It's worth taking a moment to remember that PETA, despite not being perfect, has been the victim of a smear campaign by the meat industry, so every mistake they make is amplified and every policy that isn't immediately obviously sensible is reframed to look as bad as possible. E.g. you'll often see that PETA-run dog shelters euthanise a lot more dogs than the average shelter, leaving out the context that plenty of no-kill shelters send all their sick dogs to a PETA shelter to be euthanised so they can claim not to have killed the dog, but that skews the statistics. You'll also see news reports about PETA abducting a pet dog and killing it, which leave out the fact that it's one past event being reported over and over as if it's news each time, and that it was a much more nuanced situation than most people think. A pet dog's collar fell off while it was unattended playing with a pack of strays, which animal control had been dispatched to round up, and then sent to PETA to be put down, then a series of clerical errors meant animal control told the owners they never had the dog and told PETA that the dog had already been held waiting to see if an owner claimed it, so it was already dead by the time the owners tracked down where it had really ended up.
Smear campaign or not, their marketing and social media presence is aggressive and obnoxious on purpose. It seems to be purely focused on getting as many eyes on them as possible without actually considering what those eyes will think of them after getting the desired attention.
When I think of PETA I don't think of an organization with strong moral and ethical principles, I think of an organization that made a bunch of tone-deaf video game parodies in the 2000s to try and get attention. Those are wounds that are entirely self-inflicted.
Hating one side doesn't automatically make you like the opposing side.
You can hate both PETA and the industrial meat industry. You can also laugh at memes mocking both.
At the end of the day, PETA creates misinformation and isn't on the side of good. They milk their supporters for more money and once in a while, gets a really good talking point but then botch it because of how stupid they present themselves.
PETA is the Westboro Baptist Church of the animal rights movement: Purely focused on getting eyes at them at any cost, no matter how stupid it makes them and the people associated with them look. I'll never take an organization that wasted their time yelling about how catching bugs in a video game is evil seriously. At this point, they're either willfully stupid or they've been infiltrated by the meat industry and pushed to do things that discredit them.
Wow, thank you for defending those poor vegans. Where would vegans be without you, their vanguard? With you guarding the door, they can go back to agreeing about every aspect of veganism, as is tradition.
If you are vegan and were offended by that blog post, you are a literal moron, but I appreciate you not eating animals at least.
PETA exists to kite misplaced public vitriol and industrial counter-propaganda away from the constellation of smaller animal advocacy groups who make the majority of forward progress on their shared mission. Some local vegan advocacy group with 30 members can do an outsized amount of good in their community but isn't going to survive a corporate laser targeting, however PETA can shrug off an attack like that without issue. PETA is basically the main tank of a raid group, smaller orgs are the DPS, and industrial animal agriculture (Or from my social ecology perspective, our tendency to dominate the natural world in general) is the raid boss. PETA very much wants the vitriol and isn't at all the out of touch misguided organization that they willing and strategically wear as a reputation.
To the contrary! A bumbling oafishness that sometimes makes the team look bad to outsiders is a core tank trope and a common recipe for initiating encounters. And Taunt is a cornerstone of the tank kit.
Seriously though, PETA doesn't make other vegan activists look any worse than animal ag propaganda already does. A lot of money goes into making vegans look bad.
Yea a lot of money goes in to making activists look bad ... which is exactly why it's absolutely moronic of PETA to contribute actively to the problem.
Especially when they're adding credibility to the slander.
No ad hominem please, I presume we're all adults here. I understand why PETAs strategies may seem counter-intuitive from the outside, but they're a large organization that has been finding success in their mission for decades.
I know plenty of people who didn't go vegetarian or vegan especially because peta made that choice look obnoxious and they didn't want to associate with it
It's not really that complicated a strategy for a large, well-financed team of full time activists to produce, and really it's within a genre of "leveraging propagandized outrage" shock activism seen more frequently in the past decade from larger advocacy groups. Like those incidents of people vandalizing art with soup, or pouring products on the ground in grocery stores, or painting monuments. It generates outrage, that outrage garauntees wide news coverage, that wide news coverage reaches and activates 100x or 1000x the number of fresh new activists that traditional advocacy acts might, making the media-directed vitreol of millions who will forget and move on within a week fantastically worthwhile. It basically taps into the power of existing propaganda against a movement, using it to ultimately drive interest in the movement. I forget where I was reading an interview with a Greenpeace leader, about how they simply couldn't pass on these tactics because of how effective they are, and they arrived at that conclusion not by prediction but by experience.
From what I gathered reading the interview mentioned (I'll see if I can find it) it was the statistical results they couldn't argue with. There was just as much skepticism and resistance to these tactics internally, until the results couldn't be ignored. Activists are generally concerned about likability and are not analagous to nihilistic billionaire narcissists.
Results indicated that PETA's attack message against abuses at corporate pig farms was effective in eroding the credibility of the corporate food-industry raising animals for consumption. At the same time, PETA's credibility rose overall after participants viewed the PETA attack message.
That seems to align with your argument but not with the topic. The study was focused on corporate pig farm.
The 53 participants were volunteers participating for course credit from upper division communication courses at a large public university located in an area where agribusiness interests loom large.
This is a terrible sample to base any conclusions on.
The results only give clear indication that such advocacy messages intensify already existing negative predispositions
And this indicates it is not a generally useful approach.
The study doesn't measure how long the effect lasts; outrage is fleeting.
PETA are their own smear campaign. Their own ignorance and skewing facts to push a narrative are all I needed to not trust what they or any of their supporters have to say about animals.
Isn't it great when a flawed messenger lets you ignore an inconvenient message and give no further thought to any hint of outside influence? Even better when you can label any wrong thinker as part of their group!
They aren't promoting an environmentalist message here though, but an anti-animal-cruelty message. You can agree or disagree that it's a good message, but it has nothing to do with their shitty AI ad.
It's a single AI image. The impact of generating a single image is basically nothing. I think it's a stupid post, but they should be able to post it without being denigrated about the effects of AI generated images
This is a universal thing that happens to anyone advocating for positive change even if just tangentially to the environment. Constantly told it isn't perfect enough. Greta Thunberg had her efforts constantly belittled, no matter how she did it. She spent months crossing the ocean on a boat to avoid taking a plane, but was still put on blast for it
Advocating for a more sustainable way of life shouldn't be met with a persistent, "but you're not perfect"
Secondly, there are plenty of examples of different species of animals that benefit - nay, thrive - because of climate change. Blanket statements such as yours is not helping either side.
I agree. However if you do stuff primarily for the animals, you almost always are secondarily doing things for ecology and society too, even if that isn't necessarily the intention. There are a lot of beneficial external side effects to spreading veganism.
a big fish requires smaller fish to live. something that himans eat a lot of
ai does use a lot of water, but i dont think its a driving factor that majorly affects fish. there may be places where industrial water use is "drying up" rivers, lakes, etc, but ai data centers are not likely a proportionally large part of this. most water use goes towards agriculture, and a lot of that agriculture is used for animal feed (for the animals that people eat) and creating ethanol to power cars. ai is bad, but not in a way tgat greatly affecta fish
Heads up for anybody like me who loves their yam tempura and avocado sushi, they almost always add Japanese mayonnaise to sushi, but you can ask them to make it without it and then it is vegan.
To wit, most sushi establishments have vegan options on their menus regardless of intent to accommodate. I had a delicious fully vegan sushi meal on my vacation just a few months ago.
Are we sure that's AI and not just AI paranoia caused by a decent photoshop job? Cause it looks like a shop to me (Because of the pixels, and having seen quite a few shops in my time)
Also keep shitting on PETA, the aegis and vanguard of an ethical and ecological movement, you certainly won't ever regret doing that.
they are very easy to hate and there's a lot of misinformation about them online. I used to hate them too before going vegan and I still don't agree with some of their activism
The tear I chalked up to just weird preferences, but yeah now that I'm focusing on it the hand in the back behind the fish doesn't make much sense, that's not how I'd hold something I'm cutting.
I'm pretty sure that's because the hand is holding onto the rest of the sushi roll, not the fish. It's at least two images photoshopped together, one of a person cutting a sushi roll and one of a fish, with a weird tear added onto it
Yeah the closer the sushi got to the salmon the more the AI confused it as part of the fish to the point that the closest roll has spots on the wrap that match the fish lol
I don't think that was "confused". I think it was the point of the image. Trying to create an association between the fish in sushi and the live fish it comes from (even though that doesn't look like a salmon)
It does seem easy enough to whip together in photoshop, and partially I'd guess that's what happened because of the way the fish casts zero shadow on the hand behind it and the way the salmon skin is layered over one sushi piece and no others, but perhaps it's simply become easier for companies to use GenAI for even simple photoshop tasks.
