something most people don't about the - Page 2

09-27-2002, 02:14 AM

Well here is a post for the moderates and exrtremist among us - as I see from recent postingf that there are both. This is the reply that General Mills sent to me about an email of complaint I sent to them reference the thread topic and that calendar from HSUS. By the way: I gues that GM does not want to ban pet keeping, ranching and farm use of animals, hunting and fishing afterall; and that other customers must have complained about their association with HSUS. Enough customers to make them rethink that association as can be witnessed in their reply to  my email:

       *************************************

Dear Mr. Bartley:
 
Thank you for contacting us to express your concern with the "Pets and their Celebrities" calendar currently being included with Golden Grahams cereal.  The calendar promotes the benefits - and responsibilities - of pet ownership

We did not anticipate that a calendar promoting responsible pet ownership would be in any way controversial.  Our focus was on the message the calendar conveys, about the wonders and benefits of being a pet owner, and reinforcing the responsibilities of pet ownership.  We felt the calendar was an excellent vehicle to communicate that topic.  In no way was it intended to convey that General Mills is against hunting, fishing or farming.  General Mills is not anti-hunting or anti-fishing.  We have even honored champion fisherman on the Wheaties box, most recently in August of 1999.

But we also now realize that some of the views espoused by HSUS, from whom we obtained the calendars, are not shared by an important number of customers and consumers.  That point has been driven home by consumer contacts like yours, and we are taking your views to heart.  Your views will certainly be shared with the decision-makers involved in this and future decisions regarding our promotional tie-in partners.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact us and make us aware of your feeling on this matter.

Sincerely,

Eric Metzer

General Mills
Consumer Services

NOT A BAD RESPONSE FROM GM AND NICE TO SEE THAT THEY ARE RECONSIDERING BASED UPON OTHER CONSUMER"S FEELINGS ABOUT HSUS!!!!!!!! <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='

'>  <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='

'>  <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='

'>

09-27-2002, 02:21 AM

When you hunt you eat the meat and put the head on the wall. YOu want the biggest for both reasons.

Bigger rack and more meat.

Also you may try for the biggest and best but on the last day of the season you go for the first one.

One more point I have to say is this

From the good book

Genesis 9:1-3

1   So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."
2   "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand."
3   "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs."

09-27-2002, 02:41 AM

Way to Go Glenn !!!!

As far as hunting adding to the overpopulation goes,Well on that I would have to disagree with you....IF humans didn't develope either for farming or housing the animals habitat then there would be enough food and space so that inbreeding and brittle bones would not occur. I myself am an enviromentalist who also eats meat. How can I say that?? Easy enough. I believe in the responsible use of resources that includes all resources. And yes I do recycle as well nor do I believe in wasting what nature has given us. I also believe in hunting and fishing . I have done both and will do both in the future. But I do not kill just for fun nor do I waste what I have killed. I do not kill what I won't eat. I believe that is responsible way to view it. As for vegitarians go I believe that to be thier lifestyle choice just as mine is to be someone who eats meat as well as veggies. But to ban all use of animals even for medical research is ludicrous. I know for a fact that insulin is made both from cattle as well as pigs and while that is also insulin that is derived from the human enzymes not everyone can tolerate it. Are we to condem those people to death? Or to allow someone who is bitten by a snake to die because of a lack of antivenom? As far as research of new drugs go ...it is illegal to test on humans..if we cannot test first on animals how are we to derive the safety of new drugs? Are you willing to allow yourself or your family member to be the guinea pig?

Alison Crews

09-27-2002, 06:17 PM

While we're getting into religious scripture, how about:

"Thou shalt not kill"

It's pretty self-explanatory. It doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill *people*" or "Thou shalt kill cows and chickens but not dogs", it just says not to kill. Thus, it's a sin to kill any living being, whether a plant or a bug or a snake. BUT there's a huge difference between "killing" a head of lettuce for a salad and killing a dog or a person. According to many eastern religions, this is their truth, and to them killing the lettuce is just less of a sin than killing the dog, who has the capability to suffer, which is less of a sin than killing a human. It's a sort of heirarchy, I suppose. This, to an extent, is how I feel. Note that it doesn't mean that I think we shouldn't be killing plants; I'm just explaining what somebody had asked me. Anyway, there's plenty of stuff in the Bible, as well as every other major piece of religious scripture, that talks about how people shouldn't kill and eat animals. But I'm no theology expert, nor have I read in their entirety any of those things.

