Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PETA Using Games To Spread Its Message

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the looking-for-a-new-audience-to-harass dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 477

Cooking Mama is a series of games for the Wii and the DS in which players go through a number of steps to prepare meals using a variety of recipes. Last week, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) created their own Flash-based parody of the game, highlighting the use of meat products by having a more bloody-minded Mama do things like pull the internal organs from a Thanksgiving turkey. Cooking Mama's maker, Majesco, issued a light-hearted response, pointing out the vegetarian meals in the game. PETA then said they plan to continue making parody games as a way of "engaging the public."

cancel ×

477 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Which games? (2, Funny)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880841)

Somehow it would be funny if PETA sponsored Natural Fawn Killers.

Re:Which games? (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881047)

What is this PETA people are talking about? Is this some sort of a ripoff of D.H.E.T.A.? Also what is a turkey?

Re:Which games? (1)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881133)

They're not common, but here's a turkey [thottbot.com] .

PETA is like D.H.E.T.A. except they're all humans. As a member of the horde I routinely slaughter PETA members whenever possible.

Re:Which games? (4, Funny)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881429)

Damn straight. Around these parts, I hunt deer and they hunt me. I use a 2 ton missile, and they use their bodies :(

Too bad Ive wrecked 2 cars, including cracking the engine block in 2 on a 10 point buck. That one sucked.

Should I be bothered? (5, Interesting)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880853)

Because as long as they aren't doing the whole "domestic terrorism" thing or going after kids while the parents aren't looking I don't really give a damn.

I know my food used to be alive, and I know it had internal organs. Some of them are quite tasty.

Re:Should I be bothered? (3, Interesting)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881745)

I propose an "Eat a Beef Burger for PETA" day here on the Slash.

Re:Should I be bothered? (5, Funny)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881911)

put bacon on it. Eat two animals because they won't eat one.

Butcher Mama (4, Funny)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880857)

We should respond by releasing a flash game targeted at 8-12 year olds entitled "Butcher Mama," showing a farm-life environment where you have to slaughter and butcher hogs, chickens, cattle, and fish (from a fishery!). Target the age when your grandpappy taught you about farming, and even have such heart-felt phrases like "this is the best part, they dance around after ya kill 'em" that you should be familiar with if you were raised around livestock.

Re:Butcher Mama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881109)

Do you really think that will make people like to eat meat more?

Hrmm (3, Funny)

acehole (174372) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880871)

So I guess a remake of "Duck Hunt" is out of the question?

Irritating. (5, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880873)

That's it - every time they make one of those parodies, I'm eating a puppy.

lol peta (4, Insightful)

kevind23 (1296253) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880889)

Even as a vegetarian, I'll admit peta is out of control.

Peta out of control (5, Insightful)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881053)

As an animal lover - and I mean that in precisely two different ways - I believe that Peta is wrong in its philosophy, and its actions.

First, I believe you can treat animals ethically and humanely without assigning them "rights [wikipedia.org] ." Animals cannot claim their rights (as we understand them). If given, they cannot exercise them. (Except, of course, the right to life.)

Second, even though Peta has some right ideas, their love of shock theater can make even sympathetic people cringe. They are at their best when putting up billboards against chaining up dogs. And doing the most good, probably. Flinging fake blood at people, though...

Re:Peta out of control (2, Insightful)

kevind23 (1296253) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881215)

Peta does manage to convert people to their cause, but the majority are turned away from it because of the methods they employ. I am for ethical treatment of animals, including farm animals, but I don't need a shock video to convince me. It's more disturbing than anything else.

I wish they could find a better way to spread their message.

Re:Peta out of control (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881363)

Precisely, it's hard for me to take them at all seriously when they're that cartoonish. Really they're more suited to James Bond films, or more probably Austin Powers than actual progress.

It's difficult to take a message seriously when there's so little actual substance to it.

Here's a hint, try actually coming up with a message that isn't repugnant and is well executed. Otherwise it'll be turning off the majority of the sympathetic audience.

Re:Peta out of control (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881257)

First, I believe you can treat animals ethically and humanely without assigning them "rights [wikipedia.org]." Animals cannot claim their rights (as we understand them). If given, they cannot exercise them. (Except, of course, the right to life.)

The same could be said of children, for what it's worth. Whether or not something can exercise or claim its rights should not vitiate them.

Re:Peta out of control (1)

kevind23 (1296253) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881307)

The difference is that we look fondly upon our own race, despite all the havoc that we've wreaked upon this world. This is the same type of hypocrisy that pro-life supporters inevitably run into: a fetus is not capable of anything more than an "animal" is, yet we shouldn't kill it because it is alive and has rights. But wait! The animals that are much more developed than a human fetus don't have rights, and can be killed and eaten on a regular basis.

Re:Peta out of control (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881691)

I entirely agree.

I think the problem is that we, as a species, have a great deal of trouble drawing a bright line between when and where killing is acceptable and when and where it is not. That... distinction is not integral to our communal psyche.

Which, when you get down to it, is rather uncomfortable because it is a fairly fundamental issue. The result is that everyone ends up calling each other murderers (or totally insane).

Re:Peta out of control (2, Insightful)

servognome (738846) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881929)

This is the same type of hypocrisy that pro-life supporters inevitably run into: a fetus is not capable of anything more than an "animal" is, yet we shouldn't kill it because it is alive and has rights.

There really is no hypocrisy - the pro-life/pro-choice argument surrounds what exactly constitutes a "person," and ignores animals as outside of the scope of discussion.

