The problem with PETA

[tinanator]

sorry to launch a new one, but this is more than secret herbs and spices...
A couple of years ago a local high school yearbook was paid for an ad by PETA which if I remember right was a cow related ad fairly mild in nature, but then you know what happened to Oprah, so be careful when you cross them ranchers. The real problem was the high school decided to rip the whole page out of printed yearbooks to satisfy the complaints of these Mad Cow farmers. A local longtime activist was fully prepared to launch a protest at the high school in righteous indignation at this post Orwellian attack on freedom of bought and paid for speech, and justifiably so. The sad response of PETA spokespeople was they had no problem with such a travesty, because the press and attention they would get as a result was better than the actual ad itself. Well, I really dont think they got much action from this, and their FAILURE to respond to such a serious breach shows exactly where their mouths are and they can stick their commitment right where the sun doesnt shine, they are as crazy and stupid as they seem, deserving next to no support considering their response to this scenario which could have been a very good lawsuit I think. Screw em.

[expatriot]

1. okay, let's assume all the info in your post is right....

...which I don't necessarily accept, is having a difference with the adminmistration or stategy of a group reason to abandon the principles and the ideology?

I think, in general (I am not accusing you of this), but people tend to write off PETA any way they can because it allows them not to think about the underlying issues.

[The Stranger]

2. Point. Set. Match.

Very well said.

[livinginphotographs]

3. Couldn't have said it better myself...

"I think, in general (I am not accusing you of this), but people tend to write off PETA any way they can because it allows them not to think about the underlying issues."


So some people think that because of one bad experience with an organization not standing up for a yearbook ad, let's continue to say nothing while chickens are boiled alive, and have their throats cut while fully-conscious. Am I getting that right?

Hell, I don't really like PETA myself because of personal experience with them, but the overall cause is great, and I'm not someone who holds groups up to an unrealistic standard and expect them to please me 100% of the time.

Kind of the same reason I'm still a Democrat.

[tinanator]

8. hey who needs credibilty

and why wouldnt I make this shit up?
Im not actually a PETA basher, Im just giving you some obviously unwanted background into their decision making and mindset. Excuse me if I take what happened in this case a little more seriously than some flyering counterprotesting beef eater and sprinkler flashing KFC manager. Anyone eating at KFC deserves what they get. Some outfits and some people are simply too confused to take the front row in battles over the health and safety of citizens and constitutional/legal battles regarding freedom of speech no matter who gets the shaft. Wish I could communicate the crux here a little better, but you might think Im lying then too.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. And what are you doing?

No one can actually disagree with any of the finer points of PETA's agenda, like the criminalization of all meat eating and pet ownership-- they just are "in denial" because they don't want to think about what evil, bad meat eaters they are.

How is that different from a fundy saying "you're not really an athiest- you're just 'mad at god' (I've heard that one here) and you haven't accepted Christ's love, yet".

It's an extremely patronizing, offensive position to take, and it doesn't explain someone like me- I never eat red meat, I rarely eat poultry (and when I do, it's free range, cruelty and hormone free, etc.) and I've cut down on my fish consumption- but mostly because Bush's "approach" to mercury through the FDA scares the fuck out of me. I don't support factory farming and I haven't eaten fast food in close to a decade...

Yet I think PETA is generally full of crap, I think their "tactics", their extremism, and their braindead, offensive way of presenting the issues are totally counterproductive and alienate waaaay more people than they ever would convince.

Here's another example-- here in Northern California, not all that far from me, there's a little town of about 7,000 people that is one of those nice liberal, alternative, kooky meccas that make this place so great. Literally, the small rural town has more gay bars than it does Bush voters... so several months ago, a vintage USED clothing shop, run by, and shopped at by, liberals constituting the town's considerable gay population, carried a couple USED fur items-- bringing the wrath of out-of-town PETA goons, who shut the town down, vandalized the store and surrounding merchants, and generally made life miserable for everyone in the area, inciting a massive backlash.

Now, I would never wear fur, buy fur, etc. etc. The women running the store said they were opposed to fur- new fur- but these were used, the activity producing the fur was long over... Didn't matter to the PETA gang, who were busy screaming threats of violence and promising these ladies that they would "drum you out of business for good", refusing anything resembling compromise. The store owners, like me, found the use by a PETA spokesperson of comparisons to Jews in the holocaust particularly offensive, and they refused to budge-- the town rallied around them, and the PETA kids ended up looking like a pack of obnoxious wannabe radicals and extremists..

Ooops.

I also find it interesting that, in these threads, almost none of the PETA defenders ever seem to want to answer a simple question: Should any eating of animals be legal, at all? Or should all meat eating be criminalized?

[livinginphotographs]

23. Can we please stop spouting the BS about criminalizing pet ownership?

For christ's sake, PETA employees bring their animals to work on a daily basis. That's been shot down time and again, and yet people still want to attribute a platform to PETA that does not exist.

And I posted yesterday in an attempt to explain the holocaust comparison (including quotes from several Jewish people who had either been Holocaust survivors or had family members who were), but of course that sank like a stone. God forbid people take the time to stop jerking their knees long enough to actually find out PETA's motives.

edit: spelling

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Just because PETA found a few relatives of holocaust survivors

to support this ad campaign, does NOT make it okay or negate the overwhelming consensus among jewish survivor groups that those comparisons and ad campagins are/were exceedingly offensive. (Is the republican agenda on gays and lesbians okay just because they've found a couple self-hating gays to support them?) I, also, provided links to very relevant major holocaust organizations that were and are duly outraged. Again, you think it's fine and dandy to compare my relatives at Auschwitz to Tyson's Chickens-- I don't.

I already *know* PETA's motives. I've watched them for more than 20 years, since before I lived with animal rights activists in college.

I also note that you didn't also say it's "BS" about criminalizing meat eating... so, let's hear it- what is PETA's stance on people being able to legally eat animals if they so choose?

[livinginphotographs]

90. Since I'm not a member, I can't speak for them.

I know that I would prefer a society where it's not even considered an issue as to why we should criminalize meat-eating. I know that's naive, but so be it.

I'd prefer to slowly change society so that meat-eating is as unacceptable as slavery is now (but was considered normal and acceptable by the majority of people hundreds of years ago).

And I know what you're trying to bait me into: you want me to admit that, "Yes, PETA and all us vegans want to get our own little animal-loving SWAT teams to storm into your house in the middle of the night and take you away to the gulag in front of your crying wife and children because you had a steak for dinner." Now that this is out of the way, can we move on?

[Warren DeMontague]

103. Humans are omnivores. I hate to break it to you.

No one is going to cart me off to the gulag for eating steak, because i haven't eaten red meat in years... I made that call as both a health and ethical decision, for me, personally. Yet somehow I don't feel the need to hector, or even judge, others whose still choose to eat beef. And astoundingly enough, I have many vegan friends who are somehow capable of extending the same level of respect to others about their personal diet choices.

I don't support factory farming, and I think organic produce and free range animal products are better for the environment.

But not everyone needs, or should eat, a 100% vegan diet. That's the reality of the animal known as homo sapiens.

So let me get this straight... you admit that PETA has a rigid, black and white anti-meat eating agenda, and you really think their comparing people who eat chicken to concentration camp guards or slave owners is somehow ethically valid--- but you still can't understand why they piss so many people off?

[livinginphotographs]

106. The only place I "hector" people is on DU.

It's a discussion board. That was the point, I thought.

And what I don't understand is why people are so blinded by their hatred of PETA that they don't take the time to see why extreme comparisons to slave owners or concentration camp guards are sometimes necessary to get a point across.

[Warren DeMontague]

113. I just think they're counterproductive, instead.

I came to my opinions about factory farming and the need to eat lower on the food chain through absolutely no help of PETA.

Exaggeration and oversimplification are the hallmark of extreme groups- look what the pro-life, Randall Terry crowd engages in every day. As far as they're concerned, every woman who takes oral contraceptives is morally equivalent to a concentration camp guard. Maybe they "raise awareness" or "get points across" that way, but if they were really interested in reducing the rates of surgical abortion, they would stop with their black-and-white thinking (which leads inevitably to their war on all birth control), and work to make sure as many pregnancies as possible were planned, and women who ended up pregnant had adequate prenatal and other care.

[livinginphotographs]

115. Well, we agree on abortion and the pro-lifers.

And I've said many times that PETA could go about things better. But the responses to the post about the KFC owner dousing PETA protestors in water, and the responses to it, only prove my point about "being blinded by hatred of PETA."

It is possible to debate a group's methods, rather than discounting the validity of the entire movement because of those methods.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. And again, I agree with the results in that case.

I think forcing corporate accountability with regards to someone like KFC is a worthy objective. If PETA stuck to that kind of thing, I probably wouldn't have as much of a problem with them- but as i mentioned, they've been very active (and counter-productive, in my mind) in my area lately, causing trouble for small local businesses-- needlessly, I think.

[livinginphotographs]

91. And as far as "a few" relatives of holocaust survivors

Here's the link which I and another poster put up the other day. Naturally, no one read it.

http://www.eternaltreblinka.com

And a quote in the epigraph from Isaac Bashevis Singer: "In his thoughts, Herman spoke a eulogy for the mouse who had shared a portion of her life with him and who,
because of him, had left this earth. "What do they know--all these scholars, all these philosophers, all the leaders of the world--about such as you? They have convinced themselves that man, the worst transgressor of all the species, is the crown of creation. All other creatures were created merely to provide him with food, pelts, to be tormented, exterminated. In relation to them, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka."

Here's your "few" Jews:

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/3/prweb111209.htm

on edit: Hey I found some more. Funny how helpful google can be, as opposed to just smearing PETA with BS.
http://www.mts.net/~wva/Reviews/EternalTreblinka.html

[iverglas]

94. if I might butt in

Just because PETA found a few relatives of holocaust survivors ...

Just because PETA got Pamela Anderson to take off her clothes for a photo ... which wouldn't seem to be too difficult ...

... does NOT make it okay or negate the overwhelming consensus among jewish survivor groups that those comparisons and ad campagins are/were exceedingly offensive.

... does NOT make it okay or negate the overwhelming consensus among people who care about the well-being of women in our society that using naked women to sell a product is exceedingly offensive.

And I hope that no one will want *me* to apologize for the comparison. Women are beaten and sexually assaulted, and murdered, and die premature deaths because of the poverty they live in as a result of unequal opportunity in society or because they are unable to access reproductive health care, every damned day. I wouldn't think of calling the way women are treated in most societies a "holocaust", or genocide, or any such nonsense -- but it is an atrocity.

The public portrayal of women as objects to be used for someone else's ends -- whether attractive or unattractive objects, PETA having done both, although is particularly noteworthy that the "attractive" is the artificial and the "unattractive" is the real -- is a very real and significant contributing factor to the very real and significant abuse and misery that most women suffer, in one way or another, because they are women.

To use the experience of Holocaust victims for any end that they have not agreed to is to objectify them, and exploit them. At its simplest and yet ugliest, it to treat human beings as a means to an end, one that is contrary to their own perception and definition of their own interests. If that were done to an individual, it would be called slavery. When it is done to groups of people, when their collective characteristics, their identities, are appropriated and defined according to someone else's measure, it is also obscene.

