual brew, which wasn't unexpected. What I found surprising was that none decided to switch to the beer s/he preferred in the test... Identity runs in weird st(r)eaks.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 24 September 2008 02:48 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
Simplistic nonsense. Cattle have no idea what is going to happen and it is over in a second or less. Are you suggesting a slow death by cancer is somehow better?

Cows do not end their live prematurely. Steers might, but not cows. If you are going to make such comments at least have the decency to use the right terms.


Sorry about the terminology. I'm very tired.

I said nothing about their forseeing their ends. I said their lives were short and their ends were horrifying - they certainly do experience extreme pain and fear at the end if they are sent to a slaughter-plant.

But since you don't seem to see a need for basic respect towards human beings (as evidenced in your response to me), I won't bother appealing to moral values.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 24 September 2008 02:52 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:

Well, I certainly hope you don't die the kind of death cattle die in slaughter-plants. Or as prematurely as the cows you were "close to".


I certainly hope so, too, thanks. And what's with the quotes around "close to" ? Are you implying some kind of unwholesome liason between me and the cows? A rather unfair accusation, when my profile says I'm from London, not Oshawa.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 24 September 2008 02:54 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

I certainly hope so, too, thanks. And what's with the quotes around "close to" ? Are you implying some kind of unwholesome liason between me and the cows? A rather unfair accusation, when my profile says I'm from London, not Oshawa.


sorry about the quotation marks - I retract them


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 24 September 2008 03:00 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Word to the wise, do not search for "chunky monkey" on Youtube.

Yeeesh.

But in all seriousness, terror, love, happiness and unhappyness all have survival utility, and it would be nonesense to suppose that other animals do not experience such emotions.

Even the tasty ones. And the ones that only taste good smothered in garlic and melted butter.

The only way eating and killing (not always in that order) other animals can be deffended is from a species chauvanism perspective.

And if it is done, 'twere well it were done quickly, and with as little cruelty as managable.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 24 September 2008 03:36 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:

Sorry about the terminology. I'm very tired.

I said nothing about their forseeing their ends. I said their lives were short and their ends were horrifying - they certainly do experience extreme pain and fear at the end if they are sent to a slaughter-plant.

But since you don't seem to see a need for basic respect towards human beings (as evidenced in your response to me), I won't bother appealing to moral values.



Again, not true. Some yes, like steers, others not so. Life and food is very, very complicated and you will find that 'moral values' are effected no matter what you eat or don't eat.


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 24 September 2008 03:48 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thing is, I don't have an ethical problem with the idea of PETA. I think PETA plays, or could play, an important role in our society.

It's a good object lesson though, on what happens to a movement when it allows itself to become a vehicle for an attention addict.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 24 September 2008 03:54 PM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
One could even propose that the cows and chickens have domesticated us, along with other animals like yeast.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Yeast?

Down with beer! Up with matzoh!


From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 24 September 2008 04:07 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Chunky Monkey is one thing - nice stinky CHEESE quite another!

I have an intense love of both, lagatta! Yay for cheese!

quote:
Timebandit, respectfully, you are making my point that preference for milk-based products is a matter of deeply-held conviction (dare I say entitlement?), not evidence-based comparison (since you have never tried soya-based "Chunky Monkey" but forcefully assert it couldn't taste equally good).
And you are quite free to do so, of course. I once took advantage of a "pataphysical weekend party" (how I miss the seventies!) to blind test a dozen of beer brands among my friends. Only one in the lot recognized his/her usual brew, which wasn't unexpected. What I found surprising was that none decided to switch to the beer s/he preferred in the test... Identity runs in weird st(r)eaks.

I hate it when people say "respectfully" and mean quite the opposite. It's disingenuous and presupposes that the person they're "respecting" is not nearly as bright as the "respecter" is -- as such, it's even more offensive than open disrespect.

I'm not aware if there is such a thing as soya-based Ben and Jerry's ice cream, however, I have tried other brands of soy-based frozen desserts. I do not like them. The texture is wrong, the flavour is wrong, it is an abomination if you are making it a substitute for actual ice cream. Eating, in my view, should be a deeply satisfying experience -- soya masquerading as dairy does not do this for me. In fact, after trying over 10 times (the rule at our house is you're not allowed to really definitely dislike something you haven't given 10 tries), I still found such substances to be wretchedly substandard. So there IS in fact some evidence based comparison going on here.

