Animal group PETA condemn Barack Obama's fly swatting

I love how I learned this as I was eating a McDonalds Ranch Chicken Snack Wrap...

Originally Posted by Chad

It wasn't obvious to me.

Did you read the website for PETV? It has sarcasm written all over it.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by wolfen

Math skills =//= Observation skills.

Yeah. One of my best friends is very smart in an academic point of view, but he sure is an idiot a lot of the time.

Originally Posted by Darkus Triforce

oh... for a genius that will be taking 10th grade math in 8th grade next year, i sure am an idiot.

Math skills =//= Observation skills.

Originally Posted by King KK

Did you read the website for PETV? It has sarcasm written all over it.

EDIT:

Yeah. One of my best friends is very smart in an academic point of view, but he sure is an idiot a lot of the time.

I read it. I thought they were being serious, like Peta.

Originally Posted by wolfen

Real math skills =//= Math skills as you say on the internet.

Fixed.

Ugh.

At no point did PeTA condemn President Obama for killing the fly - nor have they made a great song and dance about the issue.

PeTA was contacted by members of the press on their stance on killing insects in response to this incident, and they offered their opinion. If you read their official blog, then you'll see that they have taken the situation with good humour, and actually make light of the fact that anybody would contact them for an official statement over something so trivial.

Again, they didn't condemn anybody. Their official line was that everybody thinks without acting from time to time, although if we did spend a little more time thinking about our actions then we might pursue more humane methods to deal with pests. This is central to all of PeTA's policies.

Just today another post was made on the PeTA blog commenting on how silly it is that the media are blowing the statement out of proportion - when it was them who asked for it in the first place!

Originally Posted by Link

I love how I learned this as I was eating a McDonalds Ranch Chicken Snack Wrap...

I love you you're completely unaware that it's thanks to PeTA's McCruelty campaign that the chicken you've just eaten didn't have its beak cut off when it was still alive.

Also, thanks to PeTA, the chicken that you ate lived in a larger cage than McDonald's would prefer them to, which ensures that you have a greater quality of meat. If McDonald's had their way, then the meat that they serve up would be coming from animals who had no mobility and were forced to spend their lives living in their own ****.

Mmm - I'm lovin' it!

It was PeTA who exposed McDonald's horrific methods of slaughtering the birds that they sell. In Ronald McDonald's kitchen, chickens were hung from their feet from shackles, trundled down a conveyor belt where they have their throats cut before finally being dunked into boiling water. This all takes place while the bird is fully conscious.

PeTA didn't suggest that McDonald's sell solely vegan products by the way - although that's obviously what they'd prefer. Instead they made the perfectly reasonable request that McDonald's take up the methods favoured in Europe whereby the animals are gassed - which doesn't only reduce the suffering that the animal has to endure, but also has benefits to the consumer.

But uh-oh - looks like McDonald's are at it again!

Grimace and the Ham Burglar don't do guided tours of their slaughterhouses, and they really don't care about how they obtain their meat or what quality it arrives in their restaurants in.

EDIT: And the Ben and Jerry's thing was supposed to be a joke.

This may shock some, but PeTA also don't believe that Hairy-Kate and Trashley Trollson live under bridges.

Originally Posted by Vega

Ugh.

At no point did PeTA condemn President Obama for killing the fly - nor have they made a great song and dance about the issue.

PeTA was contacted by members of the press on their stance on killing insects in response to this incident, and they offered their opinion. If you read their official blog, then you'll see that they have taken the situation with good humour, and actually make light of the fact that anybody would contact them for an official statement over something so trivial.

Again, they didn't condemn anybody. Their official line was that everybody thinks without acting from time to time, although if we did spend a little more time thinking about our actions then we might pursue more humane methods to deal with pests. This is central to all of PeTA's policies.

Just today another post was made on the PeTA blog commenting on how silly it is that the media are blowing the statement out of proportion - when it was them who asked for it in the first place!



I love you you're completely unaware that it's thanks to PeTA's McCruelty campaign that the chicken you've just eaten didn't have its beak cut off when it was still alive.