About the only thing I can imagine PETA doing that would be as offensive as what it has done so far is to use a photo of a Jewish, or Muslim, man, and suggest that his beard is bad grooming on a par with wearing fur ... and maybe that he's as much to blame for how he gets treated as women who wear fur are ...

[livinginphotographs]

95. I thought you were calling it a day?

Yes, I'll admit that the authors of this book (not PETA, keep in mind) did not get written permission from every single Holocaust survivor before writing it.

But I think reserving the Holocaust (while still maintaining a sensitivity to those that went through it and still live with its legacy) as only a lesson of cruelty toward Jews misses the big picture: it could've just as easily been any other scapegoated ethnic group that was forced into camps and exterminated, whether its the Japanese internment during WWII, the many gypsies and Poles that also died at the hands of the Nazis, the Muslims during the Crusades, or animals in a factory farm. The point is that when we convince ourselves that we're somehow superior to another living creature, the danger remains that we'll allow ourselves to commit unspeakable cruelty, or look the other way while cruelty happens.

The Holocaust is used as an example of this simply because of how extreme it was: even despite the ethnic cleansing that went on in Bosnia, Rwanda, etc., there has been very few instances of that magnitude in history. That's why it was used to relate to the suffering of animals in factory farms, maybe also because the horror of the Holocaust and the (supposed) determination of decent people never to let something like that happen again has become almost universally accepted in our society, save the few neo-nazis that still remain. People would be more likely to make that connection using the Holocaust as opposed to a more obscure point in history where one group of people tried to wipe out another.

edit: grammar, and to add occasional adjectives

[iverglas]

97. well

I hadn't thought I was addressing you.

because the horror of the Holocaust and the (supposed) determination of decent people never to let something like that happen again has become almost universally accepted in our society, save the few neo-nazis that still remain. People would be more likely to make that connection using the Holocaust as opposed to a more obscure point in history where one group of people tried to wipe out another.

A fancy way of saying: go away, and we'll just keep using you for our own purposes.

I am not an adherent of "exclusivism". I do not think that the attempted genocide of the Jews is necessarily the most horrible thing that anyone has ever done to anyone else, or is not comparable in many ways to what has been done to others. It is one in a class of atrocities, all of which have their own unique characteristics and will mean different things to different people.

But I just don't really disagree with anyone who regards drawing a parallel, in the universe we happen to live in, between the mass murder of Jews and the mistreatment of animals as ill-advised, to put it extreeeeeemely mildly.

Just as I think that exhibiting (surgically altered) women's bodies as if they were sides of beef, and portraying women's bodies (in their natural state) as, essentially, animalistic and disgusting (ring any bells?), is similarly ill-advised, in the universe we happen to live in.

If we want to liken people to animals, there's no shortage of people around to pick on without picking on those who have historically been likened to animals (that would be: Jews and women, for a start) and are still at serious disadvantage, and in fact at constant risk of harm, because of the centuries-long propagation of that image.

Heck, why not start with the male chauvinist piggies? Lined up in stalls in factory farms ...

Then there's the Rat Pack, if we wanted to continue with Ingrid Newkirk's list. Sammy Davis in a big trap; that would get some attention.

Speaking of which, the other organization known for exploiting the Holocaust for its own ends is a leading outfit in the anti-choice brigade. It also likens abortion to the lynching of black men in the US. Can we expect PETA to come up with something along that line soon?

After all, nobody's delicate sensitivities should stand in the way of PETA's important goals.

[livinginphotographs]

98. You seem like you're assuming that I think animals have less value than

people (and since I was berated by some so so so much older, wiser, and more educated than me earlier, I'll try to watch the assumptions).

When I compare the Holocaust to factory-farming, I'm not saying, "Jews are animals" (and even if I did, I would mean it in a non-offensive way, since I see no difference between putting animals in "camps" to be slaughtered and putting humans in camps to be slaughtered). Please don't try to accuse me of being an anti-semite or Holocaust sympathizer. You've already managed to skirt one rule today by posting one of the most well-written personal attacks I've ever seen, so you can be sit back, be proud, and give it a rest for the day.

And I wouldn't compare people that need to be picked on (fundies, Republicans, etc.) because I like animals a hell of a lot more than those groups. PETA also takes no position on abortion, period. So that one won't work either.

Sorry, I'm too tired to end my post with a sarcastic comment, as seems to be your style.

[iverglas]

100. Do I? Oh well.

You seem like you're assuming that I think animals have less value than people

I never have been able to control how (people say) I seem to them.

... (and since I was berated by some so so so much older, wiser, and more educated than me earlier, I'll try to watch the assumptions).

Not doing too well with that effort, eh?

Please don't try to accuse me of being an anti-semite or Holocaust sympathizer.

Please don't try to convey the impression that I did something I did not do, and that I could not reasonably or accurately be portrayed as having done. How many times need I ask this?

When I have not done any such thing, it's pretty hard for me not to feel that a personal attack has just been leveled at me, doncha see?

PETA also takes no position on abortion, period. So that one won't work either.

Do you occasionally read more than every second word in the posts you respond to?

The Genocide Project (that's its name) uses giant photos of Holocaust victims and lynching victims alongside photos of aborted fetuses -- along with literature that explicitly draws a parallel between abortion and the Holocaust, and between abortion and the lynching of black men.

So far, PETA has used victims of the Holocaust and drawn a parallel between them and mistreated animals.

My question: when might PETA use black men who were lynched and draw a parallel between them and mistreated animals? If victims of the Holocaust are not off limits, would victims of racist lynchings be off limits? If not off limits, why isn't PETA using them? Surely that would be an effective image. If PETA isn't using them, why? Maybe because African-American men don't make such docile and vulnerable targets for exploitation as Jews and women?

Where you got the idea that I was suggesting that PETA had a position on abortion, I haven't a clue.


When I compare the Holocaust to factory-farming, I'm not saying, "Jews are animals"

Maybe you aren't. But have you ever considered that you are not the centre of the universe, and that your actions have consequences that you may not have intended?

Have you ever encountered the notion that there are people in your society who HATE JEWS? Who ARE quite happy to say "Jews are animals" -- and for Jews to be treated like animals? And that in some people's eyes, comparing the mistreatment of animals to the attempted genocide of the Jews wouldn't actually be giving them a reason to oppose the mistreatment of animals?

Do you think it just might be possible that the parallel drawn might convey a message that is quite different from the one you say is intended? that it might reinforce a very different idea? That it might not tug on people's heartstrings for the animals, but create an association between the animals (about whom they don't give a shit) and Jews? possibly even in the minds of people who are not intentionally or overtly haters of Jews, but in whose minds it will join with other negative portrayals of Jews and fester?

(and even if I did, I would mean it in a non-offensive way, since I see no difference between putting animals in "camps" to be slaughtered and putting humans in camps to be slaughtered).

Can you spare a moment to consider that what YOU think about animals just might not be the material fact here?

The material FACT might be that animals ARE treated badly and that a lot of OTHER people DO see a difference between human beings and animals, and DON'T care about the mistreatment of animals. And you might consider the possibility that comparing the mistreatment of human beings to the mistreatment of animals might not bring the animals up to the level of human beings in their minds -- it might bring the human beings down to the level of animals in their minds.

That is, if you can't actually contemplate the possibility that there is something legitimate about the feelings of the people in question themselves, and about their objection to being compared to animals -- given that they HAVE been treated the way animals ARE treated in such horrific ways and for such a long time.

I'm all sarcasmed out, my obviously young friend. I cease to see humour, at a certain point, in such self-absorption.

[livinginphotographs]

102. "My obviously young friend."

Well, since my opinions obviously don't count for shit, I won't waste your time anymore.

I do see humor in the pot calling the kettle black. Although, I'd add to "self-absorbed" by saying that someone also seems to have a real chip on their shoulder.

But I'm young and dumb. What do I know. I'll just quit DU and go drool on myself now.

[shockra]

109. Radicals

"nobody's delicate sensitivities should stand in the way of PETA's important goals."

Well, no they shouldn't. There's no way to get people to see the connections without making them uncomfortable first. If they're really there then it will become more and more obvious the more you look into it. If it's just a propaganda trick, then it will fall flat.

It's part of the function of the far left to point out the similarities common to all oppressed groups. The more you bother to look into them, the more you'll find. It's a basis for bringing people together, rather than dividing them -- like the right does. At first glance two groups may not seem to have that much in common, and it could take some convincing. But that's only because radicalism is so marginalized. The *last* thing the powerful want is for vast groups of people to see that they're treated in much the same ways as another group they've been taught to look down on. It's all divide and conquer.

Radicals are in the minority, of course. Because it takes a lot of willingness to be openminded and not believe that just about everything you've been taught about reality is wrong. I didn't agree with many of the points of view of a large number of books that I read when I first picked them up, thinking they were sensational. But I listened to the arguments, and the more truth I found in them the better that prepared me for the next time I'd pick up a book I was inclined to be put off by. I realized that there were many incredibly intelligent voices out there that weren't getting much of a hearing. On purpose.

The main point about the Holocaust connection was the slaughter. Henry Ford admired the methods of animal slaughterhouses and based his car factories on them. Hitler agreed and called Ford his "hero," both for his insight into methods to make a quick killing and for his outspoken Semitism.

As for seeing women's bodies pictured as cuts of beef...Yes, that offended me at first. But because it hits too close to home, not because it's exploitive. It's one of the tenets of feminism that those who point out oppression are blamed for perpetuating it themselves. I didn't like the picture, but I was curious about what she had to say. I didn't have to agree with everything Adams said to understand that she made some valid points.

[Warren DeMontague]

112. And the similarities between what PETA and radical pro-lifers do

in terms of PR should not be lost on you, either.

Yes, we should all be open to the plight of the "oppressed". But not everyone agrees that a micron-sized fertilized egg is equivalent to a human, and not everyone agrees that a chicken is, either. Drawing parallels between concentration camp victims and zygotes or chickens may SEEM legitimate to you, but to many of us they seem pretty damn offensive, not to mention a ridiculous over-simplification and exaggeration.

And using the government to write those opinions into law naturally runs up against the rights of women to control their own reproductive systems, or people to choose to eat meat if they want to.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. So if it's okay for animal rights activists to hijack the holocaust

in pursuit of an agenda and philosophical position not everyone agrees on then it's okay for pro-lifers to do so, as well? (in one case, a fertilized egg is a human being with rights under the fourteenth amendment. In the other, a chicken has rights under the fourteenth amendment.)

Personally, I find both comparisons deeply offensive.

Pol Pot's cambodia? That is an event, for example, worthy of comparison to the holocaust. Women using birth control or people eating chicken are NOT. I guess you just don't get that.
A zygote is not a concentration camp victim, and neither is a chicken.

[Warren DeMontague]

107. If holocaust survivors CHOOSE to be portrayed in PETA ads

that's one thing. If holocaust survivors choose to make the comparison between Nazis and factory farming, that's one thing.

Using images of people in concentration camps next to images of chickens in coops is something else.

Frankly, in my mind, Pam Anderson owns her body- it's hers to do with as she chooses. If she wants to flash everyone, that's her choice.

[yewberry]

4. Also

if a lawsuit had been launched, who would have been sued? Not the ranchers...it would have been the school. Was the school right? No. Were the special-interest ranchers right? No.