Re:Peta out of control (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881617)

I'm sorry but...

Animals have the right to be damn tasty.

Be it fried, grilled, baked, or whatever.

People for the Eating of TASTY Animals.

Re:Peta out of control - Now in Warcraft! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881695)

I agree that PETA is out of control. They've even been parodied in World of Warcraft as the D.H.E.T.A (Druids for the Humane and Ethical Treatment of Animals), but I must refer back to Genesis in this respect. God gave Adam dominion of all life on the earth to use as he saw fit.

As it stands, this original mandate, before being cast from Eden, allows us to do what we will with these animals. Later, in Leviticus, certain restrictions on diet and deviate sexual practices (bestiality) were later forbidden, but the original mandate was never completely rescinded.

For the record, I am an Animal Control Officer for a local city and have to deal with this issue on a daily basis. I deal with cruelty as it is defined by the State of Texas and have to carry out my duties according to the statues. Some of these are lock-step with PETA's beliefs, but we also have laws in place about vandalism, criminal mischief, breaking and entering, trespassing, burglary, coercion and theft. I find that PETA crosses those lines far too often and I personally regard them as a criminal organization.

Re:lol peta (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881057)

No, kidding.

I'd wish they would quite wasting their time on virtual reality, and focus on the real physical problems such as these sick people who skin animals alive.

WARNING: Do NOT watch unless you have a strong stomach...
http://gegen-tierquaelerei.6x.to/ [6x.to]

Re:lol peta (1)

kevind23 (1296253) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881227)

The worst part is that people actually think they taste better when they're tortured.

Re:lol peta (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881409)

People actually think that? Disgusting.

I actually thank the creature that died so that I may live. It may have not chose to die, but it did so keeps me living, and that I am grateful.

Re:lol peta (2, Informative)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881467)

Foie Gras [wikipedia.org] is an extremely popular dish around the world that, depending on your definition of torture, is prepared via torturing the animals.

It's duck liver (though other fowl Foie Gras is produced) that has been enlarged through the practice of force-feeding the animal. While it is been banned in some countries it's available in the US, Canada, the UK, France etc. It's actually a very traditional meat in French cuisine and the vast majority of fine dining French restaurants feature it on their menu.

It's so popular, though controversial, that many farmers have developed means of producing it that does not involve force-feeding. On one episode of The F-Word (a British food show hosted by Gordan Ramsay) they presented Chef Ramsay with a blind taste test of traditional Foie Gras vs. non-force fed with the agreement that if he couldn't tell the difference he would switch to non-force fed in all of his restaurants. He did spot it though.

Of course it's totally different than skinning an animal alive ... but it's an example of an extremely popular food that is prepared in a method that many view as unethical.

Re:lol peta (1)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881533)

in south korea, it is believed that dog meat tastes better when the animal was killed slowly and painfully.

* warning, disturbing content below *

dogs are often killed by hanging. they have a rope going through a pulley, they tie a rope around the dog's neck, then pull on the rope until the dog's hind legs are just off the ground.

personally, i didn't notice any difference between humanely killed dog, and tortured dog. and dog doesn't really taste any better than beef. i don't understand the appeal of eating dog. why pay more money for dog meat, when it is significantly less tasty than beef or pork?

Re:lol peta (1)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881787)

Whenever I think of hunting, I always think of this speech [youtube.com] from Jeremy in "Sports Night".

Re:lol peta (1)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881753)

Being vegetarian has nothing to do with these acrimonious little fucks.

Love the way they don't point out the number of animals they slaughter themselves every year that they "rescue".

In my world (4, Informative)

fishthegeek (943099) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880913)

Vegetables are what food eats.

Food is cruel, then (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881321)

I personally don't see a clear dividing line between an animal's right to life and a vegetable's right to life. There is a continuum of intelligence, for lack of a better word, from man down to microbe. Humans should clearly have rights because society requires it; beyond that, the decision to protect or purchase is based on an arbitrary value choice.

I'm not being entirely facetious, either; the bits I've read about the lives of plants (i.e. they communicate, actively respond to their environment, and actively defend themselves) puts them about par with some insects IMHO.

Given this, I don't see why PETA types couldn't be attacked from the left, so to speak, on their callous disregard for the feelings of lettuce.

Re:In my world (1)

shma (863063) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881703)

Vegetables are what food eats.

And that kids, is why you should NEVER eat your vegetables.

As they say... (4, Insightful)

acehole (174372) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880917)

If animals werent meant to be eaten, they wouldnt have been made so tasty.

Re:As they say... (1)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881125)

If animals werent meant to be eaten, they wouldnt have been made so tasty.

Actually, I believe it's : If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did He make them out of meat?

Re:As they say... (2, Informative)

Garridan (597129) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881231)

So God wants us to eat people, too, right? Seriously, though. If people have a problem with killing to eat, they shouldn't eat vegetables, either.

Re:As they say... (1)

kevind23 (1296253) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881323)

People have a problem killing sentient animals to eat. Plants don't have feelings. If they do, I've missed out on a huge scientific enlightenment.

So what do carnivores do? (1)

spineboy (22918) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881873)

I guess it depends on what you define as sentient.
Whales (dunno), dolphins, and apes? - OK I'm not eating them, as they seem reasonably intelligent.
Dogs - sure, as they are our pets.

