Jump to content

Home

PETA wants Ben and Jerry's to use human milk...

DarthAve

By DarthAve
in Ahto Spaceport Cantina

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Astor Newbie

Astor

Posted
Posted
Don't cows produce enough milk for their babies anyways? But still, can't believe this isn't a joke...

 

I'd like to think it is, but something tells me it's not a few years ago here we had Heather Mills (boo, hiss!) telling us all we should drink rat's milk to save the cows. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Inyri Newbie

Inyri

Posted
Posted

I think it's time to dig out the letter PETA sent me a while ago when I was still in college. This is what I had to say about it at the time:

Show spoiler
(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)
That's right, PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, just sent me a nickel. Why? Undoubtedly to bribe me to do something for them. Let me start off by saying I don't care for PETA one way or the others - I'm not much of a joiner. I believe what I believe and that's that. I don't need to join some organization to make myself feel better. Let's go through this letter they sent me though, shall we?
Dear Friend
Right off the bat I don't like this guy. I don't know who he is. Why does he think I'm his friend? I don't even know where he got my name from. Someone probably sold it to him...
I've enclosed a nickel for you because I desperately need your help to waken the general public and public policymakers to a terrible tragedy.
Aww, so he was just buttering me up. That sucks. I thought I was special. I don't take kindly to bribes... though I don't know what this guy thinks a nickel is going to get him. A hundred bucks, on the other hand...
This year, millions of animals will be killed every month in government-funded and commercial laboratories. That's tens of millions of innocent animals lives lost. Why?
I hope you care for human lives too, buddy. I empathize, however.
Before you agree -- or disagree -- you should know the facts.
Whoa whoa whoa, buddy. How am I supposed to know these are facts? Because you said so? Everybody knows PETA is going to be biased, so you're contradicting yourself there. I won't know the facts. I'll know the facts you want me to know.
Particularly cruel are the tests to which roughly 10 million animals are subjected each year to test new products. For example: -Household-product firms determine the poison level of floor wax and detergents by injecting these substances into the stomachs or under the skin of rabbits, rats, mice, and guinea pigs ... producing vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions, and paralysis. This "lethal dose 50" test ends only when half of the animals die -- with no painkillers.
Hey, you know that ellipse (...) means they left something out. Usually it's the part that completely contradicts whatever they're trying to say. Injecting rabbits with floor wax would kind of suck, though. Since so many people will be injecting floor wax directly into themselves.
Some cosmetic companies subject rabbits, their heads immobilized in "stocks," to the infamous Draize test. Their eyes are smeared with skin creams, mascara, hairspray, or shampoo. Since rabbits have inefficient tear ducts, they cannot flush out their eyes. The predictable results include corneal ulcers, hemorrhaging, and blindness.
If people weren't so stupid, we wouldn't have to worry about the effects of getting eye cream in your eyes. Solution: women should not poke themselves in the eye after using facial cream. Seriously, though, that test is screwed up.
These tests become even more nightmarish when you realize that they are unnecessary.
To be honest, are they unnecessary, or should we just say "Ah hell with it, let them poke themselves in the eye. We don't have to care if their eyes melt." Granted there's probably a better way than torturing cute little bunny rabbits... Then again PETA could be making that up. How are we to know?
New technologies offer us proven alternatives that are far cheaper, more exact, and more humane. Examples include cultures of human cells and organ tissues -- which are directly relevant to people -- as well as sophisticated computer models that can predict the likely toxic effects of a test substance.
That's all good and fine, but there's no proof that a computer model will come up with accurate results, or that isolated cultures of cells that are not in tune with a full body system will have the same reaction. I'm not saying we should test on animals, but I'm saying that this alternative is less than reassuring.
But that is only part of the story.
Oh god, there are two pages. What kind of organization send you a two-page letter?!
The victims of these and many other equally cruel and painful tests include horses, lambs, cows, pigs, goats, doves, kittens, mice, turtles, other wildlife, and humankind's closest living relative - the chimpanzee. No living being is exempt. Not even "man's best friend."
If it makes you feel better, we can do these tests on you and your children. No? I thought not. The problem with this is suggesting we test on humans instead of animals will get the exact same reaction, but suggesting we don't test at all would also be met with hostility. So what alternatives do we have, honestly?
As a matter of fact, your own dog or cat could easily become a victim... because each year, "pound seizure" laws force unwilling animal shelters to turn over tens of thousands of lost cats or dogs to experimenters.
Don't lose your cat/dog. Make sure they have their tags, and adequate information on these tags. There are measures around this, unless you sit on your butt and wait for you dog to come running home.
But make no mistake. Wherever these animals come from, they are all sensitive, vulnerable beings with distinct personalities.
I personally believe this, but it hasn't been proven.
And just like you and me, they suffer pain, loneliness, fear, and confusion... even if they cannot express their agony in words.
Yeah... true... If you've never had a pet, you may not know that, but if you step on your cat's tail you'll know they didn't like it :lol:
That's why PETA -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals -- has been fighting for years, often in dramatic and dangerous settings, to establish animal rights... and today, the tide of public opinion is changing.
Dramatic and dangerous settings? Like what? A pit of lava? Come on, cut the drama and get to the point. You're not impressing anyone.
Why? Because the facts are absolutely compelling.
And absolutely one-sided, if I were to only listen to you.
Apologists for animal abuse keep trying to convince us that animal pain is a small price to pay "in the name of science."
Apparently making apologies is now a science. Really though dude, are you going to step up and offer your body to science, or are you telling people with illnesses "Sorry, but we don't care about your pain. You're never getting a cure."
But the truth is, animal experiments can be totally unreliable. A dog, a cat, a monkey, and a guinea pig all have vastly different physiologies from each other. And from humans, too.
They're not that vastly different, but I see your point. However they're just as likely to be unreliable as your computer models, and I'd rather put my money on a real test. By the way, you don't need that first comma.
One former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration admitted, "Compared to most contemporary biological techniques, animal testing is crude, cumbersome, and expensive."
For all I know, you made that up. No name, no source, no validity. I'd get an F in college for putting something like that into a paper. But this is real life. So I guess you fail at life.
Test results can also be terribly misleading. Animal reactions are grossly distorted after the stress and fatigue of isolation and laboratory life.
First of all, you practically just said that before, when you said testing them was unreliable. Second of all... okay yeah, point taken.
That's why drugs like thalidomide -- which passed animal "safety" tests with flying colors -- resulted in thousands of human deaths and deformities ... and much unnecessary suffering, both animal and human.
I thought you said it passed the animal tests with flying colors. Yet it caused them untold suffering? That doesn't strike me as "flying colors."
And still, we constantly hear of other "safe" drugs being withdrawn from the market following fatal side effects in humans.
Never heard of clinical trials, have you? That's where they test them on people who sign a nice waiver absolving the company of liability.
And seldom do experimenters consider alternatives.
Okay, how would they know that? That's not something PETA would even know.
Most experimenters cling to familiar habits out of ignorance, apathy, or vested interests. They keep churning out the same repetitive research year after year that costs animals' lives... while you and I pay for it.
I don't claim to know how your mind works. How can you know how theirs work? Come on now. Don't be arrogant.
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently pushing plans that would required hundreds of chemicals to be retested on animals. That’s right -- not tested, but retested, even though at least 19 separate experiments have already been performed with these chemicals, in which birds, dogs, and many other animals were forced to ingest or inhale large amounts of pesticides. In fact, hundreds of thousands of animals will perish if the EPA has its way.
While I agree that some of the experiments they quote sound atrocious, I still find it hard to believe any of them because they have failed to provide proof.
These tests will tell us little about what dangers the chemicals actually pose because of the enormous differences between animals and humans. The EPA has even admitted in writing that the experiments that require dogs are unnecessary, but it has no plans to stop these cruel tests.
Again, where's the evidence? Do you really want the stupid and/or the gullible to be the ones supporting you? Cater to the informed - those would be the people that tell you to go away because you haven't provided us with proof!