Now, in terms of your beer analogy... Well, you're comparing different beers. If you were comparing beer to orange juice, you might have something there, but sorry it's just not the same thing.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 24 September 2008 04:32 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Krago:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Yeast?

Down with beer! Up with matzoh!


As a thought experiment though, we know that single cell organisms retract from harmfull things in as much as they are able to. Imagine yourself being immersed in hydrochloric acid.

And now you know the horrible things we do to yeast, and yogurt bacteria cultures.

By the gazillions!


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 24 September 2008 05:35 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Timebandit, actually I do respect you and wanted to make that point even though I felt you validated my argument. But if you feel this is disrespectful to you personally and being a hypocrite, I'll live with that.
For instance, I have no problem validating that you hated the various soy-based substitutes to ice cream you tasted. I patronize a gelati shop, on the Main here in Mtl, that offers both, and when you get into those high-end gourmet products, the difference can indeed be hard to fathom, even for a terminally sweet tooth as I am.
Of course, your point was about one specific recipe ('Chunky Monkey'), and until its maker try to achieve its specific delicacy using a milk substitute, I still dare say you can't discredit its result "taste untasted".
And even if you did dislike it in the end, would that give you the right to participate in the enslavement of cows, their being maintained in a state of constant artificial pregnancy? That point remains unadressed, no?
P.S.: I am a cheese fanatic myself - I still feel compelled to adress these issues.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 24 September 2008 05:36 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:

Life and food is very, very complicated and you will find that 'moral values' are effected no matter what you eat or don't eat.

Of course they're complicated! That's not the issue.

"You will find ...." Enlighten me: What kind of background do you think I have that might or might not qualify me to speak on these issues?

"'moral values' are effected no matter what you eat or don't eat":
That's doesn't make any sense.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 24 September 2008 05:36 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ghislaine, can I ask what source alerted you to this story? I am curious as to whom is attempting to disguise the tongue-in-cheek character of PETA's proposal.
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 24 September 2008 06:02 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Timebandit, actually I do respect you and wanted to make that point even though I felt you validated my argument. But if you feel this is disrespectful to you personally and being a hypocrite, I'll live with that.
For instance, I have no problem validating that you hated the various soy-based substitutes to ice cream you tasted. I patronize a gelati shop, on the Main here in Mtl, that offers both, and when you get into those high-end gourmet products, the difference can indeed be hard to fathom, even for a terminally sweet tooth as I am.
Of course, your point was about one specific recipe ('Chunky Monkey'), and until its maker try to achieve its specific delicacy using a milk substitute, I still dare say you can't discredit its result "taste untasted".
And even if you did dislike it in the end, would that give you the right to participate in the enslavement of cows, their being maintained in a state of constant artificial pregnancy? That point remains unadressed, no?
P.S.: I am a cheese fanatic myself - I still feel compelled to adress these issues.

Pregnancy leads to lactation, but lactation does not constitute "artificial" pregnancy. In fact, lactation often stops during pregnancy. May I hazard a guess you know little or nothing about either cows or mammary glands?

Look. I know what good ice cream is. I know what frozen soy desserts are. Never the twain shall meet, regardless one specific recipe or not. You're splitting hairs when you say I can't possibly know I could tell if I was served a soy substitute with banana, chocolate and walnut from the real thing.

The higher-end soy based desserts are also available here, and by my estimation they rate just below poor quality ice cream. There is, in my opinion, a world of difference.

"Respect", my Aunt Fanny. You're talking down to me as if I'm some sort of idiot. You "validate" my taste?! Why how decidedly generous of you. It would appear the gelati shop isn't all you're inclined to patronize.

You can stuff both the frozen soy dessert and the pompous prattery where the sun doesn't shine.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 24 September 2008 06:18 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Timebandit:

Look. I know what good ice cream is. I know what frozen soy desserts are. Never the twain shall meet, regardless one specific recipe or not. You're splitting hairs when you say I can't possibly know I could tell if I was served a soy substitute with banana, chocolate and walnut from the real thing.


