New PETA Ads. Ugh...

[Blackrend]

PETA's been doing some rather 'interesting' advertising lately.

In reference to the Grayhound Bus beheading...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/07/peta.canada.bus.stabbing.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

And this is one they want to place along the Mexican/American boarder. So much fail...

I know they're just trying to get a point across, but this sort of advertising is done in extremely poor taste... I've never supported PETA, the ALF, or any organization whose members and policies stand on the fringe of insanity. I personally believe that they do more to harm their cause than help it.

I'm all for treating animals with love, respect, and kindness, but... it's called the FOOD CHAIN. Humans just happen to be at the top. While most of our slaughtering methods are indeed barbaric and could be greatly improved upon (I refuse to indulge in Veal), humans are omnivores. We are supposed to eat meat, as well as plant matter. In nature, it's survival of the fittest, Eat or be eaten. Are humans not part of nature? Just because we have the brain capability to be aware of other creatures suffering, does that mean we have to put Mother Nature on complete hold? Rather than go cold-turkey (lol), can't we just find ways to reduce/eliminate the suffering in slaughterhouses instead?

 

[Kevin Wier]

The first one is just messed up. I really do not agree with the parallel in that ad. That is just awful.

 

[Bombila]

PETA in North America is so crazy that PETA in Britain thinks they're crazy. Now that's crazy.

PETA started using that Greyhound murder to 'illustrate their point' within days of the event. Between them and Phelp's crowd wanting to protest at the funeral, I cannot imagine what that poor family has endured through their grieving. There's also the fact that the man who did the murder is pretty obviously very insane, and likely not mentally responsible for the act.

PETA continues to actively turn people against them, including people who would normally support their main agenda in terms of preventing animal suffering.

We share the 'top of the food chain' with quite a few other predatory large mammals and a few reptiles. It's true, despite Vegan efforts to prove otherwise, that we are omnivores and likely have been since well before we were called sapiens. I believe if it is moral for a bear to eat meat along with its berries, then it is moral for a human as well. If you disagree, then you are free to not eat meat, and I will completely respect that decision.

The issues surrounding the ill treatment of animals are different. We do have a responsibility to avoid causing suffering as much as we can. We should work to eliminate practices that cause suffering. That includes our means of clearing land, preparing land for planting, use of water, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, and our harvesting and processing; in fact, every aspect of our plant agriculture, for food or clothing (especially cotton) is as big or bigger a cause of animal suffering, death and extinction as is animal husbandry. Vegans really need to address this issue, but they almost never do, as it is far easier to point to the obvious blood on someone else's hands.

 

[keith99]

From all I've seen PETA would find sopme way to make it seem I am mistreating my dogs. Likely using the possesive is enough. Or that the cat is mistreated becasue it is allowed to go outside where it may meet something more dangerous than it is. (Though if the cat makes it back to the dogs there is nothing that can endanger it).

But my dogs are my friends, and friends is possesive also. They own me as much as I own them.

But I'm not worried, they will protect me from all madmen, including PETA.

 

[nolongerhome]

I find the border patrol one pretty funny, actually...

The intent of PETA is generally good. I think that sometimes they cross lines they ought not to because, as a fringe group, they feel the need to get noticed. I don't really believe that "all publicity is good publicity", and that a lot of the time they alienate people that would otherwise be sympathetic to their goals. Because they feel the need to be outrageous to get attention in the first place I think they end up forgetting that the meaning of the message still needs to get through - when the form of the message gets all the attention, the meaning is ignored.

It is tough for a group like this, so I have sympathy for them. I think they do need to think more about how they interact with the broader public, though, if they want to increase the scope of their membership/supporters.

 

[Bombila]

I find the border patrol one pretty funny, actually...

The intent of PETA is generally good. I think that sometimes they cross lines they ought not to because, as a fringe group, they feel the need to get noticed. I don't really believe that "all publicity is good publicity", and that a lot of the time they alienate people that would otherwise be sympathetic to their goals. Because they feel the need to be outrageous to get attention in the first place I think they end up forgetting that the meaning of the message still needs to get through - when the form of the message gets all the attention, the meaning is ignored.

It is tough for a group like this, so I have sympathy for them. I think they do need to think more about how they interact with the broader public, though, if they want to increase the scope of their membership/supporters.

PETA has over two million members. The Wiki article is pretty even sided, and gives a good history of the organization and it's goals.

Their main problem is their ruthlessness. Once they decide on a course of action, reality, truth, and the concept of not doing harm fly right out the window.

Their ultimate goal is to prevent any human contact at all with any kind of animal, including domesticated animals.

I have a lot more sympathy for the SPCA and other organizations that leave the sensationalism out of it and work to get the job done.