And as far as the medication thing, you're deluding yourself if you think that testing something on animals makes it safe. The USDA requires that all new medications be tested on animals before they're put on the market. This law has been in effect for several decades. However, if you look at the number of drug recalls in the past several decades, you'll find that, despite having been tested on animals and proven to be "safe", they nevertheless caused all sorts of problems never forseen by the scientists. Could this be because a rat's body is completely different than that of a human?
Explain to ME, since you're the one that says animal testing is necessary, why chemicals are tested on rabbits' eyes to test how they would hurt a human's eyes, despite the fact that no person is dumb enough to leave caustic chemicals in their eyes for more than a few seconds (far less than the 72 hour average for the tests), they'd rinse their eyes soon after, and rabbits can't cry! Humans' eyes naturally water to flush out chemicals, whereas rabbits have no such mechanism.
Or how about testing chemicals on rats' skin, by shaving their backs and placing the chemical there for days or weeks. Among the other reasons why the eye-test is dumb to do with rabbits, rats can't sweat! Another way to clear out caustic chemicals. There are all sorts of things like this. My only point is that we already know certain things about drugs, chemicals, and makeup without having to go and use animals. Most new drugs on the market aren't really new, just new variations of old drugs that we already know about.

Besides, since you asked, my opinion on drugs is that no, of course I wouldn't want me or my family to be guinea pigs for new medications, besides the obvious risks, but mainly because Americans are chock-full of all sorts of unnecessary medications already. I'm pretty against overusing drugs of any sort--medicine in small amounts in poison in larger amounts. And look at what the new medications are for: herpes, anemia (hello? iron supplements&#33<img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='

'>, the "muscle-building pill" (uh, how about exercise?), diet pills (how about exercise or eating right?), etc.
And as far as the roomful of cancer patients, we already have chemotherapy. I'm not damning all the cancer patients of the world, and though chemotherapy and other such things aren't perfect, they're still pretty good. And maybe if people didn't do things that cause cancer and then wonder why it heppened to them...smoking, for example, or eating large amounts of meat, which has been proven to increase risk of colon, prostate, and breast cancer.

And by the way, I misquoted: "If you love animals called pets, WHY do you eat animals called dinner?" And don't say "because they're tasty".

Since you're all asking me to explain my beliefs (so you can argue with me?) I'd like to ask all of you what you think about people in China eating snakes. Of course, they don't euthanize them the way us herpers do; they string them up by the neck, cut the skin right behind the head, and peel it off, while the snake is still alive (as he will be for the next few hours until he dies). Standard practice. And people in Korea eating dogs. Men feel that eating the flesh of a dog who was beaten before being killed will make him more virile, because of the adrenaline released. This is also standard. Now, personally (it doesn't have to be your opinion) I don't see why Americans think it's okay to kill and eat a cow or a chicken but conversely think it's completely unthinkable to kill a dog, or disgusting to eat organ meat or bugs or Indian krait ice cream. Explain to me how it's not hypocritical...?

I feel like I have to point something out--something nobody noticed when I mentioned it earlier: what did I do or say to warrant an attack on me? All I said was what the Humane Society is out to do and why they said something. Since when does everyone feel the need to attack--and change?--my personal beliefs? Everyone's asking "if you do this, then why do you do this?" or things like that and since when did this become the forum where everyone picks fights with each other? By the things you say and the way you say them, that's all you come across as. We all know that nobody's going to come out of this forum with a changed mind. Not in a stupid conversation like this.

09-27-2002, 06:26 PM

Okay, scratch that last part...Alison is being very civilized. Now all you boys, get some manners! <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='

'>  Seriously, this whole thing is so silly and yet you're all so passionate about it.

By the way, to whoever said the thing about hunting and how you "don't do it for fun"....I don't know much about hunting, but I do know that most people I've talked to enjoy hunting for the "sport", the need to fulfill the chasing instinct, and the thrill of the hunt. If you're not doing it for the fun, or the rush, or whatever, then why don't you just go out and buy some venison or pheasant or whatever? No doubt the permit costs as much as buying the meat. Not that I'm telling you that it's what you should do, but I'd like to know what the difference is in a hunter's eyes.

09-27-2002, 07:21 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I feel like I have to point something out--something nobody noticed when I mentioned it earlier: what did I do or say to warrant an attack on me?</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

You were not attacked. Your paradigm was. There is a difference. What was actually challenged was the flawed logic of animal rights.

09-27-2002, 07:54 PM

So your snake is a carnivore, and as of no fault of his own he has to eat meat and Vegans are tearing up the insides of their cats by feeding veggie kibble.