The salmon look like a picture of a salmon trophy that's been cut out with a pen tool selection without a feather.
The animal industry uses up a hell of a lot more water than AI. And the water usage from AI mostly comes from the efforts to produce that electricity which in this case typically means fossil fuels. These issues would be solved if we were just using renewable energy sources.
A farmed salmon would use / pollute orders of magnitude more water then an ai image. Even if peta was willing to buy salmon there wouldve been way more resources used to create this in real life then via ai. Just the rice in the sushi would've required more water to grow and then prepare compared to the AI image.
If that human is being paid a fair wage to do it I don't see the problem. I also don't see how paying a single artist is going to "keep capitalism viable for an extra year". Sounds like you just want artists to starve so you can have some AI vomit pixels at you and call it art.
Estimates for how much an AI image costs in water varies widely, estimates from 0.4 liters to 50 liters with the median I'm seeing at about a 1-5 liters. Even taking the 50 liter estimate which we can assume includes training and electricity generation to get a number that high that is far below a serving of rice which costs 276 liters.
Except agriculture puts food on the table, and ai data centers just spits out soulless art and tells people to kill themselves. I would not consider them to be comparable.Â
We produce food in such a vast excess compared to what we need that we feed most of it to animals so we can have beef instead despite being vastly less efficient.
And I support degrowth. I do not see how this helps you. I never said we don't have an excess, I just said we need agriculture and we dont need ai data centers.
Yeah, a process required to make food and a process to make an image that could have easily been done by an artist or simply pulled from one of the countless sites full of existing free images, are totally comparable.
How much energy would have been taken in the time it takes you to draw a poster on a computer?
I would actually be interested in the comparison, how long is a typical model trained for and how much is it used. The actual generation usage is typically a few seconds of a normal gaming PC. Training is more, but its then used by many.
PETA is weird because they're not so much "pro animal rights" or "pro eco friendly" as they are "anti domesticated animals" including pets.
As a result a lot of their messaging is desperate propaganda, like spreading the pseudoscience that milk causes autism, or trying to imply that shearing sheep for wool hurts them somehow.
They've also done some pretty evil things because they believe animals are better off dead than domesticated.
They aren't against the concept of having pets themselves they just don't like that pets are specifically bred for domestication when millions of pets are put down in shelters because they couldn't find homes.
And sheep do get hurt being shared because the industry focuses on the end result of as many fleeces as fast as possible rather than the well being of the animals not to mention the fact they have to be shared or else they overheat because we bred them into wool producing machines.
Peta very much are what they say they are. There's just a lot of smear campaigns at them because "haha these crazy vegoons say they're against animal cruelty but they actually kill heaps of animals themselves" is a narrative that drives engagement.
The problem we have here is that PETA has started vicious campaigns and said things that were either untrue or misleading, then pulled them down and posted whitewashed versions on their website.
You're posting their current outward-facing propaganda. And at the moment, their messages are marginally OK. Still a little too far on the gross just to make a point. However, those messages evolve, and their activism evolves. All too often they cross lines, they pull back like it never happened.
They find some bad actors in the wool industry and rightfully go after them, then turn around and say it's all that way.
I did volunteer dog transport for a while, moving animals out of one of their kill shelters to non-kill shelters in other states. Volunteers set up relays to move the dogs, sometimes hundreds of miles away, to save their lives.
It's one of the fundamental problems with PETA, people don't trust their campaigns. They put out a bunch of real information, good causes, then release some false or misleading data, everyone gets stirred up, you go a look into it and the hot button stuff ends up falling apart. The gross stuff doesn't shock people into action; it makes them wary of the organization. Maybe it gains them a few activists, but they could be so much more effective if they played it all straight.
It's hurt their image to the point that it's not just that people don't care, but they don't trust what they have to say.
Back in my 20's I looked into them, actually considered supporting them. I was thinking they couldn't possibly be doing the things people accused them of. Just digging for a while, I couldn't bring myself to support them. There are numerous issues that could be brought to light. Plenty of winnable fights for good causes, * instead the pick Anti-pets, autism milk, trying to take down the entire wool industry like every sheep out there is getting eviscerated. They're absolutely tone deaf to the non-PETA population to the point of being unsavory.
Print stickers of caged chickens and put them on eggs, put dairy farm images on milk cartons. put up booths outside supermarkets with impossible burger sliders. Ohh wait, yeah, they won't support plant based burgers either.
And honestly, that's not even scratching the issue of uncontrolled extremists doing things in their name.
Your first link is some guy's website misrepresenting what peta's actual stance on pets is. I already linked to peta's website why they explain the problem is with manufacturing pets. Because there is such a demand for cute pets there's an incentive to produce as many as possible and that leds to puppy mills where animals are forced into baby producing factories all while stray dogs get put down because they can't find a home. They explain this on their website which I linked in the previous comment.
Peta doesn't have a problem with the concept of having a pet, the problem is how such a reality exists. If people have a demand for pets then that means there needs to be a supply for pets. This is what that quote about the vice president meant. She simply doesn't envision a world where pets can be manufactured in any ethical way. I do but I also don't care if she thinks that because what she and peta stand for is treating animals ethically and that's a good thing.
PETA started a campaign that Milk causes autism based on a couple of week studies, which they've since removed from the record
I can't look at the campaign anymore because they've removed it but I found this article which had quotes from their website where it shows they mentioned that more research was needed and that one of the studies only had like 20 kids in it. Of course the media ran with headlines like "Oh peta said milk causes autism!" When they didn't. They used the autism panic at the time and the "got milk" ad which existed to create a narrative that milk was a necessary part of a healthy diet to shift to a discussion about why we think milk is needed for a healthy lifestyle when the milk industry pumps cows full of hormones and shit that wind up in milk, not to mention the fact that cow milk is obviously for cows whereas human milk is for humans. Milk serves a role in mammals to quickly grow their offspring and yet humans don't just continue drinking milk but we also drink milk from other animals. They go over all this on their website: https://www.peta.org/features/peta-ad-cows-dairy-products-disease/
I do take issue with how they framed autism with a frowny face as that normalises the notion that autism is a bad thing and I'm glad it's been taken down. But at the end of the day peta is a charty for treating animals ethically. The way our society treats animals is so evil that holocaust survivors, the event we treat as the ultimate evil, draw parallels to it. There is such an urgency to put an end to this cruelty that I honestly don't give a fuck if such a charity employs the "any publicity is good publicity" method which sometimes results in campaigns that look too goofy or sometimes go a bit to far.
They arenât against the concept of having pets themselves they just donât like that pets are specifically bred for domestication when millions of pets are put down in shelters because they couldnât find homes.
...and yet PETA shelters have higher kill rates than many/most others.
It's an out of context stat. They run a kill shelter of last resort. It saves hundreds of animals a year who would be killed otherwise, but as it's a last resort, as one would expect it has a higher kill rate than the other shelters they transfer failed adoptees from.
It's shocking how many people parrot the decontextualized fact without ever looking up it's context, which is readily available. Like a half dozen times in this thread alone.
This is yet another example of anti-peta misinformation.
Peta has high kill rates in their shelters because they have a no turn away policy. They will take any animal into their shelter and unfortunately many animals typically the older less cute ones are harder to find homes for and rather than keep them locked up in cages for the rest of their lives they settle for the less cruel option which is putting down the animals that aren't going to find a loving home.
No-kill shelters have a trick up their sleeve where they look good on paper but in reality they turn away animals that aren't likely to be adopted or even send animals that aren't likely to get adopted to peta where they are then put down. In other words peta aren't uniquely evil and bad at their job, the system funnels more animals into their hands because the alternative is leaving animals on the streets or locked up in cages for the rest of their lives.
A stat divorced from it's context in order to make a benefit look like a failure certainly feels like misinformation. It definitely results in misinformed people.
Everyone here salivating over the easy opportunity to ridicule peta is no different than right wing nut jobs celebrating attacks on migrants. Its orchestrated hate to distract you from the real issues. Ffs wake up.
I mean honestly the real issue is that there are no salmon that we can easily slice into sushi rolls like this. Come on scientists and do your fucking job.
Juxtaposing cattle trains with the Holocaust was all I needed to dismiss this organisation as chronically unserious. They're the equivalent of those antiabortion activists who think showing disturbing gory photos of medical procedures is a moral argument against said procedures.
The thing that made me question my meat-eating was not images of slaughterhouses, battery farms or being harangued by tone deaf social media posts that scold me as immoral. It was watching animals playing and showing affection for each other and for other species. Gifs of cows playing with a ball, a lamb begging for pets from a human, chickens recognising their human friend and running up to them for a hug, a cat and a crow being pals; that's the kinda shit that changes hearts and minds. PETA's tone and behaviour makes animal rights activism look like an emotional outlet for narcissists who don't actually have any expectation that they'll achieve anything, but just enjoy the recreational self-righteous hectoring.