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

 

[Braunwyn]

Indeed. PETA goes where it shouldn't and probably does the cause as much harm as good. In the end though it's not an excuse for blood lust, despite such lust aka gluttony being our "natural" instincts. One of my cat's ate her young and the other chews on his own pooh. Yes, we are animals but we are moral beings (supposedly though I guess that's up for debate) unlike any other animal on this globe.

And no other animal in the food chain specializes in the toture we create via factory farms.

 

[platzapS]

I'm all for treating animals with love, respect, and kindness, but... it's called the FOOD CHAIN. Humans just happen to be at the top. While most of our slaughtering methods are indeed barbaric and could be greatly improved upon (I refuse to indulge in Veal), humans are omnivores. We are supposed to eat meat, as well as plant matter. In nature, it's survival of the fittest, Eat or be eaten. Are humans not part of nature? Just because we have the brain capability to be aware of other creatures suffering, does that mean we have to put Mother Nature on complete hold? Rather than go cold-turkey (lol), can't we just find ways to reduce/eliminate the suffering in slaughterhouses instead?

I agree with you that PeTA turns a lot of people away from the animal rights movement because of its more extreme campaigns, and I am not a member of the movement. I also agree that we need to be more humane in raising/slaughtering of animals for food. But your argument of survival of the fittest/top of the food chain unnerves me. Like you say, because we have higher brain capacity we are able to take into account the suffering of other species. "It's natural" is no excuse. Rape is natural and for a man could be a good way to pass on genes. That doesn't make it in any way right.

I eat meat, but I have no good excuse to do so. I really respect vegetarians and vegans for being kinder to the earth and all its inhabitants (including humans who can't afford food because Western nations are feeding all their corn to livestock in an insanely cruel inefficient factory farming system).

 

[Blackrend]

But your argument of survival of the fittest/top of the food chain unnerves me. Like you say, because we have higher brain capacity we are able to take into account the suffering of other species. "It's natural" is no excuse. Rape is natural and for a man could be a good way to pass on genes. That doesn't make it in any way right.

I think you misunderstood. What I meant by 'natural' was 'it's natural for humans to eat meat'. Just look at our digestive anatomy for proof of that. I didn't say that it's natural for wild animals to inflict suffering on each other as a means of survival, so therefore it's ok for humans to do so, as well. To elaborate, I think that BECAUSE humans have the brain capacity of understanding 'suffering', we should do what we can to limit/eliminate the suffering of our food.

However, I don't think that means we should stop eating meat all-together, because THAT in itself is not natural. Sure it's possible to live without meat, and in some cases it's much healthier in regards to the consumption of red meats and hormone-injected livestock. But it's more difficult to get all your vitamins and nutrients through plant matter, and besides... Meat is just mmm-mmmmmm' gewd.

 

[[un]limited]

The way PETA advertises is completely out of line. Although I don't disagree with animals rights and I am aware the meat industry is corrupt in many ways, I don't think it's right to make people feel guilty for eating meat.

 

[nolongerhome]

The way PETA advertises is completely out of line. Although I don't disagree with animals rights and I am aware the meat industry is corrupt in many ways, I don't think it's right to make people feel guilty for eating meat.

Why isn't it right for them to do that?

I mean, there are ads on television here in Australia designed to make people feel guilty for poluting the environment, to make people feel guilty about drinking and driving, about speeding, about doing drugs...I'm sure similar advertising campaigns exist in most countries around the world. It is the nature of these types of messages, messages which are trying to change behaviour, that leads to the usage of guilt. A good way of making people do things differently is to make them feel guilty of what they are currently doing (be it polluting the environment, speeding, whatever).

 

[SallyNow]

Indeed. PETA goes where it shouldn't and probably does the cause as much harm as good. In the end though it's not an excuse for blood lust, despite such lust aka gluttony being our "natural" instincts. One of my cat's ate her young and the other chews on his own pooh. Yes, we are animals but we are moral beings (supposedly though I guess that's up for debate) unlike any other animal on this globe.

And no other animal in the food chain specializes in the toture we create via factory farms.

Humans have the intelligence and power and technology to make our meat-eating as painless as possible to the animals we eat.

Instead, grocery stores and restaurants are often filled with products that have been created through the torture of animals. Cruelty to animals also takes a toll on humans working in unethical slaughterhouses and factory farms.

PETA's ads somtimes go over the top, and they are sometimes cruel to humans while attempting to further the cause of being kind to animals.

A person who is concered with the ethical treatment of animals can do much better than just joining PETA. They can buy products from free-range, ethical farms, they can buy from locally-sourced farms if available, they can donate to their local SPCA or other animal shelter, they can support small farming co-ops.