Cows, and the rest of their ilk,I gladly eat.
Humans are omnivores, and evolved to eat meat. To say that it's immoral is odd to me, as I (and nor should you) don't pass judgment on wolves tigers, and chimps, as they all eat meat.

Re:As they say... (1)

Garridan (597129) | more than 5 years ago | (#25882015)

Some people have a problem killing sentient animals to eat.

There, fixed that for you. Some of us think that all life should be respected, and are at peace with the notion that life depends on death in a very fundamental way. Plants can't effectively communicate with you. Who's to say they don't have feelings?

Why did this vision suddenly pop in to my head? (2, Funny)

LuxMaker (996734) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880921)

Of a game that involves showing how sausage is made. I seem to remember hearing that if you ever have seen it made you would never want to eat it.

Of course they would probably make a game of hiding the sausage over and over again too. I fits with their mantra of going naked to draw publicity.

Re:Why did this vision suddenly pop in to my head? (1)

springbox (853816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880979)

I saw how sausage, hot dogs, etc. are made. Still tastes good to me!

Re:Why did this vision suddenly pop in to my head? (1)

kevind23 (1296253) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881331)

Upton Sinclair's The Jungle [wikipedia.org] , no?

mmmmm. giblets. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25880929)

mmmmmm.

PETA (2, Funny)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880955)

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals

Remember, there's room for all of god's creatures... on the plate right next to the mashed potatoes and green beans.

Their next game - Pet Killers (5, Informative)

RocketJeff (46275) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880959)

Of course it would be based on the actual experiences of PETA staffers: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ [petakillsanimals.com]

PETA's sekret (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25880969)

I'm firmly convinced that PETA want to be to meat, what Gallagher is to fruit. That the tauntaun sequence in Empire is either an erotic, or religious experience to them.

It's the simpler explanation for their utter fascination with graphic displays of viscera in any format they can manage.

In the meantime, I have incisors. Off to eat more meat.

Re:PETA's sekret (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881357)

Yeah, it always strikes me as a little odd. Like if an anti-pedo group went apeshit and started waving pictures 6 year-olds getting raped.

Anonymous coward is confused. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881009)

So, I'm playing the game, and I'm enjoying all of the little minigames. It makes me want to go out and pluck a whole bunch of turkeys, and go buy these Cooking Mama games.

PETA, I think it's going to backfire...

Bullshit on PETA (1)

krovisser (1056294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881043)

Surely someone else on here has the Bullshit episode of PETA. That had to be one of the most aggravating episodes; "We know our insulin/medical shots come from animals, but we are allowed to use them because we are PETA, but no one else can."

eww (1)

NovaHorizon (1300173) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881045)

I just made it to the end of level 2 on their game. first off, they should at least make the game interesting enough to finish, and secondly, near the end of the butterbal investigation video promoted by the game, you see some guy sit on a turkey for a couple seconds, then it's just fly out and shit. Or at least it seems to be the guts, I'm not positive.

Show PETA a game by some of the giantess fetishists. I'd like to see their reaction to the violent killing of humans.

Re:eww (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881285)

I'd like to see their reaction to the violent killing of humans.

There's already too much human-on-human violence in this world.

Re:eww (1)

NovaHorizon (1300173) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881339)

I agree. which makes me restate to this. What's PETAs stand on human cruelty? humans are still classified as animals after all, aren't they?

Re:eww (4, Funny)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881463)

What's PETAs stand on human cruelty?

Don't quote me on this, but I believe that they are against the eating of human beings.

Best part (1)

diskofish (1037768) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881059)

The video after you play the game is the best part "Turkeys throats are slit while they're actually ALIVE!!!!!" Ummm, duh, I think that is kind of the point.

Re:Best part (1)

kevind23 (1296253) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881349)

No, they're supposed to be unconscious.

Re:Best part (1)

pi_rules (123171) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881415)

And how do you propose you render them unconscious and still leave the body suitable for human consumption? You can't drug the thing.

Re:Best part (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881559)

Electric shock to the head. Knocks them unconscious, at which point you hang them upside down and cut the throat to drain the blood (and kill them). Same way cattle are killed.

Re:Best part (1)

pi_rules (123171) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881799)

I thought beef cattle were usually taken out using an air-compressed bolt to the skull, not much unlike getting shot in the brain-stem with a .22LR.

Any idea on which one is more popular?

I'd also point out that I find it highly unlikely that turkey farmers simply slit the throat of the bird. Everything I've seen indicates that they just decapitate it which is every bit as humane as the "bolt to the brain stem" technique I've heard of on cattle.

Re:Best part (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881903)

Damn, now I've got to go look up the appropriate episodes of "The F Word".

Electric shock is used for turkeys, pigs, lambs, and cattle. The compressed-air bolt is also popular for cattle. No idea which is more popular.

I don't think there's a difference, industrially, between decapitating the turkey and slitting its throat, but birds can often be purchased with the head still attached.

The opposite is a more entertaining message... (1)

nadamucho (1063238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881081)

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare - nothing like stabbing them dogs when they're about to jump ya.

Clue by intimidation? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881091)

Who think Majesco's decision to laugh it off instead of sic the lawyers was due to PETA's reputation for bordering on domestic terrorism and Majesco just decided they would be better off to avoid any escalation?

Perhaps we need a new PLO - Parody Liberation Organization - to scare the crap out of companies that issue bogus DMCA notices.

Re:Clue by intimidation? (1)

DeadPixels (1391907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881163)

Well, PETA could probably get away with their game as a parody under Fair Use. There really isn't much Majesco can do about it - it's not really worth their time to go after PETA. Might as well try and promote their own products, right?