Isn't that what this post is trying to do? It's not using gory or disgusting pictures of salmon farms, the sushi even looks appetizing. It's humanizing the animal and talking about the joys a salmon was supposed to have before it was caught and served up to you.
A lot of the modern peta campaign is more in the vain your talking about. The ones I've seen recently are ads in the metro saying "I'm me not meat" with pictures of crabs and other animals looking cute
I think the fear of death or the tearful misery of being chopped in half are pretty humanizing. After all, I am human, and I don't like being chopped in half.
Oh boy if comparisons of our treatment of animals to the way we treated victims of the holocaust upset you then wait until you hear about the first guy to do it. Let's just say he had some first hand experience...
he wasn't the first. the Nazis themselves modeled the Holocaust partially on animal agriculture. but that's part of why the Holocaust was wrong: it treated people like they were animals.
Yeah, PETA's propaganda is so focused on showing the horror side and gross out shit that they forget to show why we should be grossed out or horrified in the first place. If someone showed me a pumpkin getting dissected, I am not going to care how "violent" or "gory" it is unless you give me reason to empathize with it. We have alienated people from their food so much, I think people forget that animals are more than food. And secondly, I believe there goals (veganism) are unsustainable, privileged, and unhealthy.
I am not a vegan or vegetarian, despite believing harming living things is ethically wrong. This is because I do believe humans need meat to survive. There are certain nutrients from meat that we simply need, and those nutrients are far too difficult to get without meat. There are just sometimes things that are unethical that we have to do anyways. Sometimes there simply is no ethical choice. That is not to say you shouldn't strive to make those things as ethical as possible though! We can make meat consumption more ethical, and we should.
I just do not think getting rid of meat from our diet is possible, at least not without some serious innovation in science and our economy. You would need to be able to supply the world's population with suppliments for every nutrient, vitamin, etc that non-meat food sources struggle to supply in any meaningful way.Â
All key nutrients can be covered without meat. Proteins, iron, calcium and healthy fats are abundant in plants: beans, lentils, nuts, soy and whole grains supply ample proteinhealth.harvard.edu (even vegans meet protein needs by eating diverse plant foods). Iron can be obtained from legumes and greens (with vitamin C-rich foods to boost absorption), and calcium from leafy greens or fortified plant milks. Omega-3 fats (ALA) are in flaxseed and walnuts, and algal or fortified foods can provide EPA/DHA if needed. Vitamin Bââ is the one nutrient not found in plant foods naturally, but health experts point out that vegans simply use fortified foods or a low-cost Bââ supplement to meet the requirement. With these adjustments (which many omnivores also make, e.g. vitaminâŻD or fish-oil supplements), a plant-based diet easily meets nutritional needs at any age.
One, as you said it require properly planned meals, which you seem to understate the actual difficulty of that. I can tell you right now, I would have a bitch of a time factoring that level of meal planning into my life. Secondly, while supplements are something you can do, it is not accessible to everyone. Thirdly, allergies complicate things as well, furthering the need for suppliments.
Vitamin b12 deficiency is quite prevalent in both those in a low socioeconomic status, but also vegans and vegetarian. So clearly this is an issue facing vegans despite supplements. Likely due to supplements not being as accessible as you are letting on. Supplements would especially be more inaccessible if everyone became vegan or vegetarian. Hence why I said veganism and vegetarianism require serious scientific and logistical innovation to make possible.
I am also not too keen on centralizing more power to pharma companies. Do we seriously want to take autonomy away from poor regions as they become even more dependent on major pharma companies in the first world so they can get their daily b12 and other vitamins cause of the ethics of meat consumption?
I also genuinely do believe if any ethical issues with harming animals can be extended to plants and fungi. They are able to sense, communicate, and think. Just in very different ways than animals. Fungi particularly are fascinating regarding this. I do not think just because they exhibit that differently means they're life should be ignored.
You also need to realize we domesticated a bunch of animals, and we would need to decide what to do with thwm. You just gonna release all those animals in the wild? Animals that have become entirely reliant on humans to survive. Or do we kill every one of them? Either way we are sentencing them to death.
And so I say again, just because something is unethical, doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't do it. And just because you can do it, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it in the most ethical way you can. If you are able to live as a vegetarian, or even vegan, go ahead. I encourage it. But I do not think it is reasonable or realistic to expect it to become a world standard. Lets take it one battle at a time and work to make the harm we do as ethical as we can realistically do now.
I think you overestimate the difficulty of it, especially for vegetarianism where you can get all you need from eggs and dairy. Anecdotally I have been vegetarian for 2 years and have never taken supplements and am very healthy, just ran a half marathon in 1:40 which wouldn't be possible if I was anemic from b12 deficiency. An even larger example is the hundreds of millions of Indians who are vegetarians and have been for millennia, long before supplements existed.
You also underestimate the difficulty in a meat based diet. Every diet requires planning and intentionality to make it healthy. Meat based diets require you to pay far more attention to the amount of fiber you're getting. Because of this many people who eat meat are not getting enough fiber, 95% of Americans, which leads to intestinal issues and cancers, which is why vegetarians tend to have better health outcomes as noted above since their main source of protein, legumes, are also high in fiber.
As for the efficiency and accessibility it takes far less resources to make b12 with bacteria then with cows/chickens. It wouldn't take any logistical or scientific innovation to do it either, we know how to make it with bacteria, and it is far more shelf stable and transportable than meat. In general meat production is extremely wasteful and destructive putting aside the ethical arguments. Cows are one of the top sources of greenhouse gases and the demand for them is causing vast tracts of the Amazon to be burned to create new pasture land. If you ask any environmentalist worth there salt what's the best thing you can do for the planet they'll say eat less/no meat and drive less/not at all.
How is big pharma less trustworthy than big agriculture? The meat industry is extremely consolidated. Also b12 isn't patented and the methods to produce it are widely available, there's no reason it could only be produced in the first world.
For the ethical argument it is valid and depends on your own ethics / philosophy of whether plants / fungi suffer and feel pain. Either way though eating meat is still worse because cows , chickens etc. eat plants to produce meat. Due to trophic loss they consume far more calories and nutrients from plants then they produce in meat, thus killing more plants then is necessary to feed a human. If you want to minimize plant suffering then you should be vegan.
For the existing cows, I'm not advocating for, nor entertaining the absurd idea of outlawing meat eating tomorrow and having to deal with current stock. The cows that are already here are for the most part already doomed to a life of suffering, the best we can do is stop breeding them so we don't bring more suffering into the world. The best way to stop that from happening is lowering meat consumption which will cause meat producers to stop breeding to deal with the lower demand.
It presumably would've happened in ancient India as vegetarianism started catching on and cows became sacred.
Even if it didn't, we've never reduced our fossil fuel consumption on a global scale either, that doesn't mean it's impossible or that it isn't something we should / have to do.
You make good points, and I overall agree with you. Although I don't believe we need to stop farming animals . I think we can continue farming them for stuff like eggs, milk, wool, etc and do it in ethical ways. What are your thoughts of meat from end of life animals?
I agree that continuing to farm animals ethically solely for the excess products they produce is an achievable, sustainable and ethical goal we should strive for.
If the meat would be wasted anyway then it's fine to eat. Better us eat it then the maggots. The goal shouldn't be to just stop people from eating meat, it should be to reduce the amount of animals being bred to serve our taste. If a farmer can only sell the meat after the animal has lived a long life, eating a lot of food that they have to provide, they'll be less likely to breed them as it wouldn't be profitable.
I actually stopped taking B12 supplements, because there was already enough in my food that the supplement was an overload, and so I was getting acne breakouts.
Cattle are also given B12 supplements, because pasture land gets depleted of cobalt after enough grazing. Meat eaters usually get their B12 second hand from a cow pill. I get most of mine from nutritional yeast (Great savory stand in for dry cheeses like parmesan).
Calcium is actually the biggest concern for me, because most meat eaters get their calcium from calcium-fortified non-vegan foods. So that's the one and only supplement pill I take that most meat eaters wouldn't.
a 2025 position paper from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
updated from all previous versions to no longer discuss infants, or women who are pregnant or nursing. but the paper does go on to detail all the risks of a vegan diet.
You can get vitamin a from carotene which is common in a lot of foods, notably carrots. Even if it wasn't , same with b12, this is the 21st century, we can synthesize any vitamin , either chemically or with bacteria, without harming animals.
No but a vast majority of people can, so vitamin a deficiency is not a concern for the millions of people living healthily on plant based diets. And again for those that aren't able to synthesize it they can take synthesized retinol supplements without needing to eat meat.
but, to be clear, plants don't have vitamin a, so your claim that the only nutrient they don't have is B12 is wrong. and you seem to know it was incorrect, meaning you lied.
