Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:23:52 -0800
From: PETA Correspondent <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: response requested
Thank you for contacting PETA about animals killed during grain harvesting.
While it is true that animals are killed during harvesting, there is a lot
more to this story than meets the eye. First, we, and animals rights
advocates in general, are primarily concerned with preventing the suffering
of living animals. While millions of animals are killed each year in the
harvesting process, millions of animals suffer EVERY DAY in the meat
industry. BILLIONS of animals are tortured and slaughtered for food every
year in the United States alone. All of these animals being raised for meat
eat grain. In fact, they consume more than half of all of the grain produced
in this country. If the population of the United States were vegetarian, we
would actually require LESS grain, and thereby kill fewer animals during
harvesting. When you eat meat, not only are you contributing to the
suffering of the farmed animals, but you are also contributing to the
majority of the animals killed during harvesting.
If you have a moment, I'd like to know in which restaurant you saw this
"Guiltless Grill" menu section. Thanks again for your message. We appreciate
the opportunity to discuss this important issue.
*Note: I have never contacted PETA. Someone sent my guiltless grill article to them and PETA decided to contact me instead.
PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Let's ignore for a moment that their name implies there exists a universal set of ethics, and instead let's focus on the meat of this email: PETA is "primarily concerned with preventing the suffering of living animals." Oh really? As opposed to preventing the suffering of dead animals? Good thing they clarified because I was confused and couldn't infer that when they said "animals" they didn't mean dead animals. Glad we have that cleared up, let's move on.
So what exactly constitutes as "prevention" of animal suffering? The moral vegetarians (not the ones who do it for religious or health reasons) love to chant "we're trying to limit the suffering." What the hell does that mean? If you eat wheat or soy, you're not limiting anything. Unless you plant, grow and pick your own crops, you're not doing everything you can to "limit" the suffering. You know deep down that you could help limit a whole lot more suffering, but you've chosen not to. You've chosen not to because your lifestyle is too convenient, and you'd have to give up too much, but nevermind that--you have a conscience to feel good about, and you can't let a little thing like millions of violent deaths of field animals get in the way of your moral trip.
Limit the suffering? That's like me saying I'm going to eat meat only 364 out of 365 days of the year in an effort to "limit" the suffering, I'm doing my part to prevent suffering. "BUT MADDOX, YOU COULD LIMIT A LOT MORE SUFFERING BY NOT EATING MEAT AT ALL!!!1" Exactly, and vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? You claim to have compassion for animals, but just as soon as it gets too inconvenient you decide to call it quits? Cowards. You're no better off; not in my book. A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20 if the murder is avoidable. Of course, from the perspective of a suggestible young vegetarian I'm sure being responsible for half as many murders as the next guy means you're off the hook, right?
I keep getting email from moral vegetarians saying "HEY MADOX WE FEED MORE GRAIN TO ANIMALS AND IF YOU EAT THE ANIMALS YOU ARE KILLING TWICE AS MUCH." No #####? The only difference is that I'm not protesting at street corners about other peoples' diets--I'm not the one with a mission to prevent "the suffering of living animals." This email I received, and many like it is the whole reason I wrote the article in the first place. My opinions are kept to myself on my personal web page. I don't remember asking anyone to read a damn thing on my website. When you open up your inbox, you don't find it full of my opinions, and if you do I didn't send them to you. I'm not standing on the street corners protesting, I'm not putting fliers on your car and I'm not putting ads on TV and in magazines. I'm not shoving my agenda down your throat, don't shove your agenda down mine. All you dumbass activists need to get bent already.
Fun with facts: vegetarians love to boast outrageous figures like "it takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and only 20 gallons to produce one pound of wheat." I've heard figures ranging from 2,000 to 5,000, and vegetarians will be damned if they include a source so we'll take the mean (that means "average") and go with 3,500. The average person consumes 1.5 million gallons of water every year (it takes water to grow and produce the food you eat in addition to the water you drink, quit emailing me you morons). Why isn't PETA protesting overpopulation of humans on the street corners? Why isn't PETA passing out free condoms or throwing javelins in your cock when you walk down the street if they really cared about water consumption? It's not like that water just suddenly disappears. The earth has had about the same amount of water for 2 billion years. So if a pound of beef takes 3,500 gallons of water, what difference does it make? How many vegetarians drive a car? To make a car (including tires), it takes about 40,000 gallons of fresh water. That's not including the gas it takes to run the car, the electricity to run the gas station, the water used to create the boat that brought your precious oil, the water used to create the pavement you drive on, the destruction of toxic chemicals that went into creating your clothes, and the electricity you use every day to send me stupid emails over the internet. Every year you are directly responsible for the consumption of billions of gallons of water. There are 26 million people suffering preventable brain damage from iodine deficiency, and another 1.5 billion people at risk. Nevermind that, you have animals to save. By driving your cars, you pump billions of tons of poison into the atmosphere and you're slowly killing us all. The computer you use requires 250 watts of electricity, let alone the billions of computers required to keep you on the internet. All consuming energy. All contributing to pollution. Let's just ignore those minor hypocrisies. Someone wants to enjoy a burger and you'll be damned if you're going to let them.
What makes you think that animals suffer in slaughter houses anyway? I think it would rule to be raised for slaughter. Get all the free steroids you want, free meals and plenty of good company--hell, you have it made. Then when you're at the prime of your life, you get your head generously chopped off so you don't have to live through the suffering of old age. Not only that, but you can die with the satisfaction of knowing that somebody is going to enjoy eating a burger made out of you. What's more humane? Being slaughtered for meat or having to spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours per week in a cubicle for the rest of your life with assholes who listen to shitty music without headphones, then retiring and withering away with old age and cancer as your obnoxious kids grow up and treat you like #####? Slaughter please.