Offensive PETA ad / Animal ethics?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Kernl Sandrs, Nov 17, 2010.

  1. Kernl Sandrs Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    645
    The Ad is from 2003, but I only just saw it a few days ago. Here's what one of them looks like:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Just google "PETA Holocaust ad" for articles. There's a ton.


    So what do you people think? Personally I think they've gone bonkers. It's absolutely pathetic.

    They're comparing the systematic annihilation of an entire ethnic race to sustaining the US population! FREAKIN' A! If PETA could propose a viable method of sustaining 307 million people without the need to kill millions of animals on-demand, I might just jump on the bandwagon, but until they have their own 'final solution'

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I suggest they shut the fuck up. Stop wasting money on ads like this and spend it on research. People don't change their dietary consumption simply because you post a sign with statistics on it. And if they do then that's their problem.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,512
    Repetition and familiarity

    Complaining that PETA has gone bonkers is a bit like having a brilliant epiphany that shoes are for one's feet.

    PETA is largely a memetically-driven organization. (You know, "memes"? That idea that was really popular a few years ago among people who like to psychoanalyze, but claim to hate psychology, so they invented a subsection of psychology in order to claim expertise without ever having to study the fundamentals of what they hate?) They are happy to be hated, to such an extent that you have just promoted their message. That is, no matter how stupid, extreme, or repugnant one finds that advertisement, its continued exposure in the public discourse only reinforces the meme of the direct comparison of people to animals. Repetition breeds familiarity.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    That's because you prefer not to think of all the animals that are killed to feed you, I assume.

    PETA uses shock tactics like this in an effort to shake meat eaters out of their complacency. The fact that they attract such strong negative reactions shows just how defensive people are about their basically immoral actions in continuing to eat meat.

    The US population doesn't require meat to be sustained. It's just a habit. There's no need to kill animals to eat.

    it looks like you haven't read much of their material. I suggest you visit their website. All the information you require is there. It's easy to find.

    I look forward to your jumping on the band wagon once you've read it. Please get back to us when you reverse your position. But make sure you read their stuff properly. Don't just avoid it because it suits your denial to pretend that they are mad.

    Research into what?

    In other words, you have no intention of changing your meat consumption, no matter what anybody says. you like meat too much to give it up, even if it is harmful.

    Is that about right?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. woowoo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    There are alternatives but meat eaters enjoy the taste of blood,
    they should visit an abattoir before sitting down to their next meal.

    http://meat.org/
     
  8. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    If they had slaughtered more animals for food, people would not have starved.

    People Eating Tasty Animals. PETA.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    When? Where?

    How original of you. I bet they've never heard that one before.
     
  10. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304

    If they haven't, they're brain dead. If they have, who cares? They deserve all the derision which can be aimed their way.
     
  11. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    Animal Ethics?

    When people see other people treating animals cruelly, is there an obligation to step in and stop the inhumane treatment?

    A friend posted this video this evening on a social network. I went to the primary source and read some of the comments. The video has already gone viral and has had already over 1.7 million hits.

    Cat Vs. Alligator


    Here is what (IMO) I think we can surmise from the video. I takes place at a camp ground. It is next to a pontoon, so it is probably on a river or lake. The cats are more than likely strays, as there is no collar on either of them and no one is intervening and no one in their right mind would let their pet defend them from alligators.

    What I find curious, is that this guy video taping, and the onlookers, would stand there and not do something to avoid the alligators, save the cats from what one would think is certain disaster, and most of all, shield children from being so close to dangerous predators which could possibly show them a grisly feeding sight or draw them into a freak accident?

    Does one wonder that this fellow is video taping it mainly in hopes of seeing something like this in the first place?

    If it is ten degrees below freezing, at night, and ones neighbor chains a dog outside, do you have an ethical responsibility to do anything at all? If so, what about the way we treat animals for our food stocks? :shrug:
     
  12. woowoo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232


    i think part of the problem is many people fail to understand or attribute
    a sentient conscious awareness to anything other than humans, and even then
    that does not stop some from perpetrating despicable wickedness on loved ones
    and kin, so what chance animals who for the most part don't have the
    protection of the law. For such personality types inflicting pain and suffering is a means
    to their own selfish pleasure and gratification be it homicide or a burger.
     
  13. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    I concur. I still love the taste of sausage, and the smell of bacon frying. . .

    But once you become spiritually aware enough of the other Earthlings consciousnesses, and this dawns on you, ingesting the DNA of another spiritually aware creature become difficult at best. At worst, the thought can haunt you. If you must in a social setting, to keep from hurting others feelings, to keep things from getting uncomfortable, to keep from starving, etc., you wonder, would the smell of human flesh cooking smell delicious too?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    uke:
     
  14. woowoo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    All life is sacred, if you must absolutely kill, pray for or acknowledge the spirit of
    the animal. view the world in that way you won't want to steal the life of
    another creature. abuse an animal in this life, you just may find yourself reborn
    as the sacrificial lamb in the next.
     
  15. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,891
    It is ethical no not eat meat. Not eating meat puts you in a higher state where you can look down on the meat eaters. I love the smell of bacon frying but I abstain from it, because it's not ethical.
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,512
    Brief Points

    Brief Points

    Moral vegetarianism, functionally, can become an attempt to assert influence over the evolution of the human species.

    Someone, please, show me the spiritual awareness of a bull.

    Someone, please, prove to me that reincarnation is real.

    I am more likely to eat a vegetarian meal in a social setting in order to keep from offending someone than any vegetarian I know is to eat meat for such a reason.

