So on my way to work I got handed a pamphlet that said something like,
"Even if you like meat, you can still fight animal cruelty!"
And I thought, 'hey! PETA finally got a clue! They're appealing to us happy meat-eaters who are against animal torture! What a good way to become relevant!' I figured the pamphlet was full of ways I could avoid buying meat from places that like, kick little lambies, or make bacon by bashing pigs' skulls in with a rock, or whatever.
Nope.
The inside of the pamphlet went on to say,
"If everyone ate just half the meat they normally do, 30 million animals would be spared fates like this: (gruesome picture of dead chicken)"
So fucking stupid. When will PETA learn that most of us LIKE eating meat, and they will never convince us otherwise, but they'd have our support if they just appealed to the love of pain-free animal living that everyone can agree on?
anthony [email] said at 10:08 AM 09-20-2006: Whatever murderer. Why don't you design a modern slaughterhouse that is both appealing to the eye and full of pain and suffering on the inside.
Nicole said at 1:58 PM 10-02-2006: You know, when you begin an argument by calling someone a name, how far do you think you are really going to get? I personally wouldn't respond to ANYONE-- regardless of their position-- if the only way they know how to express themselves is through name-calling. It makes you look really inarticulate and disrespectful.
woody [email] said at 10:26 AM 09-20-2006: Doesn't fit with them. When they talk about eating meat, they use abuse to try to convince you. But they believe the basic act of killings animals to eat them is unavoidably cruel, so they can't advocate it, ever.
josh [email] said at 2:05 PM 09-20-2006: i just ate a yummy turkey sub, but even i think it's kind of retarded to equate the suffering of an animal at a modern factory farm/slaughterhouse to that of a carefree american being presented with an image of what takes place so they can eat yummy turkey subs.
woody [email] said at 2:36 PM 09-20-2006: I can't read this run-on sentence in a way that makes sense. What's being equated to what here? And who/what is retarded?
woody [email] said at 3:03 PM 09-20-2006: My wife is a senior technical writer, I will ask her tonight. Oh wait, I just got it!! The suffering of an animal with the suffering of a person having to look at PETA ads! That's how I read it at first, but I didn't get your point. I guess you are saying Myriam has no right to complain about looking at pictures, when you compare her suffering to that of the chicken? Is that it?
I guess I don't see who is comparing the 2 things at all in the first place. I don't think it was me!
josh [email] said at 3:16 PM 09-20-2006: im saying that people who bemoan PETA's "shock" tactics are retarded.
peta prints pics of animals being killed, so what? animals do get killed. if you can't see a picture of a slaughtered cow and then grin and eat a burger, than you are a piss-poor carni/omnivore.
woody [email] said at 3:32 PM 09-20-2006: Ok, but nobody is bemoaning that. Myriam was saying she was actually open to their message, hoping it was promoting animal-friendly carnivore options. But it was just the same old shock tactics. I was saying PETA does not believe any animal-friendly carnivore options exists. That's why your message confused me. And Kara it seems.
josh [email] said at 10:26 PM 09-20-2006: now im confused...
i had originally interpreted your use of the word "abuse" to refer to abusive tactics by PETA, by inundating people with imagery to try and sicken them on purpose. i interpreted it this way because i don't see the word abuse really relating to factory farming. abuse to me seems to be a more personal sort of mistreatment of an animal, for pleasure, or just pure neglect. abuse also general is something that is recognized as wrong... (prisoner abuse, sexual abuse, etc) and our treatment of animals as a raw resource isn't generally considered wrong by society at all, obviously. so i assumed you meant it in the other way...
then, after your last comment, i assumed that's i had gotten you wrong, and that you were referring to PETA using sympathy for the way we treat animals when you referred to them "using abuse".
but with this comment, now i'm not sure which way you originally meant it...
either way, my original comment stands... people who complain that peta's tactics are too "shocking" are pretty silly, from any perpective. if they are complaining because they are themselves offended because they can't handle seeing images of what they eat, especially so.
myriam [email] said at 3:55 PM 09-20-2006: You have reading comprehension issues if you think I was bemoaning PETA's shock tactics.
I have no problem being presented with images of dead animals. I think PETA should use those images to get people to think about the way animals are slaughtered for them to eat--NOT to TURN VEGETARIAN, which is a stupid idea and doesn't help PETA alleviate any animals' suffering.
