Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Rteacher]

Yeah, you can have the tails half-hanging out of their mouths as part of an ad campaign rivalling the old milk-mustache commercials ... (Got Iguana?)

Here's an old milk ad pic (with Vanessa Williams):
http://www.tias.com/3943/PictPage/1440215.html - but it now costs $10.97 ...

[The Bobster]

[Bramble]

This article may be of interest to some of you:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070912/hl_afp/healthclimatefarm_070912231442

[Big_Bird]

[Hollywoodaction]

[Rteacher]

The point is that violence should be minimalized. Everyone should have the right to die naturally without being unnecessarily killed. There is plenty of vegetarian food and milk products that can keep us healthy without having to kill millions of animals daily (many of which are abused...)

Of course, besides the meat industry, real estate developers have done a lot to destroy natural habitats and wipe out species...

We can be at the top of the food chain and still have the good human quality of being merciful to others (even to dumb animals...)

[Alinca]

[Fishead soup]

[re:cursive]

Personally, the only way I can see the quote from PETA having any real validity is if the definition of an "Environmentalist" is expanded to include only those people who do absolutely everything possible to minimise their personal, environmental impact on both their own ecosystems and the planet as a whole. If this is the definition...then I agree. However, I do not believe that this is the accepted definition, nor should it be. Indeed, by this definition I doubt that there would be many, if any, vegetarians or vegans, who could justifiably classify themselves as an "Environmentalist".

I don't think it can be argued that the consumption of meat in the modern world does not have a negative impact on the ecology of the planet. I am yet to hear anyone successfully argue it to be a positive. I have however heard convincing arguments for the economical and even cultural benefits of livestock farming (1.3 billion of the world's population including 1 billion of the world's poor are employed in this sector).

But, the facts are, the environmental impacts of livestock farming are staggering and anyone who chooses to not support this form of agriculture, whether it be through veganism, vegetarianism, self sufficient farming or any other method is doing something positive for the environment or, perhaps more appropriately, is at least reducing their impact.

In my opinion, anyone who does anything to help the environment should be encouraged rather than attacked. Living off the power grid, turning down or off your air-conditioner, buying energy efficient electrical items, walking or catching public transport instead of jumping in the gas guzzling car, investing in green companies and environmental research, buying locally produced and in season produce, installing rainwater tanks or recycled water systems, being conscious of which companies one chooses to support, not eating meat and the many other choices available should all be applauded. I figure it's up to every individual to decide what they are or are not willing to do. Attacking someone for doing one or some things and not another is counter productive. That said, I suspect the motive behind PETA's statement was to get a reaction and judging by the length of this thread they have succeeded.

If anyone is interested? This is a link to the UN's "Livestock�s long shadow - Environmental issues and options" cited by PETA.

click click>>>http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm

Even if you do not have the time to download and read the entire report, perhaps at least read the executive summary. It contains some interesting information.

My 10 Won's worth.

[The Bobster]

[Tony_Balony]

The last vegetarian i met was an absolute snake and a premier jack*ass.

[Bramble]

[Fishead soup]

[topas]

[Fishead soup]