PETA Recap/Summary

[garnet]

Originally Posted by glatt

I have the impression PETA would exaggerate about the frequency of these problems.

Why? have you spent any time on these types of factory farms? Or is it because you already have a negative opinion of PETA?

Originally Posted by glatt

The video was clearly edited for length.

Probably because there's literally HUNDREDS of hours of video tape

Originally Posted by glatt

I assume PETA removed all the footage of those workers treating the pigs the way they should, and only focused on the shocking images.

Do you think these same guys hit pigs with metal rods, slam their heads on the floor and torture them, and then the next day they're sweet and gentle to them? If they do, I'm guessing they've got pretty severe mood swing disorders.

[Cyber Wolf]

There's a tendency for any cause to focus on the worst of the worst. It gets the point across, sometimes ad nauseum. News and informative media regardless of origin tends to do that. When the priest sexual abuse scandal broke, all you heard about were priests who abused kids or had a long history of abuse and were still in the priesthood in contact with kids, you heard about the bishops who ignored the kids and families of victims, etc etc...during that time, you rarely heard any news about a priest doing anything good for anyone. For that time catholic priest = horny bastard with a 'special' liking for children.

Advocates for eliminating the pit bull are the same way...all you hear about are the few dogs who have attacked people and usually it's attacks that end in severe dismemberment or disfiguration or death that you hear about. You never hear about the sweet natured pit bull who's never gone after or attacked anyone except for the would-be theif she heard outside trying to break into a downstairs window (true story).

[garnet]

Originally Posted by wolf

No, they're not the only source of this information, but you won't accept any of them, since PETA is the source of all that is pure and good, so why am I actually bothering?

As to your link--everybody's always hassling PETA about their tax-exempt status. The IRS was here a couple weeks ago meeting with the Presoident of PETA. How come PETA has been able to keep the tax-exempt status for the last 20 years? Because no matter how hard they dig, they come up with NOTHING.

Does it bother you that the Center for Consumer Freedom is the ONLY website you can find making allegations about PETA's "involvement" with the ALF? If it were true, I'm guessing a few other places would have gotten wind of it now and posted it on the web. Nobody has any FACTS, so the CCF takes the sleazy way and posts inaccuracies and lies instead.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by wolf

Where's the money going that's not listed in the Annual Report? Here's a couple places.

Again, activistcash.com is funded by the CCF. You know, the same group backed by big tobacco, the meat industry and liquor peddlers.

[wolf]

Actually my original source was Peterson's Hunting Magazine, but that thought that would just send you over the edge.

http://windsofchange.net/archives/003875.php

http://www.rickross.com/reference/animal/animal42.html

http://www.stopecoviolence.org/

http://www.stopecoviolence.org/pdfs/3_07_02.pdf

[wolf]

Originally Posted by garnet

Again, activistcash.com is funded by the CCF. You know, the same group backed by big tobacco, the meat industry and liquor peddlers.

At least I'll have a good dinner, a fine brandy, and a nice, satisfying smoke for afters.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by wolf

At least I'll have a good dinner, a fine brandy, and a nice, satisfying smoke for afters.

Don't call me when you keel over from obesity, lung cancer and heart disease.

Have fun!

[wolf]

I am.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by wolf

Actually my original source was Peterson's Hunting Magazine, but that thought that would just send you over the edge.

Don't worry, sweetheat. Nothing you could possible say would send me over the edge. Don't flatter yourself.

And you're using hunting magazines as sources? Nice! All the sources I used were newspapers, wire services and tv stations. How come you can't come up with anything from sources like those? Makes one wonder....

[glatt]

Originally Posted by garnet

Probably because there's literally HUNDREDS of hours of video tape.

That's my point exactly. You take hundreds of hours of videotape, and cherry pick the few scenes that make your point. PETA is trying to sway public opinion here by tugging the debate towards the extreme. For the most part, pig farmers/factory workers treat the animals in a detached, matter-of-fact, and possibly somewhat rough way. They don't beat the crap out of the animals. That would waste money. Nobody wants to buy bruised meat with infected sores, etc.

I'm not saying these conditions are happy ones for the animals, just that the blatent abuse isn't anywhere near as common as that video would like us to believe. It's propaganda.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by glatt

I'm not saying these conditions are happy ones for the animals, just that the blatent abuse isn't anywhere near as common as that video would like us to believe. It's propaganda.

Again, how do you know that it's "propaganda"? I know people who've worked on these types of farms and say it's very common for the animals to be abused. These are low-paid workers, and they simply don't care if the meat ends up "bruised." That's not their problem. If this video had been made by a local news station rather than PETA, would you also say it's propaganda? Are you basing your conclusions on WHO made the video, rather than the CONTENT of the video?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by garnet

If this video had been made by a local news station rather than PETA, would you also say it's propaganda? Are you basing your conclusions on WHO made the video, rather than the CONTENT of the video?

Yes. I would trust local news over PETA to present a less biased report on the conditions in a slaughterhouse or factory farm.

You admitted yourself that hundreds of hours were edited to come up with a couple of minutes of footage. If there were more damning scenes in the raw footage, I am certain that PETA would have used them. You have to admit that as well. PETA was not attempting to make an unbiased documentary. PETA was attempting to make a film that shocks and horrifies people and makes them think eating meat is bad. That's called propaganda.

[lookout123]

*WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*

that is the sound of this thread approaching a brick wall at 120mph.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by glatt

Yes. I would trust local news over PETA to present a less biased report on the conditions in a slaughterhouse or factory farm.

You admitted yourself that hundreds of hours were edited to come up with a couple of minutes of footage. If there were more damning scenes in the raw footage, I am certain that PETA would have used them. You have to admit that as well. PETA was not attempting to make an unbiased documentary. PETA was attempting to make a film that shocks and horrifies people and makes them think eating meat is bad. That's called propaganda.

Is a "little" cruelty OK, just as long as it's not 100 hours worth of cruelty? So in other words, you're condoning the activity on that video tape. I could make the same argument about the Rodney King tape. That, too was just a few minutes of videotape, and we know not all cops behave like that. Because they showed it on the news, is the news media guilty of spreading propaganda about the LAPD?

And do you really think anyone is going to sit in front of their computer and watch hours of this type of video? Would you? The attention span of the average American is about 30 seconds--so of course they used the most horrifying parts of the tape.

You dislike PETA (and that's fine--you are entitled to your opinion) so you therefore assume everything they do is tainted somehow and intentionally full of malice. And PETA didn't "make a film"--I don't see any actors, directors or stuntmen anywhere. They shot video tape of an actual event--an illegal event--while it was taking place.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by garnet

Is a "little" cruelty OK, just as long as it's not 100 hours worth of cruelty? So in other words, you're condoning the activity on that video tape. I could make the same argument about the Rodney King tape. That, too was just a few minutes of videotape, and we know not all cops behave like that. Because they showed it on the news, is the news media guilty of spreading propaganda about the LAPD?

You dislike PETA (and that's fine--you are entitled to your opinion) so you therefore assume everything they do is tainted somehow and intentionally full of malice.

No, a little cruelty is not OK. I posted earlier today that I'm glad PETA was there to film the cruelty, and I'm glad those responsible were punished. But PETA took it one step further. They implied that this is the normal, approved way of doing business in the meat industry. They urged the viewer to give up meat to stop the cruelty. That is misleading.

The abuser in these videos was not following normal company policy while doing these things. He would probably be disciplined if a supervisor saw him intentionally damaging the product by beating the pigs. That would be like a line worker at GM smashing the windshields as the cars rolled down the line. A company would never go for that.