# PETA to launch porn site



## AquaNekoMobile (Feb 26, 2010)

Yes, not a topic misprint there.

Source:

http://idle.slashdot.org/story/11/09/19/164202/PETA-To-Launch-Pornography-Website



> The non-profit organisation, whose controversial campaigns draw criticism from women's rights groups, said it hopes to raise awareness of veganism through a mix of pornography and graphic footage of animal suffering.
> 
> "We're hoping to reach a whole new audience of people, some of whom will be shocked by graphic images that maybe they didn't anticipate seeing when they went to the PETA triple-X site," said Lindsay Rajt, PETA's associate director of campaigns.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cypher (Apr 15, 2006)

What I fear is that they'll be unintentionally creating/ promoting some new level of sadist sexual trend with this. This has the ingredients to become a catastrophe on so many levels.
People need to stop funding these loony toons. Fund your local animal shelters - and adoption agencies, yes, but not these morons.

As much as I love animals, I _hate_ peta.

**edit**

As far as exclusive "plant based diets" go. Do people not realize that more acreage of forests each year are being bulldozed over for new farmland to meet the growing consumer demands for vegetable products? Deforestation is not just about lumber and cattle folks. I had the opportunity to see this first hand in Southeast Asia.  Wonder where your possible future cancer cure or pandemic virus cure went? Into your bellies! Just something to think about.

Peta cares for animals but not the environment.


----------



## AquaNekoMobile (Feb 26, 2010)

> PETA has been accused of campaigning for animal rights at the cost of exploiting women





> Attack Watch
> Yesterday 08:13 PM
> Recommended by
> 5 people
> Talk about "beating your meat"


----------



## Cypher (Apr 15, 2006)

Is that in reference to the peta ads where women pose nude with their bits covered in veggies and such? Those women volunteered to pose nude for peta I don't see exploitation in that.

**edit**
doh, if it's in reference to the pornography site, nm then. Post dinner time lack of blood in brain. 

But releasing 10K of minks into the wild by busting them out of farms, ruins the local ecology. How bout the suffering of the local wild birds and small mammels and the ensuing accelerated ecological crash caused by the release of minks into the wild? Do only farmed animals matter peta? Does the suffering of wild animals matter less? 

10,000 minks saved from slaughter (temporarily). Guess how many birds and small mammels are consumed by 10,000 minks on a weekly basis.


----------



## J-P (Feb 27, 2011)

I read about that in the site in a paper a few weeks back.. talk about "loving your animals" LOL!!


----------



## 50seven (Feb 14, 2010)

Cypher said:


> What I fear is that they'll be unintentionally creating/ promoting some new level of sadist sexual trend with this. This has the ingredients to become a catastrophe on so many levels.


+1 don't need to give the deviants any more ideas...


----------



## trailblazer295 (Mar 7, 2010)

This is wrong on so many levels.


Before anyone gets upset I do respect women but the point is the same.


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

Cypher said:


> As far as exclusive "plant based diets" go. Do people not realize that more acreage of forests each year are being bulldozed over for new farmland to meet the growing consumer demands for vegetable products? Deforestation is not just about lumber and cattle folks. I had the opportunity to see this first hand in Southeast Asia. Wonder where your possible future cancer cure or pandemic virus cure went? Into your bellies! Just something to think about.


Well to be fair, people do have to eat, and it's a lot less environmentally damaging to grow crops and produce than to herd cattle.


----------



## Cypher (Apr 15, 2006)

Actually the environmental damage is about the same if you think about it. Virgin forest with all it's bio-diversity gone to feed cattle or grow crops. Once you take it down, you can't replicate the unique bio-diversity of each forest. We can't even do it in laboratory conditions. 

Also, weather grass is growing for grazing in the former forest or crops are growing the CO2 consumption and the OXYGEN out put does not anywhere come close to the respiration that a mature forest is capable of.


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

Cypher said:


> Actually the environmental damage is about the same if you think about it. Virgin forest with all it's bio-diversity gone to feed cattle or grow crops. Once you take it down, you can't replicate the unique bio-diversity of each forest. We can't even do it in laboratory conditions.
> 
> Also, weather grass is growing for grazing in the former forest or crops are growing the CO2 consumption and the OXYGEN out put does not anywhere come close to the respiration that a mature forest is capable of.


