Re: PETA recommendations

[Guest guest]

On 7/13/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34

> " Some people wonder if it's " unnatural " to omit meat from the diet of a

> dog or cat. Animals in the wild commonly eat quite a lot of plant

> matter. Besides, to feed them the meat that they would naturally eat,

> you would have to serve them whole mice or birds or allow them to hunt

> for themselves, an option that is unfair to native species of birds and

> other small animals, since companion cats and dogs have been removed

> from the food chain and have advantages that free-roaming animals lack.

> Vegetarian or vegan dogs and cats enjoy their food and good health, and

> a vegetarian diet for your companion animal is ethically consistent with

> animal rights philosophy. "

Domesticated animals enjoy " unfair competition " ? That's hilarious!

They should be anti-trust lawyers for animals.

I guess animals shouldn't have the " right " to hunt with their

domesticated privileges...

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- In , Deanna Wagner <hl@s...>

wrote:

>

> >Do they advocate a vegetarian diet for cats? I know they do for

dogs,

> >and have seen it on tv. They recommended a diet based around

steamed

> >vegetables for dogs.

> >

> >

> Yes they do. In fact, they say, since we can't give our companion

> kitties live mice and birds (sez who <weg>), then we must give them

> vegan fare, because commercial pet food is nasty. That's a false

> dilemma if ever I saw one. Many WAPFers feed their furry pals raw

grass

> fed meat and other healthy, natural stuff. I give my cats some raw

> meat, liver and heart, but with six of them, I can't afford to feed

them

> that exclusively. They get a natural cat food as well.

>

> Here's the lowdown from their website:

>

> http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34

> " Some people wonder if it's " unnatural " to omit meat from the diet

of a

> dog or cat. Animals in the wild commonly eat quite a lot of plant

> matter. Besides, to feed them the meat that they would naturally

eat,

> you would have to serve them whole mice or birds or allow them to

hunt

> for themselves, an option that is unfair to native species of birds

and

> other small animals, since companion cats and dogs have been

removed

> from the food chain and have advantages that free-roaming animals

lack.

> Vegetarian or vegan dogs and cats enjoy their food and good health,

and

> a vegetarian diet for your companion animal is ethically consistent

with

> animal rights philosophy. "

>

> >When I was younger, I ran into a few PETA folks at a Revolutionary

> >Communist Party table that I was walking by. I was vegan at the

time,

> >and surprised that the PETA woman fed her cat tuna fish. She said

she

> >had to compromise her ideology because it was her (correct)

> >understanding that cats couldn't synthesize an amino acid only

found

> >in animal products.

> >

> >Chris

> >

> Well, 'tis very true that indefinite, long term style veganism is

an

> ideal that one can never quite reach. You can't stop the killing

of all

> animals. Bugs will get squashed. And the whole idea that it is

> unethical to kill for food flat out divorces us from the reality

that

> many animals kill for food. Is that unethical of them or us to eat

in

> order to survive?

>

> Anyhoo as a vegan, I fed my cats meaty foods, and I myself used

wool and

> leather (though I never bought leather whilst vegan). Why take

away the

> felines' natural diet and supplement unnatural food all to make

yourself

> feel like you are " ethical " doing so. Nonsensical. The PeTA

website

> speaks for itself.

>

> http://www.peta.org/

>

> That said, animals should be treated humanely. 's typo was

> probably more of a Freudian slip when he said, " Second, PETA is for

the

> human treatment of animals. " I think that quote may be true.

>

>

> Deanna

>

>

Deanna:

All of this raises, in my opinion, an interesting or may be

impertinent question: if mice and birds are the natural flesh foods

for cats, what would the " natural " flesh foods be for humans?

carlos

[Guest guest]

> Here's the lowdown from their website:

>

> http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34

" ...Besides, to feed them the meat that they would naturally eat,

> you would have to serve them whole mice or birds or allow them to hunt

> for themselves, an option that is unfair to native species of birds and

> other small animals, since companion cats and dogs have been removed

> from the food chain and have advantages that free-roaming animals

lack. "

What I wanna know is this: are you allowed to serve your cats/dogs the

non-native, interloper birds and other small animals?

B.

