Slashdot Mirror

According to the latest study, you can't eat anything.

Granted, "The Center for Consumer Freedom" is a blatant lobby group for the food industry, but their radio ad campaigns that they run in the DC area are hilarious. For real laughs, listen to their archives of radio ads.

This link is blatant right-wing propaganda, but funny as hell. Especially the one about fish.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com...

But on a serious note, todays NY Times had an "according to the latest study" acticle about a study that claims that all that stuff we've been told for decades about dietary fat being unhealthly is untrue. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/.... Now since this contradicts several decades of observation, I tend to take "latest study" science with a grain of salt and give more credence to well verified (i.e. long term) science.

The problem with bad science is that it gets reproduced in the popular press (and popular imagination) even if it is later proven false. Case in point: the notorious vacination-autism fiasco. Another example is the "neutrino faster than light" results released a few years back in Italy. As Mark Twain said, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."

You can never fully discount the possibility that the guy releasing the results of the latest study is an attention-whore looking to drum up sensationalism to have his 15 minutes of fame. Scientiest are human and subject to the same vanities as everyone else.

Bottom line, never trust preliminary results.

Yes, because opposing nanny statism is a horrible, awful, terrible thing.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/about/

It is logical fallacy to say the message is false because of who is delivering it.

This should be old news to well...everyone. They also have no shortage of links to domestic terrorist groups, also shown on Bullshit! but there's also a pile of links on it available.

My favorite example of NY legislature stupidity: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2010/03/4122-new-york-considers-legislation-to-ban-salt-in-restaurants/

And the activistcash.com (not .org) site looks like a well funded smear campaign against pretty much every remotely "liberal" organization out there. They list their sponsor as the "center for consumer freedom" that lists this gem amongst its articles. One of the choice lines, while trying to point out that sugary drinks "are really just fine to drink and nobody knows for sure if they're bad or not!" is:

What about soft drinks? Research appearing in the March issue of the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise found that drinking sugary beverages before exercise actually improved physical performance among elite athletes.

Umm, yeah, but if you're not an elite athelete about to exercise, it *might* be best to skip the 32oz Gatorade. This site tries to position itself as some sort of skeptic resource, but the brand of skepticism stinks.

--Jeremy

I think your signature works pretty well here.

The Center For Consumer Freedom is pretty easily recognizable as industry shills. Their collection of websites has grown beyond petakillsanimals and advocating for transfats into protesting in favor of obesity and Mercury isn't that big a deal. The Saunders piece cancels itself out in light of this, so I don't have to. The Newsweek article is really not damning because I guess Newsweek doesn't have a financial interest in people eating more meat.

My point is that people who have some other axe to grind with PETA can always find something to say about them, and it's also preposterous to give equal weight to factory farming and euthanasia.

If you really want to talk hypocrisy, note how PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has no problems about using medical techniques developed from animal testing to help herself, or how PETA vice president Mary Beth Sweetland keeps herself alive with animal tested and derived insulin.

This, my friends, is yet another reason to support the Center for Consumer Freedom.

If, while reading this article, the government's actions piss you off, I'd recommend going to the CCF's website, checking them out, and then giving them your full support.

Sorta like the hypocrites in charge of PETA?

But I believe her. There's no hypocrisy... she's benefiting from past animal research, but she'll be damned if anyone else can benefit from future research. That's not hypocritical, right?

Personally, I'm for feeding swarmy bastards like that to the robots. Follow it up with the ALF idiots, then the PETA leadership. Should be enough cross memberships to take out Sea Shepherds as well. We recycle enough of these ecoterrorists & ecoidiots, maybe we can actually get things done.

The scandal was generated by HSUS, who didn't see fit to report anything AT THE TIME, but waited several months -- until they could make political hay with it. Tell me, was that for the benefit of the cows and the humans who eat them, or for the benefit of HSUS's coffers?? see http://www.activistcash.com/news_detail.cfm?hid=3571 and http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3565 for starters.

Second, having seen a "vicious dog" video that was COMPLETELY STAGED (including letting a little kid get bitten -- this was filmed in some third-world country where street kids are a dime a dozen) I have very small faith in the authenticity of such videos... particularly one that's been held back for several months, no doubt to be "edited for television".

I grew up in cattle country, and I never once saw ANY rancher or feedlot (or anyone else for that matter) abuse livestock. Tell me, do you really believe that some DO beat cattle just for the sheer fun of it?? And do you really think a 1500 pound animal equipped with a short temper is going to just meekly put up with it?? Because that's what your response implies. (I'd like to see someone TRY to abuse a dairy bull... let alone live to tell about it!)