I didn't lie, all the articles I read and my understanding when I posted the first comment was that b12 was the only vitamin you can't get from a plant based diet. Most of the articles don't mention vitamin a because the precursor is common and it is not a concern for the great majority of people on plant based diets. Your comment made me research further to discover that carotene is technically just a precursor.
Your resorting to pedentry to avoid trying to refute the fact that most dietary experts agree that a plant based diet can be just as healthy, if not more so then a diet with meat.
There is in fact a whole array of vitamins and nutrients that are not produced by plants or animals but rather by the microbes living in or around those plants and animals.
Vegan Bullshit Bingo #22:
If you really care that much about the welfare of plants, you should go vegan, since many more plants "die" for animal feeding.
Do you feel bad while mowing your lawn? And would you rather rescue a potted plant than a dog from a burning house? Is docking pig tails the same as branch trimming to you? Question upon question...
well, it takes a ton of plant foods to sustain animal agriculture.
if you're concerned about plant sentience, you should be vegan, so you can live a healthy life harming as few beings as possible.
At that point you have a shit sandwich for sure. I think we either make the choice to slaughter veggies, like we do now with animals we KNOW experience pain, but with who we have much more in common.
Or come up with an alternative source of sustenance.
True! I forgot about that part - although they also have rules about how the cows should be treated, so in the US they would definitely not consume our dairy.
Humane standards for? Beef? Dairy? Poultry? Maybe some places in Europe, but certainly not in the States where factory farming is rampant and consumption is maximal. Chickens live in darkness their whole lives, stuffed in a box with diseased, dead birds. Pumped full of hormones to the point their legs can't support the weight of their unnaturally bloated body. Cows stand to their shoulders in mud and excrement without room to move or even breathe. Dairy cows are repeatedly impregnated and their calves torn away immediately on a constant loop.
I know farmers in real life. I have relatives that work in meat packing and slaughterhouses. I welcome you to view what it looks like to kill an animal. "Humane" doesn't mean they aren't screaming in fear until they die, dragged to a death they know is coming after a life of squalor. They're still being raised for the slaughter.
172 Comments
AnyOldName3@lemmy.world · 137 pts · 230d
It's worth taking a moment to remember that PETA, despite not being perfect, has been the victim of a smear campaign by the meat industry, so every mistake they make is amplified and every policy that isn't immediately obviously sensible is reframed to look as bad as possible. E.g. you'll often see that PETA-run dog shelters euthanise a lot more dogs than the average shelter, leaving out the context that plenty of no-kill shelters send all their sick dogs to a PETA shelter to be euthanised so they can claim not to have killed the dog, but that skews the statistics. You'll also see news reports about PETA abducting a pet dog and killing it, which leave out the fact that it's one past event being reported over and over as if it's news each time, and that it was a much more nuanced situation than most people think. A pet dog's collar fell off while it was unattended playing with a pack of strays, which animal control had been dispatched to round up, and then sent to PETA to be put down, then a series of clerical errors meant animal control told the owners they never had the dog and told PETA that the dog had already been held waiting to see if an owner claimed it, so it was already dead by the time the owners tracked down where it had really ended up.
darkevilmac@lemmy.zip · 116 pts · 230d
Smear campaign or not, their marketing and social media presence is aggressive and obnoxious on purpose. It seems to be purely focused on getting as many eyes on them as possible without actually considering what those eyes will think of them after getting the desired attention.
When I think of PETA I don't think of an organization with strong moral and ethical principles, I think of an organization that made a bunch of tone-deaf video game parodies in the 2000s to try and get attention. Those are wounds that are entirely self-inflicted.
BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 230d
i played all those awful peta games as a kid, they would show all the gross shit in slaughterhouses and stuff
didnt change my eating habits one bit
Teppichbrand@feddit.org · 25 pts · 230d
Woah, we got a badass over here!
BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 230d
thanks đŞđđ¤ł
alx@piefed.blahaj.zone · 0 pts · 230d
That⌠wasnât a compliment.
BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 230d
it was and i thank you for it
VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 67 pts · 230d
Hating one side doesn't automatically make you like the opposing side.
You can hate both PETA and the industrial meat industry. You can also laugh at memes mocking both.
At the end of the day, PETA creates misinformation and isn't on the side of good. They milk their supporters for more money and once in a while, gets a really good talking point but then botch it because of how stupid they present themselves.
HonorableScythe@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 230d
PETA is the Westboro Baptist Church of the animal rights movement: Purely focused on getting eyes at them at any cost, no matter how stupid it makes them and the people associated with them look. I'll never take an organization that wasted their time yelling about how catching bugs in a video game is evil seriously. At this point, they're either willfully stupid or they've been infiltrated by the meat industry and pushed to do things that discredit them.
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 229d
They didnt say it was evil, they posted a vegan's guide to playing animal crossing. This is for vegans, and doesnt apply to non-vegans.
Here's the blog post which I'm sure you never actually read:
https://www.peta.org/features/animal-crossing-new-horizons-vegan/
HonorableScythe@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 227d
"Vegans have to play video games differently and treat virtual insects like people"
Please go touch the grass you want to eat so badly.
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 227d
Wow, thank you for defending those poor vegans. Where would vegans be without you, their vanguard? With you guarding the door, they can go back to agreeing about every aspect of veganism, as is tradition.
If you are vegan and were offended by that blog post, you are a literal moron, but I appreciate you not eating animals at least.
HonorableScythe@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 224d
This is one of many reasons why people hate vegans. You're not doing yourself any favors.
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 224d
You hate vegans because of you, not because of me. Nice try though.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 14 pts · 230d
PETA exists to kite misplaced public vitriol and industrial counter-propaganda away from the constellation of smaller animal advocacy groups who make the majority of forward progress on their shared mission. Some local vegan advocacy group with 30 members can do an outsized amount of good in their community but isn't going to survive a corporate laser targeting, however PETA can shrug off an attack like that without issue. PETA is basically the main tank of a raid group, smaller orgs are the DPS, and industrial animal agriculture (Or from my social ecology perspective, our tendency to dominate the natural world in general) is the raid boss. PETA very much wants the vitriol and isn't at all the out of touch misguided organization that they willing and strategically wear as a reputation.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 12 pts · 230d
Except tanks don't go around making adventurers look bad.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 8 pts · 230d
To the contrary! A bumbling oafishness that sometimes makes the team look bad to outsiders is a core tank trope and a common recipe for initiating encounters. And Taunt is a cornerstone of the tank kit.
Seriously though, PETA doesn't make other vegan activists look any worse than animal ag propaganda already does. A lot of money goes into making vegans look bad.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 12 pts · 230d
Yea a lot of money goes in to making activists look bad ... which is exactly why it's absolutely moronic of PETA to contribute actively to the problem.
Especially when they're adding credibility to the slander.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · -4 pts · 230d
And yet, it's a strategy that has worked for decades.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 4 pts · 230d
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 230d
No ad hominem please, I presume we're all adults here. I understand why PETAs strategies may seem counter-intuitive from the outside, but they're a large organization that has been finding success in their mission for decades.
SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 230d
I know plenty of people who didn't go vegetarian or vegan especially because peta made that choice look obnoxious and they didn't want to associate with it
Peta is doing more harm than good
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 229d
How many people? Tell me all the details about each of them.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 228d
This has serious 4d chess vibes to it.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 228d
It's not really that complicated a strategy for a large, well-financed team of full time activists to produce, and really it's within a genre of "leveraging propagandized outrage" shock activism seen more frequently in the past decade from larger advocacy groups. Like those incidents of people vandalizing art with soup, or pouring products on the ground in grocery stores, or painting monuments. It generates outrage, that outrage garauntees wide news coverage, that wide news coverage reaches and activates 100x or 1000x the number of fresh new activists that traditional advocacy acts might, making the media-directed vitreol of millions who will forget and move on within a week fantastically worthwhile. It basically taps into the power of existing propaganda against a movement, using it to ultimately drive interest in the movement. I forget where I was reading an interview with a Greenpeace leader, about how they simply couldn't pass on these tactics because of how effective they are, and they arrived at that conclusion not by prediction but by experience.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 228d
Sure. Anyone who is aligned with the mission will perceive this as an expert move. Similarly, Trump or Musk supporters do the same. Hence, 4D chess.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 228d
From what I gathered reading the interview mentioned (I'll see if I can find it) it was the statistical results they couldn't argue with. There was just as much skepticism and resistance to these tactics internally, until the results couldn't be ignored. Activists are generally concerned about likability and are not analagous to nihilistic billionaire narcissists.
edit - This article by a disruptive politics researcher isn't the interview I'm looking for but it illustrates my ideas here better than I have.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 228d
Are you referring to The credibility of shock advocacy: Animal rights attack messages
That seems to align with your argument but not with the topic. The study was focused on corporate pig farm.