/it's just, like, this glaring *loophole*

[Guest guest]

--- In , <harringtonwa@b...>

wrote:

> To my way of thinking being tip-top of the food chain is where no

other

> animal regularly sees you as dinner. The fact that humans can avoid

the

> other predators (most times) by using brain power makes us tip-top.

> Correct me if I am wrong but even without technology, native tribes

can

> outsmart many predators.

>

>

Can a monkey throw a stone? If he can, that is technology. The native

or the " primitive " (whom I would rather call the " illiterate " ) also had

their own technologies, even if they looked less sophisticated than

ours. Modern men have simply been assembling the pieces.

[Guest guest]

On 7/14/05, <harringtonwa@...> wrote:

> Primitive doesn't equate with illiterate, either! I think we've already

> touched on this subject, too. Aren't Primives in many ways 'smarter'

> than us? Depending on your definition of smarter anyway.

....And " illiterate " doesn't mean " stupid " either. Someone can be very

smart, and still not know how to read. Or a population could be very

successful, and not have a written language.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> > Primitive doesn't equate with illiterate, either! I think we've

already

> > touched on this subject, too. Aren't Primives in many

ways 'smarter'

> > than us? Depending on your definition of smarter anyway.

>

> ...And " illiterate " doesn't mean " stupid " either. Someone can be very

> smart, and still not know how to read. Or a population could be very

> successful, and not have a written language.

>

> Chris

But I never said or thought that " illiterate " means " stupid " . What I

think is that the word " primitive " (at least in my own language) may

sound more pejorative than " illiterate " . In fact, both can sound

pejorative, but primitive carries it further, by associating itself

with lack of refinement or even brutality.

JC

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> > Can a monkey throw a stone? If he can, that is technology. The

native

> > or the " primitive " (whom I would rather call the " illiterate " )

also had

> > their own technologies, even if they looked less sophisticated

than

> > ours. Modern men have simply been assembling the pieces.

> >

> Ummm......maybe could give us the definition

of " technology " ?

* Why ? He is silent, by the way. If I remember well, it was

Mark (or maybe ) who first mentioned the word " technology " .

>

> Primitive doesn't equate with illiterate, either! I think we've

already

> touched on this subject, too. Aren't Primives in many

ways 'smarter'

> than us?

* I believe so. At least there are no couch potatoes among the

primitive.

Depending on your definition of smarter anyway. Don't we have

> evidence that they were at least happier? At least in the terms

that

> Price put it - without the degenerative societal problems that came

with

> the decline in our nutrition. Technology increase/health decrease.

* As for happiness, I don't know. Perhaps a better word here would be

bliss, which is, in my opinion, a sort of happiness of which you are

not aware. Happiness, on the other hand, implies that you experience

sadness now and then and that you are aware of the fragility of your

actual condition. Suddenly everything can change. But certainly all

the primitive people experienced fear, too.

In fact, fear has always been around.

José

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , " mark robert " <colowe@i...>

wrote:

> Yup. Our (Human) technology puts us squarely on top, or anywhere

> in between that we want. We don't HAVE to eat big game; we can

> eat lower plants or microbes if we want. If it's not immediately

> edible, we can often process it until it is. And it doesn't hurt

> that we are omnivores. But it's our big brains (and resultant

> technology) that are our main predatory weapons, and they are no

> less of a natural adaptation than big sharp teeth or claws or

> strong muscles or wings or gills or venom or speed etc. Big

> brains are apparently superior to the defensive/offensive

> adaptations of all top predators put together.

Hi Mark:

Excuse my poor English, but I find your approach very suggestive (not

in the sexual direction, mind you). I have always thought along those

lines without knowing it until I read your piece.

Yes, to some extent, I think all our weapons, tools, our clothes, our

houses, our languages, our cooked food etc - all of these are at

bottom extensions of our body.

Cheers,

José

>

>

> -Mark

>

>

>

>

>

> _____

>

>

>

> Nope. Domestic cats. We feed them. Their eco-niche is the dent

> they make

> in the bed after sleeping there all afternoon.

>

> We really aren't the tip top. Our technology is what keeps other

> animals

> from eating us. Without that, big cats, hyenas and bears would

> eat us. The

> tip top of the food chain would be obligate carnivores that eat

> other

> carnivores. There aren't that many and they don't have that big

> of an

> effect on the food chain. Polar bears, killer whales, some birds

> of prey.