But really--what national organization is going to sue a public school and invite that kind of awful press? They were right to decline. Better to let evidence pile up against those behind the unconstitutional "food-disparagement" laws.

[tinanator]

11. Awful press? what other kind is there?

So why bother sweating the Bill of Rights anyway? Why should PETA defend their own freedom of bought speech? Screw it, not worth the hassle. Just dont follow this mindset with any PETA fundraisers, cuz that dont add up.

[Beacho]

5. monior point

but if someone buys a yearbook, isn't their property to do with as they wish?

I don't really understand what the issue is here

[BearClaws]

6. Cruelty to Animals is Wrong.

I agree with them on that, but the agreements pretty much end there.

A pig is a rat is a dog is a boy?

Their ad comparing your Golden Retriever with a bass plug stuck in it's lips to fishing?

They have lost much credibility with a majority of Americans.

[shockra]

16. Yet another case of PETA being misrepresented in the media.

Let's face it. It happens to everyone who tries to interfere with corporate interests or mess with the status quo.

The actual quote is on an animal rights faq page:

http://www.animal-rights.com/arpage.htm

"When it comes to having a central nervous system, and the ability to
feel pain, hunger, and thirst, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
Ingrid Newkirk (AR activist)

[iverglas]

20. how interesting: "boy"

And spoken by a woman. A little funny that she wouldn't have said "girl".

Guess the overarching misogyny of the PETA organization got to her.

Rats and pigs and dogs and boys are sentient beings, while women are inanimate objects to be exploited for whatever end one might be pursuing. Pretty much seems to sum up the PETA philosophy.

I have no philosophical objection to meat-eating. Things die -- everything dies. Why not eat it?

I do think PETA's points about the cruelty of the way many of the things we eat are forced to live, and are killed, are pretty much irrefutable, however.

Unfortunately, the validity of one's arguments very often is, in practice, outshone by the obnoxiousness of one's behaviour in making them. I don't personally reject ideas because I dislike the people expressing them, but the fact is that quite a lot of people do. It is therefore simply stupid for PETA to behave as it does, if nothing else.

Shame and blame are not often good techniques for getting people to change their behaviour. Providing reasons for changing behaviour that appeal to the target audience's values, that raise their level of discomfort with their present course of conduct just enough to get them to engage in self-examination -- without trying to force them to adopt an image of themselves that they can't stand to look at long enough to hear what you're saying -- can be more productive. Providing options for alternative conduct to be adopted, that make the transition less inconvenient or expensive or unpleasant, helps too.

Self-righteousness seldom impresses anyone, of course. And it leaves one so vulnerable to the old hypocrisy thing: nobody is ever that righteous, so it's not usually good to make one's righteousness an issue. Why would "I" care what PETA says about animals, when it is can't seem to say it without exploiting and degrading women? Their cause may be righteous, but they're a bunch of swine.

[livinginphotographs]

24. They exploit and degrade women now?

Well, at least the knee-jerk PETA bashers are being a bit more original.

Do you want to answer exactly how they exploit and degrade women?

[iverglas]

35. hmm ... wouldn't one think ...

They exploit and degrade women now?
Well, at least the knee-jerk PETA bashers are being a bit more original.
Do you want to answer exactly how they exploit and degrade women?

... that the knee-jerk PETA petters would make more of an effort to know what they're talking about?

Funny how I just don't seem to fit the definition of "knee-jerk PETA basher". I've never typed a word about PETA in public before, that I can recall. I guess I just look like a "knee-jerk PETA basher", given how there was nothing in what I said that could remotely be characterized as "knee-jerk".

Offering a reasoned statement of disagreement really just is not "knee-jerk" anything. Calling someone who offers a reasoned statement of disagreement a "knee-jerk" something, on the other hand, ... well, if I were in the habit of referring to myself as a man, I'd call it ad hominem.


I've seen 'em. You haven't?





That message is not one I'm interested in.

And that's my opinion, and anybody who wants to disagree is free to do so, either by jerking a knee in an appropriate direction or by offering a reasoned statement in response.

And no, the PETA response (to NOW's complaint; both can be read at the link below) -- that Ingrid Newkirk again (and I do very much think that her reference to that "boy" was very telling) -- was not a reasoned statement, it was an ignorant tirade. I see one "vegan, animal rights activist and feminist" agrees:
http://youanimal.net/Animal%20Rants/FurTrim.htm

Maybe Ingrid is a feminist of some sort – but she’s jaded and hasn't tapped into her real feminine power. Her bigotry and lack of respect for people in general is apparent in many PETA ads and as a leader in a major social cause she should consider that she just might have a major blind spot on this one. The goal of these combined movements is to get beyond the tits/ass/cleavage/jiggle/legs/fur/claws to the spirit within and grant equal compassion and respect to all, whether they be Kate Moss or a 200 lb woman with a hairy pussy.

[flvegan]

36. Interesting.

I can understand how a woman (or anyone, for that matter) might feel that women are exploited by PETA in this fashion (and by Hollywood, beauty care products, fashion...any commercial industry, for that matter). The women involved choose to take part in the ads, the protests, the literature, etc, so I guess those particular women don't feel exploited. Probably doesn't make any difference.

I laughed at something you said in your previous post. You made a point about Ingrid's statement about a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy, in that she used "boy" instead of "girl" and that was an issue. I'll bet dollars to donuts that HAD she used girl, you'd be pissing about how she compared a girl to a dog...or a pig...or a rat.

[iverglas]

40. don't be heading to Vegas

I'll bet dollars to donuts that HAD she used girl, you'd be pissing about how she compared a girl to a dog...or a pig...or a rat.

Your system might not be finely enough tuned yet.

As for the rest of it, you might try actually putting some thought into the actual issues. None of what you said addressed anything I said, or that was said to, by or about PETA, or about its tactics, in the exchange I linked to.

[flvegan]

46. You just keep thinking that way.

In your mind, you'll always be right. A happy place.

[iverglas]

52. now ya see

There's an ad hominem argument.

[flvegan]

69. Which was only in response to yours.

[livinginphotographs]

38. So you think these women are forced at gunpoint to take these pictures?

These women willingly particpate in these ads because it is a cause they care about.

And the problem is not with PETA using these ads, it's with society being unable to pay attention to an issue that doesn't have T&A sprinkled in there somewhere. I doubt we'll disagree on the underlying problem of why ads like these are used to sell everything from animal rights to beer to soap, but I can't fault PETA for using the "sex sells" idea to get people's attention.

I apologize for calling you knee-jerk; after a day full of reading the same BS over and over again about PETA, it gets tiring. I definitely disagree with you, but your post was not knee-jerk anti-PETA. I still think it was grasping at straws for something to hate PETA for...

[iverglas]

43. so you beat your dog?

So you think these women are forced at gunpoint to take these pictures?

Why would you assert (oh dear, that's right; there's a question mark at the end of your assertion, how convenient) that I think something you have no basis for asserting or believing that I think, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said or quoted anyone else as saying?

The fact that Pamela Anderson gets paid prettily for displaying her body does not mean that the organizations that pay her are not exploiting and degrading WOMEN when they publish the displays.

I definitely disagree with you, but your post was not knee-jerk anti-PETA. I still think it was grasping at straws for something to hate PETA for...

And if you'd presented any reasoned rebuttal of anything I said, your allegation of straw-grasping wouldn't be knee-jerk.

I'd already said that I didn't disagree with PETA's message regarding the treatment of food animals. There are a lot of products in the marketplace (as PETA's ideas are products in the marketplace of ideas) that I don't dislike, but won't buy because I don't wish to support producers or vendors who exploit and degrade women to sell their products.

Ideas are different from blue jeans. I can get equivalent blue jeans somewhere else. Ideas aren't the property of the people selling them, so I can agree with someone's message, independently of their effort to "sell" it to me, and still find the messenger despicable. I find PETA despicable in this regard.

And the problem is not with PETA using these ads, it's with society being unable to pay attention to an issue that doesn't have T&A sprinkled in there somewhere.

Hmm. If little Susie jumps off a bridge, will you jump off a bridge too? If everybody else is ripping off the boss, will you do it too? And hmm. Does the end really justify the means?

Given what's been said in this thread about PETA's fondness for negative publicity, it strikes me that following the crowd wasn't necessarily the explanation for its "fur trim" ad, for instance.

(And by the way, I think that criticizing an organization for not launching a lunatic lawsuit about its ad not being published -- I assume its money was returned -- is just silliness. There is no "freedom of speech" issue to start with.)

I doubt we'll disagree on the underlying problem of why ads like these are used to sell everything from animal rights to beer to soap, but I can't fault PETA for using the "sex sells" idea to get people's attention.

And moving on from there to the other issue that we're avoiding here, it being the one that I actually elaborated on in my post: the "fur trim" ad was NOT a "sex sells" ad. It was an intentional perpetuation of degrading stereotypes of women.

[livinginphotographs]

48. .

Why would you assert (oh dear, that's right; there's a question mark at the end of your assertion, how convenient) that I think something you have no basis for asserting or believing that I think, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said or quoted anyone else as saying?

The fact that Pamela Anderson gets paid prettily for displaying her body does not mean that the organizations that pay her are not exploiting and degrading WOMEN when they publish the displays.

You claim these women are being exploited, but I'm wondering why you think that? These women appear in these ads of their own volition, and someone like Pamela Anderson has already made a career of her looks, and done very well at it financially. How does that mean she is being exploited? I think where we fundamentally disagree is that I don't think there is anything wrong with a woman choosing to use her body for financial gain. If anything, those women are exploiting the drooling men who will pay (one way or another) for nothing more than a picture.

And if you'd presented any reasoned rebuttal of anything I said, your allegation of straw-grasping wouldn't be knee-jerk.

Coming right up...

I'd already said that I didn't disagree with PETA's message regarding the treatment of food animals. There are a lot of products in the marketplace (as PETA's ideas are products in the marketplace of ideas) that I don't dislike, but won't buy because I don't wish to support producers or vendors who exploit and degrade women to sell their products.

Addressed (I think sufficiently, hopefully will meet with your approval) in the above paragraph.

Ideas are different from blue jeans. I can get equivalent blue jeans somewhere else. Ideas aren't the property of the people selling them, so I can agree with someone's message, independently of their effort to "sell" it to me, and still find the messenger despicable. I find PETA despicable in this regard.

Once again, I still fail to see how these women are being exploited, so I don't really find PETA's use of these ads as despicable. I'm at a loss to explain it further.

Hmm. If little Susie jumps off a bridge, will you jump off a bridge too? If everybody else is ripping off the boss, will you do it too? And hmm. Does the end really justify the means?

Given what's been said in this thread about PETA's fondness for negative publicity, it strikes me that following the crowd wasn't necessarily the explanation for its "fur trim" ad, for instance.

PETA is all about exposure, in an effort to put animal issues in the minds of as many people as possible. Obviously it has worked, even with those that insist of making People for the Eating of Tasty Animals cracks.