This is a terrible sample to base any conclusions on.
And this indicates it is not a generally useful approach.
The study doesn't measure how long the effect lasts; outrage is fleeting.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 228d
No, but I edited my previous comment to link to an article that's close to what I've been trying to explain.
Glytch@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 229d
PETA are their own smear campaign. Their own ignorance and skewing facts to push a narrative are all I needed to not trust what they or any of their supporters have to say about animals.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 1 pts · 228d
Isn't it great when a flawed messenger lets you ignore an inconvenient message and give no further thought to any hint of outside influence? Even better when you can label any wrong thinker as part of their group!
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 229d
I'm sure you will be ready with a handful of examples of skewed facts. Super sure.
ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml · 79 pts · 230d
They aren't promoting an environmentalist message here though, but an anti-animal-cruelty message. You can agree or disagree that it's a good message, but it has nothing to do with their shitty AI ad.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 17 pts · 230d
Animals aren't as good as humans at surviving climate change, so caring about one should include caring about the other...
Taldan@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 229d
It's a single AI image. The impact of generating a single image is basically nothing. I think it's a stupid post, but they should be able to post it without being denigrated about the effects of AI generated images
This is a universal thing that happens to anyone advocating for positive change even if just tangentially to the environment. Constantly told it isn't perfect enough. Greta Thunberg had her efforts constantly belittled, no matter how she did it. She spent months crossing the ocean on a boat to avoid taking a plane, but was still put on blast for it
Advocating for a more sustainable way of life shouldn't be met with a persistent, "but you're not perfect"
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 228d
That's generous of you to give this specific organization a pass on this but that's your personal choice.
Your ability to justify it is part of why everyone else thinks peta is a joke. It's so dogmatic it's become a religion.
Johandea@feddit.nu · -3 pts · 230d
Firstly, human beings are animals.
Secondly, there are plenty of examples of different species of animals that benefit - nay, thrive - because of climate change. Blanket statements such as yours is not helping either side.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 1 pts · 230d
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 230d
I agree. However if you do stuff primarily for the animals, you almost always are secondarily doing things for ecology and society too, even if that isn't necessarily the intention. There are a lot of beneficial external side effects to spreading veganism.
zaph@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 230d
The animal they're asking us not to eat requires water to live. Something ai uses a lot of.
Lux@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 230d
a big fish requires smaller fish to live. something that himans eat a lot of
ai does use a lot of water, but i dont think its a driving factor that majorly affects fish. there may be places where industrial water use is "drying up" rivers, lakes, etc, but ai data centers are not likely a proportionally large part of this. most water use goes towards agriculture, and a lot of that agriculture is used for animal feed (for the animals that people eat) and creating ethanol to power cars. ai is bad, but not in a way tgat greatly affecta fish
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 230d
Sushi is generally salt water fish. AI uses fresh water.
justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io · 61 pts · 230d
Pretty sure that's a trout, not a salmon.
A freshwater fish that will never see a kelp forest. Because those only exist in salt water.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 31 pts · 230d
And trout are not full of rice
TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 32 pts · 230d
Wow, good eye. I hope that doesn't mean the whole thing is fake
SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de · 9 pts · 230d
There's clearly a photo of it. Of course it's real
stray@pawb.social · 4 pts · 230d
Aha! And just how do you know what the inside of a fish is like, fish-murderer?
stray@pawb.social · 54 pts · 230d
"Sushi" refers to the sour rice, not the fish. You can have completely vegan sushi.
uncouple9831@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 229d
fleet@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 228d
Heads up for anybody like me who loves their yam tempura and avocado sushi, they almost always add Japanese mayonnaise to sushi, but you can ask them to make it without it and then it is vegan.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 228d
To wit, most sushi establishments have vegan options on their menus regardless of intent to accommodate. I had a delicious fully vegan sushi meal on my vacation just a few months ago.
Tetragrade@leminal.space · -1 pts · 228d
Affirming the Disjunct. -10 philosophical credits.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 49 pts · 230d
Are we sure that's AI and not just AI paranoia caused by a decent photoshop job? Cause it looks like a shop to me (Because of the pixels, and having seen quite a few shops in my time)
Also keep shitting on PETA, the aegis and vanguard of an ethical and ecological movement, you certainly won't ever regret doing that.
happyfullfridge@lemmy.ml · 18 pts · 230d
they are very easy to hate and there's a lot of misinformation about them online. I used to hate them too before going vegan and I still don't agree with some of their activism
anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 229d
Yes, just look at that weird tear.
I suck at image manipulation, and even I would be able to align the hand and the fish somewhat.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 229d
The tear I chalked up to just weird preferences, but yeah now that I'm focusing on it the hand in the back behind the fish doesn't make much sense, that's not how I'd hold something I'm cutting.
valtia@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 229d
I'm pretty sure that's because the hand is holding onto the rest of the sushi roll, not the fish. It's at least two images photoshopped together, one of a person cutting a sushi roll and one of a fish, with a weird tear added onto it
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 30 pts · 230d
And yet you participate in society - curious.
UnGlasierteGurke@feddit.org · 26 pts · 230d
isn't that just a photoshoped image (except maybe the fish) or am i missing something? cause i can't really tell if that's AI-generated
SSUPII@sopuli.xyz · 40 pts · 230d
It has the ChatGPT image gen grain. Also notice the sushi slice closer to the knife, the salmon makes no sense.
Asafum@feddit.nl · 22 pts · 230d
Yeah the closer the sushi got to the salmon the more the AI confused it as part of the fish to the point that the closest roll has spots on the wrap that match the fish lol
Taldan@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 229d
I don't think that was "confused". I think it was the point of the image. Trying to create an association between the fish in sushi and the live fish it comes from (even though that doesn't look like a salmon)
TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 13 pts · 230d
It does seem easy enough to whip together in photoshop, and partially I'd guess that's what happened because of the way the fish casts zero shadow on the hand behind it and the way the salmon skin is layered over one sushi piece and no others, but perhaps it's simply become easier for companies to use GenAI for even simple photoshop tasks.
The salmon look like a picture of a salmon trophy that's been cut out with a pen tool selection without a feather.
Though the meat looks a little bit suspect...
stray@pawb.social · 1 pts · 230d
imgdetector.ai says it's AI. I guess it's good OOP has all those extra fingers to compensate for the way they use a knife.
Taldan@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 229d
Magic 8 ball also says it's AI
FlowerFan@piefed.blahaj.zone · 20 pts · 230d
Why did you post this 3 times?
uncouple9831@lemmy.zip · 16 pts · 229d
Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 229d
It's not hard to imagine destroying the environment directly affects a lot of animals?
uncouple9831@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 229d
Oppopity@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 229d
The animal industry uses up a hell of a lot more water than AI. And the water usage from AI mostly comes from the efforts to produce that electricity which in this case typically means fossil fuels. These issues would be solved if we were just using renewable energy sources.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 228d
And farming lots of animals directly affects the environment!
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 14 pts · 230d
A farmed salmon would use / pollute orders of magnitude more water then an ai image. Even if peta was willing to buy salmon there wouldve been way more resources used to create this in real life then via ai. Just the rice in the sushi would've required more water to grow and then prepare compared to the AI image.
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 230d
How about- egads!- using an actual image or picking up a fucking pencil
uncouple9831@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 229d
Glytch@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 229d
If that human is being paid a fair wage to do it I don't see the problem. I also don't see how paying a single artist is going to "keep capitalism viable for an extra year". Sounds like you just want artists to starve so you can have some AI vomit pixels at you and call it art.
uncouple9831@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 229d
Glytch@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 229d
Translation: I have no argument
(Edit:formatting)
uncouple9831@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 229d
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 229d
Yet again discounting the training costs...
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 229d
Estimates for how much an AI image costs in water varies widely, estimates from 0.4 liters to 50 liters with the median I'm seeing at about a 1-5 liters. Even taking the 50 liter estimate which we can assume includes training and electricity generation to get a number that high that is far below a serving of rice which costs 276 liters.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 229d
Malthus would be proud of you...
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · -2 pts · 229d
Even with the training costs, it is very little water compared to mass scale agriculture.
Comrade_Spood@quokk.au · 4 pts · 229d
Except agriculture puts food on the table, and ai data centers just spits out soulless art and tells people to kill themselves. I would not consider them to be comparable.Â
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 229d
We produce food in such a vast excess compared to what we need that we feed most of it to animals so we can have beef instead despite being vastly less efficient.
Comrade_Spood@quokk.au · 1 pts · 229d
And I support degrowth. I do not see how this helps you. I never said we don't have an excess, I just said we need agriculture and we dont need ai data centers.