Re:Clue by intimidation? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881983)

Well, PETA could probably get away with their game as a parody under Fair Use.

DMCA take-downs are routinely abused to just shut people up rather than actually go to court.
It has become so bad, that a judge recently ruled that companies who file DMCA take-downs have to consider if fair-use is going to apply beforehand [eff.org]
but his ruling isn't likely to make a whole lot of difference.

My suggestion to PETA (1)

Centurix (249778) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881151)

Is that if they don't want us killing the animals, they should kill them first before we get to them.

The most amazing thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881223)

That anybody still takes PETA seriously. But then, scientology still exists too.

Since it's a PETA game... (1)

tacarat (696339) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881239)

Should I not expect to find any easter eggs?

The case against meat (3, Insightful)

rpillala (583965) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881245)

There are a number of arguments against meat and whatever other cruelty to animals, but most of them center on the audience regarding animal cruelty as wrong. Without that basic level of common ground, no further rational argument is possible. Lucky for PETA, many people do have problems with cruel treatment of animals, and with the fact that much of the cruelty is not for any good reason. The question is where to draw the line, and I think that's the only question. PETA and I draw it pretty far back, others will trade lots of animal cruelty for some physical pleasure, stopping I guess just short of bestiality.

So PETA is in the awkward and unenviable position of reminding people of their own moral standards. Not PETA's standards, but the audience's. Most people avoid information about the cruel and inhumane treatment of their meat products. The only explanation I have for this is that they lack the willpower or perhaps the technical knowledge to make the decision they believe to be right. However, I know that slashdot has a ton of tough guys who pride themselves on having absolutely no compassion. Maybe they'll chime in on this post, overcompensating for their meat guilt by describing how little they care and how much they enjoy meat. I already see some of it in the thread, and they're making my point for me.

Over the years, after being asked to defend being vegetarian, I understand PETA's position pretty well. People ask, idly, "why" and expect an answer related to cholesterol or "energy" or some shit. That's not my reason at all. I was raised vegetarian, being from South India, so it's pretty easy for me to be all self-righteous and you can see some of that in this post too. It used to be a lot worse. At some point, how you were raised is not enough of an explanation, and you have to either figure out the real reasons independent of your parents or just shrug it off and start eating meat. So as soon as I even mention pain and suffering, people start the handwaving and cut me off because even though they asked, I'm the jerk for actually telling them. They don't want to make the decision independent of how they were raised, I guess. In fairness, I don't know if I could either.

PETA is, obviously, more militant than I am. Conscience can be like that. As always in these meat posts, I refer the reader to Hard To Swallow [theatlantic.com] , which makes these points in a better way.

Re:The case against meat (2, Insightful)

pi_rules (123171) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881345)

So as soon as I even mention pain and suffering, people start the handwaving and cut me off because even though they asked, I'm the jerk for actually telling them.

They cut you off because they've heard the argument before.

You're better off starting with the "I'm from South India where it's just common." That's something most people don't know, and would give you an "in" to explain what the diet consists of. Education is always better than trying to pull the ethics/morality card out.

Re:The case against meat (1)

rpillala (583965) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881399)

That's certainly true. They do ask sometimes "well what do you eat" then I start telling them about how great Indian food is. Which it is, and that works in my favor.

But I also think they're looking for some kind of validation, i.e. for me to say something that goes along with their frame of "it's just a personal choice" as opposed to a moral issue. I'm not interested in validating anyone, and sometimes I get more antsy than others.

Good advice, though.

Re:The case against meat (1)

pi_rules (123171) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881593)

I start telling them about how great Indian food is. Which it is, and that works in my favor.

Indeed.

The only way I could ever go vegetarian would be to include a LOT of Indian food in my diet. I don't mind it when the meat's missing in Indian food, and I know that the lentils, garbonzo beans, tofu (I use it instead of paneer), etc. are giving me the protein I need.

It's low fat, low calorie, gives you what you need, and you can cook a dish with a single skillet. I really wish it was more popular here in the USA.

And, if you eat it the right way, no forks or spoons to clean up!

Re:The case against meat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881421)

As a fellow vegetarian I know what you mean. You tell people that you don't eat olives, no one cares. You tell them you don't eat meat and suddenly they want to have a discussion that normally ends with them trying to convert you. It's almost like having to deal with a scientologist.

And what I don't get is the reaction that we get around here. Bash a gay? Get modded down. Bash a vegetarian? Get modded up. We get about as much respect as junkies around here.

Re:The case against meat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881437)

I appreciate your post, but I'd point out that turning a blind eye is something most if not all of us do - including vegetarians.

How would you react if I went into the gory details of how your computer was made, all the way from the mines through the factories, on the ships and past Best Buy? Would you appreciate it if I related all the miseries the ill-treated wage slaves endured?

How about an hour long seminar on the day's work of a garbage sorter in your city? Or an employee of the local sewage company?

Most people would react to such a lecture in the same way they reacted to your sermons on vegetarianism. Although the issue is valid and does deserve consideration, at some point life demands compromise from all but the best of us.

The way forward, in my understanding of progress, is to find a solution which meets the needs of people while eliminating the worst aspects of whatever it is. In the case of meat, that would be less cruel ways of raising and slaughtering the animals (something, I'd point out, which is already occurring - see free range chickens). For poor treatment of labourers, the solution is to ban the worst practices, give industry some time to adjust, and then ban the worst of what's left.