> The " top " of the food chain is more " way out there " than " the

> acme " .

>

> It's not really all that great to be high up on the food chain.

> Poisons

> collect at the top of the food chain. The lower animals each get

> a little

> bit of pesticide or whatever. Whatever eats them gets that poison

> multiplied

> by the number of contaminated prey it eats.

>

> YR

>

>

>

> _____

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> > At least there are no couch potatoes among the

> > primitive.

>

> I have read that in a study where they put Australian Aborigines

back

> into their natural environment and diet that they actually did less

> work/exercise that previous to the study. Kangaroos must be easy to

> catch! Or maybe the bush has such a plethora of goodies. I envy

them.

* I see. But in my mind a couch potato has no energy at all. I can't

imagine an Aborogine lacking energy.

> Out of all the ancient people I would like to have been in a past

life,

> I think Australian Aborigines and Native Americans are top of the

list.

> Mostly because they had such a spiritual connection to the

universe.

> Maybe that's something I need to work on in my life!? It's funny

where

> my musings have led me lately.

* Being an Australian, what concrete experience have you had with the

Aborigines? Do you think it is something relevant to tell us? Please.

> > * As for happiness, I don't know. Perhaps a better word here

would be

> > bliss, which is, in my opinion, a sort of happiness of which you

are

> > not aware. Happiness, on the other hand, implies that you

experience

> > sadness now and then and that you are aware of the fragility of

your

> > actual condition. Suddenly everything can change. But certainly

all

> > the primitive people experienced fear, too.

> >

> > In fact, fear has always been around.

>

> yes definitely bliss. But not sure what you are getting at with

> happiness. Do you mean that Primitives or premodern (?) peoples

were

> not aware of their condition? Surely, modern man is equally as

unaware

> on the whole? <puzzled look>

>

* Yes, you are right. Modern man has become sort of blind. Maybe in

the Renaissance man was better and he is not that far, actually.

Good day to you, . It is almost time to go to bed here.

JC

> > José

> >

> > >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> > Can a monkey throw a stone? If he can, that is technology. The

> native

> > or the " primitive " (whom I would rather call the " illiterate " )

> also had

> > their own technologies, even if they looked less sophisticated

> than

> > ours. Modern men have simply been assembling the pieces.

> >

> Ummm......maybe could give us the definition of

> " technology " ?

>

> Primitive doesn't equate with illiterate, either! I think we've

> already

> touched on this subject, too. Aren't Primives in many ways

> 'smarter'

> than us? Depending on your definition of smarter anyway. Don't

> we have

> evidence that they were at least happier? At least in the terms

> that

> Price put it - without the degenerative societal problems that

> came with

> the decline in our nutrition. Technology increase/health

> decrease.

>

>

>

> I would be interested in seeing this evidence of greater

> happiness. Most of their babies died.

> >

> -Mark

I am speculating, Mark. Maybe in those " golden " days the death of a

baby was much less tragic than it is nowadays. To start with, a

defective baby was not probably welcome. And then I think they could

have as many children as they pleased, every year, whereas we usually

can't afford to have more than 3 in most cases.

But in any case it may be wrong to idealize that ancient world very

much...

Just my two cents' worth.

José

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I'm trying to look for an

> alternate word to happiness, but I still want to use that. Does anyone

> get what I mean? Or am I being too idealistic?

,

Peace of mind.

B.

[Guest guest]

--- In , " mark robert " <colowe@i...>

wrote:

....Ants do not consciously refrain from

> exhausting their environment. Were they to have their way, they

> would take over the world, as would any species; as we have

> largely done...

> -Mark

Argentine black ants, right? How I miss the horned toads of my youth!

B.

[Guest guest]

>

> > At least there are no couch potatoes among the

> > primitive.

>

> I have read that in a study where they put Australian Aborigines

> back

> into their natural environment and diet that they actually did

> less

> work/exercise that previous to the study. Kangaroos must be easy

> to

> catch! Or maybe the bush has such a plethora of goodies. I envy

> them.

> Out of all the ancient people I would like to have been in a past

> life,

> I think Australian Aborigines and Native Americans are top of the

> list.

> Mostly because they had such a spiritual connection to the

> universe.