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 229d
Yeah, a process required to make food and a process to make an image that could have easily been done by an artist or simply pulled from one of the countless sites full of existing free images, are totally comparable.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 229d
How much energy would have been taken in the time it takes you to draw a poster on a computer?
I would actually be interested in the comparison, how long is a typical model trained for and how much is it used. The actual generation usage is typically a few seconds of a normal gaming PC. Training is more, but its then used by many.
Teppichbrand@feddit.org · 13 pts · 230d
AI bad AND Peta bad, right guys!
baggachipz@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 229d
yes
Fleur_@aussie.zone · 11 pts · 229d
Anti peta memes doing the laps. Hmmmmm
Saapas@piefed.zip · 10 pts · 229d
Do these people really think the use of AI for that photo outweighs the positive impact from that sort of ad campaign??
Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 229d
PETA is weird because they're not so much "pro animal rights" or "pro eco friendly" as they are "anti domesticated animals" including pets.
As a result a lot of their messaging is desperate propaganda, like spreading the pseudoscience that milk causes autism, or trying to imply that shearing sheep for wool hurts them somehow.
They've also done some pretty evil things because they believe animals are better off dead than domesticated.
Oppopity@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 229d
They aren't against the concept of having pets themselves they just don't like that pets are specifically bred for domestication when millions of pets are put down in shelters because they couldn't find homes.
https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/
And sheep do get hurt being shared because the industry focuses on the end result of as many fleeces as fast as possible rather than the well being of the animals not to mention the fact they have to be shared or else they overheat because we bred them into wool producing machines.
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/wool-industry/
Peta very much are what they say they are. There's just a lot of smear campaigns at them because "haha these crazy vegoons say they're against animal cruelty but they actually kill heaps of animals themselves" is a narrative that drives engagement.
rumba@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 229d
The problem we have here is that PETA has started vicious campaigns and said things that were either untrue or misleading, then pulled them down and posted whitewashed versions on their website.
You're posting their current outward-facing propaganda. And at the moment, their messages are marginally OK. Still a little too far on the gross just to make a point. However, those messages evolve, and their activism evolves. All too often they cross lines, they pull back like it never happened.
https://brian.carnell.com/articles/2000/petas-position-on-pets-and-standards-of-truth-in-the-animal-rights-movement/
PETA started a campaign that Milk causes autism based on a couple of week studies, which they've since removed from the record
https://research.open.ac.uk/news/why-asking-what-causes-autism-wrong-question
They find some bad actors in the wool industry and rightfully go after them, then turn around and say it's all that way.
I did volunteer dog transport for a while, moving animals out of one of their kill shelters to non-kill shelters in other states. Volunteers set up relays to move the dogs, sometimes hundreds of miles away, to save their lives.
It's one of the fundamental problems with PETA, people don't trust their campaigns. They put out a bunch of real information, good causes, then release some false or misleading data, everyone gets stirred up, you go a look into it and the hot button stuff ends up falling apart. The gross stuff doesn't shock people into action; it makes them wary of the organization. Maybe it gains them a few activists, but they could be so much more effective if they played it all straight.
It's hurt their image to the point that it's not just that people don't care, but they don't trust what they have to say.
Back in my 20's I looked into them, actually considered supporting them. I was thinking they couldn't possibly be doing the things people accused them of. Just digging for a while, I couldn't bring myself to support them. There are numerous issues that could be brought to light. Plenty of winnable fights for good causes, * instead the pick Anti-pets, autism milk, trying to take down the entire wool industry like every sheep out there is getting eviscerated. They're absolutely tone deaf to the non-PETA population to the point of being unsavory.
Print stickers of caged chickens and put them on eggs, put dairy farm images on milk cartons. put up booths outside supermarkets with impossible burger sliders. Ohh wait, yeah, they won't support plant based burgers either.
And honestly, that's not even scratching the issue of uncontrolled extremists doing things in their name.
edit: for clarity
Oppopity@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 228d
Your first link is some guy's website misrepresenting what peta's actual stance on pets is. I already linked to peta's website why they explain the problem is with manufacturing pets. Because there is such a demand for cute pets there's an incentive to produce as many as possible and that leds to puppy mills where animals are forced into baby producing factories all while stray dogs get put down because they can't find a home. They explain this on their website which I linked in the previous comment.
Peta doesn't have a problem with the concept of having a pet, the problem is how such a reality exists. If people have a demand for pets then that means there needs to be a supply for pets. This is what that quote about the vice president meant. She simply doesn't envision a world where pets can be manufactured in any ethical way. I do but I also don't care if she thinks that because what she and peta stand for is treating animals ethically and that's a good thing.
I can't look at the campaign anymore because they've removed it but I found this article which had quotes from their website where it shows they mentioned that more research was needed and that one of the studies only had like 20 kids in it. Of course the media ran with headlines like "Oh peta said milk causes autism!" When they didn't. They used the autism panic at the time and the "got milk" ad which existed to create a narrative that milk was a necessary part of a healthy diet to shift to a discussion about why we think milk is needed for a healthy lifestyle when the milk industry pumps cows full of hormones and shit that wind up in milk, not to mention the fact that cow milk is obviously for cows whereas human milk is for humans. Milk serves a role in mammals to quickly grow their offspring and yet humans don't just continue drinking milk but we also drink milk from other animals. They go over all this on their website: https://www.peta.org/features/peta-ad-cows-dairy-products-disease/
I do take issue with how they framed autism with a frowny face as that normalises the notion that autism is a bad thing and I'm glad it's been taken down. But at the end of the day peta is a charty for treating animals ethically. The way our society treats animals is so evil that holocaust survivors, the event we treat as the ultimate evil, draw parallels to it. There is such an urgency to put an end to this cruelty that I honestly don't give a fuck if such a charity employs the "any publicity is good publicity" method which sometimes results in campaigns that look too goofy or sometimes go a bit to far.
sleen@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 228d
Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org · 7 pts · 229d
...and yet PETA shelters have higher kill rates than many/most others.
Teppichbrand@feddit.org · 3 pts · 229d
Why?
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 228d
It's an out of context stat. They run a kill shelter of last resort. It saves hundreds of animals a year who would be killed otherwise, but as it's a last resort, as one would expect it has a higher kill rate than the other shelters they transfer failed adoptees from.
It's shocking how many people parrot the decontextualized fact without ever looking up it's context, which is readily available. Like a half dozen times in this thread alone.
Oppopity@lemmy.ml · -2 pts · 229d
This is yet another example of anti-peta misinformation.
Peta has high kill rates in their shelters because they have a no turn away policy. They will take any animal into their shelter and unfortunately many animals typically the older less cute ones are harder to find homes for and rather than keep them locked up in cages for the rest of their lives they settle for the less cruel option which is putting down the animals that aren't going to find a loving home.
No-kill shelters have a trick up their sleeve where they look good on paper but in reality they turn away animals that aren't likely to be adopted or even send animals that aren't likely to get adopted to peta where they are then put down. In other words peta aren't uniquely evil and bad at their job, the system funnels more animals into their hands because the alternative is leaving animals on the streets or locked up in cages for the rest of their lives.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 228d
so.... it's not misinformation
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 228d
A stat divorced from it's context in order to make a benefit look like a failure certainly feels like misinformation. It definitely results in misinformed people.
audible_obituary@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 229d
The OP and its traction are the perfect encapsulation of the kind of dumb most people are... sadly.
hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 229d
PETA's only goal is attention. Does this help their cause? Yes, because we're here talking about them from their marketing.
That's the intent behind most AI in marketing. They intentionally make it obvious so you get angry and talk about their ads. The goal is attention.
Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 229d
If you're as principled as PETA wants you to believe they are, there is no "outweighing".
Saapas@piefed.zip · 3 pts · 229d
Printing flyers on a paper is out too if there's no consideration for good outweighing the badÂ
dukepontus@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 229d
Everyone here salivating over the easy opportunity to ridicule peta is no different than right wing nut jobs celebrating attacks on migrants. Its orchestrated hate to distract you from the real issues. Ffs wake up.
Godric@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 228d
"Clowning on PETA is just like cheering on violence against immigrants"
Bozo take rejected buddy, try again some other time.
spujb@lemmy.cafe · 0 pts · 228d
i was shocked to see that comment with so many votes
fuck PETA and its âtacticsâ and i encourage everyone to consider perusing this filterable table of vegan charities and nonprofits for your dollar consideration
spujb@lemmy.cafe · 1 pts · 228d
bro what i just dont like peta they do bad things
same reason i make fun of republicans and scientologists and certain churches
peta is NOT veganism
peta is a failed organization that directly defeats its stated purpose and thatâs hilarious. you calling me a nazi is obtuse and joyless.
Bluewing@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 228d
Just like the "right wing nutjobs celebrating attacks on migrants" that YOU enjoy ridiculing in your post, PETA has earned their ridicule also.