Re:The case against meat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881545)

Most people would react to such a lecture in the same way they reacted to your sermons on vegetarianism. Although the issue is valid and does deserve consideration, at some point life demands compromise from all but the best of us.

Our 'sermons'? They're fucking asking us why we're vegetarians and now you call it our 'sermons'? If you don't care to know than don't ask. Not every vegetarian is a member of Peta. Not every vegetarian wears their heart on their sleeve. Seriously, if you don't want us to discuss our vegetarianism with you than don't ask about it.

I've been vegetarian most of my life and there are people who've known me for years who have no idea that I'm a vegetarian. Don't act like we're all the same person. It's bullshit. It's so odd to me how meat eaters feel the need to explain away vegetarianism when no one is even asking them. It's almost like being bullied by a bunch of dicks who have nothing better to do than cut on others for their personal decisions. And in some limited cases being vegetarian isn't even a decision.

The way forward, in my understanding of progress, is to find a solution which meets the needs of people while eliminating the worst aspects of whatever it is.

Yeah, and a little respect from those who don't get in your face about it would be nice too. Not that we see it here. Seriously, if I had a dollar for every bitch who thinks it's funny to wave meat around after they find out I'm vegetarian... Why don't you go wave around pictures of Matthew Shepard in front of people you find out are homosexuals? It's about as respectful. Believe me, whatever method of dicking on a vegetarian you think is funny or is justified because of what Peta may or may not have done has been done to us before.

Re:The case against meat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881741)

Calm down, I wasn't trying to make fun of you. I used 'sermon' in the same way I used 'lecture'; half descriptively and half jokingly. Note that any moralizing speech, regardless of who prompted it, is in some ways a sermon. Just like any exhaustive and pedantic speech is in some ways a lecture.

Next time try and address what was said in the post rather than fixating on a single word.

Re:The case against meat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881809)

Next time try and address what was said in the post rather than fixating on a single word.

I am not the other poster - but you're fucking idiot.

Re:The case against meat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881879)

Go to hell

Re:The case against meat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881485)

I love meat, I've eaten pig hearts, cow guts and chicken testicles. Let me tell you, there's nothing like some good meat!

Re:The case against meat (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881595)

Perhaps we just don't think that killing animals is necessarily cruel and/or inhumane.

Re:The case against meat (4, Insightful)

pi_rules (123171) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881669)

BINGO!

Vegetarians playing the morality card are associating gruesome with cruel, and that's simply not the case when we're talking about execution methods. Sure, it looks ugly, but that doesn't mean it wasn't mostly painless.

Now, the actual life that the animals live, I can grant them some ground on the cruelty charges there. I've seen chickens raised for eggs kept in horrible conditions. Three years in a cage with the 18 birds above you literally shitting on you. Every feather on them was black, and half of 'em didn't even have any feathers at all. I felt bad for those critters.

But the cows at the dairy farm across from me seemed to be treated well. The cattle out in Montana roaming the ranges seemed perfectly normal to me too.

Re:The case against meat (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881819)

The one I can't stand is people who claim that "natural is better" and then turn around and talk about vegetarianism.

There's plenty of room to complain about animal cruelty, but I don't agree that eating animals is necessarily cruel. (It seems that genetically, being desired by humans is practically a Darwinian trump card.) But then, I only eat the free-range organic non-cruel stuff -- it's what's available locally, and it's much tastier than grocery-store meat.

Re:The case against meat (3, Informative)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881643)

I grew up with a love of animals and I'm also a culinary student and an aspiring chef. As such, I eat meat. Lots of meat. I can't get enough of it.

I satisfy my moral issues by caring about where my meat comes from. I won't give money to super farms that raise animals in poor conditions and give them antibiotics, steroids and cheap feed. These farms also often employ workers who really don't give a rats ass about the treatment of the animals or the quality of the meat that they're producing. They're getting paid crap and they follow the procedures in order to keep their jobs without any kind of care what-so-ever. A close friend of mine worked on such a farm when he was a teenager and went vegetarian.

I prefer free-range, organic. Before I started cooking I used to think those were just buzz-words. But in Canada, the US and the UK they're not just random marketing gibberish. They're regulated. You can't advertise a product as organic unless it's been certified (and in Canada, where I'm from, the packaging has to state the name of the certification body that certified the product - I can't say for other countries). Free-range means the animals aren't confined in cages and are free to roam around the farm etc. I firmly believe that this meat is better for you and far better quality. It's produced by people who care. They care about the product that they're selling you and thus they care about the animal. The end result is meat that tastes better and comes from an animal that wasn't mistreated.

The abattoirs are also important. In countries that regulate, animals need to be slaughtered in licensed abattoirs that slaughter the animal in a humane method. Cows are slaughtered by injecting them with a powerful sedative to knock them unconscious and then their throat is cut and the animal is drained. It's over very fast. Most other animals are slaughtered via a powerful electrical current through the brain, followed by draining.

If you can't get over raising an animal and killing it for food then it won't matter how the animal is raised or slaughtered. The way I see it, the earth is extremely brutal. If you look at animals that use venom to subdue their prey sometimes it's terrifying what the prey goes through. Humans can be better but in the end we're just another animal. Everything eats other life, even vegetarians. If we want to take a moral high ground then I believe we can do that with how we treat our food before it becomes food. Not all farms mistreat their livestock and there's a whole industry growing around farms that give their livestock better lives than many humans get.