See, that's ALWAYS the problem with the AR arguments. Examples of substandard animal care are in fact extremely rare, but that's not how they tell it -- rather, it's always "some are good guys, but many are not" -- despite being able to produce only isolated incidents. Yeah, there are a few corner cases, but corner cases make bad law and worse regulations, and wind up penalizing the good guys out of business.

Of course, the ARs see no problem with this -- SINCE THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL IS THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF ALL ANIMAL USE.

That includes meat, milk, eggs (their Prop 2 did manage to effectively ban egg production in California, but if you follow the money, I'm sure it will lead to Chinese and Phillipino egg exporters), leather, research, many plastics, AND PETS.

Let's look at this in regards to one of their lecturers

or this in regards to their ties to the ALF and ELF and comments made by PETA employees.

or watch the Bullshit episode on PETA and then try and rebut all they say in that. (And yes, I know the Bullshit shows are horrendously one sided, and when they come down on the other side of a topic I believe in it shits me to tears... but they make some fine points in this episode)

If all PETA did was raise awareness of animal rights, lobby for their fair treatment etc. then I would support them, but they DO put animals above people in far too many cases, and somehow forget that treating humans worse than they wish animals to be treated sends the wrong message.

To make it even worse, the state is legislated though Proposition 65 to classify a certain number of chemicals each year with no end limit.

California's Silliest Law Is About To Get Sillier

Most businesses just hang the sign whether they need one or not, just to cover themselves. Do you have a laser printer or copier on the premises? Do you serve coffee or drinks with caffeine? Better hang a warning sign.

That the LA government is pulling this is no surprise. They're horribly corrupt. Phrases like "detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare" are well-known to be excuses for imposing dictatorship.

Look at the outright war the LA government is waging against hot dog vendors who want to sell bacon dogs. Is it any surprise LA is cracking down on freedom even more?

It's time for LA residents to use the second amendment for what it's supposed to be used for: protecting.themselves from the government.

Right-O, over the centuries since they have become domesticated food animals have become so dependent upon humans that they couldn't survive without us. Honestly, sheep are so dumb that when it's lambing season you literally have to spend 5 minutes to god-knows-how-long trying to get the mother sheep to accept her own offspring!

Of course from what I understand of PETA, they would rather have all the animals dead than live under the tyranny of humanity, only to end up on a fork.

Q: What organization kills 90% of the animals it 'shelters'?

A: PETA of course! http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2982

You fail to mention that only 29% said SDI was positive (source). If 71% of respondents don't think your massively expensive program (which, by the way, had the potential to employ many of the people asked in the poll) has positive value, I'd say that could be described as "profound and pervasive skepticism". I do, however, agree that the poll is biased. You could have said it in your own words rather than cut and pasting it from some website somewhere.

Specifically, this is about one line in #5. I find it laughable that the author calls PEAT a nonterrorist organization. If anyone does any research on PETA, you will find that PETA is a terrorist-funding organization.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/hea dline/2339

This article talks about PETA giving a $70,000 "gift" to a suspected arsonist, $1500 to the radical Earth Liberation Front, $5000 to a militant member of the Animal Liberation Front, and have members advocating "blowing things up and smashing windows".

To say PETA is a nonterrorist organization is a complete fabrication of the truth.

This is mostly a copy and paste from another of my earlier posts with a few edits

The overwhelming majority of scientists (who would describe themselves as working scientists versus simple degree holders in the field) are academics working in academic university environments, or even in the case of goverment or corporate research labs, are in the academic revolving door. It is no secret that major universities are basically immersed in left-wing culture both at the official level (such as having ethnic or women's studies departments, speech codes, etc) and at the unofficial level (such as student protest groups). So, these guys are working and living in what amounts to a left-wing echo chamber and anti-industrial environmentalism is a core tenet of modern leftist orthodoxy. People working in that enviornment can not help but have a certain amount of cultural bias. As in most social environments, there is great pressure to conform. I do not doubt that in some cases, non-conforming academics have been ostracized as cretins or kooks, denied tenure, and passed up for promotion. So it is not surprising that a "majority of scientists" would land of the left-wing side of any particular debate, given the implications of being on the "wrong" side.

Also, without accusing anybody of consciously cooking the data, its easy to see what you want to see in data when you have pre-conceived notions. I would say that even the questions researchers ask or don't ask (i.e. what they choose to subject to a study or ignore) is influenced by their preconceived cultural notions.

