PETA vs. aboriginal heritage... I'll get the popcorn...
https://headsmashedin.ca/
Today is World Ocean Day! To celebrate, PETA has asked Mayor of Stockholm, Karin Wanngård, to maybe change a street name to something a bit more fish-friendly. Fiskargatan, or "Fisherman's Street" in Södermalm comes in for stick, with the animal rights organisation suggesting that "Fish Are Friends Street" would better, …
> Why should Democracy get a look in with the chief executive of a Republic?
The USA is a democratic republic. The major difference from a pure democracy (AFAIK there aren't any) is that pure democracy is effectively a tyranny of the majority, with no safeguards to protect minorities.
And it is important to educate PETA that even plant diets are mostly based on the subjugation of poor innocent bees.
It's not just honey that must be avoided, anything in supermarkets or farms is likely stained with the evils of bee slavery.
The obvious ethical solution is for vegans to abstain from eating any such food unless they can get official certificates that no bees were involved at all. Starting now.
The government should appoint a committee to study suitable certification schemes. Thoroughly and exhaustively.
Take it from a bee keeper, bees ain't slaves. If they don't like where they are living, they'll leave and find a better place. Or die trying. I don't force or coerce my colonies to hang out where I need them, that would be impossible. Instead, I encourage them by catering to their every whim. They come and go as they see fit, and pretty much do what they want, when they want. On their schedule, not mine. My bees are spoiled rotten, and I like it that way. In return, they over-produce wax, propolis and honey, occasionally produce new queens, and collect too much pollen for their own needs. They allow me to harvest the excess a couple times per year. It's more of a mutualistic symbiotic relationship than any other form of farming.
Mead all around!
"Please stop calling PETA an "animal rights organisation", they kill thousands of healthy animals every year and are just generally a terrible group of people. They're about as interested in animal rights as [insert topical comparison here]."
Agreed. PETA killed 95.9% of the animals brought to their shelter in 2011.
They'll never live this down. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html - "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an organization that publicly claims to represent the best interest of animals -- indeed their "ethical treatment." Yet approximately 2,000 animals pass through PETA's front door every year and very few make it out alive. The vast majority -- 96 percent in 2011 -- exit the facility out the back door after they have been killed, when Pet Cremation Services of Tidewater stops by on their regular visits to pick up their remains."
- http://nokillnow.com/PETAfreezerActivistCash.htm
OVERVIEW
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been described as "by far the most successful radical organization in America." The key word is radical. PETA seeks "total animal liberation," according to its president and co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk. That means no meat or dairy, of course; but it also means no aquariums, no circuses, no hunting or fishing, no fur or leather, and no medical research using animals. PETA is even opposed to the use of seeing-eye dogs.
Actually, I was kinda dubious about the portrayal of PETA. No, I don't like them, but I was wondering if that claim wasn't playing with stats. Are these kill % higher than for other shelters? Is PETA getting stuck with a bunch of un-adoptable pets resulting in higher kill stats than other shelters?
Going to Skeptics, found https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/36808/does-peta-euthanize-unwanted-pets-at-its-virginia-headquarters
So, first the numbers do seem high. 80+% kills vs 30-40% at other shelters. Yes, there is the possibility that PETA gets the mutts. But what's really disturbing was the claim that "most PETA kills are within 24hrs", so they don't even try. That's what really left a bad taste in my mouth, because it would be so obscene if it were true.
Mind you, for a Skeptics entry, I found the citations very one-sided, where most of the cited sources could, by their nature, be expected to be very critical of PETA. Still, you have libel laws to combat fake articles. And an opportunity to refute it on Skeptics, which no one in PETA seems to have taken.
So, take that Skeptics with a grain of salt, but if there's any truth to what's driving those numbers, PETA's behavior is even more reprehensible than appears at first glance.
I also wonder what they feed cats there? Maybe they just can't keep them alive? Or only want to release them to vegan pet owners for adoption? I do get that humans have a choice to opt out of meat and dairy, that's just not true of carnivores.
A vegan once fed their cat on a vegan diet. Poor thing almost died
Hardly surprising - cats are pure carnivores. Amongst other things, they don't have the ability to create taurine (since their usual prey contains large amounts, this isn't usually a problem).
So, unless the vegan food contained all the nutrients that they need (unlikely, unless it's specifically formulated for cats) then they will quite quickly start to die of taurine deficiency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurine
("Taurine is essential for cardiovascular function, and development and function of skeletal muscle, the retina, and the central nervous system". Fine for us (and dogs, and pigs - omnivores in general) because our bodies can synthesise it. Not so much for cats.)
Mine happily eat sweetcorn, peas, crisps, milk, cheese and pretty much anything else they can steal.
Yeah, but they can't digest it properly. My cat's a complete bastard for crisps (can't open a packet without him trying to intercept them somewhere between fingers and gob) but he doesn't get any real benefit except for the fact that he likes the taste (and some of the salts will make their way into his system).
As the CrazyCatDude said, felines are obligate carnivores and won't survive on a vegetable diet unless it contains specific additives.
So, unless the vegan food contained all the nutrients that they need (unlikely, unless it's specifically formulated for cats) then they will quite quickly start to die of taurine deficiency.
So as long as you give your cats a nice bowl of Redbull along with their veggie-surprise (Surprise! There's no meat.) they should be 'fine', right?
"veggie-surprise (Surprise! There's no meat.)"
Reminds me of a couple of dishes I cook for myself all the time. You may have heard of tuna-surprise, where you take a can of tuna, toss it in a saucepan, and add what ever else you can find in the kitchen that might go with tuna. Except I always made it the same way, called it tuna-not-very-surprising. The other one was almost identical, except I used chicken instead of tuna, and called that one tuna-very-surpised.
Don't get me started on my signature dish, 'roossotto. Australia, where not only is it legal to eat the national animal, they sell it in supermarkets.
Hardly surprising - cats are pure carnivores. Amongst other things, they don't have the ability to create taurine
Fun fact one: tuna meat contains almost no taurine. So if you see a bargain on tinned tuna and buy caseloads figuring to save on cat food, your cat is fucked. It's usually the heart and retinas that suffer irreversible damage, and the heart damage can lead to death.
Everybody with a cat is going to point out that you can get tuna-flavour cat food, so I must be wrong.
Fun fact two: on those cat foods that list the ingredients, the flavour ingredient (beef, chicken, tuna, rabbit or whatever) is present at around 4%. Enough that when you open the can it smells vaguely of the flavour. For all I know it may even taste vaguely like it. The rest of the protein is anonymous, but makes up for the lack of taurine in the 4% tuna.
Fun fact three: Aldi chew sticks for cats, such as Chicken and Liver, contain 16% of each of the flavours. So 16% chicken, 16% liver. Which might explain why, if you can persuade your cat to eat the first one, it is likely to go mad for the things.
Fun fact four: the Aldi chew sticks don't have a strong aroma. But what there is remains trapped in the wrapper, so scrunch the wrapper under the cat's nose as you squeeze the stick out. That will often persuade a cat that it really is edible.
Fun fact five: the Aldi chew sticks are significantly cheaper than the Tesco "cheap shit" ones, which are significantly cheaper than the Tesco "own brand" ones, which are significantly cheaper than the "big name" ones.