Also, thanks to PeTA, the chicken that you ate lived in a larger cage than McDonald's would prefer them to, which ensures that you have a greater quality of meat. If McDonald's had their way, then the meat that they serve up would be coming from animals who had no mobility and were forced to spend their lives living in their own ****.

Mmm - I'm lovin' it!

It was PeTA who exposed McDonald's horrific methods of slaughtering the birds that they sell. In Ronald McDonald's kitchen, chickens were hung from their feet from shackles, trundled down a conveyor belt where they have their throats cut before finally being dunked into boiling water. This all takes place while the bird is fully conscious.

PeTA didn't suggest that McDonald's sell solely vegan products by the way - although that's obviously what they'd prefer. Instead they made the perfectly reasonable request that McDonald's take up the methods favoured in Europe whereby the animals are gassed - which doesn't only reduce the suffering that the animal has to endure, but also has benefits to the consumer.

But uh-oh - looks like McDonald's are at it again!

Grimace and the Ham Burglar don't do guided tours of their slaughterhouses, and they really don't care about how they obtain their meat or what quality it arrives in their restaurants in.

Please explain to me why I should take seriosuly a group that protest using pestacides on grasshoppers who eat peoples crops, and then turns around and go against no kill dog shelters. I'm a little puzzled on that. Until you get that whole hypocrasy streak ironed out, I'll stick with the ASPCA.

And please explain why eating something that has ingested toxic gas is good for the consumer.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103888/
Totally relevant.

That was frickin hilarious.

I don't have time to comment on PeTA's stance on no-kill shelters, although you can always check their official website for more information.

As for why controlled-atmosphere killing is so much better than the methods favoured by the likes of KFC, I'll just copy-paste from one of PeTA's reports on the issue:

Electric immobilization lowers product quality and yield:
• Birds suffer broken bones, bruising, and hemorrhaging when they are dumped and shackled. This lowers product quality and yield.
• During dumping, birds often scramble to reach the top of the pile, and in the process, sink their claws into the birds around them. Because the birds have been living in their own feces, when a bird’s claw penetrates another bird, it contaminates the flesh.
• The electric water baths contain pathogens that birds breathe in, thereby further contaminating them.
• Because the voltage level of stun baths in the United States is kept at only a fraction the level necessary to render birds insensible to pain—and because many birds miss the throat-slitting machine due to flapping and rapid line speeds—birds often enter the scalding tank while still alive. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that 3.7 million birds were scalded to death in defeathering tanks in 2002 alone. When this happens, birds may defecate in tanks, further increasing contamination. Those birds who are scalded to death are condemned—their meat can’t be sold—which further decreases yield.

CAK increases product quality and yield:
• Because birds are dead by the time they are shackled (and because there is no dumping at all), product quality and yield are improved by eliminating broken bones, bruising, and hemorrhaging.
• CAK would nearly eliminate contamination because birds would be killed in their transport containers rather than being dumped and would, therefore, not be scratching at each other and would be unable to inhale in the stun bath or defecate in the scald
tank. This has significant benefits for producers since, according to the USDA, in 2002, almost 5.5 million chickens were condemned for being contaminated.
• Using inert gases induces anoxia on the cellular level in carcass muscles, which can change the oxidation/reduction potentials and, thus, lead to increased shelf-life of meat due to a slowing the development of odors and discoloration.
• The Canadian Food Inspection Agency states that controlled-atmosphere killing “is also reported to produce more tender breast meat than when electrical [immobilization] is used.”

All of this information is freely available online.

Originally Posted by Vega

I don't have time to comment on PeTA's stance on no-kill shelters, although you can always check their official website for more information.

Your right, fabricating an answer that doesn't portray PETA in a bad light would be time consuming.

Look, I'm sure PETA has good intentions, but they are just way too crazy. I support going against animal cruelty, but the methods they use are too extream. To thier credit they haven't gone as far as the Animal Liberation Front yet. However, if they want to get thier point across there are much better ways to do it than running around dumping buckets of cow blood on people.