pigiron said:
Like I said , it takes a certain class of folks to be anti-PETA and to make childish BS jokes about them.
I wonder what else they have in common ?
That's because they are a joke. They are nothing but a bunch of left wing whack job liberals and all they do is contibute to the pu**ification of America. Here is a prime example of their ridiculousness-
WATERBURY, Vt. -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent a letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, cofounders of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., urging them to replace cow's milk they use in their ice cream products with human breast milk, according to a statement recently released by a PETA spokeswoman.
"PETA's request comes in the wake of news reports that a Swiss restaurant owner will begin purchasing breast milk from nursing mothers and substituting breast milk for 75 percent of the cow's milk in the food he serves," the statement says.
PETA Urges Ben & Jerry's To Use Human Milk
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."
"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," said a spokesperson for Ben and Jerry's.
Read PETA's letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield
September 23, 2008
Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, Cofounders
Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc.
Dear Mr. Cohen and Mr. Greenfield,
On behalf of PETA and our more than 2 million members and supporters, I'd like to bring your attention to an innovative new idea from Switzerland that would bring a unique twist to Ben and Jerry's.
Storchen restaurant is set to unveil a menu that includes soups, stews, and sauces made with at least 75 percent breast milk procured from human donors who are paid in exchange for their milk. If Ben and Jerry's replaced the cow's milk in its ice cream with breast milk, your customers-and cows-would reap the benefits.
Using cow's milk for your ice cream is a hazard to your customer's health. Dairy products have been linked to juvenile diabetes, allergies, constipation, obesity, and prostate and ovarian cancer. The late Dr. Benjamin Spock, America's leading authority on child care, spoke out against feeding cow's milk to children, saying it may play a role in anemia, allergies, and juvenile diabetes and in the long term, will set kids up for obesity and heart disease-America's number one cause of death.
Animals will also benefit from the switch to breast milk. Like all mammals, cows only produce milk during and after pregnancy, so to be able to constantly milk them, cows are forcefully impregnated every nine months. After several years of living in filthy conditions and being forced to produce 10 times more milk than they would naturally, their exhausted bodies are turned into hamburgers or ground up for soup.
And of course, the veal industry could not survive without the dairy industry. Because male calves can't produce milk, dairy farmers take them from their mothers immediately after birth and sell them to veal farms, where they endure 14 to17 weeks of torment chained inside a crate so small that they can't even turn around.
The breast is best! Won't you give cows and their babies a break and our health a boost by switching from cow's milk to breast milk in Ben and Jerry's ice cream? Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tracy Reiman
Executive Vice President
warsawdaddy said:
What's thier position on fish? Seems like their was a Holy Man that supplied fish for a pretty large crowd in the Bible.
Here is their postion on fishing-
PETA's Efforts to Ban Fishing
Jim Shepard shows how PETA is trying to ban fishing
By Ronnie Garrison, About.com
by Jim Shepherd, The Outdoor Wire
Several months ago, The Outdoor Wire reported a new campaign from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) that was going to take up a new cause: fish. At that time, we received several notes from people accusing us of reporting something that was, at best, looney, and most likely, a joke.
It's not a joke, folks. Today, it's a reality. PETA's already begun their initial push to "sensitize" the media. The most recent incident is PETA's having told newspaper editors it was time to "either dump their fishing columns or relegate them to the crime and obituary sections where they belong."
In a column called "Let 'Em Eat Worms," Florida Today fishing columnist Bill Sargent reported that "if PETA had its way, you wouldn't be reading this column with your Sunday morning coffee." He then recounted the letter newspaper sports editors had received from Karen Robertson the Fish Empathy Project Manager (I did NOT make this up) for PETA. From her group HQ in Norfolk, Virginia, she brought her 800,000 members and supporters to bear on the fishing columnists of the country.
The letter says "Please consider this: You wouldn't dedicate space in your paper to the recreational abuse of dogs and cats, yet the fishing column encoPETA's serious about the Fish Empathy Project. They're planning a series of billboards across the country to spread the message. One, as we reported earlier, will feature the lovable house pet with a fishing lure through its lip (placed there digitally, of course). One caption will read "If you wouldn't do this to a dog, why do it to a fish?"
PETA's serious about the Fish Empathy Project. They're planning a series of billboards across the country to spread the message. One, as we reported earlier, will feature the lovable house pet with a fishing lure through its lip (placed there digitally, of course). One caption will read "If you wouldn't do this to a dog, why do it to a fish?"
In the Far East, that would get an appreciative chuckle from natives who consider a man leading a dog on a leash to be a caterer (and, as the punch line goes, a man leading two dogs is a - vegetarian!). Here in the United States, however, where we apparently believe that meat is grown in shrink-wrapped packages, that's a dynamite sensitivity hot button.
After all, PETA's website writes, "anglers will have more than fishing on their minds when they see this billboard on the way to their favorite fishing hole." Before I forget, you can see all this first-hand on the PETA website
www.fishinghurts.com (again, I am NOT making this up).
If the PETA's Fish Empathy Project can get funded to the point it can afford to buy display advertising and kickoff national awareness campaigns with media blitzes, it brings an interesting point to mind: why can't we seem to get "traction" with the message that people who love the outdoors - even if they fish and/or hunt - are people as well. Instead, we're demonized, lampooned and turned into the poster children for all that's wrong with the right to choose our own paths.
This week, The Outdoor Wire's appeared to look more and more like an advocacy publication than a source for "news and events from the outdoor industry." As editor and publisher, I realize we're headed toward what may become a slippery slope for this electronic publication. However, there comes a time when it seems wrong to sit and chuckle any longer at the "antics" of people I have heretofore called "well meaning dunderheads."
That points out two errors in my own thinking. First, these people aren't well-meaning. They are every bit as dedicated to the elimination of fishing and hunting as the Axis powers were on winning World War II. Secondly, they're not dunderheads. They're organized, funded people on a mission. One they're quite willing to suffer "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" - and the occasional appearance of idiocy - to reach.
Maybe it's time we stopped laughing at them - and started defining the locations and battles we fight, rather than allowing them to bring us over a moral terrain we wouldn't even have to defend in a logical, rational discourse. For example: there are more forests in New England today than any period since before the Civil War. At that time, New York was only 25 percent forested. Today, the percentage is more than 66 percent. In 1936, piedmont Georgia was 80 percent deforested. Today, 80 percent of the same area has trees. We have added more than 10 million (10,000,000) acres of forestland in the last 10 years alone. The Great Plains host more buffalo now than in the century previous. We are not senselessly pillaging our environment. We are changing it, but change is a part of nature. When we try to monkey around with artificial constancy is when we mess it up.
Likewise, we need to apply some mid-course corrections to the folks who have come out for family planning as a panacea for poverty AND environmental purity. There are far more indicators to prove that economic development and prosperity do more to help assure a healthy environment than birth control among the human population. There is also a reason they've started calling themselves "conservationists" rather than "environmentalists". The "environmentalists" screwed up by allowing their extreme wing to define their image. So…they're moving to camouflage their true nature.
We can get them to the table to talk. Unfortunately, we have to convince them it's in their best interests to sit down. Like the Axis and the "axis of evil" it's going to take definitive action to bring them to the table. They do not respect our rights. They are after their authority to dictate what is or is not a right. They leave that territory for us to defend. In the meantime, they've been able to inculcate into the society the mindset that to believe in "inalienable rights" is downright intolerant and extreme.
It's time to take the gloves off, people.