So sense we are omnivores, meant to eat meat and plants.

Then you are saying you are tearing up your insides by not doing so. Sense this is how you were born and you were fed off the breast of your mother. And in doing so started life off as carnivore.

As to what animals we eat and do not eat that is all by choice and they would all be good for you in some way.

You say you are not hurting anything but you feed your snake mice?

As to the Bible it is a book of God's word written down by man. So man was his secretary, he wrote down what he was told.

As I do not know anything of other religions. I can not debate what they believe. I do know the Bible does not say what animals to eat and what no to. Most is based on what they are best for. As an Ox could be used to plow fields, dogs to help hunt and cows food. And I'm sure when your dog is old he could be eaten if you choose.

This is one comment that is the reason people are talking to you in the way they are.

You said (Florencia R.)

"I have to say that they still have some good ideas, in theory--mainly the ones about compassion for animals, not only for the sake of the animals themselves, but also for the sake of the environment, public health, etc. (For info, see www.taxmeat.com--it's a silly idea and it's run by PETA but it has info that I can prove to you is true.)"

What people read is that you agree with PETA but not the way on which they pass on their message. And PETA would like to see all humans eating plants not animals. Also if they have their way no one would have any pets even your pet snake. So make sure you side with the people on your side. We all have ideas and ewe need to protect those ideas and not try to change laws so all people have to go by what I believe.

09-27-2002, 08:01 PM

Okay, so you can "attack my paradigm" but I can't disagree with you....Why do I even bother saying anything?
I don't side with PETA...Can't somebody agree with just SOME of what people say? Nobody agrees with everything 100%.
And when I said this thread (or the other one? #### it...both) was stupid, I meant that the conversation should end because it's become a "why Flo sucks: let's all argue with her and prove her wrong" thread. So rather than trying to clear up what I've said because you people misunderstand *everything* that I say, I'll just stop. What a cop-out. And to think I actually put some faith into people...

"Kids, you have tried and failed miserably. The lesson is: never try." (Homer Simpson)

09-27-2002, 08:41 PM

Why Flo Sucks!

No, just kidding, I don't think people were attacking you personally.  The problem is these organizations work to ban what for all of us is a passion, and some of us a way of making a living.  Sure these organizations do help animals the right way.  But they repeatedly try to get our pets, hobbies, whatever you want to call it banned.  When these topics come up, you've got to expect a backlash.  And having someone who themselves keeps herps supporting, or seeming to support their actions is hard for a lot of us to comprehend.

Everyone has their opinions, I agree with that.  But these groups try to force their opinions on the rest of us.  With their views being all reptiles are dangerous or something along that line, it's hard to take them seriously at all.  When was the last time someone was killed by a wild pack of leopard geckos.  Or maybe some poor camper was scarred for life by a chance run in with a renegade beardie.  They don't take a stance that would even be understandable, it's just all is bad, across the board, no exceptions.  Reptiles do have a place as pets, some of us are allergic to mammalian pets, myself included.  So, no dogs or cats for me, and birds are too loud for my tastes.  I'm sure their is a middle ground somewhere, such as laws that make abuse of reptiles the same as abusing dogs and cats, and responsible ownership, but not to take them away.

And Flo, to keep others from attacking your "logic", just don't use any, that's what I do.

09-27-2002, 09:42 PM

Well, see, here's the funny thing: I never said I supported PETA. I don't. In fact, I said that I, too, oppose their whole reptile ban. So I'm getting backlash for saying that I agree with everybody? What?? The only things people are telling me is that I attack their beliefs, that my beliefs are stupid and wrong, etc., and yet that's what everyone's doing to me. And all of this is just because everyone has these completely wrong ideas of what I said. I mean, why is everything black-and-white with people? Just because I agree with some of what PETA thinks, to the extent of people being veg but not to the point of actually hurting people for "the cause", doesn't mean that I agree with their extremist practices or views. I know you all would have been the same way if I'd said  "everything about PETA sucks except this one ad they did about being vegetarian" and people would be like, "no, screw you crazy vegetarians! blah blah blah" because that's what almost everyone's been doing until now. The thing that gets me is that I agree with you people about everything except eating animals and yet everything I say is taken personally and attacked...my so-called "flawed logic of animal rights". What about the flawed 'logic' of human dominion over all other species? Why does it matter? We could all argue till we're blue in the face and yet we still won't get anywhere because everyone is arguing for, and apparently against, their own opinions.
*blue in the face, sick to the stomach*


Tired of those Google and InfoLink ads? Upgrade Your Membership!