PEtA wants Ben and Jerry's to use human milk

[Xanthina]

I think it is odd that they would go to Ben & Jerry's, considering they are not a Factory Farm company. The only use milk from local family farms(growing up we spent our summers at one of these family farms).

Disclaimer: This is last I knew at least. If they have changed since I moved out of the area, I don't know. Everything I've seen says they are still like this.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Just you wait; they'll be suggesting that restaurants serve up human flesh instead of beef.

[powerboy]

PETA, is down right stupid. It is one thing to try and protect the animals. It is another when they are just hurting the animals even worse.

[anriana]

It would be so hilarious for some of these PETA folks to go to an actual farm and talk to an actual farmer and learn some of the realities of farm life. On a farm, an animal is not a fuzzy person. It is an animal. Good farmers treat their animals well, and that includes putting them down. Same thing with hunting. With many species, hunting is necessary to keep the numbers down and prevent disease.

I don't mean this in a demeaning way, but have you heard of feedlots? Most of American meat (and animal byproducts like dairy) don't come from good ol' family farms.

Our world is growing more and more overpopulated; is it ethical to go human hunting to keep numbers down? What makes it okay for us to play god for other species?

Now, Dad didn't keep animals, but I know a bit about it. It infuriates me that these people consider a cow more important than a human being.

Does Hinduism infuriate you?


I wonder if PETA is actually serious about this or is doing this as a publicity stunt/ to draw attention to the absurdity of drinking milk intended for a different species' young.

[AdminAssistant]

Does Hinduism infuriate you?

No, of course not. That is a spiritual belief - that cows are sacred because they represent a diety. What PETA is doing is different - they don't have a spiritual reason - to be honest, I can't see a reason for even suggesting such a thing.

I do know that most of the meat that winds up on the plate doesn't come from a Mom and Pop farm. Because there aren't many Mom and Pop farms. Because farming is one of the riskiest ventures out there, and many many farmers have just sold out - leading to fewer, larger farms, where animals are more likely to be treated poorly.

A lot of people consider the Farm Bill "pork" spending. I consider it a necessary subsidy to keep those Mom and Pop farmers in business. A lot of people are still recovering from the floods last spring. I know a lot of livestock in Arkansas was killed or lost and crops were devastated. Which leads to less grain, which makes feed higher, which makes the cost of meat higher.

[AFPheonix]

No, of course not. That is a spiritual belief - that cows are sacred because they represent a diety. What PETA is doing is different - they don't have a spiritual reason - to be honest, I can't see a reason for even suggesting such a thing.

I do know that most of the meat that winds up on the plate doesn't come from a Mom and Pop farm. Because there aren't many Mom and Pop farms. Because farming is one of the riskiest ventures out there, and many many farmers have just sold out - leading to fewer, larger farms, where animals are more likely to be treated poorly.

A lot of people consider the Farm Bill "pork" spending. I consider it a necessary subsidy to keep those Mom and Pop farmers in business. A lot of people are still recovering from the floods last spring. I know a lot of livestock in Arkansas was killed or lost and crops were devastated. Which leads to less grain, which makes feed higher, which makes the cost of meat higher.

The problem with the Farm Bill is it really doesn't do a whole lot for mom and pop farms. It really only subsidizes that larger corporate-owned farms. Until this last iteration, it didn't even cover farms that grow vegetables like you find on the West Coast.
The farmers in my area do not benefit from it, even though people like them are typically the ones used as the reason for the bill in the first place. It needs to be revamped because it encourages the consolidation of large farms.
But that's a rant for another thread.

As for the horse slaughter, what I'd like to see happen would be state-owned lots where you pay to drop your horse off. That would dissuade people trying to make a buck off their crap horses they're breeding. My only concern is that most pleasure, show, and race horses are loaded up on vaccines, wormers, and other chemical products that would make them unfit for meat. I'm not sure what the half-life on those are, either. That would give me some pause. However, if it ended up being safe enough, people could get some quality lean meat for pets.

[Boozy]

No, of course not. That is a spiritual belief - that cows are sacred because they represent a diety. What PETA is doing is different - they don't have a spiritual reason - to be honest, I can't see a reason for even suggesting such a thing.