Re:The case against meat (1)

acris (1366907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881747)

I am not against vegetarianism. If you find enjoyment in eating whatever it is you want to eat, then by all means do what pleases you. I do however have a problem with people telling me what/how to eat. I can and will eat a hamburger which came from a cow that has been born and raised in pen and probably hasn't seen an open range. I honestly don't care. I am a Omnivore, I show no mercy to veggie or meat alike, because they are my prey. That is the way I am. So stop with the guilt trips.

I would turn you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881751)

"Over the years, after being asked to defend being vegetarian,"

Nobody really cares. It's boring.

Ravi, let me tell you something. I work with a lot of Indian guys. I've turned most of them onto eating meat. Now admittedly, those I've turned them only to the point of eating chicken. But a good 25% I've turned to eating beef.

Nothing better than the Indian dudes coming to my house, watching football (the real kind with guys in pads knocking each other on their collective asses), and me cooking burgers on the grill, and the Indian guys eating burgers and then asking where the tomato and lettuce are.... because they taste good on burgers.

Eat meat is not a moral choice, it's an economic choice.

Re:The case against meat (1)

logjon (1411219) | more than 5 years ago | (#25882021)

Really, I don't care. Animals are delicious, and there's real problems in the world. Also, for every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

Screw PETA (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881291)

And the horse they rode in on. er Wait.

Peta kills hundreds of Animals each year (2, Insightful)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881395)

They are a bunch of sick hypocrites with too much money and time on their hands.

Ok, Pulling the internal organs out of a turkey... (4, Insightful)

duckInferno (1275100) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881423)

While a bit of a squeamish action if you're not a butcher or farmer or hunter, what message are PETA actually trying to get across? That it's bad to eat meat because it's... from an animal? Kind of redundant.

Okay -- I was being an asshole there. I know full well what they're trying to do, and that is simply to put people off eating meat because its "gross" and "its a doe-eyed living breathing animal". I would like to make my stance known now; I think this reasoning for being a vegetarian is retarded. I present to you, the flawed circular logic of the intelligent vegitarian/vegan.

Reason 1: I saw a baby lamb on a farm and I just couldn't bear myself to kill and eat that!
Go away. This isn't a reason. It's your squeamish stomach. If you're trying to convince people not to eat meat based on this reason alone then I despise you.

Reason 2: In this day and age it's unethical to eat meat when you can easily sustain yourself on plant sources.
This isn't a reason. The core argument here is "its unethical to eat meat". I'd like to know why.

Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat.
Now we're getting somewhere! So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes. So what's the real reason?

Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
What, now plants aren't life?

Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?

Reason 6: Meat is bad for you.
Citation needed. Last I heard you need a meticulous diet of a huge array of vegetables (something that no human could have done pre-civilisation) to maintain a healthy vegan life. We've been eating meat since the dawn of man, literally, and yet here we are living just as long as the average vegetarian. However, this is the only reason on the list I could accept as being non-retarded. If you honestly think you feel better on a vegetarian diet then hey, don't let me put you down.


On that note, there's another couple things that's always bugged me. Why do some vegetarians eat fish and/or chicken but not duck or lamb, and I'm not talking about the dietary-consideration kind? And why do some (ie. vegans) go as far as to not eat animal products like eggs, milk and the like, including from "ethical" sources? Because I have never had a rational, coherent argument with a vegan. I'm pretty close to just dumping them in the "ewww intestines" category.

Re:Ok, Pulling the internal organs out of a turkey (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881641)

Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
 

This seems to be the sticking point with most non-(seemingly-)dogmatic vegetarians I've met. I cannot understand this magic line that is drawn between 'sensory input->reaction' and 'pain->reaction'. They are one in the same. As humans we empathize with cry of a mammal. Is this not a reason FOR distant far-off slaughterhouses rather than for the removal of a (reasonably) critical fraction of our natural diet?

I'm also a biochemist - I know very well the processes involved. I understand that the pain I feel is simply a much more complicated variant of the sensing done in the amoebas I study.

I fear that this is simply an extension of the anthropocentric view that denies the fact that we are simply complicated versions of everything else - nothing less, nothing more.

Re:Ok, Pulling the internal organs out of a turkey (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881655)

Should've ordered 6 near the beginning; the rest are a logical path, that really terminated with 5.

Since we are animals, we strictly require the consumption of other living organisms for survival. You'd have to be awfully extremist to contend that this is unethical -- it's true for all animals. Today, we are capable of subsisting only on plants, though some vitamins and amino acids are a little tricky to get. It is an arbitrary ethical line, though, what organisms we will and will not eat. It's agreed that plants are acceptable and humans are not. Beyond that, it's a fairly arbitrary choice, along with "to what extent are we willing to cause other creatures pain and misfortune?"

Re:Ok, Pulling the internal organs out of a turkey (5, Insightful)

Null_Void (149097) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881821)

I promise to try to answer this question in a way that's not preachy. However, I *am* vegan, so filter my post in whatever way suits you.

On that note, there's another couple things that's always bugged me. Why do some vegetarians eat fish and/or chicken but not duck or lamb, and I'm not talking about the dietary-consideration kind? And why do some (ie. vegans) go as far as to not eat animal products like eggs, milk and the like, including from "ethical" sources? Because I have never had a rational, coherent argument with a vegan. I'm pretty close to just dumping them in the "ewww intestines" category.

While I can't speak for all vegans, the general consensus is that we don't eat byproducts (milk, eggs, honey, etc) from humanely raised animals because it's not freely given. It's still unnecessary exploitation, in our opinion. This is why breastmilk is vegan (it is freely given), but cow's milk is not. I'm quite happy that you didn't come out with the "cows would be in pain if we didn't milk them" argument. I get that one a lot, from people who haven't done much research on biology (this wasn't a dig, I promise).

As for your other points, I'll touch on a couple of them, if you don't mind.

Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat.
Now we're getting somewhere! So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes. So what's the real reason?

Er... no. Again, in my own personal opinion, it's about reducing exploitation. Would it be ethical to do this to people? Most people would claim that it is not. When one asks why it's okay to kill an animal but not a person, one often gets the answer that humans are smarter. Yet, when you ask if they would treat a mentally retarded person as an animal, it seems to be out of the question.

In general, my stance is that we should grant, to as many beings as *practical,* the "rights" of life and self-ownership. I don't want rabbits to be able to vote, because they're not capable (so far as we know) of agreeing to societal contracts. However, we generally afford those basic rights to anyone.

Frankly, the decision to grant the rights of life and self-ownership to humans only seems a bit arbitrary. At one point there was certainly a practical aspect to this, but I doubt many people (at least in the USA where I am, and many other parts of the world) would be able to claim much hardship if they gave up animal products.

Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
What, now plants aren't life?

Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?

Again, the objective is "as much as is practical." It's fairly easy to live without eating animals, or their byproducts. As far as I know, it's not at all practical to live without eating plants.

As for the ethics of killing plants: If you're really concerned about it, the best way you could reduce the killing of plants is to stop eating animals. The energy conversion rates are astoundingly bad. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Reason 6: Meat is bad for you.
Citation needed. Last I heard you need a meticulous diet of a huge array of vegetables (something that no human could have done pre-civilisation) to maintain a healthy vegan life. We've been eating meat since the dawn of man, literally, and yet here we are living just as long as the average vegetarian. However, this is the only reason on the list I could accept as being non-retarded. If you honestly think you feel better on a vegetarian diet then hey, don't let me put you down.

Any diet needs a huge variety to be healthy. If you're interested in the health aspects of veganism, I'd suggest "The China Study." Make sure you look up the refutations as well, as I found some of them to be valid concerns. Even so, presented was a fairly large amount of evidence (in the form of correlation), that a vegetarian diet is generally healthier. It's hard to find sources that are "unbiased," since this is a charged issue and there seem to be few impartial researchers that I've found. The best I've been able to do is find sources that seem (to the best of my limited knowledge), logically consistent.

Besides, tradition is not really considered a great option to keep doing something, right? We'd still have slavery and human sacrifice, as well as a whole host of other problems if we let tradition dictate our lives. Please note that I'm not in favor of abandoning all traditional values; I just think that from time to time we need to reevaluate our reasons for doing things.

As a side-note, if you care, I've only been vegan for a few years. Even so, when I look back at the reasons I had for being a meat-eater, my reasons look a bit weak. I think it mostly boiled down to: "I wanted to eat meat." Frankly, most discussions I have with people on the subject eventually devolve into either this, or the "faith" argument. At that point, you can no longer rely on logic, and further discussion is pointless.

Right then. Sorry for being long-winded. I hope this answers some of your questions on why vegans (or, at least, this particular vegan) acts the way he does. Habit really does shape belief, right?

Re:Ok, Pulling the internal organs out of a turkey (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881871)

How about...

* Plants don't die when you eat them.

Rarely if ever is a plant consumed from top to root. Pick an apple, the tree will grow another one next year. Pluck an ear of corn, and it'll grow back.

Unfortunately animals don't enjoy that luxury. To get meat from an animal, you usually have to kill it.

However, with plants, you can harvest from them without killing them.

Re:Ok, Pulling the internal organs out of a turkey (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881961)

I present to you, the flawed circular logic of the intelligent vegitarian/vegan.

I present to you the rebuttal of someone who feels the need to defend vegetarians against someone else who proclaims "If you honestly think you feel better on a vegetarian diet then hey, don't let me put you down." but goes on to call us retards and basically try to explain away vegetarianism as foolishness with no real justification.

Reason 1: I saw a baby lamb on a farm and I just couldn't bear myself to kill and eat that!
Go away. This isn't a reason. It's your squeamish stomach. If you're trying to convince people not to eat meat based on this reason alone then I despise you.


First your automatically assuming every vegetarian is trying to turn you into one. The fact of the matter is that vegetarians make up about 5-6% of the population in the United States. If there were so many of us so compelled to making you into a vegetarian you'd hear much more about it. The truth is that most of us don't care about you. Secondly, why is it that you feel we should need to explain our choice to you? If it's not hurting you I don't see what say you have in it at all. This goes beyond vegetarians and I can only hope your attitude about other personal choices doesn't result in your need to bash it.

Reason 2: In this day and age it's unethical to eat meat when you can easily sustain yourself on plant sources.
This isn't a reason. The core argument here is "its unethical to eat meat". I'd like to know why.


If it's unethical to pour CFCs and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than it's unethical to eat meat. It increases your carbon footprint. The amount of energy needed to produce meat over grains is extraordinary. Also, these spare grains that could be produced on a reduced carbon footprint could go to fueling vehicles in a green fashion or feed the poor.

Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat. Now we're getting somewhere! So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes. So what's the real reason?

