Has PETA gone too far?

[poseidon]

Today on the radio I heard about the latest campaign for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). As usual, they show bad taste in order to get their message across. This one is a bit more sick in nature than their usual tripe.

They are taking the latest attack on that boy who lost his right arm to a shark and saying, "Wouldn't you give your right arm to find out why they're attacking? Could it be revenge?"

PETA has freedom of speech, and if they want to be @$$holes I guess that's well within their rights, too.

My question is, do you really think a message of that sort (or many of their latest and greatest) will actually attract new members and sympathizers, or will it wind up turning off more people who would have been sympathetic to their cause?

[hadassahchana[$]]

ACcording to PETA, that ad campaign has been dropped.

However, you have raised an interesting question, namely whether or not it is acceptable to run the kinds of ads that PETA has become so well-known for, such as their Murder King ad- which I didn't link in order to prevent many of you from abandoning your suppers.

PETA does use pretty blatant ads. Does the reason justify those tactics?

Cindy

[CeeJay62]

Originally posted by poseidon
PETA has freedom of speech, and if they want to be @$$holes I guess that's well within their rights, too.

My question is, do you really think a message of that sort (or many of their latest and greatest) will actually attract new members and sympathizers, or will it wind up turning off more people who would have been sympathetic to their cause?

It is going to turn many people off. I frequent a couple of vegetarian message boards and the consensus is that PETA is nuts and makes all supporters of animals look bad. I can't help but think that if their message was all that compelling they wouldn't have to act like morons to draw attention to their cause.

[hadassahchana[$]]

I actually agree with a lot of the ideas behind PETA. However, their tactics really turn me off.

Of course, then I go and read about conditions in slaughterhouses and how food animals are treated from birth to slaughter, and it really makes me sick at my stomach.

Do we really have the right to treat animals the way we do just to use them for food?

Cindy

[jgibson2[$]]

I'm going to open a BIG can of worms with this one -- maybe two.

Have you ever seen protesters standing by the side of the road with pictures of aborted fetuses? Pretty gruesome stuff. It mostly makes PETA look tame by comparison. I am vehemently pro-life and every time I see one of those I get mad. I really think that shock advertising/ protesting/ whatever fails to convey the message because it instead conveys the idea that you're a nut-case.

More worms. I've been to the Holocaust museum several times. It's a very awe-inspiring place. The designers had the good sense to put the most shocking things they show behind walls too tall for children to see over. I also know that the most shocking (to me) pictures aren't there. The place conveys it's message quite well even if you never look over the wall.

So what's my point? PETA does have some worthwhile things to say, but their ad campaigns make it look like the nuts are running the asylum.

[foxfroggy]

PETA probably hurts the cause more than it helps. It makes it seem there is no middle ground. Animal cruely is nasty business, but using animals in research and even just as food and clothing sources is needed and can be done ethically.

PETA makes wild statements that aren't supportable-for example that medical research can be done just as well using no animals which demonstrates fairly deep ignorance. They also seem to accept violence to achieve their goals.

Ads that used a wink, wink, nudge, nudge might make people think. Instead, PETA clubs you over the head or gut-punches, which only makes people mad.

Reminds me of the NRA-instead of protecting reasonable gun ownership, they've adopted a scorched earth, anything goes, no regulations acceptable policy. Another case of extremists takinbg over a cause.

Makes me wonder if they gave any thought to how survivors of shark attacks and their families felt when they saw that stuff. Apparently cruelty to human animals doesn't count.

Pat

[jgibson2[$]]

Pat,
To show you what PETA's ad campaigns have accomplished with me, my impression of them is that they think there are far too many human animals on the planet and the sharks need to eat a few more. I'm sure not everyone in PETA thinks that way -- just the people who approve their ads.

Not getting their point across very well, is it?

Judy

[poseidon]

Judy and Pat,

Interestingly enough, I mentioned both of these in threads this past week. I've seen abortion protestors shove jars filled with phermaldohyde (okay I must have butchered the spelling on that!) and an aborted fetus in car windows and then try and sell their message. I am also very much anti-abortion, yet I am mortified when people stoop to those measures. Their message is one that I agree with, but I just don't care for the tactics.

I also stated that most NRA members do not think along the same lines as Wayne La Pierre and most of us (yes I'm an NRA member) would really wish he'd shut his trap and let someone a bit more sane take the reigns of the political wing of the organization. His message is one that I agree with, I don't like his tactics.

Jeff

[wivabef]

Speaking of PETA...

Did Alec Baldwin move yet?

I'm still waiting.