They stopped being People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals long ago. They are now just another money grubbing organization.
dukepontus@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 228d
Oof.. I got owned there. Thanks for puttimg me in my place.
titanicx@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 228d
I mean honestly the real issue is that there are no salmon that we can easily slice into sushi rolls like this. Come on scientists and do your fucking job.
Agent641@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 229d
I hope one day they generically engineer a sushi salmon that can be directly sliced into sushi rolls like this.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 229d
Performative activism was a fucking mistake, but somehow it worked for the right with the satanic panic and the groomer panic.
DmMacniel@feddit.org · 8 pts · 230d
Fish turned into nori... funniest shit I've ever seen.
BanMe@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 229d
I used to be very sympathetic to PETA but then I watched them operate for a while and it went away.
joyjoy@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 230d
That "sushi" was supposed to swim upstream, spawn eggs, then die.
FatVegan@leminal.space · 7 pts · 230d
I know peta isn't perfect, but really now?
i_ben_fine@midwest.social · 2 pts · 229d
gotta farm engagement
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 228d
They're masters of the art, look at the size of this thread.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 1 pts · 230d
Yes, really.
Toribor@corndog.social · 6 pts · 230d
Why is it crying a giant sperm?
user224@lemmy.sdf.org · 10 pts · 230d
Because seas are full of seamen.
QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 230d
you don't?
Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 229d
PETA members always come out of the woodworks for these posts.
58008@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 230d
Juxtaposing cattle trains with the Holocaust was all I needed to dismiss this organisation as chronically unserious. They're the equivalent of those antiabortion activists who think showing disturbing gory photos of medical procedures is a moral argument against said procedures.
The thing that made me question my meat-eating was not images of slaughterhouses, battery farms or being harangued by tone deaf social media posts that scold me as immoral. It was watching animals playing and showing affection for each other and for other species. Gifs of cows playing with a ball, a lamb begging for pets from a human, chickens recognising their human friend and running up to them for a hug, a cat and a crow being pals; that's the kinda shit that changes hearts and minds. PETA's tone and behaviour makes animal rights activism look like an emotional outlet for narcissists who don't actually have any expectation that they'll achieve anything, but just enjoy the recreational self-righteous hectoring.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 230d
Isn't that what this post is trying to do? It's not using gory or disgusting pictures of salmon farms, the sushi even looks appetizing. It's humanizing the animal and talking about the joys a salmon was supposed to have before it was caught and served up to you.
A lot of the modern peta campaign is more in the vain your talking about. The ones I've seen recently are ads in the metro saying "I'm me not meat" with pictures of crabs and other animals looking cute
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 229d
How is it humanizing the animal, its just sushi next to a fish with a jizz stain by its eye. Fish doesn't even look that different when you buy it.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 229d
I think the fear of death or the tearful misery of being chopped in half are pretty humanizing. After all, I am human, and I don't like being chopped in half.
Oppopity@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 229d
Oh boy if comparisons of our treatment of animals to the way we treated victims of the holocaust upset you then wait until you hear about the first guy to do it. Let's just say he had some first hand experience...
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 228d
he wasn't the first. the Nazis themselves modeled the Holocaust partially on animal agriculture. but that's part of why the Holocaust was wrong: it treated people like they were animals.
Comrade_Spood@quokk.au · -1 pts · 229d
Yeah, PETA's propaganda is so focused on showing the horror side and gross out shit that they forget to show why we should be grossed out or horrified in the first place. If someone showed me a pumpkin getting dissected, I am not going to care how "violent" or "gory" it is unless you give me reason to empathize with it. We have alienated people from their food so much, I think people forget that animals are more than food. And secondly, I believe there goals (veganism) are unsustainable, privileged, and unhealthy.
I am not a vegan or vegetarian, despite believing harming living things is ethically wrong. This is because I do believe humans need meat to survive. There are certain nutrients from meat that we simply need, and those nutrients are far too difficult to get without meat. There are just sometimes things that are unethical that we have to do anyways. Sometimes there simply is no ethical choice. That is not to say you shouldn't strive to make those things as ethical as possible though! We can make meat consumption more ethical, and we should.
I just do not think getting rid of meat from our diet is possible, at least not without some serious innovation in science and our economy. You would need to be able to supply the world's population with suppliments for every nutrient, vitamin, etc that non-meat food sources struggle to supply in any meaningful way.Â
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 229d
Major health experts agree that well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets are healthy. For example, a 2025 position paper from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics states that âappropriately planned vegetarian and vegan dietary patterns can be nutritionally adequate and can offer long-term health benefitsâ. Harvard Health (citing the American Dietetic Association) likewise notes that such diets are âhealthful, nutritionally adequateâ and can help prevent chronic diseases. In fact, plant-based eating is even included as a recommended healthy pattern in recent U.S. dietary guidelines.
Research shows real health gains on plant-based diets. Mayo Clinic reports that vegetarians (when they eat a variety of foods) often have lower risk of heart disease, diabetes and certain cancer. Large cohort studies confirm this: one pooled analysis of over 76,000 people found vegetarians had about 25% lower heart-disease mortality than meat-eaters. These benefits make sense because vegetarians tend to eat less saturated fat and more fiber, vitamins and antioxidants, leading to lower LDL cholesterol, blood pressure and BMI â all factors linked to longevity.
All key nutrients can be covered without meat. Proteins, iron, calcium and healthy fats are abundant in plants: beans, lentils, nuts, soy and whole grains supply ample proteinhealth.harvard.edu (even vegans meet protein needs by eating diverse plant foods). Iron can be obtained from legumes and greens (with vitamin C-rich foods to boost absorption), and calcium from leafy greens or fortified plant milks. Omega-3 fats (ALA) are in flaxseed and walnuts, and algal or fortified foods can provide EPA/DHA if needed. Vitamin Bââ is the one nutrient not found in plant foods naturally, but health experts point out that vegans simply use fortified foods or a low-cost Bââ supplement to meet the requirement. With these adjustments (which many omnivores also make, e.g. vitaminâŻD or fish-oil supplements), a plant-based diet easily meets nutritional needs at any age.
Finally, plant-based diets arenât just a privileged fad â theyâre common worldwide. For instance, roughly 39% of Indian adults say they are vegetarian, and many cultures eat mostly plant foods Vegetarian and vegan eating is growing (millions of Americans now follow these diets) and is explicitly endorsed by public health authorities as sustainable and healthy.
Comrade_Spood@quokk.au · 1 pts · 229d
One, as you said it require properly planned meals, which you seem to understate the actual difficulty of that. I can tell you right now, I would have a bitch of a time factoring that level of meal planning into my life. Secondly, while supplements are something you can do, it is not accessible to everyone. Thirdly, allergies complicate things as well, furthering the need for suppliments.
Vitamin b12 deficiency is quite prevalent in both those in a low socioeconomic status, but also vegans and vegetarian. So clearly this is an issue facing vegans despite supplements. Likely due to supplements not being as accessible as you are letting on. Supplements would especially be more inaccessible if everyone became vegan or vegetarian. Hence why I said veganism and vegetarianism require serious scientific and logistical innovation to make possible.
I am also not too keen on centralizing more power to pharma companies. Do we seriously want to take autonomy away from poor regions as they become even more dependent on major pharma companies in the first world so they can get their daily b12 and other vitamins cause of the ethics of meat consumption?
I also genuinely do believe if any ethical issues with harming animals can be extended to plants and fungi. They are able to sense, communicate, and think. Just in very different ways than animals. Fungi particularly are fascinating regarding this. I do not think just because they exhibit that differently means they're life should be ignored.
You also need to realize we domesticated a bunch of animals, and we would need to decide what to do with thwm. You just gonna release all those animals in the wild? Animals that have become entirely reliant on humans to survive. Or do we kill every one of them? Either way we are sentencing them to death.
And so I say again, just because something is unethical, doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't do it. And just because you can do it, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it in the most ethical way you can. If you are able to live as a vegetarian, or even vegan, go ahead. I encourage it. But I do not think it is reasonable or realistic to expect it to become a world standard. Lets take it one battle at a time and work to make the harm we do as ethical as we can realistically do now.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 229d
I think you overestimate the difficulty of it, especially for vegetarianism where you can get all you need from eggs and dairy. Anecdotally I have been vegetarian for 2 years and have never taken supplements and am very healthy, just ran a half marathon in 1:40 which wouldn't be possible if I was anemic from b12 deficiency. An even larger example is the hundreds of millions of Indians who are vegetarians and have been for millennia, long before supplements existed.
You also underestimate the difficulty in a meat based diet. Every diet requires planning and intentionality to make it healthy. Meat based diets require you to pay far more attention to the amount of fiber you're getting. Because of this many people who eat meat are not getting enough fiber, 95% of Americans, which leads to intestinal issues and cancers, which is why vegetarians tend to have better health outcomes as noted above since their main source of protein, legumes, are also high in fiber.
As for the efficiency and accessibility it takes far less resources to make b12 with bacteria then with cows/chickens. It wouldn't take any logistical or scientific innovation to do it either, we know how to make it with bacteria, and it is far more shelf stable and transportable than meat. In general meat production is extremely wasteful and destructive putting aside the ethical arguments. Cows are one of the top sources of greenhouse gases and the demand for them is causing vast tracts of the Amazon to be burned to create new pasture land. If you ask any environmentalist worth there salt what's the best thing you can do for the planet they'll say eat less/no meat and drive less/not at all.
How is big pharma less trustworthy than big agriculture? The meat industry is extremely consolidated. Also b12 isn't patented and the methods to produce it are widely available, there's no reason it could only be produced in the first world.
For the ethical argument it is valid and depends on your own ethics / philosophy of whether plants / fungi suffer and feel pain. Either way though eating meat is still worse because cows , chickens etc. eat plants to produce meat. Due to trophic loss they consume far more calories and nutrients from plants then they produce in meat, thus killing more plants then is necessary to feed a human. If you want to minimize plant suffering then you should be vegan.
For the existing cows, I'm not advocating for, nor entertaining the absurd idea of outlawing meat eating tomorrow and having to deal with current stock. The cows that are already here are for the most part already doomed to a life of suffering, the best we can do is stop breeding them so we don't bring more suffering into the world. The best way to stop that from happening is lowering meat consumption which will cause meat producers to stop breeding to deal with the lower demand.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 228d
this has never happened
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 228d
It presumably would've happened in ancient India as vegetarianism started catching on and cows became sacred.
Even if it didn't, we've never reduced our fossil fuel consumption on a global scale either, that doesn't mean it's impossible or that it isn't something we should / have to do.
Comrade_Spood@quokk.au · 1 pts · 228d
You make good points, and I overall agree with you. Although I don't believe we need to stop farming animals . I think we can continue farming them for stuff like eggs, milk, wool, etc and do it in ethical ways. What are your thoughts of meat from end of life animals?
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 228d
I agree that continuing to farm animals ethically solely for the excess products they produce is an achievable, sustainable and ethical goal we should strive for.
If the meat would be wasted anyway then it's fine to eat. Better us eat it then the maggots. The goal shouldn't be to just stop people from eating meat, it should be to reduce the amount of animals being bred to serve our taste. If a farmer can only sell the meat after the animal has lived a long life, eating a lot of food that they have to provide, they'll be less likely to breed them as it wouldn't be profitable.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 228d
I actually stopped taking B12 supplements, because there was already enough in my food that the supplement was an overload, and so I was getting acne breakouts.
Cattle are also given B12 supplements, because pasture land gets depleted of cobalt after enough grazing. Meat eaters usually get their B12 second hand from a cow pill. I get most of mine from nutritional yeast (Great savory stand in for dry cheeses like parmesan).
Calcium is actually the biggest concern for me, because most meat eaters get their calcium from calcium-fortified non-vegan foods. So that's the one and only supplement pill I take that most meat eaters wouldn't.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 229d
updated from all previous versions to no longer discuss infants, or women who are pregnant or nursing. but the paper does go on to detail all the risks of a vegan diet.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 229d
that's not true. vitamin A, for example.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 229d
You can get vitamin a from carotene which is common in a lot of foods, notably carrots. Even if it wasn't , same with b12, this is the 21st century, we can synthesize any vitamin , either chemically or with bacteria, without harming animals.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 229d
you don't get it: you synthesize it. and not everyone is good at that
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 229d
No but a vast majority of people can, so vitamin a deficiency is not a concern for the millions of people living healthily on plant based diets. And again for those that aren't able to synthesize it they can take synthesized retinol supplements without needing to eat meat.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 229d
but, to be clear, plants don't have vitamin a, so your claim that the only nutrient they don't have is B12 is wrong. and you seem to know it was incorrect, meaning you lied.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 229d
I didn't lie, all the articles I read and my understanding when I posted the first comment was that b12 was the only vitamin you can't get from a plant based diet. Most of the articles don't mention vitamin a because the precursor is common and it is not a concern for the great majority of people on plant based diets. Your comment made me research further to discover that carotene is technically just a precursor.
Your resorting to pedentry to avoid trying to refute the fact that most dietary experts agree that a plant based diet can be just as healthy, if not more so then a diet with meat.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 229d
I'm correcting misinformation
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 229d
b12 and vitamin a aren't the only nutrients, either
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 228d
There is in fact a whole array of vitamins and nutrients that are not produced by plants or animals but rather by the microbes living in or around those plants and animals.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 228d
And yet, here I am.
Berengaria_of_Navarre@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 230d
Im in the mood for sushi now.
Teppichbrand@feddit.org · 16 pts · 230d
Wow, this is so edgy and hilarious!
Berengaria_of_Navarre@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 230d
Thanks! I'll be here all week!
normalexit@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 229d
Even though it isn't real, the thumb being practically under the knife is triggering me. The sushi looks pretty good though.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4iXtDYOso1o
Smorty@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 229d
hellooooooo gpt image gen-
mavu@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 229d
The PETA add is also factually wrong, because that fish's body is definitely my sushi roll. (minus the skin, obvs.)
spujb@lemmy.cafe · 1 pts · 228d
itâs AI generated
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online · 1 pts · 229d
No, but your body goes into a sushi roll! Now stop squirming! It only makes it worse!
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -1 pts · 230d
Mmmmmm sushi...
Shanmugha@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 229d
They can call me when they have a technology to make my body work without consuming plants or animals
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -2 pts · 229d
slopaganda
peta is giving vegans a bad name
MissJinx@lemmy.world · -20 pts · 230d
I agree but If you really value life in all forms you can't eat vegebles either. All lives matter right?
the_q@lemmy.zip · 26 pts · 230d
ElcaineVolta@kbin.melroy.org · 14 pts · 230d
yikes.
Teppichbrand@feddit.org · 11 pts · 230d
Vegan Bullshit Bingo #22:
If you really care that much about the welfare of plants, you should go vegan, since many more plants "die" for animal feeding. Do you feel bad while mowing your lawn? And would you rather rescue a potted plant than a dog from a burning house? Is docking pig tails the same as branch trimming to you? Question upon question...
HonorableScythe@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 230d
Branch trimming actually serves a function to make the tree healthier if it's done correctly.
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 229d
Well, first, nobody who actually cares about the environment has a lawn, and second, trimming branches (when done right) makes the plant healthier.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 229d
they're clearly saying they don't care
morto@piefed.social · 2 pts · 230d
lastweakness@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 230d
I think the argument being made here is that there is no "good" here
naught@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 230d
well there's torturing and slaughtering animals we know to possess sentience, intelligence, emotion, and then there's vegetables
pivot_root@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 230d
I don't know about you, but my onions make plenty of tears when I start cutting them. /j
lastweakness@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 230d
I don't disagree and in a better world, I would be vegan. But what would we do if we found out at some point that plants do feel pain?
ElcaineVolta@kbin.melroy.org · 8 pts · 230d
well, it takes a ton of plant foods to sustain animal agriculture. if you're concerned about plant sentience, you should be vegan, so you can live a healthy life harming as few beings as possible.
lastweakness@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 230d
That makes sense, thanks
naught@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 230d
At that point you have a shit sandwich for sure. I think we either make the choice to slaughter veggies, like we do now with animals we KNOW experience pain, but with who we have much more in common.
Or come up with an alternative source of sustenance.
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 229d
Fruititarians exist. Jains are the most notable group that practice this, as they believe that all life is sacred. You should look them up!
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 229d
Jains will consume dairy
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 229d
True! I forgot about that part - although they also have rules about how the cows should be treated, so in the US they would definitely not consume our dairy.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 229d
no one likes torture, that's why there are humane standards in most of the world
naught@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 229d
TW: Animal cruelty, death
Humane standards for? Beef? Dairy? Poultry? Maybe some places in Europe, but certainly not in the States where factory farming is rampant and consumption is maximal. Chickens live in darkness their whole lives, stuffed in a box with diseased, dead birds. Pumped full of hormones to the point their legs can't support the weight of their unnaturally bloated body. Cows stand to their shoulders in mud and excrement without room to move or even breathe. Dairy cows are repeatedly impregnated and their calves torn away immediately on a constant loop.
I know farmers in real life. I have relatives that work in meat packing and slaughterhouses. I welcome you to view what it looks like to kill an animal. "Humane" doesn't mean they aren't screaming in fear until they die, dragged to a death they know is coming after a life of squalor. They're still being raised for the slaughter.
Ok sorry for being depressing!