With that said, just like Democrats complain about how the working class is being exploited by the Republicans (sacrificing their own economic situation so that gays can't marry) and that the problem is an uneducated electorate, the same problem exists with animal issues. People complain about gruesome photos of fur farms; I think it is effective into shocking people to take a look at how their lifestyle impacts other creatures. Now people complain about ads showing some skin; I think it's effective in fighting the idea that fur is glamorous and sexy. And it gets people's attention, which is the point. It has nothing to do with following the crowd off a bridge like a bunch of lemmings. The point of any advertisement is to cut through the background noise long enough to get your attention. The skin ads do that, and once again, I completely disagree with you that it is "exploitation."

(And by the way, I think that criticizing an organization for not launching a lunatic lawsuit about its ad not being published -- I assume its money was returned -- is just silliness. There is no "freedom of speech" issue to start with.)

I can't comment on this poster's personal experience. I have had my own less-than-positive personal experiences with PETA (just like I've had with the Democratic Party), but I choose not to color the entire message with my own personal biases. PETA's basic message is a good one; therefore, I can forgive some issues I've had with them in the past.

And moving on from there to the other issue that we're avoiding here, it being the one that I actually elaborated on in my post: the "fur trim" ad was NOT a "sex sells" ad. It was an intentional perpetuation of degrading stereotypes of women.

You keep saying it over and over again, but it's not convincing me. Look, I more than open-minded about this. If it offends you, I can empathize. All I'm trying to understand is WHY?

[iverglas]

58. let's try reading slowly ...

The fact that Pamela Anderson gets paid prettily for displaying her body does not mean that the organizations that pay her are not exploiting and degrading WOMEN when they publish the displays.
You claim these women are being exploited, but I'm wondering why you think that? These women appear in these ads of their own volition, and someone like Pamela Anderson has already made a career of her looks, and done very well at it financially. How does that mean she is being exploited?

... and once you've found the word "these" ("these women") in what *I* wrote, perhaps you will be so kind as to boldface it for me or something, so that I can see it too.

Meanwhile, maybe we could all read what I actually did say, see whether we can figure out what it meant without sticking words into it that aren't there, and perhaps even address it.


People complain about gruesome photos of fur farms; I think it is effective into shocking people to take a look at how their lifestyle impacts other creatures. Now people complain about ads showing some skin; I think it's effective in fighting the idea that fur is glamorous and sexy.

If PETA wishes to display gruesome photos of fur farms (wherever they are entitled to do so, and not in a manner that abuses children, for instance), that's their business. If it isn't effective, that's their problem.

If you wish to trivialize the objections of women (and other human beings) to PETA's exploitive and degrading treatment of women by calling it "showing some skin", that's your decision and your prerogative.

I have had my own less-than-positive personal experiences with PETA (just like I've had with the Democratic Party), but I choose not to color the entire message with my own personal biases.

Funny, that's pretty much exactly what I said.

All the more reason, one might think, for criticising the tactics they choose to use to convey that message to the public when those tactics are so despicable, and so alienating to what one might imagine to be a substantial portion of their natural audience.

If it offends you, I can empathize. All I'm trying to understand is WHY?

Yeah, an adult in the year 2005 has no idea why it is "offensive" for any organization to treat women this way in order to promote its ends.

Did you actually click on the link I offered? I could say it all myself, but I seldom find much point in it. I'll quote the woman whose site that is. She first reproduces the exchange of correspondence between NOW and PETA, which I of course recommend reading as well ... oh heck, they're public domain -- Harper's reproduced them as well
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1111/is_1799_300/ai_61291579
-- so I'll quote 'em all:
http://youanimal.net/Animal%20Rants/FurTrim.htm

Galen Sherwin,
President NOW

To Whom It May Concern:

I am outraged by the most recent advertisement by PETA featuring a woman's unshaven panty line with the tag line "Fur Trim: Unattractive". This is a gratuitous and insulting image that makes its point at the expense of women.

As an organization that works for equality for women in all areas of society, the National Organization for Women is committed to countering negative and degrading images of women in the media and advertising industries. It is ironic that PETA, an organization that works so hard to counter what the mainstream media tells women about what they need to do to be considered beautiful (i.e., wear fur), would choose to do so with an image that reinforces beauty standards that are oppressive to women. This ad basically says that women's natural state is unattractive – hardly an original point, as that is what women are told in one form or another by countless ads for beauty products, accessories, and clothing lines. It also resorts to a crotch shot to make its point – a cheap shock tactic with a twist that ads insult to injury.

Enough already! Why don't you try protecting animals without objectifying women? I think you'll find that this approach is much less likely to alienate those who would be inclined to support the work you do.


Ingrid Newkirk,
President PETA

Dear Ms. Sherwin:

I was dismayed to read your snotty letter about our panty ads.

I would be surprised if you don't shave your legs or under your arms. I'll also bet that if you have ever worn a bikini you've made sure not to have hairs poking out the side of it. If you didn't, you would have been the only woman at the pool or the beach not to be so particular.

PETA's ad speaks to something the overwhelming majority of women worry about–grooming. Since we left the 60's style of unshaven leg hair and bushes behind, most people, regardless of gender, like the groomed look better. It's not sexist, it's just a fact.

A depiction of a woman's waxed legs or crotch isn't automatically exploitive. Do you order NOW to picket Bloomingdale's when you open the paper on any weekend and see the underwear ads? I'll bet not. In fact, if you're like the majority of women, you have probably thought "that's a nice push up bra" and cut out the sales ad for panties. If women didn't do and think those things, the stores would stop running the ads. They aren't for men. And what if they were? If you see a picture of a cool-looking man in BVDs, do the women in the NOW office all pitch a fit, or do the heterosexual staff linger over it? If you're a lesbian, substitute some hot chick for a guy and tell me the harm in enjoying the scenery.

Do you not wear pantyhose because it creates an exploitive look? What about skirts? Or are you only threatened by the sight of women's "naughty bits" uses as a political statement? Frankly, I'd be amused to see Christian women "jigglin' for Jesus", or how about relief workers using their sexuality for their cause by showing their buttocks? Think of it: "Fannies Against Famine!"

Please stop this knee-jerk, reactionary rubbish. There are a ton of women out here, including longtime feminists like me, who don't appreciate being "spoken for" in this repressive way. We can use our bodies for pleasure, profit, and politics if we want. Please stop playing the role of outraged father, brother, or boyfriend!


OK here's my Two Sense sent to Ms.
Written in the Letter-to-Editor style we love so well...

I am a vegan, animal rights activist and feminist and I must vote with Ms. Sherwin of NOW on this one (Fur Trim: Unattractive). Ingrid Newkirk is in dire need of a reality dose. There is a lot of dissidence within the animal rights community over PETA’s misguided sexist tactics. PETA’s detractors are not just furriers and hunters but radical animal rights’ activists who are disillusioned by PETA’s often stupefying campaigns. Their manic embracing of the status quo in female exploitation is depressing and cringe-inducing to anyone with half a brain. So where is Ingrid’s half? She says she’s a feminist – has she ever looked it up in the dictionary? She says "most people like the groomed look better – it’s a fact". Maybe it’s a fact in a sick culture where women by the thousands are being mutilated with breast implants. Maybe it’s a fact in a country where anorexic nude waifs are projected as the ideal woman (hence PETA’s chronic use of them) and young girls starve themselves to death. But it’s not a fact to me. She’d ‘be amused to see Christian women jigglin’ for Jesus, using sex as a weapon, but do we really want to keep that old war between the sexes going? In effect she is dumbing down the message, the implication being that people (men in particular) won’t pay attention unless you flash your boobs and shimmy out of your undies. Sadly, this only makes PETA look dumb and dumber.

Maybe Ingrid is a feminist of some sort – but she’s jaded and hasn't tapped into her real feminine power. Her bigotry and lack of respect for people in general is apparent in many PETA ads and as a leader in a major social cause she should consider that she just might have a major blind spot on this one. The goal of these combined movements is to get beyond the tits/ass/cleavage/jiggle/legs/fur/claws to the spirit within and grant equal compassion and respect to all, whether they be Kate Moss or a 200 lb woman with a hairy pussy.

I'm sticking with despicable and stupid ... or perhaps clever, if their aim is to get publicity good or bad.

I don't shave my legs and underarms, and I have not an iota of interest in Ingrid Newkirk's or anyone else's opinion about that, or in being portrayed by Ingrid Newkirk or anyone else as "ungroomed" -- or, don't let's mince words, ugly and smelly -- in the service of her cause.

[livinginphotographs]

68. Try not being so condescending.

"treat women this way" is exactly what has been completely unclear about your previous posts. You keep saying "this way" and not explaining what way. In fact, it took almost to the end of your post to get your point. Maybe I'm just being dense, but hey, I'm your "audience." Wouldn't want to alienate me....

So it seems your issue is with their depiction of a hairy crotch. Okay. While Ingrid's letter was less-than-polite, an organization who constantly has their message drowned-out by baseless accusations (they want to do medical experiments on the homeless, they want to outlaw pet ownership, etc.) maybe a letter that accuses Ingrid of selling-out women is not going to get the warmest response. PETA encourages its members to write polite letters (the quote on their website is "impolite letters do harm to our cause" or something similar, I don't feel like looking up the exact one right now), so maybe NOW should start doing the same instead of accusing Ingrid of being a poser feminist or something.

Getting upset about society's objectification of women is a valid cause; picking on PETA (an organization that would make a much better ally for NOW than enemy) seems just as counterproductive as what you accuse PETA of doing.

[iverglas]

76. you asked

and I responded in post 35 with the link to the material that I have now reproduced in full. I assume you did not click on the link and read the material the first time. This problem cannot be laid at my doorstep.

So it seems your issue is with their depiction of a hairy crotch.

If it seems that way to you, I can't do much about it. If, on the other hand, you prefer to trivialize and mischaracterize what someone's "issue" is rather than acknowledge and address it ... well, I can't do much about that either.

While Ingrid's letter was less-than-polite, an organization who constantly has their message drowned-out by baseless accusations (they want to do medical experiments on the homeless, they want to outlaw pet ownership, etc.) maybe a letter that accuses Ingrid of selling-out women is not going to get the warmest response.

Gosh. Maybe an organization that is plainly so vulnerable to baseless accusations might be wise not to provide grist for the mill in the form of grounds for exeedingly well-founded accusations ... and then get even more obnoxious when called on their tactics.

PETA encourages its members to write polite letters (the quote on their website is "impolite letters do harm to our cause" or something similar, I don't feel like looking up the exact one right now), so maybe NOW should start doing the same instead of accusing Ingrid of being a poser feminist or something.

Or gee. Maybe PETA should follow its own advice in the first place, and not run rude ads that do harm to its cause.

Getting upset about society's objectification of women is a valid cause; picking on PETA (an organization that would make a much better ally for NOW than enemy) seems just as counterproductive as what you accuse PETA of doing.

Golly, I hate to have to say this, but NOW didn't start it. I mean, I really didn't see NOW launching a publicity campaign in which it exploited and degraded vegetarians.

If PETA wants to portray women as the enemy -- the women that wear the fur, e.g., rather than the interests behind the reasons that women wear it -- that's PETA's choice. On the other hand, if PETA isn't persuaded that women are the enemy, and has a rather more nuanced and worthwhile analysis of the problem it perceives (does PETA make a practice of, oh, dousing schoolchildren with white paint to protest their milk-drinking?), then PETA would still seem to be the one causing the problem.

Or, as I've said, not. If PETA (or at least Ingrid Newkirk and whoever else runs the show) thinks that it is in PETA's interest to alienate people this way, it isn't causing itself any problem at all. I do not presume to know why PETA does what it does.

[livinginphotographs]

78. Well, golly gee whiz

Is it possible for you to make a point without acting like you're talking to a three-year-old? Just curious.

And I saw the ads, you were referencing, but did not read the link. Thank you for reposting. At the risk of making myself sound like a chauvinist pig (no offense to the pigs, or the "swine" at PETA), I still don't get from the ads that PETA is portraying women as the "enemy" or "exploiting" them. Just because you say it is exploitation doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Your posts are rife with your own opinion, but relatively few "facts." You've failed to convince me how an ad showing Pamela Anderson half-naked exploits women, especially since I reserve the word "exploit" for things far more serious. If you are a woman and don't shave, fine. It doesn't bother me in the least, and I really don't find shaved or unshaved more or less attractive. You seem to be the one getting so worked up about what you perceive as people's disgust with it.

So maybe I'm intellectually beneath you, or something, but despite how many times you've repeated the same thing over and over again, I'm still failing to get it. I guess I'm not getting enough protein.

[iverglas]

80. y'know something?

You've failed to convince me how an ad showing Pamela Anderson half-naked exploits women, ...

I haven't been trying to. How bout that, eh?

I offered the material in question for your consideration, and you may do with it what you like. I lost interest about, oh, 30 years ago in trying to "convince" anyone of the bloody obvious, specifically in respect of the misogynistic treatment of women.

... especially since I reserve the word "exploit" for things far more serious.

Ya see? Where would I start, even if I wanted to spend my life doing it? You say it isn't "serious", then why would I waste my time on it?

You seem to be the one getting so worked up about what you perceive as people's disgust with it.

Forgive me, I'm a girl, and we tend to get emotional and irrational.

[livinginphotographs]

85. You're right, why bother talking to us men?

"Forgive me, I'm a girl, and we tend to get emotional and irrational."

:eyes:

Yeah, that's exactly what I implied.

Enjoy your burger.

[iverglas]

88. funny ...

Enjoy your burger.

... how I've never said I eat meat.


Oh dear. That "enjoy your burger" couldn't have been an ad hominem argument, could it? My ideas count for nothing, because I eat meat?

Well, no, since I'm not a homo (and no, that won't be a reference to sexual orientation), but you get the idea.

Now, I gotta admit, my saying

Forgive me, I'm a girl, and we tend to get emotional and irrational.

might have been characterized as an ad hominem argument, in that it implied that you had made an ad feminam argument

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0087100.html

... in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in "Their recourse ... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus" (Donna M. Riley).

and might be perceived as a dismissal of what you had said on that basis rather than on the merits. Except that you did really do that, and if you don't understand that trivializing women's concerns, and identifying women's response to their problems as the problem, rather than acknowledging the problem, is ad feminam argument, well, there ya go.

Me, I've never said I eat burgers.

[livinginphotographs]

89. Why is it necessarily trivializing someone's concerns

If I just disagree with you as to the seriousness of it? I don't doubt that it bothers you, I'm just not sure why. That's not trivializing, that's admitting that I'm not in your position and could never understand why it bothers you so much (especially since it took you several posts to even attempt to explain.)

And if you've "stopped bothering," why are you on a discussion board? Isn't that the point? Or are you just hear to needle the vegans?

And when I said you eat burgers, I was being just as obnoxious as you are by assuming that I'm some typical insensitive male stereotype simply because I don't call PETA "swine" for showing a hairy crotch.

But you can play your little semantics games all day and insist that women are being exploited by PETA as if your opinion was actually fact, and I won't stop you.

[iverglas]

93. let's just call it a day, shall we?

And if you've "stopped bothering," why are you on a discussion board? Isn't that the point?

I did not enter this discussion to defend my opinions about the objectification of women for commercial purposes.

I offered some information about PETA's tactics, and my opinion of those tactics, and of PETA, based on its tactics.

If you don't like my opinion, that's fine. I don't really care.

If you don't understand the reasons why I have formed my opinion, ditto.

If you don't care to do anything, in order to understand the reasons why I have formed my opinion, besides tell me how unimportant those reasons are to you, more ditto.

And all the more reason not to bother explaining them further.

I'm not a child, or an adolescent, or a young adult. I became active in support of women's interests in about 1968. It would be nice if I could convey to you all of the thinking and talking and writing that has been done since then, on the subject at hand, in the course of a couple of posts (it might be even nicer if you felt even the slightest onus to find out something for yourself about the nature of women's problems, and responses to them) ... and if you would give the information offered your serious attention ... but I can't, and I have no reason to expect that you would.

Here's a start, maybe; some comments from Madam Justice Bertha Wilson's reasons in R. v. Morgentaler, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that struck down Canada's law against abortion:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1988/1988scc2.html
(emphasis added)

240 It is probably impossible for a man to respond, even imaginatively, to such a dilemma not just because it is outside the realm of his personal experience (although this is, of course, the case) but because he can relate to it only by objectifying it, thereby eliminating the subjective elements of the female psyche which are at the heart of the dilemma. As Noreen Burrows, lecturer in European Law at the University of Glasgow, has pointed out in her essay on "International Law and Human Rights: the Case of Women's Rights", in Human Rights: From Rhetoric to Reality (1986), the history of the struggle for human rights from the eighteenth century on has been the history of men struggling to assert their dignity and common humanity against an overbearing state apparatus. The more recent struggle for women's rights has been a struggle to eliminate discrimination, to achieve a place for women in a man's world, to develop a set of legislative reforms in order to place women in the same position as men (pp. 81-82). It has not been a struggle to define the rights of women in relation to their special place in the societal structure and in relation to the biological distinction between the two sexes. Thus, women's needs and aspirations are only now being translated into protected rights. The right to reproduce or not to reproduce which is in issue in this case is one such right and is properly perceived as an integral part of modern woman's struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being.

That's not trivializing, that's admitting that I'm not in your position and could never understand why it bothers you so much

The characterizations you have offered are rather different from an admission that you could never understand something. Not being able to fully understand something does not necessarily lead to rejecting it or dismissing it.

See above; men can't understand why an unwanted pregnancy bothers women so much. Does that make it okay for men to make laws against abortion?


Or are you just hear to needle the vegans?

Why do you persist in this?

What have I said -- what one, single thing can you find that I have said -- that amounts to needling vegans?

If I don't like the colour of a vegan's hair and say so (when asked, of course; I don't just go around making negative comments about people's personal characteristics willy-nilly), is that needling a vegan? Or is it a comment about a characteristic of a vegan that has nothing to do with his/her vegan-ness? And if the latter is true, how is would it be speaking in good faith to characterize what I say as needling a vegan?

Am *I* to understand that because PETA is an organization of vegans, it is immune to criticism for things it does that have nothing to do with its members' vegan-ness?

Am *I* the one ascribing unpleasant characteristics to vegans -- or would that be you, if you characterize my comments about PETA's treatment of women as "needling the vegans"?

And when I said you eat burgers, I was being just as obnoxious as you are by assuming that I'm some typical insensitive male stereotype simply because I don't call PETA "swine" for showing a hairy crotch.

I didn't ASSUME anything. I looked at what you said (and in fact started out with no idea of your sex), and SAW someone who dismissed, and is still dismissing, the things said by a woman about concerns felt and expressed by women as "calling PETA 'swine' for showing a hairy crotch".

Of course, if you actually, really and truly, honest to doggy, think that I "called PETA 'swine' for showing a hairy crotch", then I may have been wrong. One cannot fault anyone for doing something when s/he is not capable of doing otherwise.


But you can play your little semantics games all day and insist that women are being exploited by PETA as if your opinion was actually fact, and I won't stop you.

And if you want to reserve the word "exploit" for things that you think are important, which don't include women's interest in being treated within their society as if they just might be human beings, and even though my use of the word is consistent with the common, agreed meaning of it, I'll leave you to it. Which is all I've really done anyway.

[livinginphotographs]

96. Fine, call it a day.

You got the last word in by calling me a sexist anyway (although it took you several paragraphs to do so, I guess that's all the high-falutin' book-learnin' of yours talking), so enjoy your night knowing that you've taken another chauvinist male pig down a notch.

[Warren DeMontague]

101. Astoundingly enough, I disagree with both of you.

Of course, I happen to take socially libertarian positions on many things, and that philosophical outlook proves wildly unpopular with rigid agenda-promoters of all stripes.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the Holocaust is a particular piece of history that should NOT be used lightly to promote spuriously linked agendas, be they animal rights or the anti-choice position... I think, as a Jew and someone with relatives who were in the camps, it's pretty damn offensive to hijack that one piece of history to make a point about factory farming. Now, I don't LIKE factory farming- but I think the point can be made more effectively and less offensively through other means, and it has not escaped my attention that the organizations doing so are not, like PETA, people who say "no one should eat meat- ever", but rather promote compassion and ecologically responsible animal raising and use.

The Meatrix, I thought, was one piece which did this very effectively, and it didn't have to piss off Auschwitz survivors in the process. But god forbid anyone should argue that there are responsible ways to eat meat- when it's so much more fun to hector everyone who isn't a vegan.

Now, as far as Pam Anderson being nude... in my mind, big deal. I don't have a problem with nudity, and I don't have a problem with sexuality. My libertarian position on what people choose to eat also mirrors my libertarian position on what people choose to do with their own bodies; and if Pam Anderson chooses to flash her (artificial) booty to millions, that's her call. Frankly, I do think fur is bad, and I happen to think it's also one area where PETA, despite the fact that I find many of their tactics noxious and counter-productive, has been effective in raising public awareness.
(That does not excuse their recent extremist behavior on the topic of a second hand store selling used fur in my neck of the woods, recently, however.)

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

111. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Including the holocaust survivors. I didn't see the pam anderson ads, but I think there's a difference between her choosing to pose nude and the use of actual photos of people in auschwitz next to chickens in coops. I think the willingness of the participants is a legitimate factor, actually.

But PETA doesn't need my help in creating further PR disasters. Most people already think they're extremists.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. Addendum:

Several holocaust survivors came out during the Abu Ghraib torture revelations (before they were squelched) and said that, yes, some of the images reminded them of Nazis during WWII. I agreed with them in that case, but even if I didn't, they have that right, and I would never deny them that- similarly, if a holocaust survivor really thinks that Tyson's chicken ranch reminds him or her of Auschwitz, that is their opinion... and if PETA wants to run an ad with a survivor saying so, that's a comparison I might vociferously disagree with (and think it's bad PR for them to try to make), but it's far less offensive than co-opting holocaust imagery and photos and making that comparison-- without the consent of the participants.

And I saw the Pam Anderson vegetarianism ad; if you really don't have a problem with her posing semi-nude, then why did you post it?

[livinginphotographs]

105. Hey, I can live with that.

I sincerely do hope you realize that people like me who think the Holocaust is an apt comparison do not mean any offense to Jews in doing so. But since the Jewish community is hardly a monolith, instantly taking offense to the project without examining why the comparison is being made is doing a real disservice to those who are trying to raise public awareness about animal issues.

[iverglas]

108. no self-absorption there ...

since the Jewish community is hardly a monolith, instantly taking offense to the project without examining why the comparison is being made is doing a real disservice to those who are trying to raise public awareness about animal issues.

Darn. And yet instantly taking offence to criticisms of PETA's tactics in promoting its agenda without having a clue about why they're voiced or spending two minutes attempting to understand the point of view of the people who voice them or consider the possibility that their feelings in the matter should be considered ... no, that doesn't do any disservice to anybody.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shockra]

86. I don't much want to get in the middle of this fight...

But to me, the ad tells women that wearing fur is a false image of beauty the same way that toeing the line on sexist beauty standards, that they should trim "down there," is. We're told where not to, and where to, wear hair. Where it's supposed to be beautiful and where it's not. It "looks good" on our backs but not on our bush.

Granted, it may not be an easy message to decipher if you're insulted by the image. Because the more gut reaction is that what was intended was "fur is ugly -- anywhere on a woman." And I don't deny that that was part of the message too. But I think it went beyond that, and is meant to provoke you to think of ways it goes beyond that.

[iverglas]

92. I'm sorry

But you plainly have not read the documentation.

But to me, the ad tells women that wearing fur is a false image of beauty the same way that toeing the line on sexist beauty standards, that they should trim "down there," is.

Go back and read Ingrid Newkirk's response to the criticism. You will find that her position, which she stated as PETA's representative, is the precise opposite of what you suggest. That's the entire point.

The ad in fact tells women that fur trim on their clothing is ugly and nasty the same way that their pubic hair is ugly and nasty.

That isn't just the message received via a gut reaction, that is the intended, and quite clear, message.

Y'know, if Newkirk had simply appealed to her interlocutor's sympathy, and said but we gotta get people's attention somehow!, I might be a tad more willing to listen -- at least in the case of the Pamela Anderson ads. There is no conceivable excuse for the hairy crotch ad, or for Newkirk's attack on those who object to it.

Many years ago, two magazine editors were asked why their magazines, which styled themselves as champions of women's rights and interests, carried ads for makeup and the like. I happened to read both answers, given in different places but around the same time.

Gloria Steinem, for Ms. Magazine (and I paraphrase from dim memory):
-- Well, you know, we may be feminists, but we still like to make ourselves look pretty.

Doris Anderson, for Chatelaine Magazine (a Canadian women's monthly that she fought the periodical publishing establishment tooth and nail to change from a kinder kirche küche rag into the leading voice of the Canadian women's movement in the 1960s):
-- Because we need the money.

But I don't think either Gloria or Doris would have, oh, defended a veal farmer's livestock practices just because she also support women receiving equal pay for work of equal value.

[DelawareValleyDem]

44. hmmm

>>>Calling someone who offers a reasoned statement of disagreement a "knee-jerk" something, on the other hand, ... well, if I were in the habit of referring to myself as a man, I'd call it ad hominem<<<

Well, I usually label remarks such as 'a bunch of swine' and 'simply stupid ... to behave as it does' ad hominem attacks, but that's just me.

[iverglas]

51. yeah; just you, I guess

Well, actually, your assertion is echoed not infrequently in discussions hereabouts, so I'll take a shot at assisting those with this difficulty.

Well, I usually label remarks such as 'a bunch of swine' and 'simply stupid ... to behave as it does' ad hominem attacks, but that's just me.

And I guess it would be an ad hominem attack for me to call George W. Bush a vicious war-mongering piece of shit.

Conversely, it would presumably be an appeal to authority for me to say that Isaac Newton did all this amazing stuff -- so you should believe what he says about "x", a matter within his field of expertise.

Or could it be that this would be backwards? That I conclude that Isaac Newton is an authority on "x" because of what he did, and I conclude that Bush is a piece of shit because of what he does? And perhaps that I conclude that PETA's directors are swine, and are stupid, because of what they do -- the premises, that I have clearly stated, for my conclusions?

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Argumentum ad verecundiam

The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

...

Argumentum ad hominem

Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. ...

Funny how I EXPRESSLY STATED that I did not refuse to accept PETA's statements about the actual issues, and how I EXPRESSLY STATED that I did not base my opinions about PETA's statements about the actual issues on my criticism of PETA.

So dog knows how I might have been seen as guilty of any ad hominem argument.

Insults are one thing. My statements might have been insults, had they not been based on relevant supporting facts and arguments -- or they might be regarded as insults by people who did not agree that my facts and arguments supported my conclusions (and presumably could offer their own, for their own conclusions).

If I simply call someone ugly and smelly, that's an insult. If I say that his/her statement that the sky is blue is wrong because s/he is ugly and smelly, that's an ad hominem argument.

(I use that term under protest; unfortunately, ad personam does not quite mean what it looks like, and has an obscure meaning of its own: fallacy of appeal to the audience's personal interest ... something not unknown hereabouts. If anyone has a proper substitute for "ad hominem", please share.)

I did not say that I rejected PETA's positions on issues because of their despicable behaviour toward women. I did not urge anyone to reject PETA's positions on issues because of their despicable behaviour toward women. I did not engage in ad hominem argument. If you think I engaged in insult, you're free to argue the point.

So there ya go. Glad I was able to help.

[DelawareValleyDem]

59. Actually, there are those that would say

that there are THREE forms of the ad hominem attack

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

(See I can link to logic web sites, too. Unfortunately, I also already had yours bookmarked, so your efforts to add another page to my Favorites folder fell short) And yes, we could argue the point about how to properly classify your remarks, but I not sure what you would gain from any claimed victory in that regard. If admitting to insulting behavior allows you to avoid conceding an ad hominem attack, you've made an interesting choice. And please clarify that conclusion you reached regarding PETA's directors being swine. Is this meant in a biological sense? If so, you supporting facts and arguments fall short

[iverglas]

63. not seeing anything

that requires response. I demonstrated that what I said did not qualify as an ad hominem argument, you mumbled.

And please clarify that conclusion you reached regarding PETA's directors being swine. Is this meant in a biological sense? If so, you supporting facts and arguments fall short

Maybe I can offer you a book to go with those bookmarks. Mine is the Oxford Concise:

swine
... 2 (pl. swine or swines) colloq. a a term of contempt or disgust for a person

A "rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
PETA is "a bunch of swine."
Haha. A little pun, a little table-turning. A little better than "people for the eating of tasty animals". I could have said "PETA is a bunch of rats", pretty much just as well:

rat
... 3 colloq. an unpleasant person

... but that we wouldn't have had that nice "male chauvinist pig" overtone ...

[DelawareValleyDem]

67. Indeed

edited to show snips

"a term of contempt of disgust for a person", a justified tactic, in your mind, by "supporting facts and arguments."

You also made this statement, (Here, I use your preferred bold-faced method to indicate something taken from a previous post.

Conversely, it would presumably be an appeal to authority for me to say that Isaac Newton did all this amazing stuff -- so you should believe what he says about "x", a matter within his field of expertise.

But actually your very link disputes this.

<snip>

This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

<end snip>

Did you just not read far enough, or did you intentionally leave this out?

[iverglas]

72. oh dear

context, context, context.

Conversely, it would presumably be an appeal to authority for me to say that Isaac Newton did all this amazing stuff -- so you should believe what he says about "x", a matter within his field of expertise.
But actually your very link disputes this.

Ya take it out of context, and ya just lose the meaning altogether, don't ya?

Ze context (I use boldface for yours, italics for mine; I just find, particularly in the font I use for reading the board, that italicized text is more annoying to read and not as readily distinguished from the rest of the text, so I use it for blocks of text less frequently; here, I also add underlining for emphasis to identify the clues):

Well, I usually label remarks such as 'a bunch of swine' and 'simply stupid ... to behave as it does' ad hominem attacks, but that's just me.
And I guess it would be an ad hominem attack for me to call George W. Bush a vicious war-mongering piece of shit.
Conversely, it would presumably be an appeal to authority for me to say that Isaac Newton did all this amazing stuff -- so you should believe what he says about "x", a matter within his field of expertise.

"I guess it would be" ... "it would presumably be" ... it would be, per you. "It would be" (that's the conditional), IF you had been correct about my statement.

I guess I really shoulda put that :sarcasm: there, eh? For those who don't follow along?

Your statement was incorrect; so were mine that followed. And, um, that was my point.

Poof goes the air out of that one.

[DelawareValleyDem]

74. Ah but

Calling GWB a vicious piece of shit WOULD be an ad hominen. The Newton example would not be an appeal to authority.

[iverglas]

79. oh my

Calling GWB a vicious piece of shit WOULD be an ad hominen.


George W. Bush: a vicious, war-mongering piece of shit.

Vicious: that tale of the woman whose execution he jeered about would probably be enough to substantiate that one.

War-mongering: well, need we say more?

Premises ^^ .

Conclusion: piece of shit. Hey, just my opinion, based on the facts, and any argument you'd like to hear as to what makes a person a piece of shit -- my definition, on which we might agree or disagree. I never actually said that my assertion that George W. Bush is a piece of shit was correct, or in some way irrefutable.


The Newton example would not be an appeal to authority.

Isaac Newton: an authority on "x". (I'm not an authority on Isaac Newton, so I'll use generic stuff.)

Discovered "z".

Invented "y".

Premises ^^ .

Conclusion: authority on "x" so you should believe what he says about "x". That's just my opinion too, ain't it? for all I know, we might disagree about what makes someone an authority on "x", and your opinion might be better than mine. It actually *is* an appeal to authority, just not an improper appeal to a non-authority or an irrelevant authority: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject.

The statement about George W. Bush was not an ad hominem argument, BECAUSE I DID NOT OFFER IT AS AN ARGUMENT FOR OR AGAINST ANYTHING. For fuck's sake, eh?

An INSULT is NOT an AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT.

If the audience does not believe that being "vicious" (a substantiated statement ... depending on one's definition of "vicious" ...) and "war-mongering" (ditto) makes an individual "a piece of shit", then the audience is free to characterize the statement as AN INSULT ... as long as the audience does the work of providing its own facts and arguments to back up *that* assertion; otherwise, calling someone else's statement an "insult" is likely, in many contexts, just an insult itself. Ain't this fun?

But UNLESS I said "George W. Bush is a vicious, war-mongering piece of shit and you should therefore not believe him when he says the sky is blue", I have NOT made an ad hominem argument.

"Ad hominem" is not just some sort of stand-alone catch-all for stuff one does not like.

An ad hominem ARGUMENT (the only relevant kind of "ad hominem" there is here, "ad hominem" being an adjectival phrase modifying the noun "argument", argumentum, which is sometimes omitted when using the expression: an argument against the man) is the flip side of an appeal to authority -- it is an attempt to persuade someone to accept or reject something (a fact or opinion, say) based on who said it and the characteristics of that person rather than of his/her statement.

Accusing someone of engaging in ad hominem argument, when the person has made an argument based on something other than the nature or character of someone else who espouses what s/he is arguing against, and when nothing is offered to support the allegation, is pretty much an insult. Not an "ad hominem" though, of course.

I mean, of course an insult is "ad hominem" -- it is said against the man -- but it is not AN ad hominem attack on the person's statement or position, which is the only sense in which the expression is used in English and in which it is a logical fallacy and thus worth making an issue of -- "an ad hominem (attack)" is an attack on an argument, not on a person.

Using an unpleasant epithet to describe someone, but not offering that epithet in argument for or against the existence of a fact or the value of an opinion, might be an insult. It is not an ad hominem argument. I don't know how many more ways one could say the same correct thing.

Calling GWB a vicious piece of shit WOULD be IS NOT an ad hominen <argument/attack>.

[DelawareValleyDem]

81. We've made a complete circle

Now we are back to trying to properly categorize pharses such as 'a bunch of swine', 'simply stupid ' and 'vicious piece of shit'

I look forward to my next political discussion with a Republican. I will last my reasons for opposing the current Administration, and conclude my remarks by stating that Republicans are a bunch of swine, that the Cabinent members are all simply stupid and that the President himself is a vicious piece of shit. When accused of engaging in ad hominen attack, I can proudly say that I am only delivering insults, no doubt convincing my opponent and any neutral observers.

[iverglas]

82. be cool now

I look forward to my next political discussion with a Republican. I will last my reasons for opposing the current Administration, and conclude my remarks by stating that Republicans are a bunch of swine, that the Cabinent members are all simply stupid and that the President himself is a vicious piece of shit. When accused of engaging in ad hominen attack, I can proudly say that I am only delivering insults, no doubt convincing my opponent and any neutral observers.

One might almost think that you are suggesting that I advocated making some statement or other in some situation or other. Since I most certainly did not do that, or do anything resembling it, I am of course quite sure that this is not what you are doing.

Lordy, lordy, lordy. I am afraid that I can still be amazed at the wierd and wonderful stuff that some people apparently think passes as discourse ... or would like to pass off as discourse.

I called PETA a name. You apparently didn't like the name I called it, or the fact that I called it that. Me, I would have said "that's not a nice name to call PETA and I don't think you have presented any good reason for calling PETA that name", or "it wasn't nice to call PETA a name, especially one that you don't have good reason to call it". That's generally how one might respond to an insult, if one wanted to.

But no. What I did had to be given a fancy latin name that did not apply, followed by a bunch of failed efforts to show that it did.

If I disagreed with the statement that George W. Bush was a piece of shit, I might have said so. I can't imagine that I would have gone of on yet another tangent about how unwise it would be to use the statement "George W. Bush is a piece of shit" to persuade people not to vote against him, since no one had ever suggested that it be used for that purpose.

If I say "the sky is blue", would you imagine, or suggest, that I have advised you to use that statement to persuade someone of something? How about "Brussels sprouts are yucky"? What have I suggested that you do with that one?

So no, no; you feel quite free to <list your> reasons for opposing the current Administration without concluding by informing your audience of your opinion of them, if it would be unwise to do so in the situation.

In this particular situation, I thought someone might be interested in knowing my opinion of PETA (and also of its positions on its core issues, the two, and my opinions of them, being quite separate matters). It appears that nobody really was, given the great lengths to which several people have gone to avoid actually addressing the opinions and the bases for them, but oh well. That's kinda what one does come to expect on internet discussion boards.

When accused of engaging in ad hominen attack, I can proudly say that I am only delivering insults, no doubt convincing my opponent and any neutral observers.

The thing is, if you think that your opponent or observers might be influenced in the way you want them to be by saying that, you might want to do it. There are indeed situations in which you might find yourself among such people: people who happen to value your opinion, even though the reason you have given them for adopting your position might then amount to little more than an appeal to authority, whether or not you are one.

I wasn't actually attempting to influence anyone in any direction here when I characterized PETA as swine. I was stating my opinion, something that I find is very commonly done hereabouts -- and I did it with facts and arguments in support, as a conclusion whose essential basis I made transparent, something I find to be less common hereabouts. And as always, those who don't like it, and who don't care to do anything other than call it names, rather than addressing its validity and/or soundness, i.e. actually discussing the issues raised, are always free to lump it.

And they are certainly free not to follow my example if they think it would be counter-productive to do so.

Me, I don't think it was counter-productive for me to call PETA swine here, because I don't think that anyone would have been any more interested in the facts and arguments I presented, let alone in discussing what conclusion might reasonably be drawn from them, if I had not negatively characterized PETA on the basis of them.

And I have a strong suspicion that PETA does not regard it as counter-productive to exploit and degrade women for its own ends. If my suspicion were correct, I would of course have one more arrow for my quiver when I aim my negative characterization at PETA.

But unless and until I advocate that someone eat meat because PETA exploits and degrades women, there won't be no ad hominem arguments in any of it.

[DelawareValleyDem]

84. HUH?

you're assuming WAY too much

(a)I am cool. I trust you're the same.

(b)I don't have problems with the names you called. I did think it odd that someone who called another user out for ad hominen attacks would do the same - er, excuse me, would use INSULTS in debate.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. I don't let the media tell me how long my hair should be.

I'm sure one of those fashion disaster shows would have a field day with me... get rid of those tie dyes, those cut offs, that long hair... shave and put on some dockers, maybe with some black rimmed glasses and a soul patch so I would look like an appropriately dressed, would-be urban-sophiste yuppie.

Fuck 'em.

I think that "fur trim" ad is kind of idiotic, but perhaps the focus on women in the fur ads has to do with the fact that women are the primary consumers of fur.. While I'm certainly not a fan of fur, I do find it odd that PETA has not launched any similar campaign against leather, however.

[shockra]

27. Feminism and animal rights are on the same page.

Carol Adams, who wrote The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory has spoken at dozens of college campuses with her traveling slide show. Her book is reviewed at International Vegetarian Union.

http://www.ivu.org/books/reviews/sexual-politics-of-meat.html

Women have a long history of being objectified and talked about like pieces of meat. So it's easy to draw comparisons.

[BearClaws]

30. OK

I'll accept the quote.
How about the billboard stuff?
By now they are nearly indefensible.

[livinginphotographs]

32. A billboard comparing a dog to a fish?

I thought humans were automatically superior to animals. Therefore, it shouldn't matter whether we hook a dog or a fish.

Or wait, maybe because the dog walks on land, and the fish has to have water to breathe, the dog is more similar to the human, therefore the human is still superior to the dog, but the dog is superior to the fish, which makes it okay to hook a fish and not a dog.

Or wait, maybe the FISH is more intelligent than the dog and can therefore have sexual fetishes, such as getting off with a hook on its mouth, therefore, the fish is more superior to the dog, but the human is still more superior to both.

Sorry, I get the meat-eating animal-worth classifications confused sometimes. It seems to change on a daily basis.

[tinanator]

9. Im not sure what you mean but

This was an ad approved by the school and removed along with all the other ads on those two pages by the school, vandalizing new yearbooks before the students who purchased them at no small price Im sure, and the other advertisers who paid to support it could decide for themselves. Extreme fascism against fellow citizens, a little more serious to me than which way you kill chickens. I'd love to hear a chickens preference.

-meanwhile, are you safe against K/Creutzfeld-Jacobs?
PETA best pick some more serious battles than how big is your parrot in the pet shop if they want to do more than shake fingers.

[damntexdem]

7. The problem with PETA is that they exist.

Anyone concerned with human rights and human well-being will see them as enemies.

That they are unconcerned with the general right to freedom of speech is just one more example.

[MisterP]

10. I'm for both human rights and PETA

[The Stranger]

13. Stop it -- you are going to confuse him.

[livinginphotographs]

25. I'm sorry you have such a one-track mind.

You know, it is possible to do more than two things at once.

[byronius]

12. PETA has a tough job to do. However --

I let my membership lapse when they launched an attack on Al Gore. I love PETA, think they're so important, but -- the knee-jerk Liberal in me resents any 'fair and balanced' or 'non-denominational' shredding of one of my favorite people. Perhaps I'll rejoin someday. I just felt that there are so many others deserving of negative notice from PETA -- and Al Gore has got to be one of the better people to have ever forayed into government.

Speaking of which. Al Gore. Not the best politician, maybe. But goddamn, would he have made a great Leader of the Free World. I weep.

[shockra]

34. I know what you mean.

I have a soft spot for Al Gore too. The first time I ever voted was for him in the 2000 Presidential election. I get wistful when I think about what a different place the world would be now if Gore had gotten into the White House instead of Bush.

I actually remember watching him on the Donahue show with all the other Democratic primary contenders in 1988, and thinking how much I liked that guy. That he obviously stood out from all the others. And well...I couldn't remember when I'd ever liked a *politician* before. Unfortunately I think he suffered being in the shadow of Clinton's charisma all those years, because I never thought he seemed stiff or boring until he emerged from it.

Anyway, from this article I found at Slate I think PETA was justified. I wish I could find more Dem politicians that shared more of my heartfelt concerns. Robert Byrd is high on my list right now, but even he has voted for some appalling things lately.

http://slate.msn.com/id/27479/

STOP THE GOREY TESTS

"The foolishness of politicians is always good for a laugh. But when elected officials start destroying more than their reputations, things stop being funny." So writes Politically Incorrect host Bill Maher in a recent letter to Al Gore supporters. Rock legend Paul McCartney personally implores the Vice President to respond to "compassionate people everywhere" and restructure his "high production volume (HPV) chemical-testing program" that will condemn millions of animals to painful and needless deaths.

Gore has alienated many in the environmental community with his support of commercial whaling and the weakening of dolphin-safe labeling requirements. Now, in place of regulatory action on known dangerous chemicals, he is pushing a plan to run 3,000 of the most widely used chemicals (such as turpentine and rat poison) through a variety of crude animal tests. Most of the HPV chemicals are already known to be either safe or harmful to humans and much information, both from animal studies and human exposure, already exists on them.

In order to rush the program through, Gore ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to bypass normal government channels. That means there has been no public notice of the program, no peer review of the "science" behind it, no congressional oversight, and no consideration of its enormous impact on animal welfare. The HPV program largely ignores more modern, reliable, and cost-effective non-animal tests. There has been strong bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for a reexamination of the program and the incorporation of non-animal tests. The animal tests being used are so unreliable they can clear chemicals already known to be toxic. Or, when the animals in an experiment die, companies can accurately claim that the results are not applicable to humans. The program will cost millions of dollars. And it will cost millions of animals their lives.

[Selteri]

15. I've got some problems with PETA but like their base message

Treating animals well is a good thing, making sure that animals that are raised for food are well treated is good too.

But PETA also has a bad tendency to go WAY WAY too far as well.

Their base message is great, but they don't seem to get that people also don't HAVE to agree with them on every little thing and when they make their more radical demands they sound as bad as the religious wack jobs of the radical riech.

[shockra]

18. Sometimes you have to demand a lot more than you know you can get...

To get anything at all.

If women and other minorities, unions, etc. hadn't made "outrageous" demands for rights that the powers-that-be didn't think they should have, progress never would have been made.

If you're nice and polite and only ask for a little, you'll be laughed at and dismissed. If you demand attention you'll be laughed at, but taken more seriously because you're willing to upset a lot of apple carts.

[Selteri]

21. But there is such a case as going too far

and they have.

A lot.

[tinanator]

22. shooting themselves and their cause right in the foot.

I wonder what it must be like not to be able to see their own folly?

[noiretextatique]

29. question

why didn't you do something?

[tinanator]

31. I'll have to guess what you mean here to respond

If you mean why didnt I take part in a response to the situation, I was stuck working out of town that day and prevented from participating, otherwise I would have been there, although it was pretty much a bust. Actually upset the lead activist that there wasnt a broader reaction from the progressive community and he was looking for a way to rebuke said community because of it. In light of PETA's amusement and failure to respond I hardly think the rest of the world could be held responsible in any way shape or form.
I almost always do something, usually to the extreme consternation of the Free Republic founder, his henchmen and Republicans in this area. Like you wouldnt believe! :P

[noiretextatique]

33. well, i don't think peta is responsible to be honest

although i understand your disappointment, given the lack of response from the commubity. :thumbsup: for pissing off those freepers.

[aeolian]

17. Two towns near me

Two towns near me, names of "hamburg" and "fishkill" have come under pressure from PETA to change their names to ... wait for it ... "veggieburg" and "fishsave."

Hamburg, they said, reminds people of ground up cow. Um, no, it reminds people of fucking Hamburg, Germany.

As for Fishkill, well, to the Dutch settlers, the name means "Stream full of Fish." Because there's a stream there. It's got fish in it.

[shockra]

19. Radicals have no sense of humor?

http://www.peta.org/liv/c/79.html

Change Hamburg to Veggieburg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Joe Haptas

If the volume of angry email messages we at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have received in the last two weeks is any measure, we owe America a titanic apology. Just last month we sent a letter to the town supervisor of Hamburg, New York, the reputed birthplace of the hamburger, asking him to change the city’s name to Veggieburg in honor of a more heart healthy and animal friendly burger alternative. We also offered to donate $15,000 worth of veggie burgers to the school district.

We see so many atrocities committed against animals that we grab any opportunity to share our message with a little humor. Silly us.

Little did we realize the impact on our society this appeal would have. Tongue in cheek or not, it seems we have been blasphemous. The mere suggestion that Americans consider moving away from a meat-centered diet is, according to the messages we received, tantamount to treason and the destabilization of life as we know it.

http://www.peta.org/liv/c/79.html

[livinginphotographs]

26. Yes, but it's always we vegans who have no sense of humor.

I find that a hell of a lot more amusing than the obligatory "Mmmm....steak" quotes that some incredibly creative individual always manages to pull out of their ass and plop in the middle of these threads.

[aeolian]

28. Yeah! Just like the...eh...never mind. ;) (n/t)

[iverglas]

83. allow me

How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?


That's . not . funny.



HAHAHAHAHa. Seriously.

[Warren DeMontague]

118. I was going to say "religious right", actually. nt

[flvegan]

37. Heh heh. The problem with THIS POST

Is that it's baseless, unfounded and lacking in facts.

PETA got a ton of mileage out of the SoCal schools taking the ad out of the yearbooks. But, more importantly here, I think, is that it also showed that those responsible for teaching the children in the area, punked out because of their fear of Big Dairy. Once again, corporations are in control of everything we do, see, hear and participate in.

Additionally, PETA did sue the dairy industry over their misrepresentation of their product. It was tossed out of court, but they did indeed take them on.

PETA's commitment is spot on. The activist that didn't follow through on the protest was probably a local, and not a PETA employee (there is a difference). At no point in your post, nor anywhere I could find, did you link this activists protest failure to PETA. PETA likely would have supported helping with a protest AND would still have had the same thing to say about the publicity.

Crazy? Maybe. Stupid? No chance.

[BearClaws]

39. Your Dog Is = To a Fish?

According to reply # 32 it is.

Where the hell do you draw the line?
You know that when you drive down the road you can kill hundreds of beings on your windshield!
How about that shrimp salad? How many lives there?
How about that walk in the park? How many aphids did I step on?
Just go away PETA.

[flvegan]

41. Talk about extremist!

Some things can't be avoided, such as bugs on a windshield, ants on a walk, or even the cow parts in my tires. It's about living as compassionately as possible through your decisions.

And yes, my dog is equal to a fish, a cow, a pig, or another dog. Granted, how I interact with one is very different than how I can interact with the others. I don't see the need to draw a line. Compassion should be boundless. Additionally, when did it become my almighty choice as to what animal has importance and what animal doesn't? That smacks of an ego problem.

In my daily life, I have a choice of what to eat, wear and otherwise use. In those choices, I do my absolute best to ensure that no animal is a part of any of those things, nor was used to make any of those things. It's quite easy, actually, and I don't suffer the least bit for any of it. PETA, thankfully, has provided me with a lot of information that makes my life easier in this regard.

[livinginphotographs]

42. How is a dog not equal to a fish?

Seriously, educate me.

[BearClaws]

45. OK

On one plate I have a golden fried fish fillet.
On one plate I have barbequed poodle loin.

LET'S EAT!

[livinginphotographs]

49. You've proved my point.

You have no idea how to support your own assertion. Good job.

[BearClaws]

50. Oh Come On...

I understand the pain and cruelty aspect.
I am an avid fisherman.
Fish are a common food source in our society.
PETA jamming their extreme beliefs down our throats is very similar to the religious whackos doing the same.

[livinginphotographs]

53. You still haven't explained why you think a fish feels less pain than a

dog. If you're comfortable with the fact that you're being inconsistent, fine, who am I to argue with that?

But you've shown no logical reason why a fish would be any less capable of feeling a hook in its mouth than your dog.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

[BearClaws]

54. Maybe It Is You

That is being inconsistent when you ignore the lives of insects!
It is perfectly acceptable to kill them while harvesting vegetables and grain.
Just playing Devil's advocate.

[livinginphotographs]

55. There is a difference.

I don't intentionally kill insects. No one can live a lifestyle that is completely cruelty-free. We can try though. I try.

You intentionally kill fish, yet for some reason think it's okay to hook a fish but not your dog.

Instead of saying, "Fuck it" and being as cruel as possible simply because it's impossible to live a 100% cruelty-free lifestyle is sort of odd.

And if you were so concerned about the animals killed harvesting vegetables and grain, please realize that it takes a hell of a lot more harvesting of vegetables and grain to feed the cows you eat than it does to feed me.

[BearClaws]

56. Well,

I'm not for intentional cruelty, where did I state that I was the one obsessed with the animals killed?
Please re-read.
Uhhh I think that was you.

[livinginphotographs]

57. You were the one originally criticizing PETA for saying that a fish

is just as capable of suffering as a dog. Obviously, by criticizing, you disagree.

I'm still waiting for an answer as to why.

[BearClaws]

60. Using Your Own

Logic, I, and most other people find the pain and suffering of the fish just as acceptable in the harvest of food as you find the pain and suffering of insects in the harvesting of your food.
For that matter I feel the same way to towards cattle, sheep, deer etc. etc.
Ok, I guess you win on that level.
You are the "better" human being.
I am a cruel insensitive prick.
Now can you understand that?

[livinginphotographs]

64. I didn't call you a cruel insensitive prick.

And I had no intention of doing so.

YOU were mocking PETA for equating the suffering of a fish with our lovable Fido. YOU failed to explain why there is something wrong with that assertion. Now, you refuse to answer it by putting words in my mouth.

Unlike with the fundies who claim that gays are sinful, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and abortion is murder, I prefer to back up my assertions with actual facts instead of what the Bible tells me, or just what I "feel." You can keep saying, "That's just the way it is," but that still doesn't make it true.

[Catchawave]

62. How many humans has PETA killed?

How many humans have "religious whackos" killed?

I find your comparison an insult to the victims of 9-11.

www.peta.org

[livinginphotographs]

70. Just like abolitionists were "jamming" abolition of slavery down the

throats of those poor slave-owners! Why did the abolitionists have to be so obnoxious, and call the slave-owners evil and other mean things?!

When something is going on in this society that should be considered a moral outrage, the people who refuse to acknowledge that it is a moral outrage are going to get offended occasionally. So I'll apologize in advance for making the meat-eaters feel bad, and for not being as sympathetic towards them as I am towards the animals which are tortured and killed on a daily basis so that they can enjoy their double cheeseburger.

Some may find me obnoxious (and in a different environment than the internet, I rarely talk about animal issues unless someone asks me), but I find some of the brutal pictures of how animals are treated on factory farms and how people are so tolerant of it to be obnoxious as well.

[Catchawave]

77. Even meat-eaters have compassionate choices and those

are not to buy factory farmed meat and dairy products. This helps the local farmers too!

There's more information here on how they can "help" :

http://www.factoryfarm.org/

[Warren DeMontague]

116. Another link to "The Meatrix"

http://themeatrix.com

I don't think it's black and white. I think people, as omnivores, naturally eat certain animals- and I don't think anyone needs to apologize for that, if that is their choice. A fish on a hook -I would wager- doesn't generally spend a ton of time agonizing over killing the brine shrimp or smaller fish HE may eat to survive..

However, I feel we all can promote compassion in the animal industry and encourage ecologically responsible means of farming and animal production.

[tinanator]

47. youre facts arent

you show me that mileage I heard nary a peep other than local discussion and maybe an inch of local print. Show me. I gave their response, that publicity (which I never sensed happened)was better than fighting for a serious, egregious action which was everyones problem if they cared about something other than publicity. My complaint is specifically their attitude towards this situation.
Here we go again, my facts lacking, baseless, unfounded...
your post is all of that and more.

Let me reiterate, PETA was contacted, had NO interest in participating, and you ought to be more careful with what you toss around. We dont play here, we aint amateurs.

[flvegan]

61. So you spoke with PETA about it, personally?

Or you have some other link that shows that they had no interest in participating?

Considering that AP and a couple papers in California picked up the story, I'd say that was pretty good for such a small story. Here's a couple:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11509

http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/6793177p-7731681c.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2003/tgr071403.htm

IDFA newsletter:
http://www.idfa.org/dbrief/dbrief052803.html

"We don't play here, we aint amateurs." Implies what, exactly? snort.

[BearClaws]

65. I 'm done.

I need a burger.

[Dutch]

66. And there it is....

Hilarity embodied.

[livinginphotographs]

71. And yet you accomplished so little.

Ducking my questions must have made you hungry.

[flvegan]

73. Facts can be scary.

Many individuals post broad, general statements out of opinion, trying to pass them off as factual.

They usually close with the obligatory, juvenile sign off.

[BearClaws]

120. Scary?

Your post is another reason Vegans get razed here.
It is the forward arrogance, the "If you were as educated as I, you would change your ways" attitude.
I have made my living for the last 28 years from meat.
I have been to stockyards, slaughterhouses, Hell I've killed lots of my food with my own hands.
It is still acceptable in my mind to use animals for food.
Undue cruelty is wrong, I'll agree.
I am generally accepting of other people that want to do their own thing, I just get a little tired of the "Holier than Thou" attitude that a few seem to constantly want to put in us meat eaters faces.

[tinanator]

121. No that was somebody elses deal

just personal knowledge being passed along, like it or not. Thats some real heavy press there, oh yeah, changed the course of history I bet.
No reason for you to respect the reactions or actions of others. Im sure you are familiar with the organization, probably safe to say the most famous peace group in the entire world. Filled with knowledgeable, skilled activists. snort.

[Mr_Spock]

75. I like it with Greek salad

Personal preference ya know :D