If they addressed the SUFFERING issue instead of the KILLING ANIMALS issue I think they would WIN MORE SOULS.
josh [email] said at 5:09 PM 09-20-2006: huh? an indentation before a reply generally means it was a "reply to", meaning a reply to another comment... not the top post
myriam [email] said at 5:14 PM 09-20-2006: your reply made no sense to me. I think I got it now. No one had brought up shock tactics, so it was quite confusing, m'dear.
josh [email] said at 5:14 PM 09-20-2006: also what you think PETA should do is kind of against their whole agenda, which as i understand it, is to try and make everyone be vegan. (and to get publicity because publicity = donations, which i assume is what keeps them in business, though maybe they have some sort of revenue stream i don't know about)
marcia [email] said at 1:46 PM 09-20-2006: I agree with responsible business when it comes to animals rearing and slaughter. I think it's a good compromise--if there is such a thing with these types of issues.
I don't eat meat but I do eat some fish (which, I would also like to be able make do without since I do eat dairy and eggs). Cooking for myself helps a great deal, though it's difficult to find that hour and a half after work every night to do that.
I don't agree with the arrogant meat eater, which seems to be the attitude I get from this post. "I love meat! I'm always going to eat meat! Meat's awesome!" These overconfident statements strike me as more defensive and insecure than anything else. I'm also pretty humorless with this stuff--as in, i have trouble reading into sarcasm and irony in posts like these.
PETA gets under my skin, too, even though I agree completely with their message. I don't care for their campaign and yes, I wish they were smarter about it.
myriam [email] said at 3:59 PM 09-20-2006: My point is that most meat-eaters are not crazy arrogant pricks, jaws slavering at the thought of stabbing a pig through the eyeballs and carving up its pulsing insides for breakfast.
Most omnivores, myself included, are conscientious human beings who--although, as our biological makeup disposes us, eat meat--don't want animals to suffer unnecessarily for this purpose. I think the ideal of the clean arrow through the deer's heart appeals to all of us--no one wants to see baby animals clubbed to death for our food.
So why not appeal to this common ground, and achieve REAL change in the agro industry?
marcia [email] said at 4:26 PM 09-20-2006: Agreed, which is why I loved the book Fast Food Nation so much. He stated his case the exact way that PETA should be doing, yet they're way too much like Green Peace in that regard. And it's irritating and frustrating.
chrisx [email] said at 3:50 PM 09-20-2006: PETA is shit. They KILL more animals every year than they save. The ladies who run the thing take medications that are tested on animals. See Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode for these and many other fun facts.
Gonna eat a filet mignon tonight.
kara [email] said at 4:33 PM 09-20-2006: At my first job, my boss' husband had made these cards that said P.A.P.E.T.A. with a clip art image of a hammer hitting a swan.
I miss that guy.
rick [email] said at 9:08 AM 09-21-2006: The one on Alcoholics Anonymous was also pretty good. I have to observe an AA meeting at some point this month so I want to watch it again.
Nicole said at 2:03 PM 10-02-2006: I find it really disheartening, as I read down the list, how people cannot seem to disagree without insulting people who have different ideas or understandings of things. Unbelievable.
By the way, I fully agree that it is a foolish tactic on PETA's part to conflate meat-eating with things like animal experimentation and abuse in the entertainment industry, poaching, and so on.
While I agree that the factory farming system is hideous on all fronts, the hideousness includes the way we grow crops AS WELL AS the way we treat animals.
PETA people can't seem to get it through their minds that killing and death is intertwined with living and life. There is no way around this. It is embedded in the ecological cycles of nature. Unless, of course, PETA supporters believe that humans are somehow "above" this cycle... which we are not...
pervyshawn said at 1:58 AM 03-03-2007: I couldn't bear to read all the above, but WHY DO MEAT EATERS expect, even demand, that VEGANS DEFEND and explain PETA? I don't make you explain the logic of meat adviertising. It's like meat eaters have the same mentality of a born-again christian who thinks anyone who supports gay rights is a deviant trying to undermine normalcy; they get really defensive and feel personally insecure and are way too focused on the topic, like the christian is with gays.
chrisx [email] said at 2:58 PM 03-03-2007: Which of course is soooo different from the near-fanatical holier-than-thou attitude of most vegan/animal rights idealists....