 

Okay, you know what? This letter is way too long. I'm bored of reading it now. (Good tactic, PETA. Bore us to tears.) Let me get down to the good parts, since the next bit is just them showing off all their "triumphs."

Many other steps are planned, but we need you to become a vital part of PETA's historic NATIONAL CARING CONSUMER PROJECT. Please save future generations of animals from cruel and pointless suffering in the following ways: -First, please give me your opinion by completing the enclosed ballot and returning it to us as soon as possible. The results will be of inestimable value by persuading the media, Congress, and federal officials that change is necessary in the way animals are treated. -Second, please speak out against the EPA's wasteful and redundant pesticide tests by contacting EPA officials. Let them know that you want the EPA to regulate pesticides and other chemicals that are already known to be dangerous -- not torture innocent animals. You can read the EPA by phone at 202-564-8160. -Third, double the impact of your convictions by making the most generous tax-deductible gift you possibly can... to support PETA's landmark, hard-hitting, and effective work.
How stunning, all that to get a contribution out of me. Maybe no one told them I'm a college student. Not to mention I can't believe they want me to pay them when all they've given me is one-sided information. This little "ballot" they want me to fill out has to be back in 10 days. With end-of-the-term school work, I can't possibly do the research necessary to confirm all their blathering and get that back to them with a "generous tax-deductible gift." Yet they had no problem providing the EPA's phone number.

 

At the bottom of the letter, he has the gall to say "Remember, procrastination is why painful experiments continue." It's not procrastination, reject, it's me spending my time to see if your cause is worthwhile, because you just expect me to believe every word that comes out of your mouth. It wouldn't even matter if I totally agreed with your standpoint (which I mostly - not completely - do).

 

Things are not black and white, and I don't like organizations that try to make them thus. I don't agree with animal testing, but I also don't agree in no testing, and human testing is a long way off, if we ever do it (which, with our selfish nature, I doubt will ever happen). Science needs to progress, and sometimes that's not possible without animal testing. I find that sad and depressing, because I don't like to see animals suffer, but if they don't, millions of people will suffer. So what's more important: a few mice, or a bunch of people? I don't really have an answer - that's one of those tough, soul-searching questions that you're kidding yourself about if you think you can answer it on a dime. Or, in this case, a nickel.

Not trying to start a deep conversation on animal rights, just trying to point out how silly PETA is. :xp:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...