I'm hesitant to disregard someone's beliefs just because they don't come from deity worship. I think atheists, for example, are entitled to a set of morals and ethics without having some mystical reason for it.

I can't think of any logical reason why someone can't believe that the lives of animals are as valuable as those of humans. I don't necessarily agree, but the idea doesn't appall me.

I do have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that animals are better off dead than in captivity, though. Would PETA have supported the killing of human slaves?

[anriana]

No, of course not. That is a spiritual belief - that cows are sacred because they represent a diety.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/82/story_8229_1.html

No.

[AdminAssistant]

Ah, I see. My knowledge of Eastern religions/beliefs (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) is rather shaky.

[Slytovhand]

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/82/story_8229_1.html

No.

Well now, that article was a bit interesting, and since in essence it contradicted my thoughts (as indicated by a couple of others on here...).

So, I did the obvious... I walked down to my co-worker who is Hindu, and asked her.

Her response - "We worship the cow, because it represents Brahma". Yes, she did stress the word 'worship'.

I can appreciate that history tells a different story, and like Rimmer's parents who were Seventh Day Advent Hoppists, there maybe a particular reason for the direction worship has taken.


Still OT


Slyt

[Kirkygirl]

As far as I know, Ben and Jerry's is actually a really good company. They refuse to use bovine growth hormone, they use milk from local co-ops, they give some of their profits back to the same co-ops, they use fair trade coffees, and 35/36 of the ice creams that they have at the local mall here are made from natural and strictly controlled ingredients. The only one that is not strictly controlled is their ice cream with the Heath bar in it (that's Skor for us Canucks).
My friend also lives on a co-op dairy farm that her family runs, and all the animals are very well taken care of, thanks.
So yeah, I think that this action by PeTA is kinda stupid.

[Xanthina]

So yeah, I think that this action by PeTA is kinda stupid.

More detailed, but exactly what I said ^_^

Glad to hear someone else standing up for B&J, they are awesome.

[wanderingjoe72]

It is stunts like this that cause people to dump on PeTA. Throwing paint on people and chaining yourself to stuff leads to the group being mocked on a regular basis. They claim to have good intentions, but then again, isn't the road to Hell paved with good intentions?

For the most part, every group with a cause thinks that they are right. Some are stable enough to realise if they offer reasonable solutions or use practical means to acheive their goals, people will listen. Others are filled with irrational people that will resort to stunts like this. They seek to shock others into seeing their view. However, since most of us are rational, we see it for what it is and can enjoy a laugh at their expense.

[Flyndaran]

P.E.T.A. just love making impossible to enact demands.
There is no way a large company could get a large enough supply of human milk to meet their needs. Second, they would not be even close to competing in dollars to gallons with companies using cheap cow's milk.
Third, there is definitely no way to certify the purity of human milk unless such women were kept in monitored places for months before the "milking" began. We humans are disgusting creatures capable of eating nearly anything on earth and willingly ingest toxins for medicinal as well as recreational uses. I wouldn't want to consume human tissue for all the risks.

[Skunkle]

I agree that it seems, with this, PETA is going for shock value above practicality in order to gain more publicity. And this seems to be something they do often.

Example: Another campaign they have is against eating fish. They say that we have no qualms about slaughtering (eating) fish because they're "fish". What is needed is a new name, and they suggest... sea kittens. Because who would want to eat a kitten? I saw some art showing fish pretending to be kittens. And the art cemented my opinion without a doubt - this had to be a joke. Until I went to the PETA site and saw it there, complete with the same art.

So, yes, I concur that they're hunting for shock value in order to draw eyes to their real ideas somehow. I guess the way famous fashion designers show off outrageous designs no one would ever wear in public at fashion shows, to drum up attention for their brand as a whole. Sorry, PETA, but I don't think it's having the desired effect. For example, I too hate the disgusting side of the beef industry and I don't fault those who don't eat meat for these ethical reasons. But I also don't want to stop eating meat - BUT, if someone really wants me to quit, it's going to take convincing, not shock tactics.