As for the health consequences of eating meat, well, it really varies. Some people are healthier eating a vegetarian or vegan diet, some are healthier eating a diet rich in seafood but low in red meat, and others are healthier eating a meat-and-potatoes hearty diet, and many are healthiest on a diet somewhere inbetween.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If God didn't want us to eat meat, he wouldn't have given us canine teeth and stereoscopic vision

 

[Bombila]

Why isn't it right for them to do that?

I mean, there are ads on television here in Australia designed to make people feel guilty for poluting the environment, to make people feel guilty about drinking and driving, about speeding, about doing drugs...I'm sure similar advertising campaigns exist in most countries around the world. It is the nature of these types of messages, messages which are trying to change behaviour, that leads to the usage of guilt. A good way of making people do things differently is to make them feel guilty of what they are currently doing (be it polluting the environment, speeding, whatever).

I feel like I've had this whole conversation before.

Making people feel guilty about something with an ad is not a problem. Taking recent individual tragedies like the young Canadian decapitated by a madman who ate parts of him before the police got him and using such tragedies to advance your own agenda before the family's even had time to put the lad in the ground is abhorrent. That is what PETA did.

 

[Braunwyn]

The way PETA advertises is completely out of line. Although I don't disagree with animals rights and I am aware the meat industry is corrupt in many ways, I don't think it's right to make people feel guilty for eating meat.

For those that support AR your statement falls a bit flat. It's synonymous, for example, with stating that while "I don't disagree with slaves having rights and I am aware that slavery is corrupt in many ways, I don't think it's right to make people feel guilty for having slaves".

Yes, this comparison is offensive to some but given my experience with AR advocates (and I'm really not one myself), that's exactly how they see it. These folks see a great travesty happening all around them everyday and given that worldview it rightly makes them bonkers. Honestly, offensive adds are a "holdback" of what they would do if they could.

Most people are incapable of the level of compassion AR folks hold. They feel it too much. Can't turn their heads away from the suffering unlike most of us. Personally, I'm glad there are people out there that care so much for animals. As deplorable as our treatment is against animals it would be far worse without AR supporters. In that sense, I see it as a give and take.

 

[feral]

I was a PETA member for a while, but I find that their tactics drive people away. There are many compassionate people who would do a lot more to help animals and ensure, if not an end to meat consumption, at least a reduction in abuse, factory farms, etc -- but they see these shock-tactics and feel repulsed instead of stirred to do something good. As it stands, I can only handle membership in one controversial animal rights group, and that would be Sea Shepherd. They are no holds barred as well, but I feel they are more effective than PETA.

 

[WatersMoon110]

And no other animal in the food chain specializes in the toture we create via factory farms.

That is certainly true. The closest thing in nature would be ants raising aphids.


As far as PETA goes, I don't care for them. They killed kittens instead of finding homes for them, and I think that is completely unethical. [source] I don't really think they do too much good, and I think there is already Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals out there to take care of animal abuse. I might want more things, like factory farming conditions, to be considered animal cruelty (as I feel they properly are), but I don't want to see eating meat outlawed.

I see nothing wrong with eating ethically raised and slaughtered animals. Or wearing wool, leather or fur from ethically raised and slaughtered animals.

 

[Bombila]

Paul Watson, who heads Sea Shepherd, may at one time have been an idealistic man, but for the past couple decades he has become a dangerous lunatic with no concern for the lives of others amd little sense of humanity or compassion. If you lived in Atlantic Canada, you'd hear the outrageous stories of his actions and words, and realize that SS is not very effective at all, simply gets people's backs up and makes them more determined to continue whatever they are doing. He has endangered more people than saved animals, and his triumphant crowing over the drowning deaths of fishermen even caused Elizabeth May, formerly of the Sierra Club and current Green Party of Canada leader to disassociate herself from him and his organization.

 

[keith99]

Indeed. PETA goes where it shouldn't and probably does the cause as much harm as good. In the end though it's not an excuse for blood lust, despite such lust aka gluttony being our "natural" instincts. One of my cat's ate her young and the other chews on his own pooh. Yes, we are animals but we are moral beings (supposedly though I guess that's up for debate) unlike any other animal on this globe.

And no other animal in the food chain specializes in the toture we create via factory farms.

You say you have cats. I would think you have seen a cat playing with it's prey. At least on a par with what man does. How about some wasps whose larve consume other beings alive?

 

[Braunwyn]

You say you have cats. I would think you have seen a cat playing with it's prey. At least on a par with what man does.

Indeed. My cats are amoral creatures. Most humans are as well, especially when it comes to animals, desires, etc. And then there are those who are moral by nature and find themselves at a loss in an amoral barbaric world, hence the cooky adds, freak-outs etc.

How about some wasps whose larve consume other beings alive?

I don't really get your point if you wouldn't mind clarifying. Though I'm guessing wasp larve permits allowances for something?