"Respect", my Aunt Fanny. You're talking down to me as if I'm some sort of idiot. You "validate" my taste?! Why how decidedly generous of you. It would appear the gelati shop isn't all you're inclined to patronize.


i don't think the taste issue is all that relevant. I strongly suspect a 6 month old human would be delicious but presumably that's neither here nor there when it comes to the question of killing and eating them. Then again, "life and food are complicated and "'moral values' are effected no matter what you eat or don't eat" so I'm not going to say it's wrong.

Condescension seems rampant. Arguably, it's better than outright viciousness.....

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 24 September 2008 06:34 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, the statement you seem to object to so strongly is a statement of hard fact. There is no moral value that outweighs another in food choices. You might think you have the moral high ground over someone else, (whether you are vegan, vegitarian, or omnivore). It simply doesn't exist. Growing fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, cattle, pigs or chickens -all of it has environmental, health, and life (human and animal) and many other impacts. None of it is worse or better in our industrialized and globalized food system. It is simply factually incorrect to suggest otherwise. To suggest that one choice is more moral than another is a personal opinion, it is not something that can be used to browbeat and dismiss the views of others.
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 24 September 2008 06:37 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
Actually, the statement you seem to object to so strongly is a statement of hard fact. There is no moral value that outweighs another in food choices. You might think you have the moral high ground over someone else, (whether you are vegan, vegitarian, or omnivore). It simply doesn't exist. Growing fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, cattle, pigs or chickens -all of it has environmental, health, and life (human and animal) and many other impacts. None of it is worse or better in our industrialized and globalized food system. It is simply factually incorrect to suggest otherwise. To suggest that one choice is more moral than another is a personal opinion, it is not something that can be used to browbeat and dismiss the views of others.

I agree. That's why I don't object to the factory farming of human toddlers.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 24 September 2008 06:40 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Condescension seems rampant

So does outright defensiveness of those who base their choices on feeling superior to others.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 24 September 2008 06:47 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
Condescension seems rampant

So does outright defensiveness of those who base their choices on feeling superior to others.


I don't much like PETA, if that's what you mean. But it's neither more nor less moral to be defensive or to base your choices on feeling superior to others.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 24 September 2008 06:57 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yet you clearly implied up thread that it was more moral to be against meat production. You then repeated a simular comment to which I responded to.

News flash- meat production, vegetable production, fruit production, grain production- they all damage the environment, they all damage life (both human and animal) in about the same amounts on balance, even if in different ways.

And as someone who eats soya products as much as anything else, I would never, ever suggest that real ice cream comes even close to the taste of a soya product.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 24 September 2008 06:58 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess I am supposed to be put on the defensive here by unfocussed attacks against people "feeling superior to others." Actually, as a cheese and meat eater, I don't feel superior to anyone: I am just scratching at the same old, same old justifications given for enslaving and killing animals in order to make up my mind.
Re: pregnancy, here is what I found: "like all mammals, cows only give milk during or after pregnancy. In order for humans to constantly milk them, they are forcefully impregnated every nine months. Many live in filthy conditions and are forced to give 10 times more milk than they would naturally. It's truly an awful life."
Perhaps you know different, folks. If not, do you care about this mistreatmnent?
P.S.: No response to my earlier query, Ghislaine?

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 September 2008 06:58 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder if PETA does what it does just to get people talking. They certainly seem to stir up something in the souls of babblers. Mind you, they're always the same old somethings.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 24 September 2008 07:01 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

News flash- meat production, vegetable production, fruit production, grain production- they all damage the environment, they all damage life (both human and animal) in about the same amounts on balance, even if in different ways.

That's why I don't oppose raising human toddlers for meat. Especially since they taste so much better than soy products.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 24 September 2008 07:06 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for proving to me that you have no interest in actually finding out about how the food choices we all make are damaging our world in our industrial food system.

It is fairly clear if nothing else you would have made a pretty good rump roast.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 24 September 2008 07:11 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This has sunk too low. I'm out.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 24 September 2008 07:19 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whereas comparing those who eat meat to eating toddlers is warm and fuzzy and well within the lines.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 24 September 2008 07:47 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I guess I am supposed to be put on the defensive here by unfocussed attacks against people "feeling superior to others." Actually, as a cheese and meat eater, I don't feel superior to anyone: I am just scratching at the same old, same old justifications given for enslaving and killing animals in order to make up my mind.
Re: pregnancy, here is what I found: "like all mammals, cows only give milk during or after pregnancy. In order for humans to constantly milk them, they are forcefully impregnated every nine months. Many live in filthy conditions and are forced to give 10 times more milk than they would naturally. It's truly an awful life."
Perhaps you know different, folks. If not, do you care about this mistreatmnent?
P.S.: No response to my earlier query, Ghislaine?

