In fact, I think it’s because I’ve replaced a lot of the meat products in my diet with starches (pasta or potatoes for dinner, for example, when I would have had hot dogs) that has made me gain weight — not just that, but I’m also fairly sedate.

Either way, you are still incapable of making coherent arguments since merely accusing me of lacking common sense and offering no other rationale or context for the comment is kind of pointless; it’s merely empty rhetoric, just like everything else I’ve seen posted in defense of PETA.

Besides, this isn’t about you. This is about actions like this billboard and extremists in general. That’s why your resume is irrelevant; I’m not trying to prove that YOU specifically hate the human race, just that animal rights extremists in general do. Whether or not such an assessment applies to you is irrelevant to the discussion, especially since this is a pseudonymous forum and anyone can be anything they want to be just by saying so (hence the lack of value of anecdotes). Jumping from your alleged resume to the conclusion that “those who care about animals, definitely care about people too” is a logical fallacy and is patently false. If you really believe that, you are either deluded or being intentionally misleading.

And you did say you sit around and hope, but I did not say it was all you did. Hope is by definition a passive activity (so to speak), and “there is no other alternative” according to what you wrote, so how else am I supposed to interpret that?

If I don’t “get it,” maybe it means you’re not explaining it very well, or maybe there is really nothing there to “get.” Being motivated enough to design, print, and install billboards like that implies some kind of rationale behind the project, but when pressed to explain it’s supporters get flustered because their position is indefensible and having it made so plainly obvious is awkward. So they resort to simplistic rhetorical ploys and appeals to emotion and various other sundry logical fallacies, not to mention conflation of the issues and generally making a mess of any rational discussion that’s attempted.

I’ll come back here as long as it takes.

How many thin people do you know who live on McDonald’s and never exercise?
I know a ton of those too.

I submit that it’s problematic to be bigger or smaller than you’re “meant” to be. Yes, a lot of Americans are probably fatter than they ought to be right now because they’re overeating. But surely not everyone is supposed to be a size 10. Not people who are supposed to be 20s, and not people who are supposed to be 2s. If every American switched to an optimal diet overnight (not over- or under-eating) I don’t think we’d all shrink/grow to the same BMI.

Almost all responses to my comments continue to conflate separate issues; I’m not arguing that factory farming is ok, that abusing animals is ok, that the environment is not in big trouble from a human survival perspective, or even that selfishness is good or bad -it can be both- (plus I think meat should be consumed in moderation if at all). What I oppose is militancy and fanaticism, and though my words may sound on the militant side, my actions and the billboards I put up are assuredly not. I also oppose stupidity like this billboard embodies which do the very opposite of the stated intention behind it, further supporting my contention that PETA is not really all that interested in furthering its stated cause. It likes getting media attention that translates into donations but this was hardly an effective way to promote their message, don’t you think? Or should I say your message? Again, you’re rather transparent in that respect; if you weren’t shilling for PETA your response would have focused on different points.

And congratulations on your activist resume’. Uhh, now how is it relevant, exactly? Mine would blow your mind (I got the literal scars to prove it) but I don’t feel the need to parade the specifics around to try to boost my credibility or appear to be more-active-than-thou. Being completely unverifiable as it is, it’s merely another anecdote to add to the others. But the billboard (and many other ridiculous publicity stunts) and the attitudes presented by PETA supporters in this thread are data. And this data points to certain conclusions, as does the complete inability of any of you people to come up with any decent counter-arguments to my main points beyond accusing me of acting like PETA.

You know, now that I think about it, a lot of my forcefulness in my response to PETA comes from having worked very hard to effect real changes in terms of sustainability and compassion only to see a bunch of attention-starved exhibitionists or people-hating humans come along and make activism and worthy causes seem trite, immature, spiteful, hypocritical, and offensive, not to mention siphoning away donations from groups that really achieve the gains PETA only talks about. Not everything PETA activists have ever done has been useless, but the positive things they have done are more than negated by crap like this billboard.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458,00.html

My reason for being in this debate has nothing to do with vegetarianism, vegans, or body mass index correlations. It is a loathing of militancy and fanaticism in general. Extremism is part of the problem; it will never be part of a real solution to anything because solutions are not the purpose of extremist movements. And if you want to talk about ‘cognitive dissonance,’ please address being a human who hates people; that ought to be a good read. The constant litany of accusations against humans that your shill brigade goes on and on about along with comments like “PETA stands for the ethical treatment of animals, not people” tend to support this conclusion (among other evidence).

Ironically, you are part of the problem and you are slowing down progress towards the goals you profess to be seeking. True Believers gathered in groups can be the most corrosive force in society, and every such group that knows and seeks to promote their dogma as “The Truth” is part of the problem whether it’s the Taliban, Evangelical Christians, street gangs, or PETA. Some are more violent than others, but that only seems to be a function of political clout; that is, once an extremist group feels empowered enough (or disenfranchised enough), it generally promotes or enforces its dogma with violence. Debate is pointless since anyone with an opposing view to The Truth is by definition wrong, so out come the clubs.

The only difference between PETA and Jonestown is that Jim Jones was a full-blown charismatic psychopath but the leaders of PETA are merely antisocial profiteers. Either way, the rank-and-file members will do what they’re told, so y’all better hope a charismatic psycho on par with Jones doesn’t take over PETA one day or you’ll have to choose whether or not to drink the kool-aid or run for it. Well, hopefully you’ll have a choice, unlike most of the people in Jonestown. And like with Jonestown, it all seemed like a sensible and positive cause right up until they chose or were forced to die for it.

What will your Glorious Leader ask you do to next? Arson? Bombings? Assaults? It’s all OK since you’d only be hurting or killing humans, and as we know humans richly deserve to die because they eat other animals and cut down trees and stuff. Militancy tends to spread and expand incrementally, and it’s long past time to put a stop to it in any form it takes (which ironically risks becoming a rather fanatical movement as well, so one must remain mindful of the hazards). From my perspective as a Radical Centrist, it’s clear that the fringes have much more in common with each other than either extreme has with the Center, so be aware that you are nothing more than a different flavor of the same stuff neo-cons are made of.

I know it sounds arrogant, but most vegans hold personal qualities that have allowed them to become vegan, despite (or because) their own selfishness. It is painful to think about it, but most (not all) non-vegans do not possess these qualities and never will.