When somebody says "science is on our side", I basically evaluate it the same as if they said "the statistics are on our side" (especially if its based on statistical or computer models instead of "hard science" that is reproducable in the lab). When somebody says, "the majority of scientists" are on our side, they are just using a logical fallacy - appeal to authority.

As much as we would all like to believe that scientists are selflessly searching for the "truth", they have motivations similar to everybody else (greed, fame, power, money, personel vendettas, etc). They also are capable of political bias. These motivations and bias can color the "truth".Throw in grant money and the prestige of getting published in well-respected journals and the results can be toxic to "truth".

I personally believe that the warming trend itself is undeniable. The extent of it that can be blamed on man versus natural climatic cycles is debatable. There probably is an anti-industrial environmental bias built into most climatic studies conducted at any university or government institutions. All claims should be filtered and evaluated with that in mind.

BTW, this is one of the funniest links around that pokes fun at politicized Science They are from some radio ads that a lobbyist group ran in the Washington, DC market. Obviously biased themselves, but very funny.

The overwhelming majority of scientists (who would describe themselves as working scientists versus simple degree holders in the field) are academics working in academic university environments, or even in the case of corporate research labs, are in the academic revolving door. It is no secret that major universities are basically immersed in left-wing culture both at the official level (such as having ethnic or women's studies departments, speech codes, etc) and at the unofficial level (such as students groups). So, these guys are working and living in what amounts to a left-wing echo chamber. They can not help but have a certain amount of cultural bias against conservatives or republicans. As in most social environments, there is great pressure to conform. In some cases, non-conforming academics have been ostracized as cretins or kooks, denied tenure, and passed up for promotion. So it is not surprising that a "majority" of scientists" would land of the left-wing side of any particular debate.

Also, without accusing anybody of consciously cooking the data, its easy to see what you want to see in data when you have pre-conceived notions. I would say that even the questions they ask or don't ask (i.e. what they choose to subject to a study or ignore) is influenced by their preconceived cultural notions.

When somebody says "science is on our side", I basically evaluate it the same as if they said "the statistics are on our side" (especially if its based on statistical models and not reproducable in the lab "hard" science).

The PCRM is a puppet organization set up by PETA to create propaganda under the guise of "objective" research. Source: one, and two.

Eating animals is wrong, but killing and dumping them is perfectly ok.

Check out http://www.prwatch.org/node/4458

Other frontgroups include; http://www.handsoff.org/ http://www.minimumwage.com/ http://www.abionline.org/ http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ http://www.epionline.org/ http://www.animalscam.com/ http://www.activistcash.com/ http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ http://www.activistcash.com/ http://www.physicianscam.com/ http://www.epionline.org/ http://www.abionline.org/ http://www.physicianscam.com/ http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ http://www.nannyculture.com/ http://www.cspiscam.com/ http://www.animalscam.com/ http://www.maddatgm.com/ http://www.cspiscam.com/ http://www.bacdebate.com/ http://www.bacdebate.com/ http://www.maddatgm.com/ http://www.responsibledrinker.com/ http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ http://www.bermanco.com/ http://www.firstjobs.org/ http://www.petapetition.com/ http://www.bermanco.com/ http://www.obesityscam.com/ http://www.rottenacorn.com/ http://www.madcowscare.com/
http://www.livingwage.com/

Check out http://www.prwatch.org/node/4458

Other frontgroups include; http://www.handsoff.org/ http://www.minimumwage.com/ http://www.abionline.org/ http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ http://www.epionline.org/ http://www.animalscam.com/ http://www.activistcash.com/ http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ http://www.activistcash.com/ http://www.physicianscam.com/ http://www.epionline.org/ http://www.abionline.org/ http://www.physicianscam.com/ http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ http://www.nannyculture.com/ http://www.cspiscam.com/ http://www.animalscam.com/ http://www.maddatgm.com/ http://www.cspiscam.com/ http://www.bacdebate.com/ http://www.bacdebate.com/ http://www.maddatgm.com/ http://www.responsibledrinker.com/ http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ http://www.bermanco.com/ http://www.firstjobs.org/ http://www.petapetition.com/ http://www.bermanco.com/ http://www.obesityscam.com/ http://www.rottenacorn.com/ http://www.madcowscare.com/
http://www.livingwage.com/

All that the "lastest studies" do is reduce public confidence in science. A long time ago, I tuned out all the "latest studies" on food as a bunch of fraudulant BS foisted upon the public by "scientists" looking to feather their nests with research grants or lawyers looking for an ambulance to chase. Check out the following link. "According to the latest study" campaign. I just follow two maximums that have been know for hundreds (if not thousands) of years and that did not require multi-million dollar research programs to figure out : 1) All things in moderation and 2) eat a balanced diet.