Would you like me to focus that for you?

You're quoting from a PETA website, martin. Not an objective or factual source much of the time -- so much of what they put out there is dogma, and they are happy to ignore facts not in their favour and have, on occasion, outright lied. If that's the extent of what you found, then you need to keep looking.

Re: artificial pregnancy -- artificial insemination causes real pregnancy. Believe me, an ovulating cow on the range with a bull is going to get pregnant the old-fashioned way in very short order. So this "artificial state of pregnancy" business is sheer bunkum. Besides which, when pregnant, so far as I know, the cows get a break from the milking regimen and we're unclear at best on how the cow feels about the state of being pregnant.

I prefer to source food from environmentally friendly sources where I can, and support raising animals humanely. However, drawing parallels between humans and domestic farm animals has never made much sense to me. There's a point where this sort of argument just gets silly.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 24 September 2008 07:52 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
Whereas comparing those who eat meat to eating toddlers is warm and fuzzy and well within the lines.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]


You probably already know this, but she's making a reference to Swift's Modest Proposal. However, it sort of falls down when you realize he's addressing human concerns rather than inter-species, and that he probably liked a good roast of beef as much as anyone else.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 24 September 2008 08:01 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Toddlers... the other veal.
From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 September 2008 08:08 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You probably already know this...

Simmer me sceptical, but I doubt it.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 24 September 2008 09:41 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
PETA lost it years ago
quote:
Too Many Deer for PETA?

On November 16, 2001, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) campaign members Dan Shannon and Jay Kelley were returning from an "anti-hunt tour" when a deer ran into the highway in front of their PETA-owned car, causing a collision. PETA’s legal counsel, Matthew Penzer, sent a letter to the director of New Jersey’s Division of Fish and Wildlife, Bob McDowell, notifying him that Kelley and Shannon were reserving "the right to bring an action for damages and/or injuries sustained" in the accident. The letter states PETA’s position that the state’s Department of Environmental Protection Fish and Wildlife Division and The Fish and Game Council are responsible "as a result of their deer management program, which includes, in certain circumstances, an affirmative effort to increase deer population." The total amount of damages is unknown. Damage to the car is reported to have exceeded $6,000, and was unusable for two months.

—Source: The Washington Times



From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 24 September 2008 10:44 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bagkitty:
Toddlers... the other veal.

LOL.

Sorry, but you can't make comments like this,

quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian: There is no moral value that outweighs another in food choices... To suggest that one choice is more moral than another is a personal opinion, it is not something that can be used to browbeat and dismiss the views of others.
and then get offended by comments like this:

quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
I agree. That's why I don't object to the factory farming of human toddlers.

If morals don't play into this argument - and setting any legal issues aside for the time being - then to suggest that harvesting human bodies for food consumption is more repugnant than doing the same with hundreds of thousands of chickens, pigs or whatever per day is merely personal opinion and can't be used to browbeat and dismiss others' views. Right?


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
G. Pie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15576

posted 28 September 2008 07:00 AM      Profile for G. Pie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
SCattle have no idea what is going to happen and it is over in a second or less.

This is nonsense. Cows are stupid, true, but they are still aware.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
G. Pie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15576

posted 28 September 2008 07:04 AM      Profile for G. Pie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Timebandit:
Believe me, an ovulating cow on the range with a bull is going to get pregnant the old-fashioned way in very short order. So this "artificial state of pregnancy" business is sheer bunkum.

Cows on Canadian dairy farms, at least around here, would never have a chance to get pregnant the "old-fashioned" way. Artificial insemination is not "sheer bunkum"; it's modern agri-business.

I have my problems with PETA. I detest their sexist modelling, etc. But the organization is responsible for improving the lives of many animals. That seems to me a worthy endeavour.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 September 2008 08:44 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've had Tofutti in the 1980s and I liked it so much I kept sneaking it from the freezer when Mom wasn't looking.