Can we stick with reality here? We don't even need VR to make vegetarianism a legitimate and healthy choice yet you feel the need to combat it. So until this technology exists how about you not being a hypocrite? I'm not even asking you to be a vegetarian but simply don't be a dick to those who choose to be.

Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
What, now plants aren't life?


Ever notice that in your little diatribe that reasons 2-5 are the same thing stated in different ways? Do you really need to flesh out your argument that much to feel vindicated? Anyway, no one is really questioning your right to live here. but if you are so logical you must be able to do the math: in order to produce meat you need to feed it grains. most of these gains end up not being part of the final product just as most ore of a metal ends up being waste products. So naturally these grains would be better used in eating them directly. Less grain would need to be harvested to feed the same numbers of people. It's a pretty simple concept.

But let me ask you: If you're not concerned about the debated right of animals and are willing to eat them why do you care if we eat grains?

Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?


Probably somewhere along the same lines that civilization used the same magical, arbitrary line to condemn cannibalism and the murdering of children who were born with abnormalities. Let's not be ridiculous here. You may disagree with where that line is but don't be an ass and act like you can't understand he concept. Or would you be ok with the idea of harvesting humans for food? Would a little Soylent Green hit the spot?

Reason 6: Meat is bad for you.
Citation needed. Last I heard you need a meticulous diet of a huge array of vegetables (something that no human could have done pre-civilisation) to maintain a healthy vegan life. We've been eating meat since the dawn of man, literally, and yet here we are living just as long as the average vegetarian. However, this is the only reason on the list I could accept as being non-retarded. If you honestly think you feel better on a vegetarian diet then hey, don't let me put you down.

There is tons of evidence for this. And we are well beyond pre-civilization. So in that alone it's easy to see how this holds no water. And no, you're not living just as long as a vegetarian. Vegetarians in the US live about 4 years longer traditionally. But it has to be noted that not many US vegetarians are life long vegetarians so the studies are a bit hard to validate with any serious numbers at this point in time. But also realize that vegetarians who have heart attacks have their heart attack at a later age on average too. This alone shows that the quality of life as a vegetarian has a potential to be higher. And I'm sure you can do more research. There's tons of it out there to read and we could go on for days about it.

On that note, there's another couple things that's always bugged me. Why do some vegetarians eat fish and/or chicken but not duck or lamb, and I'm not talking about the dietary-consideration kind? And why do some (ie. vegans) go as far as to not eat animal products like eggs, milk and the like, including from "ethical" sources? Because I have never had a rational, coherent argument with a vegan. I'm pretty close to just dumping them in the "ewww intestines" category.

Eating meat of any kind (fish and poultry included) disqualifies you from being a vegetarian by standard medical definition of the term. I normally call these people "people who don't eat red meat". Seriously, they're not vegetarians.

As far as veganism? Again, there is the debate for it being a healthier lifestyle. I've never looked much into it myself. Also, this could go back to the carbon footprint principle. The more a food is refined, regardless of it being by a machine or an animal, the more resources that are needed to produce it. One could simply say that milk is wasteful. It can be proven mathematically. It's a fact. Would that be good enough for you?

Gruesome but fun (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881575)

Was I the only one who thought that it was actually kind of fun playing the "Gruesome Cooking Mama" games on PETA's site? Completely not their purpose, I know. We're supposed to be so grossed out by the preparation that we skip turkey on Thanksgiving. Instead, I found plucking the feathers, cutting the neck up, etc rather enjoyable (for a short Flash game designed by a group that often goes completely off the deep end).

Re:Gruesome but fun (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881839)

No, you're not the only one. I enjoyed the hell out of it, cheezy soundtrack and all (I've never played the original game, so I don't know if that's intentional or not). I'm an ex-vegan; I think I'd have enjoyed it even when I was one.

I don't know if this game really helps their "mission"; maybe if you've not been exposed to their leaflets yet and you actually watch the videos/"bonuses" it has a different effect.

Re:Gruesome but fun (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881867)

Someone sent me a link to the site so I went and tried it out. I would have been convinced it was a parody OF PETA, except that it was on their official site!

Of course, I grew up in a small town with farm kids for friends. The guy who sent it to me had the interesting experience of marrying a farm girl friend of mine. The father of the bride took him out one day to the field and asked him which cow he'd like for the reception. Then made him help slaughter it. It was delicious.

This is run of the mill from PETA (2, Interesting)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881699)

PETA has previously handed out graphic pamphlets to school-age children in an effort to convince them that their parents are murderers.

From the pamphlet:

"Since your daddy is teaching you the wrong lessons about right and wrong, you should teach him fishing is killing. Until your daddy learns it's not fun to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He's so hooked on killing defenseless animals, they could be next."

Re:This is run of the mill from PETA (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881711)

Oops, meant to link to the PETA pamphlets in question [wikipedia.org] .

Re:This is run of the mill from PETA (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881937)

Excellent. The sooner kids learn that the world is full of nut jobs, the better.

On another note, thanks for the link! I didn't realize that PETA activists run through the streets of Pamploma naked right before the running of the bulls! Two events to see with one trip! Do the spectators get to tease the activists? Stick them with spears?

A better, more accurate, PETA game (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881977)

Run around collecting cute little stray animals, and instead of trying to find them homes you kill them. Extra points if you collect them by duping their current possessor into thinking you're going to find them homes. The boss level is your trial for the crimes you committed, extra life if you're found not guilty.

You win if in the end the general uninformed public still thinks you love animals.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>