As if I wasn't aware of this "scandal" that involved only some 2 or 3 PETA employees. First of all, what proof do you have that they killed them and that they didn't die in transport due to the horrible conditions they were rescued from?

Yea, it's messed up that they were disposed of in dumpster, but I fail to see how this "scandal" can in any way reflect on the entire organization. That is like saying "Hey, look! Some Democrats are corrupt and involved in a scandal, so the entire Democratic party is corrupt!" You are far too quick to dismiss this as some kind of hypocritical representation of PETA as a whole.

On top of which, I'd like to add, I'd rather that they were able to live at least a small portion of their life free from cages, as opposed to animals raised for their meat who never escape a cage and are slaughter the second they are full grown. Yes, breeding and slaughtering for meat is much worse in my book than being disposed of in a dumpster.

Also, where does PETA say "Fish are people too?" I do not remember reading that. In fact, most of what they talk about on PETA's site about fish is the devastating impact of fish farming on the environment.
Link

Yes, fish eat other fish, as well as plants and algae, in what is known as the "food chain." However, I'd love to see how healthy you, or anyone else would be, just eating meat and fish for a while. Go ahead, give it a try.

On the other hand, I have been a devoted and healthy Vegan for almost 9 months now and am in the best physical condition on my life. My weight is stable, my nose does not run perpetually, and there are no deficiencies in my diet resulting from the displacement of nutrient-dense foods with meat and dairy.

So go ahead: eat fish that is packed with mercury and parabens, eat meat that is an excessive source of calories, protein, saturated fat, and little else, packed with hormones and antibiotics and disease (e coli, mad cow, salmonella).

I know that Superduperficial opposes encouraging/requiring employers to provide healthcare, so I hope for your sake you can afford the medical treatment to which your dietary habits are directly attributed (obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and impotence).

The point is, non-Vegans are very quick to make assumptions about Veganism, calling us extreme, without any first-hand knowledge of the lifestyle or the philosophy it entails. In my opinion, a non-Vegan lifestyle that emphasizes animal products is extreme, because taxpayers undoubtedly foot the bill for your extreme treatments, like by-pass surgery or heart transplants.

When it comes to animals, it is not a question of whether they are able to reason on a level at par with our own ability, it is whether or not they are able to feel pain and suffer from confinement as a result of modern intensive farming. That is an aspect of human cruelty we must seek to mitigate.

Are you making the claim that there is a connection between stupidity and Veganism?

Once again, disagreeing with you does not make people stupid; in fact, your style of debate is extremely childish if this is what we can expect. I consider much of what you say to be an embarassment to me, as I do consider myself a part of the Progressive movement. Much of your talking points are in favor of the status quo, which to me would symbolize preventing progress. The majority of your beliefs (which if anyone opposes makes that same anyone stupid, according to you) are regressive and pro-business. Progress entails benefiting humanity, not already wealthy corporations.

Some radical stuff may come out of my Vegan mouth, but at least what goes into my mouth does not depend on tax subsidies for incredibly irresponsible industries: modern intensive farms produce millions of gallons of liquid manure every day and is largely unregulated in terms of storage and disposal, leading to incredible devastation of water supplies; modern intensive farms require nearly half of all the petroleum used in this country for sheltering, transporting, slaughtering, and packaging animal products; modern intensive farming uses nearly 70% of the grain we produce in this nation to feed livestock (notice they are not animals, they are living "stock"), requiring 17-22 lbs of grain to produce one pound of marketable flesh.

Your lifestyle, dependant on these irresponsible practices, is insustainainable and is directly attributed to much of the healthcare costs that taxpayers are burdened with on an increasing basis. Dietary-related disease is quickly overtaking all others in this nation, as NYTimes has reported:
Link
(click diabetes videos on right side of video screen).