> Maybe that's something I need to work on in my life!? It's funny

> where

> my musings have led me lately.

>

> > * As for happiness, I don't know. Perhaps a better word here

> would be

> > bliss, which is, in my opinion, a sort of happiness of which

> you are

> > not aware. Happiness, on the other hand, implies that you

> experience

> > sadness now and then and that you are aware of the fragility of

> your

> > actual condition. Suddenly everything can change. But certainly

> all

> > the primitive people experienced fear, too.

> >

> > In fact, fear has always been around.

>

> yes definitely bliss. But not sure what you are getting at with

> happiness. Do you mean that Primitives or premodern (?) peoples

> were

> not aware of their condition? Surely, modern man is equally as

> unaware

> on the whole? <puzzled look>

>

> >

> > José

> >

> > >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> _____

>

>

>

> Romancing the distant past a little I'd say. Weather didn't

> cooperate; crops failed; people died from small infections and

> injuries, not to mention freezing, being eaten alive, being

> savagely killed by enemies or stronger tribe members. Few died of

> " old age " ; infants died from even less (most of them). Are we

> denying that these harsh Darwinian realities existed then? There

> are very good reason why we invented modern comforts. It's

> because the general experience of Darwinian evolution (survival

> of the fittest, etc) is one of painful struggle. Sure, there were

> times of plenty, but then came drought and winter. A large reason

> why primitive camping is pleasant is because we know we are able

> to return home. I'd love to visit our pre-agriculture past, but I

> would bet big money that none of us (after staying for a while)

> would want to live there.

>

>

>

> -Mark

>

>

Mark: You don't usually save a lot of space when you are typing, do

you? Funny, I find that I have to scroll down all the way to read

your message.

I think your voice and your way of putting forward some questions

were much needed in this group, if I may say so. Well, I don't want

to sound pretentious. I am not the owner of the group, anyway. But I

feel you have made an impressive arrival, assuming that you are a

recent member. I don't know.

I will ask the opposite question: do you think our primitive

ancestors would generally want to live in our world? Wouldn't most of

them choose to run away from all the pointless noise?

Best regards,

José

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , " mark robert " <colowe@i...>

wrote:

>

>

> Mark: You don't usually save a lot of space when you are typing,

> do

> you? Funny, I find that I have to scroll down all the way to read

>

> your message.

>

> I think your voice and your way of putting forward some questions

>

> were much needed in this group, if I may say so. Well, I don't

> want

> to sound pretentious. I am not the owner of the group, anyway.

> But I

> feel you have made an impressive arrival, assuming that you are a

>

> recent member. I don't know.

>

> I will ask the opposite question: do you think our primitive

> ancestors would generally want to live in our world? Wouldn't

> most of

> them choose to run away from all the pointless noise?

>

> Best regards,

>

> José

>

>

>

> _____

>

>

>

>

>

> ,

>

>

>

> Sorry about the posting style. Thanks for the compliments.

>

>

>

> That's a good question. Of course there are a lot of possible

> answers, and most of them start with " it depends " . Although the

> question surely relates to our discussion at hand, there would

> likely be psychological factors to complicate the answers.

> Quickly transporting any person to a foreign environment will

> incur stress, no matter the life-supporting features of that

> environment - they won't be immediately appreciated by the

> transported.

>

>

>

Mark:

Yes, of course: the stress. May I make a " little " digression now? You

sort of reminded me of our " primal " stress: the stress of being born.

You leave a warm, dark, silent, watery environment and is launched

into something quite different. That is why I believe in LeBoyer.

Maybe we could also think of death in those terms. Even if you don't

believe in a soul, a dying person (and an animal for that matter)

should be provided with support to better cope with the transition.

Unfortunately, death is a lot more accidental than birth, and

sometimes there is no time for a preparation.

Sorry for moving away from the main subject, but I had to say that.

And sorry again for making this very indiscreet question which of

course doesn't demand a serious answer or actually any answer at all

from you. In fact it is not a question, but an exclamation: how come

such an interesting man like you remains (if your self-description is

accurate) a bachelor?!

Cheers

José

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > " Water life " ? Most fish are carnivores.

> >

> > -mark

Was an afterthought. Guess its not considered quite the same as four

leggeds eating four leggeds, carniverous or carrion eating birds.

Wanita