Why is he modded troll? It's fact that PETA condones violence for their cause. By definition, they ARE terrorists although it does sound a bit silly to call PETA a terrorist organization.

PETA's New Pro-Violence Promoter
What is PETA?

The http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ site is operated by the self-titled "Center for Consumer Freedom", which, according to their own web site, is "a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers" (emphasis mine). See http://www.consumerfreedom.com/about.cfm.

While I think PETA consists mainly of radical nutcases, linking to a corporate mouth-piece in an attempt to discredit them isn't exactly fair and objective, either.

This is the least of PETA's problems. They've given money to known (convicted) ecoterrorists such as Rodney Coronado (link, first one I found via Google, there are plenty more), his family, the ELF, etc. This information was retrieved from their tax filings (as a tax-exempt organization, their filings are public record).

I'm all for treating animals humanely, but assaulting people, setting fires, and blowing stuff up just because you don't agree with someone's lawful activities or even their wardrobe puts them in the same asshat camp as violent anti-abortion extremists. PETA is an organization that tries to maintain a reasonable face, but as soon as you start doing even a little bit of digging, you find that they are a group whose leadership has some very extreme ideas, including the advocacy of illegal, violent, etc. activities. There are plenty of quotes (including video - pretty hard to call that heresay), tax filings etc. floating around on the Internet. I've seen two documentaries exposing these; if you want more information, Google is your friend.

Yes, there's a lot of rumor and heresay on the Internet, but PETA's reputation is pretty well known. I suggest you check things out for yourself.

Just thought I'd mention that ActivistCash.com is a site run by the "Center for Consumer Freedom" -- a front group for the restaurant, bar, and food processing industries (which probably has something to do with why the site is so focused on PETA and Mothers Against Drunk Driving). Among their other projects, CCF has campaigned in the past against the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Just a point of reference to help you evaluate the information presented there.

Most of the stuff that makes the press is by "scientists" with dubious credentials http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/hea dline/1742 who sell their services to groups with an axe to grind http://www.pcrm.org/

With the right buzzwords, you can dupe most of the public into believing anything http://www.dhmo.org/

Except that, thanks to the new law1, you can't sue fast food companies over health concerns.

This is, without a doubt, the most blatent pro-coroprate, anti-citizen act yet. The only people it benefits are the McCEOs selling quote-unquote food to people who are so ill-educated (due to reduced funding in public education?) that they don't know any better. How does this law benefit me? It doesn't. Shouldn't these lawsuits be handled on a case-by-case basis, to determine if they have merit? Why do we allow one of our only ways of getting compensation from corporations, the lawsuit, to be taken from us? It disguts me, that McDonalds, Burger King, and the Congresspeople that they bought are claiming some sort of moral high ground. The fact is, they make people fat, and you and I, Joe and Jack Taxpayer, cover their medical costs, while executives at profit factories laugh their way to the bank, knowing that Mr. & Mrs. American will cover the cleanup costs for the pile of shit they've dumped on our heads.

Fuck them all. Bomb McDonalds! Burn Wendy! Destroy Taco Bell! Jihad against Ronald McDonald, that's what it takes.

--
1. Note that is site is a coroprate financed, anti-personal freedom propaganda machine.

It seems interesting to me that a large portion of the article is related to PETA's objections to the program. I've done research into PETA for a school project... At first, I was respectful of the institution's goals- ethical treatment, yaddayadda, cool stuff, right on!
But PETA's tactics and policies seem iffy at best... this website has spiffy links with quotes from PETA people...
I find this a pity. There should surely be some group out there which is concerned with animal rights but isn't afflicted with absurd zealotry. I think that it hurts the entire movement, which is a pity, especially when they do some useful stuff (the UNC lab-rat abuse a while back, for instance, where the staff was being delibrately cruel...)

PETA and the terrorist groups it associates with really ought to go after something that's a bit more widespread or quite a bit more cruel, not a few dozen squirrels being monitored humanely for what may yet prove incalculable benefits to mankind.

This is just a plan to let President Bush take care of all those PETA wackos. You see, by making oil from turkeys, he'll surely upset any self-righteous PETA member. They'll boycott the new oil and continue to use oil from the middle East, and consequently they'll be supporting terrorism.

PETA is already known to support domestic terrorist groups...there's really no need to work in a Middle East angle when dealing with them.

How can you trust an organization, such as Greenpeace, when its own founder quit the organization because he thought it was hijacked by environmental extremists?