Not really. I can't find the reference right now, but it takes a much larger area of land to raise cattle to feed the same amount of people as growing crops and produce requires.


----------



## J-P (Feb 27, 2011)

most of the beef we eat doesn't come from grazing pastures. It is grain fed and trucked in to the cattle farms.

Thus part of the food shortage myth. There IS enough grain food to feed the world. We just happen to like our steak (and poultry and pork) more.


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

J-P said:


> most of the beef we eat doesn't come from grazing pastures. It is grain fed and trucked in to the cattle farms.
> 
> Thus part of the food shortage myth. There IS enough grain food to feed the world. We just happen to like our steak (and poultry and pork) more.


Same idea though. Those grain feeds a lot more people directly than indirectly through a cow. It's the basic idea of energy conservation. Each step higher on the food chain involves a loss of energy.

I'm not sure about chicken, but I know that pork is a lot more energy efficient than beef, which is why pork is the main source of meat in China. Plus, a lot of North Americans won't eat the internal organs of the animal, resulting in a lot of waste.

As for the food shortage "myth", keep in mind that the reason we have enough grain to feed the world is because our expansion of agricultural lands at the expense of wilderness. This comes at a price as desertification spreads and green house gases rise.


----------



## bigfishy (Jun 19, 2009)

If wild animals get population control

I believe we should do the same for humans

Then we wouldn't have so many problems 

As for peta... people pay more attention to other people than to other species... so they are enhancing the messages...


----------



## Cypher (Apr 15, 2006)

I'd be interested in that reference if you could find it.

Regardless, I think you're missing the point. To put it bluntly, we're tearing out pieces of our lungs to keep our stomachs full. Converting the population wholesale from an omnivorous diet to pure vegan/ vegetarian will have drastically harmful effects on our environment. Growing chickens and pigs in farm houses does not require chopping down the same acreage of virgin forests as farming soya or veggies. *Everything should be done in moderation and that includes our consumption of meat and veggies.* 

Here's an article from a few years back:

http://www.looking-glass.co.uk/news/library2003/2003-10-soya-rainforest.htm

In Southeast Asia, it's oil palm plantations that are replacing rain forests in order to meet the demand for vegetable oil and biofuel.

And this is where it gets to be fish related:

Not only are they bulldozing trees in rainforests, they bulldoze over streams and ponds as well. In addition, they're also tearing down large hills the size of small mountains to make it easier to plant oil palm. All this is happening at an incredibly alarming rate too.

My friends from the area can no longer find specific rare species of fish they used to be able to catch because the streams and ponds have been obliterated. Many of these species are not wide spread either so it's really gloomy to think about how many are actually left out there.

I went hiking on a few occasions with them trying to find some rarities (fish). It was as much a surprise to me as it was to them as they had been to these places just months earlier and now the same areas had so quickly been turned into oil palm plantations. There was nothing there. All the streams and ponds were gone. Some new irrigation canals but even in them, none of the fish unique to the area that we were looking for. Only the really hardy common types were left.

Those were just fish. How about an ingredient to cure cancer or future pandemic virus?



solarz said:


> Not really. I can't find the reference right now, but it takes a much larger area of land to raise cattle to feed the same amount of people as growing crops and produce requires.


----------



## J-P (Feb 27, 2011)

actually all the previous replies are quite valid. For once we are all on the same page.. or at least in the same chapter.

Going vegan / vegetarian will actually benefit the planet.

I have no quams about PETA's motives... it is the *methods* that they employ and hypocritical propaganda / violent tendencies that I really object to.

I enjoy my meat as much as any steak lover. I love to BBQ. Could we as a society do better? Sure we could. Could PETA? You bet your damned a$$ they could.

If you dislike PETA you'll LOVE this video:






Again I understand the principle but the way they go about it is WRONG... including the porn site.