    Why do vegetarians want food that imitates meat? And why do they always lie to me and say you can't tell the difference? Textured vegetable protein imitation meat is repugnant.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,512
    Moral vegetarianism is not independent of the psyche

    One might likewise assert that PETA's efforts to insult omnivores shows just how self-conscious they are about their own diets. I mean, hell, dude, in another animal rights thread, we have people talking about the spiritual awareness of animals, and reincarnation:

    • "But once you become spiritually aware enough of the other Earthlings consciousnesses, and this dawns on you, ingesting the DNA of another spiritually aware creature become difficult at best." (#2649801/3)

    • "abuse an animal in this life, you just may find yourself reborn
    as the sacrificial lamb in the next.
    " (#2649807/4)

    PETA is one example of moral vegetarians attempting to influence human evolution. That sort of arrogance would be astounding, except we must pause to appreciate that at least it's about what people eat. I mean, we can't directly compare PETA to Nazis because the Nazis didn't actually eat the Jews, as far as we know.

    But, still: Nazis, white separatists, even the founder of Planned Parenthood. PETA does fall into the class of people who seek moral arguments to radically shape human evolution. And in that sense, we must pause to consider to what degree such people do so in order to compensate for their own insecurities.
     
  18. woowoo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    A cheap shot to deflect the argument away from the real issue, cruelty
    and suffering. If it doesn't concern you what kind of evolution is that, and
    if it does what would you want to about it. Atheists don't acknowledge
    their own spirituality, then little or no chance to consider animals anything
    other than meat.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,512
    (Insert Title Here)

    PETA isn't really about cruely and suffering.

    The issue of cruelty and suffering in consumption of meat has to do with methods of manufacture, which are the result of economic demand and modeling.

    In reality, if PETA wants to do something about cruelty and suffering, it should challenge the economic model instead of trying to flame people into conformity.

    As near as I can understand the sentence, I think the response is that I disagree with the fundamental proposition that the eventual narrowing of the human diet for moral reasons is a good idea.

    People can eat meat or not according to their inclination. Meanwhile, comparing omnivores to Nazis, as PETA does, or child killers, as others have, just doesn't make much of an argument in favor of moral vegetarianism. Rather, the correlation of moral vegetarianism and the stupid insanity of its advocacy is exactly the kind of thing that tells people they're better off just having a bacon burger, turducken, or bacon explosion.

    Let me know when Mary Wollstonecow publishes her Vindication of the Rights of Bovine.

    (guffaw!)

    Awesome. Just awesome.
     
  20. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,538
    What's wrong with that ad? Just because they're animals, subhuman beings it's okay to treat them like shit? Personally, I think the ad only serves to help people who think of themselves as superior to any other beings to relate to what animals have to go through by replacing the cow by a human being so that people can picture it better. But obviously some have an issue with that and take personal offence. Like who would want to be compared to all the cows and chicken who end up on our table. So offensive. Since it's so offensive to you there MUST be something wrong with the way those animals are being treated, right?
    Everybody agrees that the way people were treated during the holocaust was atrocious, but not everybody agrees that animals who are being treated the way shown on the meat.org website deserve to be treated better. Think about it, seeing your sister being treated and killed the way animals are in those meat fabriques would certainly not be okay to you now would it? It reminds me of the days when the colonialists looked at the black people as if they were animals and treated them accordingly (basically like shit). Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I bet nobody would want to be reared and slaughtered the way 99% of the animals meant for our consumption are. But because animals don't talk, walk, and look like us, and can't talk back they can be treated like shit according to some. Humans always had the tendency to treat everything that they don't understand like shit. Just look at how crippled people get treated in our societies. Although nowadays we have all this human rights blah blah, they're still being mocked at and flamed at.

    What I don't understand at all are all those religious folks who always point to their holy books and claim that everything here is God's creation but have no qualms whatsoever to do whatever they want with its creation. Is it so hard to follow this : "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."?
    But hey, if I look at all the poor countries and see the living standards there, and how the poor folk are being treated then it doesn't surprise me either. Someone who can treat animals like shit doesn't need much to do the same to a fellow human being. Or what happened to the children from Haiti? It's so fucking sick. Or when I saw what they do with the dead bodies of the Hijiras in India. As long as they're alive it's okay to engage in sodomy with them for a little money, but as soon as they're dead their bodies receive all the wrath from the people there.
    Or if you look at how the people suffer who have to work in those meat fabriques. It's not just the animals who suffer but also those who have to take care of them. Their living standards are not a lot better than that of the animals they have to cut into pieces so that it can be served to the West on pretty dishes.
     
  21. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,515
    i don't think the ad makes a very smart analogy; they're just going for the disturbing or shock value. i don't see why they need an analogy at all, when they could just post a picture of what really goes on or into the consumption of animals. they could show a chick with it's beak in the beak-cutter-offer machine, or a bunch of grown chickens or turkeys crammed into a wire cage and thrown on a truck. i remember seeing a guy move a pig with two broken legs around with a forklift because he was in the way. i've seen all kinds of normal, everyday, horrific shit about the way we treat animals. i force myself to watch the stuff. the movie "earthlings" is really good, but i wanted to turn it off the whole time. a lot of times we really don't want to see the consequence of our demand, and turn a blind eye, and i think it's a sure sign of evil.

    hasn't peta done a lot to expose animal cruelty and lobby for laws that protect animals?
     
  22. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,515
    i didn't stop eating meat because of the taste, or even because i think eating meat is wrong per se. i just don't like the way we go about it. i like most of the fake meat i've tried. i use it in traditional recipes that require meat, like lasagna, chili, chicken enchiladas. i like the morningstar sausage patties too with waffles.

    that stuff's not really very good for you though.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,515
    i would prefer it if everyone had to kill their own meat to eat.
     

Share This Page