I've had soy-derived fake hamburger and I couldn't tell the difference between that and "real" hamburger. The only thing I utterly (udderly? ) refuse to partake of is soy-based milk. It smells unspeakably gross.

(I suppose I could give up milk entirely if I had to, since artificial creamer works OK in coffee/tea)

Bottom line - don't knock what plant products can do to revolutionize the basis of our food system. Thermodynamically plant products directly to humans makes more sense than plant to animal to meat. Yes, I know about range grasses, etc, but those aren't all over the Earth.

Also, people always say "well, some grain grown is not suitable for humans". Why the eff not? If all the grain grown in North America were to feed humans instead of some siphoned off to feed cows, North America could feed one billion people.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 28 September 2008 11:32 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I usually drink soy milk and will indulge in a glass of skim milk every few days. I just have a bit of a lactose thing. Mind you, cheese. Oh, cheese. Nothing better than getting a big chunk of really rank blue cheese and some crackers and just going to town.

However, Martin, I have a pint of Soy Good Chocolate iced treat up in my freezer. I'll eat it, but only because it was on sale and I didn't want to buy Grocery Store Brand Neapolitan again. It isn't right. Sure, it taste chocolatey, but it still has major flavor differences. Namely, it has that chalky taste that soy products often have. Not to mention that it is textured differently. If you go out and buy some and try it, yeesh, you'll know the difference.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 28 September 2008 01:08 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G. Pie:

Cows on Canadian dairy farms, at least around here, would never have a chance to get pregnant the "old-fashioned" way. Artificial insemination is not "sheer bunkum"; it's modern agri-business.

I have my problems with PETA. I detest their sexist modelling, etc. But the organization is responsible for improving the lives of many animals. That seems to me a worthy endeavour.


Um, sorry, I think you've misunderstood my point. The cow, even if artificially inseminated, isn't in an "artificial state of pregnancy". The cow is really and truly pregnant, just as pregnant as a cow bred the old fashioned way. The impregnation may not be the "natural" way, but the pregnancy itself is not fake. The "artificial state" of the pregnancy, rather than the mechanics of how it was achieved is the bunkum. Why does it matter how the conception occurred?

The use of the prhase "artificial state of pregnancy" sparks this image in my head of someone officiously telling a woman who has undergone the same procedure for ferility issues that her pregnancy is an "artificial state" and getting roundly lambasted.

I also don't know that PETA actually improves the lives of animals. Personally, I think they make animal activists easier to dismiss as unreasonable flakes and hysterical dingbats. They certainly put me into a dismissive frame of mind.

[ 28 September 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 28 September 2008 01:20 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Timebandit:

I also don't know that PETA actually improves the lives of animals. Personally, I think they make animal activists easier to dismiss as unreasonable flakes and hysterical dingbats. They certainly put me into a dismissive frame of mind.

One of the best descriptions of them I have seen. Bravo Timbebandit.


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
G. Pie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15576

posted 30 September 2008 04:56 PM      Profile for G. Pie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Timebandit:
Um, sorry, I think you've misunderstood my point. The cow, even if artificially inseminated, isn't in an "artificial state of pregnancy". The cow is really and truly pregnant, just as pregnant as a cow bred the old fashioned way. The impregnation may not be the "natural" way, but the pregnancy itself is not fake. The "artificial state" of the pregnancy, rather than the mechanics of how it was achieved is the bunkum. Why does it matter how the conception occurred?

I may have misunderstood but I think you have also misunderstood PETA's point. It's "artificial" to keep cows in a constant state of pregnancy. Of course the pregancy is real. But how many many humans do you know who are constantly pregnant? Most siblings are 3 years apart and there's good reason for that.

quote:
The use of the prhase "artificial state of pregnancy" sparks this image in my head of someone officiously telling a woman who has undergone the same procedure for ferility issues that her pregnancy is an "artificial state" and getting roundly lambasted.

I can't speak for PETA but I truly believe they are referring to constant pregnancy not fake pregnancy.

quote:
I also don't know that PETA actually improves the lives of animals.

Oh, sure. They've got many people thinking about how we treat animals and why.

quote:
Personally, I think they make animal activists easier to dismiss as unreasonable flakes and hysterical dingbats.