(Or maybe, Canada turned him down)

[poseidon]

Originally posted by hadassahchana
I actually agree with a lot of the ideas behind PETA. However, their tactics really turn me off.

Of course, then I go and read about conditions in slaughterhouses and how food animals are treated from birth to slaughter, and it really makes me sick at my stomach.

Do we really have the right to treat animals the way we do just to use them for food?

Cindy

Cindy,

Animals certainly deserve respect and to live in good conditions, no matter what they are going to be used for. PETA goes a step too far though, in berating their viewpoint that animals shouldn't be used for food, animals shouldn't be kept as pets, used in medical testing, etc.

I would agree with some of what they subscribe to, also. I think it is very cruel to spray hairspray in a cat's face to see if there are allergic reactions, etc. to the hairspray. To me, that seems idiotic.

At the same time, I'm agreeing with Pat that it is very shortsighted to say that we don't need animals to do medical testing. Perhaps we should be testing directly on humans instead of on rats, etc. and hope for the best. I'm not one who thinks that a rat's life is worth the same as a human's life.

IMHO we were put on this earth as both caretakers and exploiters of animals. By exploitation, I do not mean acting cruelly. I see nothing wrong with wearing leather, drinking milk (PETA has a problem with this even), or eating meat. I see nothing wrong with hunting -- it controls animal populations to reasonable levels (proof of this can be found in any Denver neighborhood in the last month where we have had dozens of bears removed by Dept. of Wildlife -- we passed a referendum a couple of years ago banning bear hunts) and it provides a good source of food. But in every instance we should be showing respect to the animals we exploit.

[erik_kosberg]

The PETA ad may be obnoxious, but is it really any more revolting than the Willie Horton ad was?

[drmomentum[$]]

If god hadn't meant us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them of meat.

FYI:
1) formaldehyde (aka methanal)
2) pita

I loved the anti-fishing PETA campaign they had in New Bedford (big fishing city) a couple of years back. Made me hungry for fish and chips all the time.

I don't give a hoot what kinds of ads they use. Doesn't bother me none. And if abortion protesters want to wave jars around, hey - that's their gig. I don't see the big deal, as long as they don't get in my way or cause any damamge.

-JP

[jgibson2[$]]

JP

1) formaldehyde (aka methanal)

One out of 2 isn't bad. Formaldehyde isn't methanol. They both make fairly decent preservatives and either will kill you if you ingest it, but the chemical structure isn't even similar.

Loved your comment about the PETA anti-fishing ad, makes me sorry I missed that one.

Erik,
More obnoxious than Willie Horton, not really -- but probably less effective.

[evmori]

When did animals get rights? Did we vote on that? Are they allowed to run for public office?

PETA - Put Every Turtle Away!

[hadassahchana[$]]

I was a confirmed carnivore and thought that my vegan friend who supported PETA was an idiot.

Until, I had a client whose father ran a chicken farm. He was an egg supplier. AFter I finished with one of her prenatal visits, she invited me out to the barns to see the chickens. Biggest mistake of my life!

I still have nightmares about that place- which unfortunately is still being run the exact way it was five years ago.

There were rows upon rows of tiny cages crammed full of chickens. In fact, the cages were so crowded that the poor chickens had trouble turning around to get to their water. Some unfortunate chickens had managed to poke their heads through the wire in the cages. Some had already died, some were still alive (and their eyes are what I still see )

I was absolutely horrified, and asked if there was any governtment inspection of places such as these. The man replied that his farm always got top ratings. When I asked about the dead chicekns caught in the cage wire, he told me that it was just part of the expense of doing business, and that they were "cleaned out" once a week.

Think about that- a week of being trapped in a cage with a dead chicken or two!

I now eat free-range eggs which are twice as expensive as the others- but which I can eat without having nightmares.

So, PETA is wrong to use the stupid tactics that they do- but there is a point to some of what they say.

By ignoring the message because we find the messenger absurd, aren't we ignoring things that we might all want to understand a little better? I wasn't a cruel person, yet before I saw those chickens with my own eyes, I really didn't think there was an issue. Now I do.


Cindy

[erik_kosberg]

Time for my devil’s advocate rant du jour. Do rights come into existence only when the current batch of voters decide that they exist? Not that many generations ago, the question might have been When did slaves get rights? Did we vote on that? Are they allowed to run for public office? Now, if you’ll excuse me, there’s a breakfast sausage with my name on it. Gotta go.

When did animals get rights? Did we vote on that? Are they allowed to run for public office?

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by jgibson2
JP

1) formaldehyde (aka methanal)

One out of 2 isn't bad. Formaldehyde isn't methanol. They both make fairly decent preservatives and either will kill you if you ingest it, but the chemical structure isn't even similar.

Loved your comment about the PETA anti-fishing ad, makes me sorry I missed that one.

Erik,
More obnoxious than Willie Horton, not really -- but probably less effective.

You're right, methanal is not methanol. But I didn't say it was.

-JP

[cristina1]

By ignoring the message because we find the messenger absurd, aren't we ignoring things that we might all want to understand a little better? I wasn't a cruel person, yet before I saw those chickens with my own eyes, I really didn't think there was an issue. Now I do.

I dont doubt what you mean, Cindy, but PETA has such a way of trying to get their message across that it is just way too easy to dismiss them as a bunch of freaks and move on, never even trying to understand what they want to get across.

And using the poor little boy who lost an arm to a shark to get the message across is just way overboard. And really - what message can that get out anyway? It's a given fact that sharks attack people. It happens. It has been happening for as long as people have been swimming in the ocean.

My dad's brother was killed by a shark almost 50 years ago. My father still finds the whole thing horrifying. He would want to kill someone if some activist group used THAT as an example to prove their point. Granted, PETA pulled the ad, but the very fact they created it in the first place shows that these people care a heck of a lot more about animals than their human counterparts.

Maybe PETA would have better results if they lose the shock ads and possibly encourage people to go visit farms for themselves to see what you saw. Maybe they would get a little farther if they just concentrated on educating people. Maybe they would get ahead if they petitioned governments to have better regulations, in a non-shocking, in your face way.

Because their current promotions do nothing but turn people against them.

[drmomentum[$]]

For those fascinated by chemistry (brief pause - insert sound of a cricket chirping):

Methanal is formaldehyde; it is the simplest aldehyde. Methanol is also known as wood alcohol; it is the simplest alcohol.

Methanol is used in the production of methanal.

-JP

[evmori]

Time for my devil’s advocate rant du jour. Do rights come into existence only when the current batch of voters decide that they exist? Not that many generations ago, the question might have been When did slaves get rights? Did we vote on that? Are they allowed to run for public office? Now, if you’ll excuse me, there’s a breakfast sausage with my name on it. Gotta go.

In this case, you are talking about humans. PETA deals with animals (cows, cats, rats, etc.).

I agree that animals should not be abused, but when it comes to raising animals for human consumption that's different. Abusing animals like dog fights or cock fights for money is wrong & the people involved are just cruel. People who raise chickens for eggs do this the way it has been done for centuries. And this is an effective method. It might not be all touchy feely but not everything is! It's life for some chickens!

I love sausage!

PETA - Prompt Even Timely Aroma

[erik_kosberg]

The fact that something has been done that way for a long time doesn’t mean that it’s right. Not that long ago, people with dark skin were bred for their offspring. And that was the same way that it had been done for centuries. And it was an effective method. It wasn’t all touchy feely but not everything is. It was life for some slaves.

I think that I’ll have pepperoni on my pizza at lunch.

People who raise chickens for eggs do this the way it has been done for centuries. And this is an effective method. It might not be all touchy feely but not everything is! It's life for some chickens!

[poseidon]

Ed,

See here's where I'm going to disagree. Even if you raise animals for consumption only, they should still be treated with respect. This means that while they're alive, they should be treated with the same dignity that you'd reserve for any other kind of animal.

Cindy,

Chickens are raised in Colorado, too. I used to board my horse at a chicken and turkey farm (hated the smell). The chickens were kept in a coop, but it was massive and there was plenty of room to walk around, etc. The chickens and turkeys laid eggs just fine in nests without being locked in a tiny box.

Unfortunately, some chickens and turkeys died. It should be noted that chickens and turkeys are cannibalistic and will quickly dispose of their dead comrades if not removed almost immediately.

But, there were tons of other chicken and turkey farms in the area, and most of them were raising chickens and turkeys in the same fashion. My guess would be that what you saw was hopefully a minority and not a true representation of chicken farms.

Jeff

[conradd]

Originally posted by evmori
I agree that animals should not be abused, but when it comes to raising animals for human consumption that's different. Abusing animals like dog fights or cock fights for money is wrong & the people involved are just cruel.

How is abusing animals in order to maximize efficiency right? Is it less cruel to abuse them if we plan to eat them in the end? I don't quite follow your logic here. Animals - whether cows, chickens, or pigs - are living, feeling, sentient beings. I'm not a vegetarian but I do feel that all life, human and animal, should be treated with dignity.

People who raise chickens for eggs do this the way it has been done for centuries.

Really? How did you come up with this factoid? I'd be willi