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

Cypher said:


> I'd be interested in that reference if you could find it.
> 
> Regardless, I think you're missing the point. To put it bluntly, we're tearing out pieces of our lungs to keep our stomachs full. Converting the population wholesale from an omnivorous diet to pure vegan/ vegetarian will have drastically harmful effects on our environment. Growing chickens and pigs in farm houses does not require chopping down the same acreage of virgin forests as farming soya or veggies. *Everything should be done in moderation and that includes our consumption of meat and veggies.*


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production



> Animals fed on grain need more water than grain crops.[4] In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1.[4] The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits for direct human consumption.[4]
> Relatedly, the production and consumption of meat and other animal products is associated with the clearing of rainforests, resource depletion, air and water pollution, land and economic inefficiency, species extinction, and other environmental harms.


No, I'm not missing the point, but you're mixing up two related, but different issues. Producing plant-based food is simply more energy efficient than producing meat-based food, and that's a fact.

What you're mixing up in there is the _method_ of production, i.e. industrial farming. Industrial farming allows the kinds of food yields that gives first-world countries like Canada the kind of plentifulness that we've come to take for granted. The price for this, of course, is the environmental damage, not only in Canada but all over the world. 3rd world countries raze their forests in order to develop agriculture as an export commodity.

Certainly, there are more environmentally friendly ways to farm. That's what sustainable agriculture is all about. However, for various reasons, this kind of practice is not as economically profitable as industrial farming.

This is largely similar to the fossil fuel issue. Despite all their drawbacks, fossil fuel is still one of the cheapest sources of energy available. Switching to "green" energy means affecting the wallets of voting citizens and the bottom line of influential corporations. That is why there are people denying Climate Change, and people opposing green energy initiatives because they have to pay a few more dollars on their monthly hydro bills.


----------



## Cypher (Apr 15, 2006)

solarz said:


> What you're mixing up in there is the _method_ of production, i.e. industrial farming. Industrial farming allows the kinds of food yields that gives first-world countries like Canada the kind of plentifulness that we've come to take for granted. The price for this, of course, is the environmental damage, not only in Canada but all over the world. 3rd world countries raze their forests in order to develop agriculture as an export commodity.


Touché mon ami! Well argued. 

*edit*
But think about this, even in the first world here, if we ALL went Vegan/ Vegetarian, how much more farmland would we need instead of the farmhouses of chickens and pigs?


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

Cypher said:


> Touché mon ami! Well argued.
> 
> *edit*
> But think about this, even in the first world here, if we ALL went Vegan/ Vegetarian, how much more farmland would we need instead of the farmhouses of chickens and pigs?


Well keep in mind that those farmhouses need to buy tons of grain to feed their livestock, so I think it would be rather less.

Of course, ideally we should have free-range chickens and feed livestock agricultural byproducts that we don't consume. However, that would make for more expensive meat.


----------



## J-P (Feb 27, 2011)

solarz is correct. We would actually be using less land and less water.


----------



## Will (Jul 24, 2008)

I find it funny how every PETA discussion I've seen turns into meat vs. vegan diet discussions despite that being a small part of PETA.

I think the porn idea is really funny and desperate. I don't see it being of good benifit. I'm not a PETA supporter, animal advocation is important, but their methods are mostly not something I'd support.


----------



## J-P (Feb 27, 2011)

+1

In the write up I read (can't remember if it was the Star or the Sun) they said it would most likely backfire. 

The obvious target audience is the male demographic (because we eat the most meat). Males searching for adult sites are typically not going to look at animal activist sites, or sign up simply because there are some hot women there. Thus a big waste of time and $$. Most likely it will just tantalize the males who are already members of PETA. 

Another interesting stat that came about 2 years ago.. Social networking sites are now generating more traffic and searched for more often than adult sites. Porn it seems, has been dethroned as the #1 sought after online pastime.


----------



## Will (Jul 24, 2008)

J-P said:


> Another interesting stat that came about 2 years ago.. Social networking sites are now generating more traffic and searched for more often than adult sites. Porn it seems, has been dethroned as the #1 sought after online pastime.


Yes Social networking has taken over the internet by storm in the last decade. It has benifits and dangers of it's own. I'm surprised PITA hasn't spent more effort and resources on those, esp. on FB.

Some porn stats for you. This IS a safe image, it's all text: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/06/internet-porn_01.jpg


----------