Well, it's easy enough to dismiss your opponents if that's your goal. However, I'm not an "animal activist" yet I still believe that animals should be treated respectfully. I eat meat and support ethical practices. I don't feel that I'm unreasonable.

quote:
They certainly put me into a dismissive frame of mind.

Me, too, when they're nattering on about the evils of raising honey. They're more extreme than I'm comfortable with but I still appreciate their work.

[ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: G. Pie ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 30 September 2008 05:51 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thre used to be a show on Saskatoon community radio called "Good Pie." The host moved to Victoria.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
G. Pie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15576

posted 01 October 2008 05:02 PM      Profile for G. Pie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Thre used to be a show on Saskatoon community radio called "Good Pie." The host moved to Victoria.

Guess I should 'fess up. To what, exactly, I don't know. But I should definitely 'fess up.

Just wanted to add that I wrote to PETA years ago complaining about their female models. I got back a very nice non-form letter which said, basically, that sex sells. Geesh. Who knew?

[ 01 October 2008: Message edited by: G. Pie ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
ebodyknows
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14948

posted 08 October 2008 09:07 AM      Profile for ebodyknows   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I like that PETA campaign. They make there point, should you agree with it or not, in a clear(to me anyway) and powerful way.

To me the main point is to raise the question: Would it be okay to treat people same way we treat cows?

To me the question is only relavant because in general western society is so far removed from the food production proccess. If you milked your own cow your going to treat your cow in the way you see fit... but when someone else is milking the cow for you....However, you all seem to be somewhat aware of those issues even if you don't necessarily agree.

I think there is another question PETA is getting at here that doesn't seem to have been discussed. Is human milk more appropriate for human consumption than cow milk. All ethics and morals aside wouldn't human milk be more appropriate nutritionaly speaking? I don't really have the knowledge to answer that.


quote:
Dairy processing in Canada has followed the same rationalization process as most other food and beverage processing industries with a trend toward fewer but larger firms and plants operated by fewer people. In dairy processing, this concentration of the industry into fewer hands has occurred as a result of a significant amount of merger and takeover activity and a maturing demand in the Canadian market for dairy products......Industry ownership has become highly concentrated. Three organizations currently have annual dairy product sales of over $1 billion each and five organizations control 50% of all industry plants and account for 60% of production. In addition, some firms have developed partnerships or corporate links for processing, distribution and marketing specific products.

From http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1171984113239&lang=e

The 'operated by fewer people' part stands out for me. Quite aside from how the cows feel about being involved in factory farming, how do people feel about having no clue where their food comes from. Am I just being nostalgic for something I don't really know? I did spend a couple months living in a community where cows, pigs, chickens and sheep ran freely around the village. I did spend 6 months in a town where I didn't have a refrigerator but they slaughtered(you could go watch if you wanted) a cow every day and you went down to the cutting block and bought your fresh meat. I've also been to alberta and had their famous steaks. It's only my opinion but the later came nowhere near to tasting as good. But it's not really the taste I'm concerned about discussing here, it's the human experience. Having relagated the experience of sustanance to a purely commercial one do we loose anything as humans? Do we make better use of our lives with the time saved by just being able to go to the market a couple hours a week than if we had to raise/grow/find our own food? Is the time saved by a large high volume food production system worth the loss of experience? Completly aside from the nutritonal questions, if you are a mother is there any value to you in the experience of feeding your child directly with your own milk?

[ 08 October 2008: Message edited by: ebodyknows ]


From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 08 October 2008 09:50 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
One could even propose that the cows and chickens have domesticated us, along with other animals like yeast.

Just to point out your intellectual dishonesty here, Yeast is a Fungi, and therefore not part of the animal Kingdom.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 09 October 2008 03:05 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now they're on about a cat-eating festival in Peru. One kind of has to think they're just reaching here for something especially unsettling to our sensibilities.

Fury over cat-eating festival


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
G. Pie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15576

posted 09 October 2008 03:43 PM      Profile for G. Pie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
Yeast is a Fungi, and therefore not part of the animal Kingdom.

This has me curious. I'm sure I was taught that yeast is a single-celled animal. I'll check it out and get back to you.

Added later: Well, I'll be jiggered. Was it reclassified?

Still later: PETA claims milk causes autism.

[ 09 October 2008: Message edited by: G. Pie ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca